Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Doc Type: Public Notice
Public Comment Information EAW Public comment period begins: September 28, 2015 EAW Public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on October 28, 2015 Notice published in the EQB Monitor: September 28, 2015
Facility Specific Information Facility name and location: Facility contact: 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Dan Breneman Township 49, Range 14, Section 4 SLRAOC Coordinator City of Duluth MN Pollution Control Agency St. Louis County 525 Lake Avenue S., Suite 400 Duluth, MN 55802 Phone: 218-302-6624 Fax: 218-723-4727 Email: [email protected]
MPCA Contact Information
MPCA EAW contact person: Patrice Jensen Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2465 Fax: 651-297-2343 Email: [email protected] Admin. Staff phone: 651-757-2100
General Information The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691. If you would like a copy of the EAW or have any questions on the EAW, contact the appropriate person listed above.
Description of Proposed Project The 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration project is part of the St. Louis River Area of Concern in Duluth. The site is located in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, who is the project proposer, will restore approximately 350 acres of shallow, sheltered habitat by placing dredge material in the water to create aquatic habitat features.
p-ear2-92a
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats i-admin12-08 • 10/2/14 Page 1 of 2 Written comments on the EAW must be received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above. For information on how to comment on the (NPDES/SDS Permit, contact the MPCA Permit contact person listed above.
NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.
Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period.
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats i-admin12-08 • 10/2/14 Page 2 of 2 July 2013 version
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS.
1. Project title: 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project
2. Proposer: MN Pollution Control Agency 3. RGU: MN Pollution Control Agency Contact person: Dan Breneman Contact person: Patrice Jensen Title: SLR AOC Coordinator Title: Environmental Review Planner Address: 525 Lake Avenue South, Suite 400 Address: 520 Lafayette Road City, State, ZIP: Duluth, MN 55802 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN, 55155 Phone: 218-302-6624 Phone: 651-757-2465 Fax: 218-723-4727 Fax: 651-297-8683 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: Discretionary: 糎◢╱７糎７〤ＤＥ十Ｃ〨糎 糎╪十Ｉ十Ｏ〦Ｃ糎Petition ◙ Mandatory EAW 糎６◥９糎Discretion 糎４ＧＤＥＤＨ〦Ｇ糎Initiated
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rule: part 4410.4300, subpart 27, item A. Wetlands and public waters.
5. Project Location: County: St. Louis County City/Township: City of Duluth PLS Location: Township 49, Section 4, Range 14 Watershed (81 major watershed scale): St. Louis River GPS Coordinates: 46 degrees 45’ 27.66” N, 92 degrees 07’ 11.26” W Tax Parcel Numbers:
p-ear1-04 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers Map ID PARCEL Map ID PARCEL Map ID PARCEL 1 010-4340-01860 26 010-1080-01390 51 010-3910-02830 2 010-4340-01870 27 010-1080-01350 52 UNIDENTIFIED 3 010-4340-01880 28 010-1080-01320 53 010-3910-06470 4 010-4340-01890 29 010-1080-01300 54 010-3910-06480 5 010-4340-02320 30 010-1080-01290 55 010-3910-06490 6 010-4340-02420 31 010-1080-01280 56 010-3910-06500 7 010-4340-01970 32 010-0045-00100 8 010-4340-01980 33 010-0045-00051 9 010-4340-01990 34 010-1080-00702 10 010-4340-02000 35 010-1080-00900 11 010-4340-02220 36 010-0045-00040 12 010-4340-02720 37 010-3910-00010 13 010-4340-01410 38 010-3910-00090 14 010-4340-01460 39 010-3910-00100 15 010-4340-01470 40 010-3910-00160 16 010-4340-02060 41 UNIDENTIFIED 17 010-4340-02120 42 010-3910-00215 18 010-4340-03020 43 010-3910-00630 19 UNIDENTIFIED 44 010-3910-00710 20 010-3210-00037 45 UNIDENTIFIED 21 010-2700-00005 46 010-3910-00720 22 010-3210-00027 47 010-3910-00725 23 010-3210-00025 48 010-3910-00730 24 010-3210-00020 49 010-3910-00830 25 010-1080-01395 50 010-3910-02560
At a minimum attach each of the following to the EAW: · County map showing the general location of the project; · U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); and, · Site plans showing all significant project and natural features. Pre-construction site plan and post- construction site plan. Site plans are Figure 1 -4 as follows:
Figure 1: Location of the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project, Duluth/Superior Harbor as part of the St. Louis River Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Figure 2: Aquatic habitat restoration in the Duluth/Superior Harbor will occur at three project locations within St. Louis Bay described as the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point Figure 3: Construction management zones within the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Figure 4: Project engineering concept design plan for the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 2 Worksheet
Attachment A: SLRAOC background Attachment B: Real estate map and Phase I Archaeological Survey of 21st Avenue, Duluth/Superior Harbor, St. Louis County Attachment C: Natural Heritage Review Attachment D: References
6. Project Description: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words).
The 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration project is part of the St. Louis River Area of Concern in Duluth. The site is located in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, who is the project proposer, will restore approximately 350 acres of shallow, sheltered habitat by placing dredge material in the water to create aquatic habitat features.
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
The purpose of the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project (“Project”) is to promote aquatic habitat restoration and remove impairments such as Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and Degradation of Benthos from the St. Louis River Area of Concern (“SLRAOC”). An Area of Concern is one of 43 sites identified within the Great Lakes Basin under the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1987 Amendments) where it has been determined that historic and legacy alterations and contamination have caused impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to support aquatic life.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) (or their contractors) dredges the St. Louis River navigational channel as part of their annual Operations and Management (“O&M”) of the river channel. In 2013, the USACE and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) entered into an agreement to develop and implement the Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) for the SLRAOC. This agreement includes using some of the dredged sediment material (“material”) from the USACE’s annual O&M of the river channel. The USACE will place some of the material on a barge, transport the material to the Project site, and deposit it into the water at specified locations. The placed dredge material will help create optimal water depth and flow conditions to help establish aquatic vegetation needed to support the community of organisms which live on, in, or near the seabed, (“benthos”) and fish.
The Project site covers approximately 350 acres in the St. Louis River (Figure 1). It is the furthest downstream SLRAOC restoration site before St. Louis Bay transitions into Superior Bay at Rice’s Point (Figure 2). The 2002 St. Louis River Habitat Plan characterizes part of the Project site as an industrial influenced bay and the remainder as a harbor flat (SLRCAC 2002). As shown in Figure 4, the Project is separated into three restoration management units including: 21st Avenue West Embayment (“Embayment”) to the north; Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (“WLSSD”) Flats (Figure 3) to the west; and Interstate Flats to the south. Interstate Flats is separated from the Embayment by the North Navigational Channel.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 3 Worksheet In 2013, the MPCA (“Proposer”) started a pilot project at 21st Avenue West, called the 21st Avenue West Pilot Restoration Project (“Pilot Project”). The Proposer will continue to work into the 2016 season on the overall design plan, which includes construction of habitat features within the WLSSD Flats. This will allow ample time for the Proposer to evaluate performance of the Pilot Project within the Embayment (Figure 4). In 2017 and/or 2018, the USACE will begin to construct habitat on the Interstate Flats management area. The USACE will return to the Embayment management area in 2019 (Figure 4) to complete restoration construction.
The Proposer will commence with an intensive post-construction monitoring period to demonstrate beneficial use impairments (“BUIs”) have been removed. BUIs are a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the 14 use impairments (see Attachment A), or other related uses, such as the microbial objective for waters used for body contact recreational activities. The Proposer’s goal is to remove all BUIs associated with the SLRAOC by 2025. This Project is a key element in completing the SLRAOC RAP (MPCA and WDNR 2013) objectives in the industrial portion of the river known as St. Louis Bay (Figure 2). This Project will create nodes of productive shallow water habitat communities throughout the impacted industrialized portion of the river. These habitat nodes will increase ecological connection and reduce isolation from upper river reach high quality habitats. Furthermore, it is an SLRAOC restoration priority to increase the riparian connectivity between the aquatic and adjacent terrestrial habitats in St. Louis Bay. This Project will help support an ecological transition for wildlife, provide low impact access to the estuary, and increase recreation opportunities for citizens (Angradi et. al. in review).
The Proposer will measure the Project’s success by measuring the acres converted from the existing large areas in the harbor that are flat, too deep, and ecologically unproductive due to excessive wave energy and lack of protective habitat features to a more complex subsurface that supports a variety of aquatic habitats. When complete, the Project site will account for 350 acres towards the SLRAOC-wide goal of restoring 1,700 acres of shallow bay aquatic habitat (MPCA and WDNR 2013). On the Minnesota side of the estuary, restoration designs account for areas where only fill material is strategically placed by the USACE to modify the bathymetry throughout the Project site (Figure 3). The USACE O&M annually dredges the federal navigational channels in the Duluth/Superior Harbor independent of this Project. In order to defray costs associated with the Project, the Proposer elected to use the dredging material in place of obtaining fill from other sources.
Habitat improvements will consist of (i) converting hardened break walls into gradually sloped shorelines; (ii) adding shoals or islands within deep water flats to improve habitat heterogeneity, and (iii) reducing the exposure of large open areas to excessive wave energy. Maximum design elevations for features are established from the average low water datum (“ALWD”) defined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) as 601.05 feet above sea level (International Great Lakes Datum 1985) and considered public waters. The Proposer established SLRAOC targets for aquatic vegetation abundance and benthic diversity by modeling the existing condition versus the expected aquatic community response to the proposed bathymetric changes. The Proposer will evaluate aquatic vegetation abundance (submerged, floating leaf and emergent), lineal distance of productive shoreline, and benthic macroinvertebrate health to determine if established targets have been met.
The USACE annually dredges approximately 100,000 to 150,000 cubic yards of material from the navigation channel. For this Project, the USACE will place dredged material on a barge and transport it to the Project site. From there, the USACE will load the dredged material using an excavator clam shell bucket and place it into a central hopper for subsequent placement. Shallower areas in the Project site
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 4 Worksheet will require hydraulic placement of the material because a loaded barge is unable to access the area for mechanical placement. Deeper areas may use mechanical placement if it is appropriate. The Proposer and USACE will use Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) during dredged materials placement to ensure the Project complies with state and federal water quality regulations and will continue to explore options to ensure sufficient BMPs are used to minimize the Project’s short-term turbidity impacts.
The Proposer expects to place dredge material in water similar to how most O&M work is completed by the USACE in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. The USACE will access waterways from land through existing commercial docks and public launch sites. Examples of such land access include transporting USACE personnel to the barge, trips to purchase and deliver parts for operations (e.g. pump bearings, hoses), and/or loading equipment (e.g. backhoe) onto a barge to assist in the operation.
The proposed action could, depending on the USACE, require one or more temporary structures upland or in-water. Temporary structures or fill material are located at USACE-approved locations, outside of any wetlands, away from areas containing federal or state protected species or associate critical habitat, or properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or state-listed properties. Temporary activities would include precautionary measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation or other undesirable environmental effects using accepted standard practices.
The type and location of temporary structures and/or materials cannot be determined at this time, since these are incidental to the work being performed. Examples are mooring facilities, dolphins (a pile, cluster of piles, or buoy to which a vessel may be moored in open water), turnarounds, work and storage areas, access roads, and office facilities. These types of construction aids are within Project site boundaries or rights-of-way and the USACE must remove them when no longer needed. The USACE must also restore temporary sites to their original condition, using accepted standard practices for site restoration upon completion of activities.
When deemed appropriate, the USACE will place material high in organic matter on top of the dredged material to enhance the establishment of aquatic vegetation communities. The USACE will obtain biological medium from Kingsbury Bay or Perch Lake SLRAOC restoration sites as described in the RAP (MPCA and WDNR 2013) from areas where sediment excavation is consistent with aquatic habitat design specifications.
The Project’s success is determined by removing individual BUIs from the SLRAOC. Recovery of the SLRAOC is monitored using standard methods for evaluating environmental health based on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions within the Project site.
Project magnitude:
Total Project Acreage 350 acres (142 ha) Linear project length (existing shoreline) 18,533 ft. (5649 m) Number and type of residential units 0 Commercial building area (in square feet) 0 Industrial building area (in square feet) 0 Institutional building area (in square feet) 0 Other uses – specify (in square feet) 0 Structure height(s) 0
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 5 Worksheet d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The primary purpose of the Project is to create a more sheltered, ecologically productive system that meets removal objectives for the SLRAOC BUIs through the placement of dredged material by the USACE into the Project area.
The BUIs in the Project area exist, in large part, because of shoreline alterations and subsurface modifications made to develop the Duluth/Superior Harbor since the late 1800s. As a result of industry’s impact, there are large areas where water depths do not vary and depths are greater than three meters throughout the St. Louis River. Constant and deeper water depths can be an impediment to high quality aquatic communities. A combination of fetch (the greatest extent across a body of water without impediments to reduce wave action) and depth create conditions that generate excessive wave energies, and limit the anchoring ability of most aquatic plants, minimizing coverage and resulting in marginal habitat. There are also moderate sediment contaminants within the Project area; however, these are at depths and amounts that do not indicate ecological risk if left undisturbed (LimnoTech, Inc. 2013, 2014). The Proposer expects surficial sediment contaminants only at the confluence of Miller and Coffee Creeks; this is where sediment is routinely excavated and disposed of by the city of Duluth.
The placed dredged material will provide a suitable substrate for creating aquatic habitat features consistent with the restoration design for removing BUIs and eventual SLRAOC delisting. Specifically, BUI #4, “Degradation of Benthos” and BUI #9, “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat” are instrumental in the Project’s design plans and specifications by observing or modeling metrics for existing aquatic vegetation assemblages, benthic community structure, and other physical/chemical sediment characteristics, and comparing them to a restored condition. The Proposer may need to augment aquatic vegetation growth by providing an organic material layer, planting propagules, revising or altering placement locations, and/or modifying shallow water characteristics. These adaptive management techniques are applied as necessary based on monitoring results and supplemental study results that become available after site restorations in the SLRAOC are complete.
A successful Project will provide 350 acres towards the SLRAOC-wide 1,700 acre goal of restoring shallow bay habitat under BUI #9. Success is based on the Project site moving toward a habitat that is not statistically significantly different from the least impaired sites on the St. Louis River using monitoring data associated with sediment chemistry, benthic community, and floristic quality. The Project also contributes to removing BUI #4 by providing needed aquatic vegetation beds and a cleaner substrate for colonizing benthic communities. The goal is for a similar benthic community that is not significantly different from the least impaired sites within the SLRAOC.
This Project is one of over 60 actions items including several remediation and restoration projects within the SLRAOC RAP that the MPCA, MDNR, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”), and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa are coordinating as part of a binational effort to mitigate anthropogenic impacts throughout the Great Lakes (IJC 1987). For more information on the SLRAOC efforts to delist this AOC please see the following webpage: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stlouisriveraoc.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 6 Worksheet e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? ◙ Yes No糎 If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review.
