FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN (PHASE III)
Prepared by
U. S. Army Engineer District Detroit, Michigan
March 1974 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN PHASE III SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public, relative to the proposed dredging project on the connect ing channel waterway of the St. Marys River.
2. The River and Harbor Act of 1956 (P.L. 434, 84th Congress) pro vided for a safe vessel draft of 25.5 feet for both upbound and downbound traffic with a least channel width of 300 feet. Authority for inclusion of design and construction of the bend widening projects for the St. Marys River into the existing Great Lakes Channels Authorization was granted by the Chief of Engineers on 12 December 1967, subject: Great Lakes Connecting Channels, Widening and Deepening Bends in the St. Marys and St. Clair Rivers.
3. The continued well-being of tire St. Marys River is a matter of great concern to a wide scope of interests, whether they be commer cial, conservational, or recreational. The needs of waterborne commerce in terms of the project were carefully and objectively weighed against the potential impacts on the environment as well as the valid objections of concerned individuals and organizations. All phases of the project have been and continue to be coordinated with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies having perti nent responsibilities.
4. In evaluating the desirability of the proposed project the follow ing points were considered relevant:
a. Environmental and Social Considerations.
The need for this project has been justified on the basis of safe navigation. Widening the channel bend at the intersection of angle courses 1 and 2 would provide for easier and safer passage of the larger vessels now in service on the Great Lakes as well as for all conuaereial lake carriers. Since vessel speeds are limited in restricted areas of the St. Marys River, high crosswinds can result in grounding of these large vessels; a grounded 1,000-foot long snip at one of these bends would interfere with channel navigation and create a safety hazard to other ships and their crews as weil. 'this bend widening project should, therefore, reduce the hazards of ground ings for ue.ep urnct ve.^ouis, Cue asoocratoe ooeentaul tor >,eCwt
I it,* huutJwl Ov .4 a i." L- 'P C U i n L iU U itw b L e" ■ a ground Lugs. Measures incorporated into the project plan to reduce the adverse impacts are: elimination of the use of hydraulic dredging and the use of water-tight scows for haulirg dredged materials in order to mitigate water turbidity; exterior diking of graded stone for containment of the excavated materials; special construction procedures to minimize erosion and run-off during placement of dredgings. Over the long term period it is improbable whether there would be a significant effect on the biological balance of the river because of the relatively minor scope of the work.
The Riverside Drive Park disposal plan evolved from the Corps of Engineers' desire to utilize the dredged material in some manner having potential public use value. This area once re established and re-developed would provide approximately 2,500 feet of shoreline recreational opportunities. Overall, the park expan sion plan is considered to be one which would provide sorely needed leisure facilities for tourists and the local population as well.
b. Economic Costs and Engineering Feasibility.
I have also examined the engineering and cost factors bearing on the proposed project. Alternative methods of dredging were considered but were found to be either impractical due to technological difficulties or to be unsuitable because of undesirable environmental effects, e.g., increased sedimentation and turbidity. Alternative disposal sites were removed from further appraisal be cause of increased engineering demands and thus increased costs. These considerations are described in the environmental statement. Although the proposed plan is not the most economical solution possible - that being open lake or deep water disposal - it combines practical engineering with environmental and social concepts I feel to be of over-riding value.
5. Accordingly, it is my decision to recommend that the Phase III contract for enlarging the bend at angle courses 1 and 2 of the St. Marys River be awarded as proposed and that the construction work initiated in 1972 under the existing Great Lakes and Connecting Channels Authorization continue as directed by the Contracting Officer.
JAMES E. HAYS / Colonel, Corps of 'tngineers District Engineer
1 concur in the preceding St^tc:..--ut o i ‘•'ini Lugs.