The SLRAOC project consists of phased restoration work. For example, to create construction efficiencies (Figure 2), work in Minnesota waters near 40th Avenue West and Grassy Point will begin in 2017. These parallel restoration activities within St. Louis Bay combine for a total of 800 acres of the 1,700 acre goal AOC-wide. Early material estimates to complete the proposed construction involves 770,000 cubic yards (“CY”) at 350 acres in the Project site, 800,000 CY at the 40th Avenue West site (approximately 332 acres), and 100,000 CY at the Grassy Point site (approximately 118 acres). Grassy Point estimates are significantly lower due to the potential to use excavated material on-site to cut and fill designed features.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ◙ Yes No糎 If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
In 2013, collaborating state, federal, and local agencies implemented a three-year Pilot Project at the Project site that will conclude in November 2015. By then, the USACE will have placed approximately 350,000 CY of dredged material in four locations, targeting open flats out from the WLSSD and adjacent to the federal North Navigational Channel and softening shoreline by creating gentle slopes to deeper water along Interstate 535 (I-535) (Figure 4). The Pilot Project evaluated the physical, biological, and biochemical response of in-water placement of dredge materials and the feasibility of implementing full- scale aquatic habitat restoration in other areas of the SLRAOC. In addition, the Pilot Project enabled the agencies to explore various in-water BMPs and monitor their effectiveness at reducing turbidity when placing the dredged materials. The dredging material placement was limited to the inner bay from Rice’s Point to the confluence of Miller and Coffee Creeks (i.e., Embayment). The Responsible Governmental Unit (“RGU”) for the Pilot Project was the city of Duluth which completed the EAW and signed their Record of Decision on May 14, 2013. The Record of Decision concluded that the Pilot Project did not pose the potential for significant environmental impacts, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement was not required.
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after restoration:
Cover Type Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands 52.3 109.1 (SAV/FLV) Deep water/streams 284.4 222.8 Wooded/forest 0 0 Brush/Grassland (New/Existing Islands) 4.3 9.1 Cropland 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 0 Impervious surface 0 0 Stormwater Pond 0 0 Other (describe): Federal Navigation Channel 9.0 9.0 TOTAL 350 350
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 7 Worksheet 8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Type of application Status government MDNR Public Waters Work Permit Pending Prohibited Invasive Species Permit Pending Lake Superior Coastal Zone federal Pending consistency review MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Pending General Permit Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 To be submitted Water Quality Certification MHS Section 106 concurrence letter Pending SHPO*/NOAA** USACE RHA, Section 10*** & CWA Section 404 Authorization To be submitted NOAA Section 7 review/coordination Pending
City of Duluth Temporary Access Agreement/License Pending Erosion & Sediment Control Permit Pending Flood plains, Shore lands, and Wetlands Pending Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) To be submitted, if Permit required
*- Minnesota Historical Society State Historic Preservation Office ** - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration *** - Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (RHA).
Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 9-18, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No. 19. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 19
9. Land use: a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The Project site consists of open water industrial flats (SLRCAC 2002) in the northern part of St. Louis Bay. The land use/land cover in the surrounding area is predominantly industrial and commercial development including the WLSSD, and transportation corridors including highway, railroad, and waterways.
The Project location includes a back bay from Rice’s Point along the I-535 corridor to the confluence of Miller and Coffee Creeks on the north, around the WLSSD’s campus, and extends
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 8 Worksheet out to an exposed flat on the Wisconsin state line identified by Interstate Island (Figure 4). The southwest side of the Project is bordered by the Duluth, Missabe, and Iron Range (DMIR) Railway dock property, which extends into St. Louis Bay and includes a materials laydown area along the Project site perimeter. From the DMIR site and moving northeastward is a scrubby sparsely wooded area of about seven acres that includes the mouths of two small creeks/urban stormwater drains. Immediately northeast of Miller and Coffee Creeks is the WLSSD. Further northeast of the WLSSD campus buildings is their composting facility which terminates with a frontage road running parallel to Interstate 35 (I-35) and various other properties with commercial and industrial development.
Beyond the WLSSD composting facility, Miller and Coffee Creeks enter the Project site near the interchange between I-35 and I-535. The eastern extent of the Project site runs northwest to southeast along I-535 to Rice’s Point, separated by a narrow strip of grass with scattered shrubs and trees. Rice’s Point is heavily developed for commercial, industrial, and transportation uses. Along the shore towards the southeastern end of Rice’s Point is Gerdau Ameristeel U.S., Inc., a steel company facility and dock. An approach to I-535 extends south from Rice’s point; I-535 then crosses the river via the Blatnik Bridge to Wisconsin. The south side of the Project site extends to the state line in St. Louis Bay across Interstate Island Flats. The south edge of Interstate Island is the feature that best designates the state boundary.
The west central side of the Project site includes the WLSSD’s effluent discharge, and the northern extent includes the confluence of four creeks/drains as described above. A commercial dock operated by Gerdau Ameristeel U.S., Inc. and MDNR public boat launch are located at the end of Rice’s Point.
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency.
The Harbor Technical Advisory Committee is currently updating comprehensive port plans (MIC 2003, 2005) that provide detail on industrial properties related to potential opportunities. The RAP identifies areas among the industrial corridors of the Duluth/Superior Harbor that will require remedial response and habitat restoration to fulfill BUI removal objectives and delisting the SLRAOC. The MDNR is planning to enhance habitat associated with an avian sanctuary on Interstate Island. In that regard, the planned “land use” of the Project site involves developing aquatic habitat in shallow flats, improving substrate quality to promote a diverse benthic community, and incorporating appropriate set-backs from existing corporate infrastructure and sensitive wildlife areas to ensure a successful Project.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The entire Project site is within the 100-year floodplain as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Project would not induce flooding or floodplain development by placement of the dredged material. The restored aquatic habitat will improve the ecological health of the St. Louis River Estuary and the proposed actions would have no adverse effect on the coastal zone. The Project is “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” with the Coastal Zone Management Act, Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 9 Worksheet and the Federal Executive Order on Flood Plain Management (E.O. 11988) because there is no practical alternative to dredged material placement in the floodplain to achieve the proposed aquatic habitat restoration. The USACE has run a hydrodynamic model on the St. Louis River to determine island and shoal stability.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The Project plan is compatible with the surrounding land uses and provides for WLSSD mixing zone setbacks, Avian Sanctuary on Interstate Island setbacks, and federal navigation channel setbacks.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above.
The Project design accounts for future use scenarios by private landowners. It also provides a 656 foot (200 m) setback from the WLSSD effluent discharge point to avoid impediments in the mixing zone and a one-quarter mile (402.3 m) setback to the Avian Sanctuary on Interstate Island to protect nesting terns. It also ensures that navigation channel access and suitability is not impaired from any industrial or maritime use through appropriate setbacks to prevent sedimentation.
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
The Lower St. Louis River flows through thick layers of red clay deposited approximately 11,000 years ago as the Superior Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet retreated. After the level of ancestral Lake Superior dropped, the river and its tributaries cut deeply incised valleys through the easily eroded clay. When the lake level rose again, the river valley was flooded, creating a complex estuary with an irregular shoreline and bays at the mouth of each tributary (SLRCAC, 2002).
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes, highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed in response to Item 11.b.ii.
The Proposer contacted the USACE to retain GEI Consultants to install borings and take sediment samples for geotechnical analysis. GEI borings placed to the north, northwest, and west of Interstate Island encountered sediments that generally consisted of silt underlain by clayey silt, organic clay, or silty clay followed by sand (GEI Consultants, 2014).
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 10 Worksheet The Project involves the in-water placement of dredged material on the river bottom and will not contribute to land sedimentation and erosion.
NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 11 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 10.
11. Water resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
The St. Louis River in the Project site is classified by the MPCA under Minn. R. 7050.0470 as a Class 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 waterbody. The river is protected as outlined by the general standards for waters of the state (Minn. R. 7050.0210) and the specific water quality (“WQ”) standards for each class (Minn. R. 7050.0220 through 7050.0226). The applicable state classifications and the referenced water quality standards are provided below. • Class 2B: aquatic life and recreation (includes cool and warm water sport fish). The applicable WQ standards are defined in Minn. R. 7050.0222, subparts 1 and 4. • Class 3C: industrial consumption (includes all waters of the state that are or may be used as a source of supply for industrial process or cooling water, or any other industrial or commercial purposes, and for which quality control is or may be necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare). Class 3C also specifies the protection of cool and warm water sport fish, indigenous aquatic life, and wetlands. The applicable WQ standards are defined in Minn. R. 7050.0223, subparts 1 and 4. • Class 4: agriculture and wildlife. Includes all waters of the state that are or may be used for any agricultural purposes, including stock watering and irrigation, or by waterfowl or other wildlife and for which quality control is or may be necessary to protect terrestrial life and its habitat or the public health, safety, or welfare. Class 4A also includes a sulfate limit of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for the protection of wild rice where it is present. Class 4A waters also include cold water sport fish (trout waters) and 4B waters include cool and warm watersport fish. The applicable WQ standards are defined in Minn. R. 7050.0220 Subparts 3a and 4a, and 7050.0224, subparts 1, 2 and 3. • Class 5: aesthetic enjoyment and navigation. The applicable WQS are defined in part Minn. R. 7050.0220, subpart 3a, and 7050.0225. • Class 6: other uses and protection of border waters. The applicable WQS are defined in Minn. R. 7050.0226.
Further, the more restrictive WQ standards for the parameters listed at Minn. R. 7052.0100, subp. 5 (e.g., total mercury limit of 1.3 ng/L) applies to the St. Louis River because it is within the Lake Superior Basin.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 11 Worksheet The St. Louis River is listed as impaired under the MPCA CWA Impaired Waters List. In the Project area, the River includes several sections as an impaired waterway as shown in the table below:
Reach Year added Stream/River Affected designated Reach name Pollutant or stressor Description to List Segment ID use -DDT -Dieldrin Blatnick Bridge -Dioxin (including 2,3,7,8-tcdd) St. Louis (Hwy. 53) to 04010201- -Mercury in fish tissue River (St. 2007 Aquatic Consumption Duluth Ship 530 -Mercury in water column Louis Bay) Canal -PCB in fish tissue -PCB in water column -Toxaphene Blatnick Bridge St. Louis (Hwy. 53) to 04010201- River (St. 2007 Aquatic Recreation Escherichia coli Duluth Ship 530 Louis Bay) Canal
The Project site includes an open water area in the north part of St. Louis Bay, partly protected by maritime dock structures constructed along the Duluth shore for access to the St. Louis River navigational corridors. The shoreline includes four creek and/or stormwater drain mouths. Two features occur as stormwater drains on the west side of the WLSSD plant, and Miller and Coffee Creeks jointly discharge at the northernmost part of the Project site. Miller Creek is about 10 miles long and has approximately 10 square miles of watershed. Coffee Creek is roughly about half the size of Miller Creek. Of the four streams/drains discharging into St. Louis Bay at the Project site only one, Miller Creek, is listed as an impaired water by the MPCA as shown in the table below:
Reach Year added Stream/River Affected designated Reach name Pollutant or stressor Description to List Segment ID use Headwaters to 04010201- Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Miller Creek 2012 Aquatic Life St. Louis R 512 Bioassessments Headwaters to 04010201- Miller Creek 2010 Aquatic Life Chloride St. Louis R 512 Headwaters to 04010201- Miller Creek 2002 Aquatic Life Lack of a coldwater assemblage St. Louis R 512 Headwaters to 04010201- Miller Creek 2002 Aquatic Life Temperature, water St. Louis R 512 Headwaters to 04010201- Miller Creek 2012 Aquatic Recreation Escherichia coli St. Louis R 512
The St. Louis River is also a Great Lakes AOC due to legacy related BUIs. The RAP lists nine BUIs for the SLRAOC. The primary BUIs addressed by completing the Project include Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and Degradation of Benthos.
The WLSSD effluent discharge is in the middle of the Project site, located along the west side of a long, narrow point leading southeast from the wastewater treatment plant. Sufficient setbacks were incorporated into the design (i.e., 656 foot [200 m] diameter buffer) to allow for adequate water circulation from the effluent discharge location. The WLSSD has an average discharge of 43 million
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 12 Worksheet gallons per day. In comparison, based upon yearly mean flow, the St. Louis River discharges about 2.1 billion gallons per day, and the combined discharge of Coffee and Miller Creeks is about 14.5 million gallons per day (Sanchez and Wilhelms, 1999).
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
Not applicable. The Project is in the waters of the St. Louis River. According to the Minnesota Department of Health (“MDH”) County Well Index Online, there are no wells located within a mile radius of the site, and the Project site is not located in a wellhead protection area.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal wastewater infrastructure. 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
Not applicable. The Project’s operations will not generate wastewater.
ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control, sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and after project construction.
While the Project is located within the water of the St. Louis River, temporary structures may be constructed and materials may be stored on land adjacent to or in close proximity to the Project site. The type and location of temporary structures and/or materials cannot be determined at this time, since these are incidental to the work being performed. Examples are mooring facilities, dolphins, turnarounds, work and storage areas, access roads, and office facilities. If these activities disturb more than one acre of land, the Proposer is required to obtain a MPCA National Pollutant Discharge elimination System/State Disposal System (“NPDES/SDS”) Construction Stormwater General Permit. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is prepared to address the BMPs necessary to manage, control and/or treat stormwater runoff prior to entrance into the St. Louis River and/or nearby creeks. Following completion of the Project, the
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 13 Worksheet USACE, under the partnership agreement with the MPCA, must remove all temporary structures and unused materials. The USACE must also restore temporary sites to their original condition, using accepted standard practices for site restoration upon completion of activities.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and purpose of the water use and if a MDNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
Not applicable. The Project would not appropriate water resources.
iv. Surface Waters a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those probable locations.
National Wetland Inventory mapping shows several areas of potentially small wetlands in the Project area. The Proposer is well aware of the applicable federal, state and local requirements governing all wetlands in Minnesota, including the CWA, the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, and Minn. R. pt. 7050.0186. On-site evaluations of and wetland delineations are completed as warranted, to ensure all unauthorized impacts are avoided. The Proposer may seek to improve and restore the quality and function of some of the wetlands. If this materializes during the Project’s construction, the appropriate federal, state and local authorizations will first be acquired before any restoration/improvement of wetlands occurs. In addition, constructing features designed to maximize aquatic vegetative growth in shallow, sheltered habitats will provide for more substantial acreage of wetlands in the Project area.
b) Other surface waters- Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in- water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, including current and projected watercraft usage.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 14 Worksheet The Proposer will place dredge material in the Project site for constructing shoals and shallow flats to create more appropriate depths and reduce wind fetch conditions for establishing aquatic vegetation. This construction activity will alter the existing bottom contours as determined through survey work at a suite of SLRAOC restoration sites (Barr 2013). The sediment placement by the Proposer will result in short term turbidity in the water column, but previous turbidity monitoring and a sediment transport model indicates the material will not migrate from the placement areas in the long term (Hayter et al. 2015).
This Project’s direct and indirect environmental effects to surface waters, together with the BMPs employed to minimize effects, are discussed in two sections below. The first section relates to the water quality impacts caused from dredging the St. Louis River navigational channel and the associated BMPs employed to minimize those. The second section relates to the water quality effects caused from placing the dredged material in the Project site and the BMPs that will used to minimize those.
Impacts from Removing Dredged Material from the St. Louis River Navigational Channel and SLRAOC Restoration Sites
Navigational Channel - Although the environmental effects caused from the USACE’s dredging of the navigation channel may have short-term increases in turbidity in the water column due to sediment disturbance at the location where the material is dredged and downstream from where the disturbed sediment naturally flows, this is part of the USACE’s normal dredging operations. The USACE is exempt from Section 404 regulations for the purpose of de Minimis (‘of minimal importance’) soil movement and normal dredging operations under 57 FR 26894, 1992.
Kingsbury Bay - For this project, the MDNR and the USACE through the MDNR general permit for work in public waters, and the MPCA’s 401 Certification permitted the placement of 3,000 cubic yards of material high in organic matter on top of the dredged material in the Pilot Project to determine if it enhances the growth of aquatic vegetation. If this is determined to be successful, USACE may dredge additional material from Kingsbury Bay or Perch Lake in the future to help establish aquatic vegetation assemblages. The short-term water quality impact to each of these areas includes turbidity in the water column; however, these impacts will be minimized by USACE employing in-water BMPs such as a silt curtain at the dredge location. Kingsbury Bay and Perch Lake are SLRAOC habitat restoration sites; therefore, removing materials will be completed under a separate permit process.
Impacts from Placing Dredged Material in Project Area
The placement of dredged material into the Project area will result in short-term turbidity impacts in the water column where the dredged material is placed and also downstream of this area. It is important to remember this work is taking place in an area with already degraded aquatic habitat, and the goal of the Project is to restore aquatic habitat. To help offset impacts to the fishery, the work will not occur during spawning periods as required in all state and federal agency permit requirements. For these reasons, together with those below, the Proposer does not anticipate the Project will create long-term contaminant
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 15 Worksheet releases. Furthermore, the ecological risk assessment does not expect significant adverse long-term changes from background levels for either contaminants or pathogenic organisms.
The Proposer does not expect, from reviewing monitoring data, any significant long term contaminant releases into the water column from in-water placement of dredge material. Carriage water and release water contained in the placement material will increase concentrations of suspended solids during and immediately after placement operations, and although the water column oxygen concentration is temporarily reduced, the Proposer does not anticipate these activities will create ecological risks. In summary, the findings from 2013 and 2014 USACE and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring during the Pilot Project showed turbidity gradually decreases from the placement area, but returns to background conditions at approximately 900 feet (USGS 2015) roughly one week after dredged material placement.
The USACE and USGS monitoring demonstrated that the use of appropriate in-water BMPs in the Project site helped reduce the total amount of turbidity leaving the Pilot Project area (explained below). In the long term, placement of the dredge material at the habitat restoration site will improve water quality by supporting aquatic vegetation, and in some cases used to cover existing low level contaminants in the sediment to help reduce exposure risk. In the short term, appropriate BMPs are used to substantially reduce and minimize the amount of sediment leaving the dredged materials placement areas.
BMPs to Mitigate Impacts
As identified in Item 11a.i. above, several MPCA water quality standards protect this waterbody’s designated uses. The Proposer will ensure this Project does not uncontrollably exceed the water quality standards in particular for total suspended solids (15 mg/L) and total mercury (1.3 ng/L) outside and downstream of where dredged materials will be placed. The Proposer will use in-water BMPs to minimize turbidity. The intent of these BMPs is to reduce the overall amount of turbidity inside the Project area’s water column from flowing outside of it to the extent practicable. The BMPS also serve to help avoid and minimize the Project’s potential to exacerbate the St. Louis River’s existing CWA 303(d) listed impairments identified in Item 11.a.i.
BMPs to Mitigate Impacts on Dredge Placement Areas
The Proposer’s BMPs that will be employed, where practicable or required, to mitigate and reduce this Project’s potential water quality impacts are listed below. Many of these have been tested, and their efficacy at reducing turbidity were monitored during the first two years of the Pilot Project, as required by the MPCA’s 401 Water Quality Certification program (MPCA 401 Certification). Additional BMPs are being tested this last year (2015) of the Pilot Project. The MPCA and USACE continue to explore methods to minimize short-term turbidity impacts and future MPCA 401 Certifications for this Project may authorize or require the use of additional placement methods and BMPs not listed below.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 16 Worksheet · Horizontal Discharge Pipe with Baffle Plate: When placing dredged material hydraulically at the water’s surface, the USACE will install a vertical baffle plate at the discharge end of the pipe to reduce energy of the effluent and maximize sediment settling rates. · Turbidity/Silt Curtain: Where appropriate and likely to be effective, the USACE will deploy a weighted turbidity/silt curtain (conforming to at least a US DOT Type II). The curtain will be installed so it encloses the placement area, prior to and throughout the USACE’s dredged material placement activities. During the Pilot Project, this BMP reduced turbidity by an average of 59% in the water column in the Embayment site. · Submerged Material Diffusers (SMDs): The USACE is currently testing SMDs in the 2015 Pilot Project placement activities. There are various configurations, but the general concept involves placing dredged material hydraulically with a baffle plate at the discharge end of the pipe beneath the water’s surface and closer to the bottom of the estuary. · Daily Visual Inspection: The USACE will conduct visual monitoring to observe turbidity levels, weather, and wave conditions to help ensure that the relevant BMPs are correctly deployed and functioning. On days when the USACE is actively placing dredged material, it will observe turbidity monitoring from an elevated vantage point that overlooks the Project site. If the visual inspection shows a significant level of turbidity leaving the placement construction area, the USACE must ensure that all BMPs are working as designed and make any repairs needed. · Minimize Pump Operation: The USACE will only operate the pump used to transport dredged material from the offload site to the placement site when actively placing material. During idle times when the USACE is waiting for dredge material to arrive at the offload site, the USACE must ensure the pump is not left running at full capacity. This will minimize the discharge of water into the Project site. · Apron/Spill Controls: The USACE will use an apron/guard to prevent material spillage into the water while being transferred from the scow to the pump. · Mechanical Placement: The USACE will use an excavator clamshell bucket or a bottom dumping scow when placing dredged material mechanically. This type of placement results in substantially less turbidity relative to placing dredged material hydraulically. · As noted above, USACE will explore other BMPs including but not limited to the following for potential use in the Project: bubble curtains, water dams, and current diversion/reduction measures.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: a. Pre-project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Proposer and the USACE conducted extensive sediment contaminants sampling and analysis within the Project site. Results revealed contaminant concentrations exceeding recommended Level II Sediment Quality Targets (SQT) which are MPCA screening tools for predicting the probability of potential risk to benthic macroinvertebrates based on contaminant concentrations. The exceedances occurred at depth
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 17 Worksheet (greater than 50 centimeters) at a few sampling points within the Project site (c.f. Crane and Hennes, 2007). The Proposer’s review of the sediment chemistry data did not indicate a risk to human health and the environment. The Proposer’s consultant, Limno Tech, recommended leaving areas with elevated concentrations undisturbed or further isolated to reduce exposure by adding appropriate cover material (Limno Tech, 2014). These types of sediment management recommendations are incorporated into the design for the Project site. The Proposer also completed additional analysis focusing on benthic community conditions. Although functional capacity of the benthos is impaired throughout the Project site, research performed to date showed no clear source to receptor pathways between contaminants and the environment. Literature shows methods for measuring the biochemical partitioning of compounds within the pore water of moderately contaminated sediments are currently being developed for the SLRAOC to facilitate BUI removal and SLRAOC delisting (Johnson, 2014). The methodologies emerging from this work are providing another critical line of evidence towards evaluating ecological risk and informing restoration design decisions.
The Proposer evaluated all dredged material proposed for use at the Project site to determine if it is suitable for in-water placement. Existing Section 404 federal guidelines for placing dredged material in-water for the purpose of improving or creating aquatic habitat ensures adequate protection of an aquatic resource (USACE 1998a, 1998b), along with state guidance, SLRAOC Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for Minnesota Based Projects, Appendix 1, Managing In-Water Placement of Dredge Material for Habitat Restoration Sites (MPCA and MDNR 2015). Fundamental to the federal guidelines is the precept that dredged or fill material should not be discharged into the aquatic ecosystem, unless it can be demonstrated that such a discharge will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. The Proposer completed sediment sample testing in 2011 and 2014, and updates data on a project basis to ensure both excavating and receiving locations contain suitable dredged material for in-water placement for aquatic habitat restoration. The Proposer completed sediment, elutriate, and biological testing to ensure in-water placement of dredged material will not cause an adverse impact on biota or water quality, outside the short- term impacts identified above, as detailed in Section 404(b)(1)’s tiered evaluation and under the SLRAOC’s QAPP.
The Proposer does not expect adverse effects on sediment quality as a result of dredged material placement in support of habitat restoration at the Project. Any dredged material that does not show exceedance of the SQT contaminant standards detected under the methodologies and analysis documented in the QAPP will be documented as material that can be used for beneficial use as in-water placement. In addition, beneficial use of the dredge material may provide appropriate cover when in-situ elevated contaminated sediments at a restoration site are characterized, helping to further sequester these areas from the active benthic zone.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid waste including source reduction and recycling.
The USACE will remove all solid waste such as rubbish, debris, waste materials, garbage, and other discarded materials not appropriate for placement from the dredge areas, and dispose of in appropriate landfills in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations. Anchors, chains, firearms, and other articles of value, which are brought to the surface during dredging operations, become the property of the federal government and relocated to a government facility for handling and/or disposal.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 18 Worksheet c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage. Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
The USACE’s equipment requires fuel (diesel and/or gasoline) and oils (lubricating and hydraulic). The USACE is required to comply with U.S. Coast Guard and Wisconsin and Minnesota Department of Transportation regulations as applicable to marine work, construction activities, and truck transport for handling of fuels and oils. The construction contract will require the USACE to take special measures to prevent chemicals, fuels, oils, greases, and other pollutants from entering the waterway, and to have a Contaminant Prevention Plan and a Spill Control Plan in the event of an unforeseen spill of a substance regulated by the Emergency Response and Community Right-to-Know Act or regulated under state or local laws or regulations. All spills must be reported immediately to the USACE Contracting Officer and any reportable quantities must also be reported to the legally required federal, state, and local reporting channels (including the National Response Center 1-800-424-8802 and the Minnesota Duty Officer). Spill kits to contain and/or neutralize accidental minor discharges are required on-site. These safeguards minimize the chance of a significant impact.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
Project operations will not generate hazardous wastes.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
Fish In the summers of 2013 and 2014 (MDNR Annual Gillnet Survey), the MDNR sampled fish at twenty-one stations in the St. Louis River Estuary with overnight gill net sets. The most abundant species collected in 2014 were walleye, yellow perch, shorthead redhorse, and rock bass. Other fish species sampled by MDNR in 2013 and 2014 included black bullhead, black crappie, burbot, channel catfish, common carp, Eurasian ruffe, freshwater drum, golden shiner, lake sturgeon, longnose sucker, muskellunge, rainbow smelt, rock bass, silver redhorse, smallmouth bass, tadpole madtom, tullibee (cisco), white perch, and white sucker. Population assessments indicate that the upper St. Louis River estuary is mostly utilized by warm-water species (i.e., walleye, muskellunge, northern pike). The lower St. Louis River estuary (Duluth Harbor) provides a unique habitat utilized by both warm-water species common to the St. Louis River and cold-water species (i.e., tullibee (cisco), rainbow smelt) common to Lake Superior.
The MDNR collected three lake sturgeon in both the 2013 and 2014 population assessments. One lake sturgeon that measured 23 inches (total length) was collected in 2014 in upper Spirit Lake. This fish was the first naturally-produced lake sturgeon recruited to MDNR gill nets, achieving another step towards the goal of lake sturgeon rehabilitation in the St. Louis River estuary. Lake sturgeon abundance in 2013 (0.2 per net night) and 2014 (0.14 per net night) were the lowest catch rates since the early phase of the
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 19 Worksheet rehabilitation project in the mid-1980s (pre-2013 historic range: 0.3 to 6.5 per net night). MDNR expects low catch rates for lake sturgeon in the near term because survey nets target juveniles and no stocking has occurred for 14 years, while naturally reproduced year-classes are nearing the recruiting age to match this gear type and are expected to increase.
The Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve (LSNERR, 2011) collected data from May through September 2011 at the Blatnik Bridge and analyzed it. The results indicate that waters within the lower St. Louis River are suitable for warm water fish species spawning and survival as outlined in the Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the early 1980s. The HSIs identify the range of habitat requirements that are necessary to maintain fish assemblages. The water quality in the lower river meets the requirements for warm water fish habitat for dissolved oxygen (6.68-12.78 parts-per-million), pH (6.96-7.89) and temperatures (10.39-24.39 Centigrade) for selected warm water fish species of concern such as, northern pike, smallmouth bass, common shiner and yellow perch.
Wildlife (mainly birds) The estuary is recognized by the National Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area for waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, gulls, and passerines, and is noted for being one of the best and most popular sites for bird watching in Minnesota. The area serves as a corridor for migrating songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors and provides critical food and shelter for these migrants.
Birds seen foraging in the marshes of the St. Louis River estuary includes bald eagle, osprey, merlin, common tern, northern harrier, and belted kingfisher. Resident birds include double-crested cormorant, Virginia rail, sora, marsh wren, common yellow-throat, swamp sparrow, song sparrow and yellow warbler, and a variety of waterfowl. Over the years, more than 230 bird species have been documented in the estuary.
b. Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA-____) and/or correspondence number (ERDB _20150367______) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the MDNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
A Natural Heritage Review was completed by the MDNR to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within a one mile radius of the Project site (Attachment C). Interstate Island is a dominant feature within the Project site, identified with the southeastern site boundary on the Wisconsin border. The island is one of only two common tern nesting colonies in the Lake Superior watershed. Interstate Island contains critical habitat for shore birds, and is federally recognized as habitat for the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius melodus). However, the Project does not interfere with recognized habitat for the plover. It is also used as a nesting colony by the common tern (Sterna hirundo). Common terns are listed as ‘Endangered’ in Wisconsin and ‘Threatened’ in Minnesota, and also a nesting site for ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis). This MDNR Wildlife Management Area is protected as a Bird Sanctuary and closed to public access March 1st – August 30th annually.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 20 Worksheet c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and endangered species.
Fish and Plant Communities The Proposer does not expect significant adverse effects on existing fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems from implementing the Project. The Proposer anticipates existing seed stock from adjacent wetlands, streams feeding into the project sites, and material brought in from other parts of the estuary to result in natural regeneration of aquatic vegetation in the created shallow areas. In addition, the Proposer will use organic medium from the Kingsbury and/or Perch Lake restoration sites as an additional seed and nutrient source. This material and the feasibility of applying it as an organic medium layer at specific locations is currently being evaluated by the Proposer’s consultant, Barr Engineering (Barr 2013). Plant species that are expected to generate include: vallisneria; native milfoils; pondweeds for submergents and bulrush; cattail; sedges; rushes; arrowheads (Sagittaria); burreeds (Sparganium); wild rice; Plygonums for emergent and yellow and white water lilies; and, duckweeds for floating-leaved vegetation.