W. 0. BACIiUS Brigadier General, USA Division Engineer I concur in the preceding Statement of Findings.
FOR THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:
(Date) J'. W. MORRIS /^lajor General, USA Director of Civil Works TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN (PHASE III)
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2
Section Title Page
Summary i
1. Project Description 1
2. Environmental Setting Without the Project 6
3. The Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 13
a. Identified Environmental Impacts 13
b. Beneficial and Adverse Effects 14
c. Mitigation, Remedial, and Protective Measures 16
4. Any Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot 19 be Avoided Should the Proposal be Implemented
5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action 20
6. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses 23 of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 25 Resources Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented
8. Coordination with Others 25
a. Public Participation 25
b. Government Agencies 26
c. Citizen Groups 29 Section Title Page
9. Plan and Location Drawings
Plate #1 Plate #2 Plate #3
10. APPENDICES
Appendix A, Progress Report, Monitoring A - l Program of Dredging Impacts (Phase I Contract)
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Agency, B -l Evaluation of Sediment Quality, St. Marys River, 1972
Appendix C, Correspondence of Coordinating C -l Agencies During Project Planning
Appendix D, Correspondence Received in D -l Response to the Draft Environment Statement, Supplement No. 2 SUMMARY
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN (PHASE III)
( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT, MICHIGAN
1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) ADMINISTRATIVE ( ) LEGISLATIVE
2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION : The Corps of Engineers has project plans for widening five of the six channel bends in the St. Marys River. Chippewa County, Michigan. This work is being accomplished under existing Great Lakes Connecting Channels Authorization. This supple mental environmental statement will discuss the Phase III contract which would involve dredging the defined angle course 1-2 to equal the adjacent 28.5-foot project depths of the channel. The proposed plan also entails the deposition of all material removed from the bend areas into a confined disposal site which will occupy a nearby parcel of shore- land park owned by the City of Sault Ste. Marie together with adjoining river shoal areas.
Work on Phase I of this project, involving three of the five bend areas, was initiated in June 1972 and has been completed. Construction for the Phase II segment is scheduled to start in May 1974 for completion in June 1975. The schedule for implementing Phase III construction has been advanced to August 1974 (contract award) with overall completion including landscaping planned for June 1976. A landscaping program for the disposal site would be accomplished during the following season.
3. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This project is designed to pro vide safer navigation for the larger vessels that are and will be using the St. Marys River Waterway. It is thus expected to stimulate utilization of the channel by larger ships, which could affect the benthic, aquatic, and alluvial life in areas adjacent to the channel. Use of channel by larger-sized vessels, with their potential to cause greater wave wash, could contribute to shore erosion problems.
Some 332, 000 cubic yards of unpolluted soils material would be dredged from approximately 12 acres of river channel and deposited on a 30-acre confined disposal site.
A mainland park area of marginal quality would be enlarged by filling adjacent river shoal areas and raising the existing land elevations. Subsequently, this area would be restored and redeveloped into a com plete community recreational park.
(b) ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Dredging and dis posal operations would cause temporary water quality degradation through increased turbidity, sedimentation, and probable nutrient releases. Temporary disruption of recreational boating and fishing could be expected in areas adjacent to the project work. The disposal site would cover approximately 11 acres of river bottom, eliminating the aquatic life therein, and 19 acres of camping grounds, suspending the use of most of the existing facility during project work and destroy ing the flora and fauna now present. Dredging would remove approxi mately 12 acres of existing river bottom, eliminating the aquatic life therein.
4. ALTERNATIVES:
(a) Not to proceed with channel modifications.
(b) The use of tugboats to assist the larger vessels.
(c) Restrict the larger ships from using the St. Marys River Channels.
(d) Alternative methods for disposal of dredged material.
(1) Deep water disposal.
(2) Upland disposal.
(3) Shoal area disposal.
(4) Use of disposal islands.
(5) Bank erosion control. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED
U.S. Department of Commerce Canadian Dept, of Public Works U .S. Department of Transportation for Northern Ontario U.S. Department of the Interior Michigan Department of Natural U.S. Department of Agriculture Resources Federal Power Commission The Conference on Michigan U.S. Environmental Protection Agcy. Archaeology.