In the short term, placing dredge material into prescribed areas will disrupt nearby fish activity; however, fish tend to avoid disturbed areas and will find temporary alternative habitat within the harbor. They will return to sites after the disturbance subsides. The Proposer will control turbidity as best as possible using the BMPs identified above in Item 11. To protect the fish populations, the Proposer will conduct dredging and placement operations outside of the critical time period when walleye eggs and fry (and other important fish species as determined through the state permitting process) are present so critical life stages are not impacted by turbidity generated during placement operations.
Dredged material placement may result in incidental mortality of benthic invertebrates from smothering, and in the destruction or displacement of other aquatic invertebrates present in the water column. However, the navigation channel dredge material ultimately placed in the restoration area will provide a more complex habitat structure than existing conditions, and literature suggests benthic invertebrates will typically re-colonize within weeks or months (Resh and Rosenberg 1984). Natural macroinvertebrate recolonizations by local populations, in conjunction with possible state-proposed enhancements for aquatic vegetation, will result in a more robust benthic community, and an increase in fish and wildlife productivity. Generally, when fewer a fewer number of species and greater proportions of the population is dominated by more pollutant tolerant species, such as is occurring at the Project site, a less desirable community results (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). Therefore, literature suggests no significant adverse effects on aquatic invertebrates are expected to occur, since the Project benthic community is currently described as impaired (Breneman et al. 2000, Crane et al. 2005, Host et al. 2013).
As the Proposer places dredged material to create shoal areas, this helps to develop aquatic vegetation which in turn provides a more diversified fishery habitat in the harbor. This also supports the removal of BUIs in the SLRAOC. The Project, by constructing underwater habitat that alters large areas in the harbor that are currently flat, too deep, and ecologically unproductive, provides invertebrate habitat which supports juvenile fish productivity and allows for foraging opportunities for adult fish and avian predators. In addition, designing the Project site for abundant and diverse emergent aquatic vegetation provides additional habitat diversity, and a critical component for successful fish spawning. Aquatic plants provide suitable habitat for spawning fish such as northern pike and yellow perch, a component
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 21 Worksheet lacking in the existing expansive flats within the Project. The St. Louis riverbed upstream that is composed of hard substrate like cobbles and gravel, provide vital fish spawning habitat. Emergent wetlands within the lower estuary also provide important spawning opportunities when considered on a regional scale. Emergent vegetation also provides a portal for the emergence of flying aquatic insects (dragonflies, mayflies, midges, craneflies, etc.) which feed myriads of migrating and breeding birds and bats.
Wildlife (mainly birds) The Project will provide habitat for a variety of water oriented birds and is not likely to have adverse effects. Non-persistent emergent and floating-leafed aquatic vegetation will provide important habitat for black terns, all five species of swallows, pied-billed grebes, wood duck, blue-winged teal, mallards, and American black ducks. Emergent vegetation would provide important habitat for marsh wren, sora, American bittern, Virginia rails, least bittern, and yellow-headed blackbird (Niemi et al. 1979). Project impacts on terrestrial habitat are limited and only occur when dredged material is placed near shorelines to increase littoral zones with a high percentage of sandy material. Providing for a more natural interface between the aquatic and terrestrial environments is beneficial to wildlife that relies on shoreline habitat resources.
Invasive Species According to MDNR sampling reults in the St. Louis River, a variety of invasive species have entered the harbor in recent years, including alewife, carp, Eurasian ruffe, freshwater drum, round goby, three-spine stickleback, white perch, spiney water flea, snails, and zebra and quagga mussel. Although a variety of exotic taxa have established residence, proliferation in the estuary is limited due to the colder waters of Lake Superior. Only the Eurasian ruffe is abundant in the harbor. However, the MDNR sampling suggests the ruffe peaked in abundance in 1992, and is currently declining. The MDNR is managing predator species, in part, to control exotics. The zebra mussel is not a problem in the harbor, likely due to limited reproductive success or low survival rate in the larval stage caused by the cold waters of Lake Superior. Waters of Lake Superior also provide limited calcium and/or nutrients necessary for zebra mussel growth.
Purple loosestrife is well established throughout the harbor. This invasive wetland plant grows fast, is hardy, crowds out native vegetation, and provides little value to fish and wildlife. Purple loosestrife is currently growing in the harbor among the native vegetation; however, there is not a noticeable decline in fish, waterfowl, or marsh bird populations (MPCA and WDNR 1992). The potential for adverse impacts upon fish and bird populations would increase if loosestrife becomes more abundant in the estuary. Both MDNR and WDNR have released German loosestrife beetles in the harbor as a potential loosestrife control method.
The Proposer expects the impacts from accidental introduction or harboring of invasive species, related to placement of dredge material, to be minimal. Purple loosestrife and phragmites both occur in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. Allowing for sufficient water depth above the placed material and promoting re-vegetation with native species, helps prevent the establishment of invasive species. The presence of aquatic invasive species could affect fish and wildlife benefits and is managed carefully. This restoration activity is completed as part of the overall SLRAOC wide efforts at removing BUI 9 and is addressed as part of the state-proposed monitoring programs to follow the SLRAOC delisting activities.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 22 Worksheet d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
The Project site was selected for habitat restoration because it is biologically unproductive, and creates a high probability of successfully improving fish and wildlife productivity. There are a few small areas that are wetland; however, these areas are not impacted by Project activities. There are no sensitive ecological resources at the Project site. Measures are taken to minimize turbidity during placement, and turbidity generating activities are timed (in consultation with the state fishery managers) to avoid potential impacts during important fish migrations and spawning periods.
14. Historic properties: Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3) architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties.
AECOM, a consultant under the Baird/URS Joint Venture, conducted a Phase I terrestrial and underwater remote sensing archaeological survey of the 21st Avenue survey area in St. Louis County, Minnesota. This work was conducted under contract to the Detroit District of the USACE pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in support of the RAP for the SLRAOC, which is being led by the MPCA. Specifically, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project is an approximately 328.06-acre area contained within T49N, R14W, Section 4, and T50N, R14W, Section 33 in Archaeological Region 9n. It consists of a terrestrial area approximately 56.1 acres in size and an underwater area approximately 282 acres in size.
One target identified was directly associated with the Northern Pacific Railroad Lumber Wharf, which has been recommended by SHPO as being eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Ward and McCarthy 1996). None of the other identified targets represent significant cultural resources. AECOM recommends that construction activities related to the Project avoid the Northern Pacific Railroad Lumber Wharf. AECOM also indicated that no further work relating to the identification of submerged cultural resources is recommended for the 21st Avenue underwater survey area. However, if the APE is revised or expanded beyond its current boundaries, additional archaeological survey may be necessary as determined in consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office.
15. Visual: Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The Project site is situated between the WLSSD wastewater treatment plant and two interstate highways. Scenic views of the St. Louis Bay occur in many areas of the harbor including the Project site, from the highways, and from Skyline Drive along the bluff that overlooks the harbor. The Proposer does not expect any significant adverse impacts to aesthetics. Views of construction activity would not present undue aesthetic disruption in comparison with existing harbor industrial and shipping activities. After Project site restoration, the new aquatic habitat and wildlife use would enhance aesthetics and recreation in and around the harbor.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 23 Worksheet 16. Air: a) Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
The Project does not involve stationary emission sources.
b) Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions. Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g. traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to minimize or mitigate vehicle- related emissions.
Effects on air quality will arise from emissions from combustible engines on tugs, excavators, and pumps used to load, transport, and spread the dredged material at the Project site. All equipment used by the Proposer and the USACE involved in the movement of dredged material to beneficial use sites is required to meet emissions standards; emissions are expected to be minor. Dredged material transport impacts will last approximately three months, the duration of the dredging season. These impacts are exempt as de minimis and meet the conformity requirements under Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, and 40 CFR 93.153.
c) Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
Dust is not anticipated since the USACE will transport all dredged material wet. Odor is not a problem because most, if not all, the placed dredged material is submerged. Sediment is removed, transported, and placed in a saturated condition. The USACE is required to control all airborne particulates; including dust particles, aerosols, and gaseous by-products from construction activities, and processing and preparation of materials (this includes weekends, holidays, and hours when work is not in progress). Odors are limited to the immediate vicinity of the dredging and placement operations. The USACE is required to follow all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances concerning odor control.
17. Noise Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3) conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
The Proposer expects periodic and temporary noise from operation of construction equipment near areas where dredged material is placed. Equipment noise would not have adverse effects on recreation in the harbor as the placement area is within an industrial area and is subject to noise from two interstate highways that run alongside the Project site.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 24 Worksheet Minn. R. pt. 7030.0040 establishes two noise levels, L10 and L50, based on the percent of time noise levels exceed the standard over a one-hour time period: L10 is defined as “noise levels exceeding the standard for 10% of the time for one hour (6 minutes/hour)” and L50 is defined as “noise levels exceeding the standard for 50% of the time for one hour (30 minutes/hour).” The rules also establish daytime and nighttime noise level standards based on Noise Activity Classification (NAC) levels. Minn. R. pt. 7030.0050 defines NAC levels based on land uses as 1, 2, 3, or 4. NAC Level 2 is for commercial and recreational land use types, typical to that of the Project site.
People working in or around the nearest business are over 500 feet to 1,000 feet away from the Project site. The rail yards, WLSSD plant and other uses are over 1,000 feet from the equipment used to place the dredge material. Noise standards in decibels established for NAC Level 2 areas for daytime or nighttime are 70 dB (L10) and 65 dB (L50). According to the Federal Highway Administration, the average noise level at 50 feet from typical diesel-powered mobile construction equipment is 87 dB (FWHA Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1). Sound decreases from a point source at a rate of 6 dB for every doubling of distance from the source (MPCA Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota). The table below provides an estimated noise level as a function of distance (information from the FHWA handbook and the MPCA guide).
Distance from Source (Feet) Noise Level (dB)
50 87 100 81 600 51 900 33
The Project construction will temporarily generate noise above current NAC 2 within 100 feet, but all receivers are much farther away, and well below the 65 dB level. The Proposer will use construction equipment classified as “mobile equipment” including: dozers, cranes, graders, excavators etc., which operate in cycles of full power followed by reduced power. Typical sounds will include engine noise, sounds of metal on rock, and safety back-up alarms. Once complete the Project will not generate noise.
18. Transportation a. Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3) estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes.
The Project has negligible effects on surface transportation and parking as most transportation activity is water based. Only a small number of USACE personnel are involved. They would stay in local hotels, and be transported to the active dredging operation by small water craft. These personnel will park at dock sites and will not significantly impact parking at boat launches or docks.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system.
There is no anticipated effect on traffic or roads.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 25 Worksheet If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance, identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects.
All land-based transport is required to obey all applicable federal, state, and local driving laws, and obtain any required permits for such activity. The Proposer does not expect impact to commercial shipping from this Project. The USACE will coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard to assure that a “Notice to Mariners” is issued prior to the work beginning. All temporary lights, signals and buoys required by the U.S. Coast Guard are displayed during the required work. The USACE is required to conduct its work in such manner as to obstruct navigation as little as possible, and in case the USACE's plant obstructs a channel making it difficult or endangers the passage of vessels, the plant shall be promptly moved on the approach of any vessel to afford a practicable passage. Under the contract and upon completion of the work, the USACE shall promptly remove its plant, including ranges, buoys, piles, and other marks placed in navigable waters or on shore.
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
The Proposer is removing BUIs through actions identified in the RAP as part of an on-going effort to restore and rehabilitate legacy related impacts to the SLRAOC. The SLRAOC partners are planning and implementing a wide variety of restoration projects in the St. Louis River that addresses a diverse assemblage of sites in need of remediation of contaminated sediments and/or restoration of aquatic habitat. These actions are cumulative with past work completed on the river and in surrounding subwatersheds that have resulted in water and sediment quality improvements over the past 30-40 years. This work includes, but is not limited to the start-up of the WLSSD, stormwater upgrades to prevent the inflow and infiltration of stormwater into sanitary sewers which can cause sewage overflows, reduction of mercury in wastewater, clean-up of some contaminated sediments (e.g., St. Louis River Interlake Duluth [SLRIDT], Hog Island/Newton Creek), creation of sturgeon spawning habitat, and some habitat restoration projects (e.g., Tallus Island water access, Clough Island purchase and management, Red River Breaks Stream Bank Protection Area).
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
Other proposed aquatic habitat restoration projects (i.e., 40th Avenue West, Grassy Point, Kingsbury Bay) that lie upstream of the Project will have similar environmental effects as listed in this EAW. It is the intent that the cumulative effects associated with the dredging and placement of materials will have a positive effect on the St. Louis River and will move the SLRAOC toward the goal of delisting by 2025. These projects focus on various aspects of restoration including providing optimum bathymetry for aquatic vegetation enhancement, increasing benthic communities, restoring riparian connectivity, and softening shorelines. In combination, these projects provide harbor wide improvements in habitat, sediment quality, and aesthetics.
21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Duluth, Minnesota 26 Worksheet
21st Avenue West EAW Figures and Appendices
Figure 1. Location of the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project that is being completed in the Duluth/Superior Harbor as part of the St. Louis River Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan. Figure 2. Aquatic habitat restoration in the Duluth/Superior Harbor will occur at three project locations within St. Louis Bay described as 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point.
page 1 Figure 3. Construction management zones within the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project.
page 2 1 2 3 4 5
US Army Corps of Engineers® N Detroit District . R PP A TE
D DA
-2
-2 PLACEMENT LEGEND 3 -
3 -
- 2
-3
-4
3 -
-4
-
5
2 -
-
- 1 4
- 2
-
5 - 3
-6
-
- 2
3
-1
-
2 -
2 3
-
4
3 5 DESCRIPTION
- SYMBOL
-
-
2
- 6
-
- -
4
3 1 - - -1 ON
6 I 7 -2 -
-
2
- 0
5
T 0 0
P
0 5
-7
- 0 2
I -
6
-
4
3 0 - -
- 1 - 3 - 4 - 1
0
2 - - 6
- 2 -
6 5 -
4 CR - 0 -
7
0
1
0 5
- -
0 S
4 -
-
1 - -
4 3 0 E
8
-
-7 - 5 FINAL ELEVATION +3.0 FT ABOVE LWD. 3
- 0 -2 D - 6 - - 6 2 0
0
8 9
- - 4
- - 0
7
0 0 1 - -
9
5 0 1 - - - 8
- 3 -
1
7 - - - 1 4 - 3 - 5 - 1
-6
3 - - 1
0 - -
7 -2
6
1 -
- 0 4 9
- - 1
1
3 - -9 -
8 -10 8 4 -
-
-
3 - - 9 1 2 -
2
5 12
- -
1 -
1 1
2
- 3 3
1 - -
1 1 3
-7 -
-
- 1
2 4 -
-2 1 -
5
- 10 -
6 -
- -
1 2
4 4 - - 7 -
- 6 13
4 -
9 -
-
- 1 3 -8 - -
- 9 -
1 1 8 1
0 - -
3 3
4 -14 - -
- 2 11
-
- 1 3
- 5 -
-3 - 2 - -4 2 2 -
2 - 2
5 8 12
-5 -
- - 1
6 - 14 2
- 1 1 3
5 - -1 - 7
- 9 -
7 1 - 6
- 6 1 - 1 4 1 0
3 8 - - -7 -10 -
6 1
- -
1 9 -
- 2
8 -
7 3
2
-
-
-2
17 -
2
- 4 K
-
6 - 5
-2 1
3 15
- 1
-
-
9 FINAL ELEVATION -2.0 FT BELOW L.W.D.
1
1 2
- 0 4 13
3 -
1 -3 - - 1
2
- 3
- 3 - 9
2 2 - -
-
1 8
0 1
R - -
1 - 1
- 1
5 5 10
1 -
6
- 5
12
3 3
2 4
-
- - - - -3 3 2 7 A
-
3 4
4
- - - 5
8 -
6
- 0
4
8
-13 -2
- 1
12 -17 -
- 7
- 14
- 2 - 14
- 5 - -
- - 3 3
- 1
-
3 9
-
7
- 1
8
2 - 1 -
3 4567 M
1
1 6 2 - 0 -
3 - - -
- 4 2 15 11 2 - 2 6 1 - -3
0 6 4
- - -
4 -
2 3
1 .
9
- -
- 3
3 3 -
1 -
- -3 2
-17 8 -5 6 1
1 -
3 8 -
-
- 19
6 - 1
R - 5
5 -
7 -20 2
- -
4
1
2 4
-
- 0 1 2
-
3 5 - - - 4 - - 6 3 - - 2 4 3 - - 9 4
- 1 - - - -
5 6
1 6
3 - 1 1 5 7 - 2
- -
- - 8 3 7
-
- -
2 1
7
1 7 PP 0 9
-
1 - - 2
15 6
- 21 - - - 0 - 4 7 1 -
1 3
8 8
1 -
- 1
A
6 0 -
- - 6 1
4 9 -
- - 13 8
-21 9 -
2 -2 -
9 -
2 1
3 - - 1
- 1 7
- 5 2 7 4
8 -
-2
0 0 2 - -
- 2 -
3 0 - -
1 1
1 - 7
- 6 1
7 4
4 3 7 - -4 -
- - - 1 21 8 -
8 5 7 - - - 8
12 - 5 -
-5 - 7 2 2 9 - - - 3 4 0 5 2 - - 4
8 -
8 - - 1 - 3
8 - 6 8 3
1 -
- 9 - 1
7
9 -
7 1 -
- 8
-6 15 -
- 4 7 -
1 -
6 - 7
- 2 2015
3 7 - 2 0
2 -
- FINAL ELEVATION -3.0 FT BELOW L.W.D.
1 TE -
-
5 9 -
8 11 5
1 2 -
13 4
-
2 -
- 0 6
- - -
7 - 14 1 -7 8 3
- 1
2
5 23 0 -
1
8
1 8 - 1
- 1
8
2
-
- - 2
1
4 -
- 6
- -
- 5 -
- 1 2
1 1
7 8 6
- 7 - 23
- - 0 7 - 4
- -
9 7
21 2 DA
-
-3 1 -
0
- 1 - - -
- 3 0
7
8 3 9 5
-
- 4 2
- 1
16
-
8 -
7 - 3 - 3 1 1
- 2 2 -
- 7
- 6
9 - 4 8 -2
-
- 7 7 -
6
0 2 1 09
0 - -5 8
-2 - -7 -2
1
-6 9 1 5
- -
- -
- 4
8
9
6
-
1 -
3 3 7
- -
-
17
4 2
-
- -
- 5 -
4 1
1 7 - - 3 5 - - 7 6
6 8 -
7 - - 8 - - 6
-3 1 - 6 - 2 7 4 - 0 -
2 - -3 2 9
- 2 -4
6 2
-
- 1 - - 5 1
- -
-3 7 1 3 -
7 2 - 1 -
8 2 2 1 1
- - 5
-
-
-4 9 1 4 5
4 - - 7 -
3 9 8 - 5 4 - - -
- 1 - 2
-5 - -
18
1 7 2 9
-
4 2
-
8 - -
4 7 - - - 3 28 7 - 6 9 - - 2 2 -9 - - 3 - 10 6 - 5 -7
- - 7 6 - -
- 1 - 1 17 2 -13 1 -3 -5 9
1 - 13
7 - - 7 8
- - 1 - - - 7 0 - -4 2 6 6 2 21 1 - - 0 - 4 -
- 8 6
9 - -
- 7 - 5 7
2 7 8 3 - - - 6
4 - 2 - -8 - 12 6
- 1 -6 0
2 - -
- 1 5 - -8 9 12
13
- 9 -1
5 - 7
8 -11 1
7 - - -10 -
27- - - - 8
9 2 -12 -
7 6 -
-4 - - 9
11 1
3 5 - 2 - 8
-
- 6 5
8 - 1 - 1 8 -
- 5 1
2 -13 -
-6 3 - 9
5
-8 -14
9
2 -16
-
-6 -
- -2 9 -
4 4 - 6 8
6 16 7 1
- 1 - -
- -
-19 1 2
7 8 -
5 4
7 1
1 15 1
- 7
- -
- - -
- 26
0 - 8
- - 9
9 1
8 10 - - 7 - - - - 13
2 -20 1 1 1 - -22 -
0 - 6
7 7
- 11
- 8
24
0 2 -
8
-9 - 11 FINAL ELEVATION -4.0 FT BELOW L.W.D. -
- -
1
2
2
11 19
3 12 - -
2 - 6 -
- - -
- 15
- - 1 5 2 1
8
27 9 25 1 6 - - -
1 9 0
-
-
- - -
1 8 -
-
1 -8 1 15
1 1
3 14 - 1
- - -
- 15
0 4 - 2
2 9 8 - 6
- - 0 -
- 8 -11
6 7
1 1
8 3
6 -
- 14 2
2 0 -
- -
8
8
3 -
- - 8
- - - 1 21 1
26 3 -
- - 8 2 8 4 - -
- 2
6 9 - - 0 -
5 1 1
3
2 - -
7 2 - 7
17 - 5
- 1 1 1 7 - 1 2 3
-2 -2 -
- 7
1 2 -
9 9 2 -28 1
9 1 - - -
1 -
2 -
8
9 16 9
1 -18
-
-8
1
-
- 3 -7
- 1
4 7 17
- 0 9 2
- 1
-
2
- -
- -26 1
- 9
24 4 8
- - -
2 1
29
- 0
-
- 1 3 - 5 2 9
0 -
6 7
- 1
-
-22 8
- 0
- 2
2 8 8 -
-
1 1
7
7
- 6 1
- -
-
0 -
-
1 1
-
7 -
5
- 2
- -
2 30 -
-
4 - 1 9 2
- 26
2 11 2 -
9 0 2
1
4 2
3
-
- -31 11 - S
- 27
- 28
2 8
- -
-9 5 -
2 -
11 7 5 -
- -26
7 1 2
- 2 -
- - 0 ON
9 28 3
8 - 3
-25 - -
- - 6
8 19 1 1 9
-8 I -
-23 - - - 23 5 10 E
- -
-
7 21 4 1
2
- 1 -
1 - 8 12
C 7 - 0
- - 1 2
- 3 -11 -
4 2 7 3 22
- -
-1 -20 -19 4 T -7
- - 7
5 - 18
O
2 - 2
7 - 2 4
1 2 2 - - -27 - 5
-8 26 - -
12
- 1
4 7 - 19 - -28
- 27 16 P
9
9 - 7
- -29
5 -
-
1 -
18 -9 - 6 8 -10 -2 I
- 9 -
0 0 1
3 11 8 1
- - -
- 0 - -
-
7 2
-29 8 2
- - 1
- -
-
- - 6
24 21 5
-
2
1 0 - -
3 -
1 30
-
1
1 2
- 7 2 12 14 16
3 -28 9 - - - 0
- BC
2 - -31
3 9 -
1 0 1 7
- -
12
-
2 5
- 7 5 -
- 2 2
- - - 6
5 9 3 6
- 1
- -
-
9 27 CR
- 8
-
- 2 3
1
- 3 -
6 3
2 1
-
21
- 7
- 29
-
3 % 8 1
- 0 8
1
2 -
- 1 S
- 8
2
-29
-7
8
2
2
6 - -
2
-
7
2
- -30
11 0
1
4
- - -
- 0
-
28
27 E
- 3 -3 5
-
6 6 1 -
- -30 1 25
- 50
9 4
- -
3
6 32 -29 2
-
17 - 4
-
-
4 -
- 2
-
-8 1 1
1
1
1 -
18 - -
6 3 3 -
- - 6 D
2 2 -2 2 - 1 34 -
6 - FINAL ELEVATION -10.0 FT BELOW L.W.D.
33
-
- -
9 - -
2 32 -
- 2 7
- 5
0
3 28 - - 9 7 -2 -
2 6
-2 5 -
19
1 1
-
- - 3 31
-
- 8
- -
7 1
9 9
6
0
-
6
- 3
2 7
- 3 -
- 5 -
-
- 3 -
6 - 2 8 2
- - 6 6 - 9 6 - 24 - 2 -
- 1
2
4 1 1 - -
- - 5
2 16 -
1 -
6 32 - 1 0
-
14 0 1 1 5
- 2
13 2
3
5 6 - - -
- - - 6 -
- 4
2 - - 3 - 3 - 2
6 - -
7 35 - 3
1 3 1
6 - 1
-
2 8
- 2
7 30
- -
5 -25
-
8 2 -
9 - 13 - - -
- 9 - - 35 7 -
6 - 5 3
-6 4 -
1 22 - -27 6
6 1
- - 3
- -
6 - -
4 1
0
7 36 2 -
- 26
- 6 8
3 8 -
6 -
2 1 -
- 2
- 6 - 3 4 -
- 6 1 5
12 3
6 4 12 - 32
7 -9 -
- 1 4 - -
-7 7 -
3
- 1 24 33
8 - - - - - 18 - - 2
9 - 3 - - 1
- 15 22 - -
10 - 1 20
3 2
- 3
- 6 -7 1
3 - 3 -
3 -
- 3 - 2 2 2 -
5 6 - 20 9
6 -8 1 -
- - 2 2
6 -19
- 2
8 28
-
9
22 - -
3 - 29
- 7 -30 - 4 - -
- 2 - -
- 1 2
9 - 2 1 -
30 4 - - 3 9 3 -11 1
31 1 -
24 - 9 -7 - - - - 5
-16 10
30 27 - 6 -178 6
14 1 -
- 12 - - 6 -
- -25 1 1 - -
- 4
6 - 2 2
29 -8
4
5 - - -
9 5 161
6 78 - 1 5 - - - 6 - - -19
- 6
10 5
6 2 -
- 0 - - 3 - -3 -
2 0
- 6 31 1 - -
6 3 8
- -17 - -
6 - 28
6 33 - - - - 30 1 1 0 3 3 -
1 3 6 1 - -4
- 1 2 3
- 5
- - -
- 5
- 2 7 3 2
- 2 - -5
2 6 4 - 6 7 9
- - - 3 2- 3 - 120 7 - 2 3 22 6 2 -
21 3 -2 - -
- -
1 2
-
1 3 6 30
3 - -
-2 4 - -8 1 -
6 - 1
-
- 0
3 - - 3
22 3 2
32 5 2 - - -
6 - 3
6 1
- 6 - - 9 8 K
-
6 - - 11
9 6 1 4 16
- 2 -7 - 2 - - 1 -
2 4 7 6 -
3 1 1 - - - -
- 8 2 - 1
8 7 3 1 1 R
1 4
2 2 - - -
3 - - - 8 -
6 4
- 9
2
- -
- -17 12 6 18 -
3 01
2 - -
9 29
- - A - - 7 5
- 10
6 5 9 9
- 1 1 -
3 - - 5 6
- -
2 5 3
6 3 2
3
- - - - 4 - 1 -
3 1 1
- - 6 6 -13 0 - 2 8
5 0 -
2 -
- 1
4 - - 4
31 1 7
- -- - 5
221 -
2 -
2 M
8 20 -
2 - -
- 3 25 1 -
6 0 2
11 1 - - 3
- 1
-8 26 - 9 -
- 4 0
-
27 - 3
3 2
2 - - 3 6 21
3 23 -
- - - 1
- - 2 26 - 7 - 5 1 5
- 2 8 6 6 7 -
- - 2 -2 -
6 1 - - 5 1 -
- 22 5 13 - 7 - 6 - 1 9 1 7 - 6 - - 1 4 - - 9
- 16 2 7
1 6 8
- 7 2
2 - 1 6
3 -
- 4 2 -
-
8 -
- 2 9 8
-8 10 1 - 2
-
- -
2
5
6 - -18
- 24 2
- 5 8
6 1 -
25 - - - 4 -
- - - 2 2
5 2
9 - 1 0
- 19 2 2
2
- -
- -
2 - 6
- 1
25 2 6 -
6 25 - 0
2 25 - - - 19 1 - - 5 7 6 - 4 -5
5 2 1
5 - - 7
3 13 20 - -
- 8 24 - - 9 26
- - 4 - -6 7 2 7
- - -
- - 23 9
6
- -
2 -26 3 12 -
-
20
2
1 - 25 -8 2
7 1
-
-
6 2
- - 2
2 2
3
-
- - -
4
7 9
19
2
8 1
- - - 0 1
2 -20
- 2 -
1 -
-
- - 1
1
-
0 23 2 -
21 6 - 9 - 8 - 1
5 1
-
- 1 -
- 20
2
1
18 5 1
1
- 2
- 3 2
5
7
1 - 4 - -
1
1
6
1
21 -
- -
9
26 - -
2 7
- 2 - - 3
2
23 1 1 - - -
1
2 13
6 6
9 5 6 - -
- -
- 1 6 -
4 -12
6 - - 1
-18
- 6 0
1 7
2 5
5
12
2
- 14
1
1 -
1 7
2 1 - -9 -
- 1 8 - -
- 7 -9 - -
2 6
- - 8
1 - -
5 1 -23
-
2 20 1
- 9
2 2
- 8
- -
4 11 4
1
6 9 9
10 -
- - - 1 -
1
14 - 2
8
1 -12
- 3 -
- 5 -
-
8 1 - - 8
-11
7 -
7 2
0 10
1 - 6
- 1
- -
2
- -
-
- - 1
1
- 2 -
25
8 -
-10
- - 1
2
3 6 - 20
2
9
5 1
8 -
26 2
1 21
9
4 -
18
- -
9 8
7
- 1
3 6 6 - 9
-9
- 22 1
- 24
- 7
9
-
1
- - 2
- - 1 6
8
- - 0 2
1
24
-
- - -8 1 2 -
- 5
14 - -
0 1
2
- 4
6 5 -
- - -
- 1
- 2 0
1 2
7 3 -11 1
5 - 9
- 8
: 5
- 1 2 -
7
- 7
2
10
3 1 -
2
-
- - 1
4 1 -
- - 2 - 16 2
- 7 3
6 -
-
0
1 -
22 .
-8
8 1 9 1 1
1 -
-
6 4
- 15
2
-
2
-7 -
2
- 2
6 - -
1 8 2 2
-
-7
-
0 - -9
23
- -2 - 9 7
- -20 -7
2 4 -
3 -
1 1 1
2 9 -13 1
- - 7
10
-
2 - -
- 6
-8 - 1 9
-
12 -
- 5
1 -7
1
1 26 8
3 8 -
- 7
- 1
-
-
- 20 -16
5
2 1
3 1 - :
- 1
- -
9 9
5 12 - - -18
.
-
0 7 3 -
8
25
1 24
7
1 2 2 NO 4 1
7
-
-
-13 - -
- 1 2 - 9 -
2
- 10 6
-
1
1
6 - -
1 5 -
8
-
1 - - 4 -
1 1
-
- 9
2 7 -
8 -
1
2 0
1 - 4 8 -
16 -
2 1 20
-
1 2 7 1
1
- - 1
2
-
- - -
9
2
2
1 : 2 -
9 -8
2
4
-
-
- 25
21 - -
- 21
6 -8 - -14
4
- -2 21
10
- -
21 -
19
-7 5 - 6 2
- -
- 7 17 1
3 2 2
5 2
- 7 -
- 7
5
-
- -
- R
1 -
12
- - 9 5 24 -
NO
- - 13
2 2
- 0 2
- - - 8 - - 3
19 1
7 7 1
- - - ON
-
7 0 -
10 23 15 -
2 6
2 E -
-
4 - 1
2 1
- 3
1
25 3 1 - 3 2
6 0 I
- - - -
1 21 -
- 9 2 - -
-5 2 1 - T 7 4
2 6
-1 - -
3 5 -
1
2 8 - - 17 1
2 B
-22 -
- -
1 T -
- 2 -
9
7 2 6
6 - 1
-
- 0
- 2 5 8
-
2
18
1 7
2 6
3
-
1 -18 8 5
- - - C -
-
8 15 2 - 24
3 6 6
19 - -
- - 1 -
7 4 9 7
6 -
1
9 - - - 1 -
- 1
0 22
7 6
-
2
-
2 A
-
-
- - M 19 - 26 7 -
13 7
2 -
1 - -25 5
2 - 4 A
- - 25
2 - - 24 2
9 26 - - 8
-
20
- 1 7
7
-
- 2
4 -
- 7 T 4
18 GENERAL NOTES
10 2 2 -23
6
-
- - 7
3 20 5 -
9
- - - - 6
1 11 7
-
-
- - 10 - 1
25
- - 1 -
16 - 14 3
- - 7
1 7 I
- 21 -
4 - -
- - 5 2 -
14
7
2 -
- 1 2 R
2 2 7 - 4 - 4 2015 1 - 6 - 2 5 2 1 :
2 5
- - 2 - -10
23
6 7 6 -
- - - - -6 NU
22 - -
8 - -
2 -24 C 2 - - - - 25
T
3 6 - 4 6
5 8
6 2
- 7 -
8 -
-
- 1 7
3 I
-7 -
2 -
1
2
- -
- - 2 1
1 -
9 6 - 1 23
- 2
4 9 6 - 22 -
- 3 -
- 1 25 1 3 -
25 22 25 9
- 7 - -
16 29 - -
- - 1
6 9 - 1 7
- 1 3
2 -
8 5
1 9 4
1 -
- 7 -
2
-
17 -
1 2
- L
-
2 -
- -
9
1 7
1 2 TE
4
1 2
16
1 3 -
27 0
1 1
- -7
- 04
- 16
- - -
30
3 8
8 - - -
1 6 26 - 2
2
6 0
-15 - 2 8
-29 2 6 - -
- - -
25 25
- 2
- - -
7
- 8 - 3 3
LE - - 2 1 8
- - 30 4
1 -
ON
- 2 1
- O 24 6
- 8
-
2 I
2
-
6
- 2 0 -
23 - -
2 - 1
5
- 9 6 3 1 5 - 4
0 - - 2
- 1 -
4 7 4 2
6 5
- 1 0 - 6 - -
5
- - 1
5 2 2 2 20 5
1 - 2
- - 2 7
- 6 1
6 - - - 3
- -6 -
- DA S C
F 5 -
1
8 2 2
9
- 1 09
- 0
9 6 1
-
-
- -
- 3
6 -
6
- -
2 14
6 17
- -
8
2
- -
9
- 6
4
6 26 -
- -
6 -
- - 23
1 -
-6 - 6 -6
8 6
9 6
- 1 -
-
- -
- 0 -
1 -
1
- - 9 6 5 16
7 2
1 - 29 1
22 -
2 2 2 6 4 - -
- - 6
2 7 2 14
-6 - -
- - 6 1
6
6
6 4 - 2 -
2
6
- 22 2
- - 1 13
- -
7 7 1
- 25
- - 8
-
6 6
- -
- 7 -
- -
28 2 1
4 6 6
- - 8
7 9 - 9
1 5 - 2
1 6 3 18 1. ALL DEPTHS AND CONTOURS ARE REFERRED TO LOW WATER
1 6
-
- 2 6 -
6 - -
- - 7 - - - - -
-
1 1 2
2 - 4
12
2 20
- - 6 3 6
8 - -
1 - -
5 6
15 - :
1 13 - 1 -
4 15 1 5
- 6 -
1
6
-
- 1
11 2 1
-6 3
2 - - 6
-
- - -
-
6 - 16
2
2
- 2
-
-19 -26
- 6
5 1 2
-
-20 4 6 6
1 4
- -
2 6 0
3 - -
- 6 1 6
1 - 8
- 9 -
3
2
6
-
- 6 -
-
15 2
- 0
-
6 - DATUM (L.W.D.) FOR LAKE SUPERIOR ELEVATION 601.1 FT ABOVE
8 9 -7
- -
- 2
21 - TE
2
-
6
2 7 0 8
9
-
-
-
-
1
3 5
5 10
2 - 7
1 - - - 5 -
2 - -6 8 - 2
- 3 :
6 -
- 6 : -
5
6
2 - 2
- 3 5
- - - -5
- - - 4 - -5
2
2 1 1 14 7 25
7
25 -
- 9 7
- -8 -
- 1
2 -4
6 2
1 6 0
- 2
- -5 7 6
- - -
1 - - 2 12
4 - 1 2 2 E
Y
1 8 5 -
- 8 3 MEAN WATER LEVEL AT RIMOUSKI, QUEBEC, (I.G.L.D.). SOUNDS 1 1
- - -
12 DA
1 -
7 1 1
-
5 -
6 9
6 8 - 1
-
-
- 1
5 -
-
6 -
1 6
-
-4 23
-
4 4
4 - - -
2 -
4 2 1
9 1
- 6 1 -
- 5 - 9
B - 1 -4
8 3
5
1
6 - M
7 -23 17
-
5 - 1
- - 1
4 -
9 6
1 6
- 7
1
4
1
- 6
2 1
2 2
-
1 -
- - -4
4 - T - - -
6
- 6 1 -
- - 8
9 1
8 -
- 6
-5 2
-
-4
1 20 8
1
8 -
-
-
- 21 4 3 - -4 9 -
2 -5
-7 0 ARE IN FEET AND SHOWN AS THUS: -20.7 6
- - 6
- 6 -
-1 6 -6 -
2
-
21 - 6 - 2
-3
20 4 0
6 - 1
2
- O
- - -
22 6 1
- -
-
0 - - 2 - 5
-4 2
6 7 - 6
-3 6 7
- -10 5
3 -9 NA
-3
- 2 -14 M
6
3 - -
6 -
- 8 - KD - - 6 24
- 1 -12
-2 1 7 L - - 15
-2 3
9
1 -
5
2 -6 -
- 6 -1 11
- :
- 5 - 1 2 8 1
2 1 -3 3 -3 -5
2 2 -
- 6 - 1
9
- 6 -
- - 2 - 6
- 2 0 -
4 2 19
- 3 -
- 2 - 1 5
2 - 6
6 2 1 -
- -4 2 26 8
-
1 C
- P -3
1 - - 6 - -
:
7 9 - W
6 6 - -
-5 3 3 - 2
3 2 - Y 1
- 2
3 3
- - 6 6
6
2 - 2 0
7 2
- 6 -
1 - 7
3 - - 1
- - 7 -
- -
- 2
4 8 6
14 - LE
- 1
- 2 - - 11
9 - 1 6
Y 18 4
- : 5 6 -7 -26
- 2
I
- 2 - B
13
-3 -10 1 5 6
1 8
1 -
-
6
- 26 -
- 4
13 - - - -
-
6 -
8 - - 3 -
2
- 5 2
3
3 4
-9 -2 6 - 2
6
-
6 - 2
4 9
-3 -
-
- 2. THE GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM SHOWN IS BASED ON THE 4 3 -
- 2
0 -
7 12 B - -
2 8 23 F
-19 1 -
- 1
3
-7
6
-
- 17 -
-
7
3 - 27
2 -
1 - 2 9
6
- 0
6 -
4
1 - 1
- - 4 1
19 - - 2 -
- 6 6 1 -
D
6 - 7 2 18 -
- - - - 5
2 6 LE 2 6
1 0
- 8
2 - -
1 2 R -
- 19 3
8 - 6
- 0 -
- 1 -
5
1
23 2 - 1
D 0
2 9 8
2 - 3
-
3
8 - - 4
3 2
1 -
-
2
-
- - 1
A 6
2
- 2 -
- - 7
16 5 1
3 - LAMBERT PROJECTION, MINNESOTA SYSTEM OF STATE PLAN
1 E
- 8
0 5
- -
2 :
2 -
- 2
-
8 6
-
24 -
3 E
9 -
- 17
2
10 - 5 6
6 -
- 2
3 -4 - 4
- 16 -5
- 2 -
-
1 - - 6 C
6
5 3
6 6 5
- 5
1 -
- - - - 6
5 2
1
- - 1 4 6 -
-
-
2 Y
1 3 6 - -
4 -
- 6 -11 - -6 TTE
5 - 22 3 -2 - 7
-
- 4
I
-
- S
-8 3 - 7
1 2 SS
12 2
- - - 3 1 - 13 6 9 COORDINATES, NORTH ZONE, 1983 AMERICAN DATUM IN FEET.
B
- - 2 -7 9 -
- 7
- 9
8 10 - - - 3
7 -1 26 6 1 2
- 9 ------2 GN 6 6 - 6 - 3 - :
6 1
- 4 -8
6
5 I M 2 2
6 23
- - - -
1 O 2 - T 1 - - AGN
- 16 25
0 7 -12 22
6 3 5
- 1 - - -
- 2
1 2 - 27
7 1
2 7 - N
0 6 8
- - - - -2 -
22 -21 20-19-18
- 4
-3 - -
4 3
2 S B
6
- - 3 4
1 - 15 R 10 - 3 - 24
2 15
6 - O -
- X
- - -
5 26 1 9 - 1
19 W
1 ZE - - 5
4 8 - 2
- - - 2 1 1
3 - 8 2 - 2 5 5 5
- 3 -
E W . .
- - - 2 . W
2 U I
- -
7 L -
- 6 6 5
-
-
2
1 5
6
4 - -
- -
1
- 16 -
8 2
6 7 27 4 3 6 -
- -4 4
- -23 - 9 2
-8
- -
-8 5 3
-
- 5 1
-10 6
3 3
8 11 -27 -
- 4 - - -
- -
4 P 34
9 - A A
- - 3
D D S S
- - - P
9 -
7 9 3
12 2
16 -6 12 -11 1 1 8 - -
- 7 9 -- 3. THE MINNESOTA/WISCONSIN STATE LINE DEPICTED IS BASED 6
- 6 - - - 4
- 13 - - - 2
7 4 20 3 - -2 -
- - 3 3 6
- 13 - 2 - - 3 3
6 3 25 -26 8 - - -
- - -
4 6
24 10 8
- -
- 26 2 - 7
B 6
5 - -
1 -
21 2 7
2 - -
7 -6 1 25
- 8 1 8
3 6 - 7
- 1 - -
1 -6 1 - - 7
- 9 - - 5 3
5 - 2 6 9
- 14
1 6 24 0 - 4 1 1 -
- 28
2 - 3 - 1
6 3 - 1 - - -
4 -
- - - - 4 1 8 6
- - - - 5
S 5
8 -
5 4
2 ON INFORMATION FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
- - -
- - 3
6 - 1
2 - 20 6 7
- 5 6
- - 0 6 27
14 9 1 1 - 28 - 25 - - -
8
0 8 - -
- 6 26
- -
- 2 6
- - -
9 11 - 6 -
- - 3
-
1 24
- 1 7 -
1
-18 9
2 4
- - -17 21 9 21
1 13 7 - 2
22 -
- - 14
5 -19 - - R
- - 1 - -4
1 5 2
10
- 6
- - 4
4 6
-4 2
- 1 6
1
4 - 8 -
- -6
2 -
2
-
1
-
-
3 1 -25
1 1 5 -
1
2 4 7
6
7 1 28
- 6 TRANSPORTATION AVAILABLE AT:
- 6
- - 9
-
- 3 3
2 2
-
-22 -
1
-
7 - -
12 0
- - - 29
2 8 6 -
- S
-20 -
5
15 -7 - - - 2 -12 4 3
- 6 22
' 24
9 24 - 3 7 29 -
-
4 - - -
6 5
-
-
-
-
-
1 6
2
- 2 P
3 - 1 -
6 8
6 23 -
- - -5
6 5 5
-10 - - - -
-
3 -3 C
6 3 -2 2 2
8 -
2 - -5 -4
- -6 6 -6 9 -
5
-14 1 6 EE
E
1 - -8 -
6
8 3 2
- -4 -9 - 7
- -
-
2 -
3 -
- 6 2 E 5
1 ng 3 6 - 2 N
- 2 13 -
1 I
3 1 - L
9 -9 0 6 5 -
- 8 - 5 TE V - -
- - 1 - A i
- -10 T 6 6
2 S 6
2 - - -
4 IN
7 HTTP://WWW.DOT.STATE.MN.US/MAPS -
-7 1 S 1
1 1
2 ON
-
13 C
- r
3 - S
3 I
- 6 W
3 - 6 /
- -20 A
- -
7 15-16 1 - T -
- 2 10 O - it
-17 - 8 -
2 9 17 1 - S - 2
- - E 1 - 3 -
1 4 18 14 28 INN - 9 6 - - M
- - - 4 - 2
2 - - N
6 - -6 4 4 - -1 - 6 5 -
1 9 6
23 -
6 3 m 2 - 6 -
- - - -4 3 1 1 28
- -
- 2 - 5 1 1 8 4 5 2 5 -
5 4 - - - - 1 4 26 -8 22 - 1 -
5 - -16 18 ee
7 17 8
9 - - - - 17
-9 -5 7 - 1 -
6 -23 I
- 6 9 8
- 8 7 - 1 - 1 -
1
6 -3 - 4 2
5 6 -10 - 7 -3 -11 -24 2 6 1 - 1
- 9 ub -
- - -
1
25 21 - - 7
-6 - 1 1 6 1
8 - - - n
- - - -7 - 7 8 - 1 - 23 1 5 0
- - - -
5 - 2 8 4 6
2 6 - 1 -
- 5 -
- 2 i
1 - 1 - 9
- - 0
0 - - -8 -
1 9 8 0 6
- - 7 16 6
8 8 S 18
- 0 7 2 1 7
6 7 1 14 1 21 4 1 - - 2
- -
18 - 6 - - -9 1
- 7 3 4 1
4 -
- - - -
- - 1 14
11
6
9 2 - - 1 - - 7 -
- - - 4 -
6 9
4 11 - 9 1 1 2
1 6 1 9 2 2 7 2 - 8 - 19 3 -
- - -
1 - 5 6 2 -
-19 0 1 - -
2 1 1 18 - - -16 ...
5 7 1 1 4
- - - - 9 2 - 4 - 30 - 1 - 3
2 -17 1 -12 1 1 13 - 1 1
1 -8 2
- 1 9 6
17 3 4 - 2 25 2
6 3
1 - ng
- 15 - 2 0
- 9
-16 -
- - 1 1 - -
16 - 28 - - it
2
-17 - 2 - - 1
3 - -
- - - 1 0 9 2
1 14 4 - 1 6 19 2 27 f
- 2 - 2 -
- 6 8 8 12 2 3 5 1 8 - -
- -20 1 -
E
- - 4 6 3 - 2 2 1 - - - 8 9 0
8 17 2
19 - 1 - 32 - 3
1 1 ------2 2 - 6 o
7 - 18 2 -
27
- -
21
1 2 0 7 - 5 23 - - 10 -
-
6 0 - 1
8 2 2 - 11
22 - 2 r
- -
- 0 -19 - -
11 1 - - 9 -30
-
4 1 26
- 9 1 - -
1 3 - -
- T 17
2 -
-24 - 8 1
1 4
4 7 21 3 2 2
2 - - 3
6 -25 - - 2 P 2
- - 9
3 - 24 -
-24 5 6 2 5
14
- e
1 5 2 8
- -2 33 - - 15 1 -
- 12 0 -
2
- NG
2
- 26
9
-27 - 8 - -
7 2
- 2 5 - 29
- - 9
6 6 u
9 2
6 -30 - 6 e
22 - 4. THE MINNESOTA/WISCONSIN STATE LINE DEPICTED IS FOR
20 - - - - 1 - - 27 - 9 l - - 2 8
- 1 - - 3 6 1 2 - 7 -
- 5 2 s
3 8 2 -
-
- 4
9 -6 0
6 -
a
C
- 6
6
- -3
6 4 -
6 ea
E
- 2 - - 3
-7
5 9 7 8 4 6 -
1 8 I V
r
- 1 -
2 - 2
1 1 6 - -
- 9 -28 6 23 -
25 - 3 2
8 - 29 - -
- 2
1 c
- -5 -
- - - 12 21
17 4
- 2 9 -
n 33
- 26 1 -3 1 - - 6 3 I
- - 0
19 GAN - - -4 ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
- 3
-
27 1
1 9
0
23 0 32 3
2 -27 -
1 - R
15
3 - 30
30 -
9 2 8 - 2 - I
- F
-
-
- - 8 - 1
- 1 22 17 - 1 4 6 - -
2 - - 1 1 9 E 2 1 - 1 1 3 - - - 1
2 8 - 1 - - - 6 - 1 8
2 2 6 18 2 0 -2 - 2 7
- 2 2 3 - 23 8 - -
11 - 6 - -
- 9 2
2 -
-
- 0 7 9
1
2
-
- 6 6 - - 2 - 1 21 7 -25 - T
- 10
1
1 3 3 0 - - 2 15
-
2 - -
8
2
N 2
1
2
- -
6 2 H
3
-
- 3 2
22
0 - 9 - -23
9 O
-23 -
1 4
I - 2 2 - 28 - 6 - 2
- 24 9
1
- 7 - - - 2 1 29 -
- 7
- DEFINITIVE - 1 4
9 - 19 9
- 25 7
2 8 - - - 2
-
6 8 3 2
-1 5 6 -
6 6
- L 7 - 1
2 S
4 2 7 - 8
2
- 6 - 15 - 2 9 -
- 3 - -
- 2 - 5
2 -
2 - -
- 0 -
- 2
1 C 2 6 4
2 3
5 -
- 1 I
1 23 2
- 6
- 2
1
- 9 2
3 - 8 - - 8 0
1 -21 34
27
6 - 3 3 I
19 - -
- - 4 4 -
- - - -
1 8 17
4
16 - - 3
- 3 1 - 9
- 2 -
3 - 1
0 9
- 7 7 2
5 2
2
26 1 8 3
4 - 2 -
-
6 - - -23 -
2 2 3 9
- TE 4 30 - D
- -
18 0
33
- -
2
2
6 3 2 9
-
8 PS
-
2 1
2 2
2 3 3 1 - - - - -
- - 1 3
1 - 5 - 28 - M -31
8 2 1
3
A -19 3
1 -
2 - -
- 4 2
9 -
7 2 -
6 2
- - 2 34 - -
2 0 9 - 0
-22 4 3 - - 8 24
- 1
7 - 7 T 0 - -
1
2 - 9 2 - 5
- - 1 2 6 T 3 ,
9 -
- 7 - R
1 2 0 - 6
- 23 23 1 4 1 2
24 - -
1 - -
- 1
- - -
6 2 - - 21 8 6 27 5. THE INFORMATION DEPICTED REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF
11 30
- 2 - 2
- 2 1 7 8 -
- I S 7
2 25 - - 9 -29
2 - 23 6 - - - -23 3 S - - - 1 6
- 2 3 8 4 - 7 0
25 4 - 5 - 2
- 6 -
- R
1 5 2
2 22 0
- T
- 2
6 - -
2 -
6 - 6
- 6 - 1 - 1 1
9
3 4 0 - - - -2 2 -30 C
2 8 - 10 T I 1 6
8 2 -
- EE 2 -
- -
- 9 1
3 - - R
2 S 6 -
- O
- 1
0 4 25 -
N
- 2 1 - - - 5 3 2 4 4 9
2 -
2 4 2 8 0 I
31 6 - I - - 8 5 6
- - 2
7 7 2 T
6
- 1
2 - 6 2 Y 9 2
- - -8 -
2 N - - 2
-
3 - 2 3 -
2
9 22 O 22
- S
1
- 1 2 -
9
4 0
- -
3 I
1
5 -
- 6 - T
1 - 2 2
7 NG
9
2 -32
I 25
2 - -
-
- 2 8 2 -
- D
1
- 4 19
1
18 - - 5
7 -
8 E
- 1
1 29 Y 1
26 3 E
27 - - 3 AUTOMATED HYDROGRAPHIC AND TERRIESTRIAL SURVEYS AND
9
5 - - -
6 1 -
-
6 3 5
3 - 4
9 -
2 3
1
12 - 3 -
- 2 -
6
-
- 2 - -
C
-
7 1 3 1
- 6 1 2 F
- - -1 -
1 F 9 S 6
2 -27 -
T
O
6
6 -28 1 9
I O 2 6 -
- - - R
- A
5
-
- 5 9
7 O 8 34
8 1 - 25 - 5
- - - - 3 A
6 - - R
-
-
6
6
0 2 27 - PS
0 - P
20 30
- 3
- 1 S
2 - 8 - 6 18 3
5 - 2 7 ET R - - 7 - - 8 - 6 -
6 R
- D
5 O
- 3
6
8 - -
6 - 3
- - 2 Y -
4 1
6 -
3 2 27 2 -
- 6
- 1
- 3 -
3 - - CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS INDICATING THE GENRAL - -27
- C
1 ON
- 1
1 -
-
1 - 2 9
0
-
- 4 3 7
1 4
6 8 -26
9
1
2
5 6
- -
- - 1 6 4
2 - 4 -
2 - 3 8 -23 - 7 7 8 3
- 1 -1 3
- 8 1 9 - 36
6 -22 - -1
- 2 -
2 0 6
6 0
C ET
- 2 - 1 2
3 - - -
4 2 - - - - - 0 7 1 28 1 - 1 4 1
3 3 - - 2 - 1 1
2 - 2
2 2 3 6 - -
2 1 6 0 6 - -
-
2 3 9 2 -
-
1 3 2 5
- 3
7 2
6 2
22 -
0 M 3 4
1
7
0 2 2 - 2
- -
6
- 9 - 28
3 -
2 - 3 -
- 7 -
2 3
- 2 5
- -
- -3 0 -
6
1
S 5
9 -
-
2
2 - 7
3
- 1
8
-
- 2 1 -19
1
-
1 4 1 2
2 - 6 15 -
5 8 -
1
1 29
-
6 - -
I - - 1 2 ET 5 6 21
-
6 6 2
2 6 6 -
1 CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THE TIME
2
- 5 9 -
-
- 8
- 9 D 2 - - -
4 2 - 6
6 2 6 2 -
-
0 -
24 4
29 -
- 2
1 -
- -27
- 1
6
- - - 1
2 3 3 -
8 -26 3
- - 9
6 26 -14
2 5 - R -25
3 2
- 2 1
1 3
3
-
- 2 7 -
- -
6
-23 -13 2
2 -12
-
6 -
- 8 -23
4 2 -
22
6 - -27
-
-22
-
-8 -
24 1
- - 2 W 8
-
- 2 3
- -25
1 8
5
6 21 - 7
6 - - 0
1
6 - 7
7
20
2 5 - -
- D
- -
1
- 1
- 3
1 - - 6
2
2
5 6
6 / 9
4 6 - -9
1
- 3 -
4 -5 -
2 6 -
-20
6 -
-
6 1 20
-
-
-18
-19 4 -
- - 13 1
- 9
-
- - -
2 7
5 -18 2
-
-11
1 4 3
-17 1
- 6
9 -
- -16 -
-20
6 -6
-21 7
1
-20 -7
2 2
1 5
1 A -
6
1 1 35
-
-19
-13 -36
0
6
-
5
- - -
-
-
1
-18
-18 -13 -
1 1
- 1
-14
-6
7
-
-5 3 -7
0
-17
2 6 - -12 1
6
-
4 -
- 1 1
1
-
5
9
- 7 1 -12 1 6
0 1
A -14
- 1
-
- - 8
-10
- 10
2 6 -12 - 3 -
-
-
8
7 - -
1
-
5 1 -8
9 1
5 -
8
- 8
9 -
6 0 1
- 1 -
4 -
- - 9 -9 9 2 5
- 7 1
8 - -
- -11 0
2 7 1 -2 3
10 - 6
-
7 - - 1 -2 24 37 -8 5 - 2
6 -
-8 - 6 -9
5 - -
8 .
- -11 2
T -
- - 6 2
7 -
7
9 -8 - 1
- 6 9
- 6 0
4 1 -6
- - -14 -
1 -9 - 5 1
2 1 - - -
- 1 1 - - 26 -
- - 5 7
29 - 2 - 5
1 6
1 - 5
6 4
- 8 - 1 -
9 8 2 3 7 -
1 7
- -
- - -
-6 6 4 9
- - O 2 6 6
2 - 8 - 1 - -
6 9 6 5 - -
6 S
6 7 - -36 3
- 8 - 1 - 2
3
- - 4 0 11 7 - 5
1 -91 - 6. THE INFORMATION DEPICTED IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 6 - -
- - 3
1 - - 2 3 -5 2 4 8 S -2 . - 5
- 8 -
6 4 -12 26
1 4 7 8 24 - 9 1 -14 -13
6 - 2
- 2 - 6 - - - -
- 5 1 7 2 4 - - 6 3
- 0 - 3 9 - - - 1 - 2 - -16 7- 14 - 1 7 -18 2 -
1 - - 5 1
6 6 - 3 - -19 -
6 - 8 6 1 28 -31 - -20 34
-25 - 1 6 - - - E -
5 -
2 2 6 1
6 27
2 9
4 - - 2 -
3 -
6 2 2
- 6 - - -
- 1 7 - - - 5 0 9 7 1 -3 U 6 6 - - - - 6 8
- 1 -
2 - 1 - 7 6
3 - 9 7
- - 3 6 5 2 0 - - 2 1 - 0 3 SURVEYS IN 2014 AND 2015.
1 8
6 - - - -5 - 1 6 8 9 2 - 8 - 2 - 2 - 9 NN 0 -24 - 4 -27 - 6 - -21 3 22 - 2 5 -22 - I 7 - 6 -
7 -29
- - 6 -10
6 - - 8 - 9 5 -11
6 -
6 -
- 9 -12 8 - 8 2 - 2 - - -13 - - 2 0 M 27 14
6 - -3
- 6 10 15 0 - 23 - - - 6
2 -6 1
4 - 7 5 6 2 -29
7 1 2 -
------1 8 - - -30 5 1 4 18
- 1 6 5 - 9
1 6 -
5 - 1 9 -
- 0 6 24
- -7 2 -23 - -28
7 - -
6 6 - - - -9 21 - 9 -8 - 2
6 - 2
1 6 - 6 -13
0 -
- - -12
- 1 - 3
2 8 5 14 6
5 - 2 - -17 2 - -1 3 -- - 19 7 1 - 0 - 6 8 -21 2 - 14 8 - 1 - 7 1 0 - -22 6 - 1 15
1 -5 - -
2 - 7
7 -19 -2 -28
6 - 5 -6 - - - 8 -26 2 - -9 24 3 - 1 1 - 2 3 6 6 5 3 -1
1 - - - -1 3
9 2
- 5 0 - - - 5 2 8 7 7 -
- - -
- 6 -
9 - 1
- 2
8 6 14 -
2 6 2 7
- - - 8 2 - - 1 7- - 1 1
2 1 6 - - 9 - -
4 - -21 -22 6 5 8 -27 -8 - - -15 7 -11 -25 -26 20 - 8 -10 1
7 - 24
10 - - - - 2 -19 1 -1 - 3 - 8 6 9 5 2 2 1 ON 8 - - 8 - - - 13 9 -7 - 25 - -1--14 - -20 9 71 6 1 -26 - 6 - 6 - 7 2 6 2
3 I 7 7 - 0 - -2 - 1 - - 6 -8 13 - -9 - -26 -2 -8 - 5 8 - 1 9 8 2 2 2 - - 4 - 12 -22 10 1 - 14 22 -1 - 6 1 - - 1 6 - - - -16 - 9 -15 17 1 -2 1 - 2 0 5 - - - - - 7 - - 1 1 8 7
1 T
25 9 4 2 - -18
-2 - -19
8 1 - 6 2 -17 8 -2 4 6 - -13 2 18 0 -20 1 -23 - - -12 -9 - -2 - 6 7 2 -13
1 -8 -14 -11 7 -27
- - 23 -7 6 - - 5 -18 -16 2 2 20 8 - A 4 2 - - 1 -17 -2 -15 0 6 1 - 5 -1 1 2 - 9 -21 -22 - - 1 - -12 9 - -23 19 7 - -24 - -8 - -1 -14 1 8 25 8 3 7 - 6 - - -17-16 -9 -2 6 2 R -23 -1 -1 - -21 1 6 -13 27 - 2 -7 4 R 8 -22 -1 - 6 20 - - 0 -
2 - - 8 1 -16
4 15 5 - -9 - - 17 20 - - -1 -10 6 9 9 - 18 -27 -25 - 22 -7 -21 - -26 - -25 -28 29 - - -8 -2 -26 1 - 12 -6 4 8 14 -11 23 -1-1 15 - -27 - 7 6 -13 9 - 2 -
-28 3 O -19 - 3 - - 7 -1 21 9 O -2 -11 -29 4 -8 0 - -2 22 2 - -1 5-26 20 4 2 -15 -10 -1 6 7 - 1 -2 28 - 5 -26 - 17 2 - -22 - 8 - -18 -21 -2 2 -19 7 -24 -23 T
-29 A RB S Y T E T O HA R S
AN E R M L OUN P O
I C NN TE
I R S NG S I E M I Y S , , P S H U HA OU O T S P L - C U . . H E L T A T S E U DU L
PLACEMENT AREAS NU E SCALE: 1"=500' DU AV
T S 21
SHEET IDENTIFICATION Figure 4. Engineering concept design plan for the 21st Avenue West Aquatic Habitat Restoration Project GI102 SHEET 04 OF 14 Attachment A. Background on St. Louis River Area of Concern Designation
The St. Louis River Area of Concern (SLRAOC) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is a comprehensive plan for delisting the SLRAOC through a series of action steps that address the Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) designated for the harbor. The RAP (MPCA and WDNR 2013) collectively describes projects that are implemented by a consortium of partners listed below.
Minnesota Pollution Control Harbor Technical Advisory West Wisconsin Land Trust Agency Committee Wisconsin Department of Port Authority University of Wisconsin- Natural Resources Superior (UWS) Minnesota Department of Duluth-Superior University of Wisconsin- Natural Resources Metropolitan Interstate Superior Extension Council Fond du Lac Band of Lake City of Duluth, MN Wisconsin Sea Grant Superior Chippewa St. Louis River Alliance City of Superior, WI Audubon Minnesota U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Western Lake Superior Marine Tech Detroit District (USACE) Sanitary District U.S. EPA Mid-Continent Ecology Minnesota Land Trust Barr Engineering Division (U.S. EPA MED) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minnesota Department of LimnoTech Health National Oceanic and Douglas County Health Short, Elliot, Hendrickson Atmospheric Administration Department University of Minnesota Natural U.S. Department of AMI Consultants Resources Research Institute Agriculture (NRRI) Lake Superior National Estuarine Wisconsin Sea Grant Research Reserve University of Minnesota–Duluth Douglas County, WI (UMD)
The RAP details the actions necessary to remove each of the BUIs identified for the SLRAOC. The SLRAOC partners and stakeholders worked together in a concerted effort to complete the RAP (2013) aimed at removing BUIs and delisting the AOC by 2025.
The SLRAOC is located on the western arm of Lake Superior and including the twin port cities of Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, was listed as one of 43 Great Lakes AOCs in 1987. Historical actions such as improper municipal and industrial waste disposal and unchecked land use practices, including dredging and filling of aquatic habitat and damaging logging practices, contributed to the complex set of issues facing the SLRAOC at
page 4 the time it was listed. The Stage I Remedial Action Plan (RAP; MPCA and WDNR, 1992) determined that nine of 14 possible BUIs existed in the AOC including:
· BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories · BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations · BUI 3: Fish Tumors and Other Deformities · BUI 4: Degradation of Benthos · BUI 5: Restrictions on Dredging · BUI 6: Excessive Loading of Sediment and Nutrients · BUI 7: Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions · BUI 8: Degradation of Aesthetics · BUI 9: Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
In addition to its long list of BUIs, the SLRAOC is spatially large and geographically complex, spanning the Minnesota and Wisconsin state line and including tribal interests. The SLRAOC boundary includes the lower 39 miles of the St. Louis River, from upstream of Cloquet, Minnesota, to its mouth at the Duluth/Superior Harbor and Lake Superior, and the Nemadji River watershed (Figure 1). However, most of the actions included in the RAP focus on the St. Louis River below Fond du Lac Dam, Crawford Creek, and the Nemadji River watershed, as they represent those portions of the SLRAOC most impacted by historical actions.
Figure 1: St. Louis River AOC Boundary
Since the Stage I RAP was written in 1992, significant work has been done to restore the AOC with well over $420 million invested since 1978 on infrastructure upgrades, remediation, and habitat restoration and protection in the AOC. Improved municipal wastewater treatment and significant progress on
page 5 control of wet weather overflows have contributed to water quality improvement, and returning fish and wildlife populations. Some contaminated sites have been remediated and/or restored, including Hog Island/Newton Creek in Wisconsin and the St. Louis River Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund site in Minnesota. In addition, numerous habitat protection and restoration projects have been completed across the SLRAOC.
The St. Louis River AOC Stage I RAP (SLRCAC, 1992) was developed as a collaborative effort between the MPCA and the WDNR. At that time, these agencies supported an extensive public participation process that resulted in the development of the Stage 1 RAP and the Stage 2 RAP Progress Report (MPCA and WDNR, 1995). Many efforts in association with the RAP have taken place since this time including the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan (2002) which was used extensively to identify the critical habitat restoration projects necessary to remove BUIs.
The primary focus of the majority of “on the ground” management actions represented in the RAP is remediation of contaminated sediments and habitat restoration. Sediment contamination in the SLRAOC contributes directly or indirectly to eight of the nine BUIs (BUI 6: Excess Loading of Sediment and Nutrients is the exception); cleanup of contaminated sediments is an obvious focus of SLRAOC restoration efforts, not only from an ecological standpoint but also from the standpoint of stakeholder concern. On the habitat front, recent estimates confirm that approximately 3,400 acres of aquatic habitat has been lost over time in the St. Louis River (Hollenhorst et al., 2013). A goal for SLRAOC delisting is restoration of 50% of this lost habitat (1,700 acres).
Sites identified for remediation of contaminated sediments in the SLRAOC RAP are shown in Figure 2. Planned habitat restoration projects are shown in Figure 3, and include both aquatic habitat restoration
page 6 sites and additional projects in important hydrologically connected habitats. Figure 2: Remediation Sites in the SLRAOC
Figure 3: Habitat Restoration Projects Planned in the SLRAOC
The RAP has a total of 60 action items to be completed in an effort to remove BUIs related to the SLRAOC legacy issues. Most of these actions are underway in one form or another and each action has a timeframe for completion in keeping with the goal to delist the SLRAOC by 2025. Of the action items, Knowlton Creek Stream Restoration is one of 20 action items listed under BUI 9: Loss of Fish and wildlife habitat. This project will reduce runoff and sediment transport within the watershed and restore habitat conditions for a cold water fishery. Although it supports removal of BUI 9, it is also beneficial to the targets related to BUI 6: Excessive Loading of Sediment and Nutrients. All the SLRAOC actions have been identified to remediate environmental impacts related to legacy related pollutants and habitat impacts and provide for a more restored estuary in relation to the health and sustainability of the aquatic habitat.
page 7 Attachment B. Parcel Map and Phase I archeological survery report or the 21st Avenue West restoration project site
page 8 Attachment B (continued).
PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF 21ST AVENUE, DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PREPARED FOR: DETROIT DISTRICT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 MICHIGAN AVENUE DETROIT, MI 48226
PREPARED BY: SCOTT SEIBEL, MSC PETER REGAN, MA RALPH KOZIARSKI, PHD J.B. PELLETIER, MA BRIDGET JOHNSON, MA BRAD KRUEGER, MA DOUGLASS INGLIS, MA VERONICA MORRISS, MA JAMES PRUITT, MA
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: VARNA BOYD, MA
AECOM 12420 MILESTONE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 150 GERMANTOWN, MD 20876
JULY 2015
page 9 ABSTRACT AECOM, under the Baird/URS Joint Venture, conducted a Phase I terrestrial and underwater remote sensing archaeological survey of the 21st Avenue survey area in St. Louis County, Minnesota. This work was conducted under contract to the Detroit District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in support of the Remedial Action Plan for the St. Louis River Area of Concern, which is being led by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Specifically, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is an approximately 328.06-acre area within contained within T49N, R14W, Section 4, and T50N, R14W, Section 33 in Archaeological Region 9n. It consists of a terrestrial area approximately 56.1 acres in size and an underwater area approximately 282 acres in size.
The Principal Investigator for the project was Varna Boyd, MA. Ralph Koziarski, PhD, served as the terrestrial survey Field Director, J.B. Pelletier, MA, served as the underwater remote sensing survey Field Director, and Scott Seibel, MSc, served as the Task Manager. Underwater remote sensing investigations were conducted from May 14 through May 16 and on May 22, 2015, and the terrestrial investigations were conducted from June 1 through June 2, 2015. AECOM was able to access approximately 52.86 acres of the terrestrial survey area for approximately 96 percent coverage. The remote sensing survey was able to collect data for approximately 262 acres of the underwater survey area for approximately 92.9 percent coverage.
A total of 55 target clusters were identified in the underwater survey area, the majority of which consisted of isolated debris and timber scatters. Other objects encountered include old piers and docks, channel and range markers, and tanks and outfalls associated with adjacent industrial complexes. One target identified was directly associated with the Northern Pacific Railroad Lumber Wharf, which has been recommended as being eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Ward and McCarthy 1996). None of the other identified targets represent significant cultural resources. It is recommended that construction activities related to the project avoid the Northern Pacific Railroad Lumber Wharf. Apart from avoidance of this resource, no further work relating to the identification of submerged cultural resources is recommended for the 21st Avenue underwater survey area. However, if the APE is revised or expanded beyond its current boundaries, additional archaeological survey may be necessary as determined in consultation with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office.
page 10
Attachment C: Natural Heritage Review
page 12 page 13 page 14
Attachment D. REFERENCES
Angradi, Ted R., David W. Bolgrien, Jonathon J. Launspach, Brent J. Bellinger, Matthew A. Starry, Joel C. Hoffman, Anett S. Trebitz, Mike E. Sierszen, and Tom P. Hollenhorst, in review. Mapping ecosystem services of a Great Lakes estuary can support local decision-making. Journal of Great Lakes Research.
Angradi, Ted R., M. Pearson, David W. Bolgrien, Brent J. Bellinger, Matthew A. Starry, and Carol Reschke, 2013. Predicting submerged aquatic vegetation cover and occurrence in a Lake Superior estuary. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 39:536-546.
BARR, Engineering, Inc. 2013. Dredge Material Assessment. USEPA grant GL00E01190, MPCA contract PO 300000-7801
Breneman, Dan, Carl Richards, and Steve Lozano. 2000. Environmental influences on benthic community structure in a Great Lakes embayment. J. Great Lakes Res. 26(3):287-304.
Crane, J.L., C. Richards, D. Breneman, S. Lozano, and J.A. Schuldt. 2005. Evaluating methods for assessing sediment quality in a Great Lakes embayment. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 8(3):1-27. Crane, Judy L. and Steve Hennes. 2007. Guidance for the Use and Application of Sediment Quality Targets for the Protection of Sediment-Dwelling Organisms in Minnesota.
GEI Consultants, 2014.
Hayder, E., R. Chapman, P. Luong, L. Lin, and G. Mausolf. 2015. Sediment transport modeling for the St. Louis river estuary 21st Ave west shoals and islands designs. US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Host, G. P. Meysembourg, C.Reschke, V. Brady, G. Niemi, A. Bracey, and L. Johnson. 2013. An Ecological Design for the 21st Avenue West Remediation-to-Restoration Project. USFWS Cooperative Agreement F11AC00517. NRRI/TR-2013/24.
International Joint Commission. 1989. Revised Clean Water Act of 1977. International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada. 84 p.
Johnson, N. 2012. St. Louis River RAP Bioavailability, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE District, Detroit, MI, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. Project 369813-IRAP.
LimnoTech, Inc. 2013. St. Louis River Area of Concern Sediment Characterization, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Technical Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant GLOOE1054.
page 15 Limno Tech, Inc. 2014. 21st Ave Restoration Recommendation. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Technical Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Grant GLOOE1054.
LSNERR 2011. Unpublished data from the Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, University of Wisconsin—Superior.
MPCA and MNDNR 2015. St. Louis River Area of Concern Data Quality Assurance Plan for Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA and MNDNR 2015b. Managing In-Water Placement of Dredge Material for habitat Restoration Sites, of St. Louis River Area of Concern Quality Assurance Program Plan for Minnesota Based Projects. In: St. Louis River Area of Concern Data Quality Assurance Plan for Minnesota.Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA and MNDNR 2015c. A Biological, Chemical, and Physical Approach to Aquatic Habitat Restoration Decisions in the St. Louis River Area of Concern: Defining Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Targets by Evaluating Site Conditions. In: St. Louis River Area of Concern Data Quality Assurance Plan for Minnesota.Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA and WDNR, 1992. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan, Stage One. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. April 1992.
MPCA and WDNR, 1995. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan, Progress Report. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. April 1995.
MPCA and WDNR 2013. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency & Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2013. St. Louis River Area of Concern Implementation Framework: Road to Delisting. Remedial Action Plan Update. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view- document.html?gid=19677
Niemi, G. 1979.
Resh, V.H. and D. Rosenberg. 1984. The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Pubs. New York.
Rosenberg, D., and V.H. Resh. 1993 Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. New York.
Sanchez, Jose A. and Steven C. Wilhelms. 1999. Hydrodynamic Numerical Model of St. Louis Bay in Duluth, Minnesota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
page 16
SLRCAC. 2002. Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan. St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee.
USEPA/USACE. 1998a. Evaluation of material proposed for discharge to waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual). EPA/823/B-98/004. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA/USACE. 1998b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regions 2, 3, and 5, Great Lakes National Program Office, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Great Lakes & Ohio River Division. 1998. Great Lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual –final draft. Version September 30, 1998. 1998a.
USGS. 2015. Duluth Superior Harbor 21st Avenue West Pilot Project ‐ 2014 Turbidity Monitoring U.S. Geological Survey Minnesota Water Science Center (USGS) for the Duluth Superior Harbor , 21st Avenue West Pilot project executed by the USACE Detroit District.
page 17