6. Draft Statement (Phase I) to Council on Environmental Quality on 11 June 1971.
Final Statement (Phase I) to Council on Environmental Quality on 3 January 1972.
Supplemental Draft Statement (Phase I & II) filed with Council on Environmental Quality on 16 January 1973.
Final Environmental Statement Supplement No. 1 (Phases I & II) filed with Council on Environmental Quality on 5 September 1973.
Draft Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 2 (Phase III) forwarded to Council on Environmental Quality on 14 December 1973.
Final Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 2 (Phase III) forwarded to Council on Environmental Quality on 2 MAY 1974 GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN (PHASE III)
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A . Scope. The needs for widening the channel bends in the St. Marys River, to accommodate the larger vessels scheduled to navigate the Great Lakes, were recognized in 1968 through an exchange of cor respondence initiated by the Lake C arriers' Association, a trade association of Great Lakes commercial vessel operators. It was determined that there was a definite need to widen the six bend areas in the St. Marys River shown on the drawing, Plate #1. The need for this project was justified on the basis of providing safer navigation in the channels. No economic benefits are claimed. Easing of these critical bends is to be accomplished under the existing Great Lakes Connecting Channels Authorization.
B. Authority. Channel work in the St. Marys River has been authorized by a long series of River and Harbor Acts extending back to 1870. The latest modification by the River and Harbor Act of 2 1 March 1956 (Public Law 434, 84th Congress, 1st Session) provided for a safe vessel draft of 25. 5 feet for both upbound and downbound traffic with a least channel.width of 300 feet. Authority for inclusion of design and construction of the bend widening projects for the St. Marys River into the existing Great Lakes Connecting Channels Authorization was granted by the Chief of Engineers on 12 December 1967, subject: Great Lakes Connecting Channels, Widening and Deepening Bends in the St. Marys and St. Clair Rivers.
Based on this authorization, funds were subsequently appropriated in the FY 71 budget for the recommended construction. No conditions of local cooperation were prescribed by the legislation authorizing the project.
C. The Plan. The overall bend widening program is to be com pleted in three phases; the initial phase (Phase I) included widening bends at the intersections of courses 5 and 6, 7 and 8, and 8 and 9. All three of these bend areas are in the Middle Neebish Channel, which lies easterly of Neebish Island. The Final Environmental Statement for Phase I was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on 3 January 1972 and work was initiated in June 1972. The Phase II contract consists of the angle course 6 -7 bend area which is located in the Middle Neebish Channel, off the northeast shore of Neebish Island. The Final Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 1, for this sector of the bend widening project was filed with Council on Environmental Quality on 5 September 1973. This environmental statement, supple ment number 2, discusses the Phase III portion of the bend widening project. Note Plate #1 for work locations.
Phase III calls for the deepening of the Mission Point bend at angle courses 1-2. This is the first major navigational turn downstream of the Sault Locks. This bend area is triangular in shape with a maximum width of approximately 250 feet, 4,000 feet long and occupies about 11 acres of water area. Dredging to a 28.5-foot project depth from the existing depth with an allowable one foot overdepth would require the removal of approximately 332, 000 cubic yards of bottom materials, consisting of silty sand, clays, gravel and boulders. Excavation of those materials would be accomplished by the use of a dipper dredge with the dredged material hauled by barge to the disposal site.
Although the bottom sediments in this area of the St. Marys River are not polluted, the proposed plan for disposal of material removed from the angle course 1-2 bend area entails deposition and confinement of the dredging spoil on a nearby shore location in the vicinity of Mission Point. This area, officially described as Riverside Drive Park, is owned by the City of Sault Ste. Marie and is used currently as a trailer park and camping ground for tourists. This area combined with some adjacent river bottom lands would accommodate the total amount of dredged material. The plan provides for raising the level of the existing park area 11 feet or more above Low Water Datum ( L .W .D .) to a m axi mum height of approximately three feet above the level of Riverside Drive along the southerly border of the disposal site. Upon completion of the land fill, the area would be topsoiled, seeded and would be land scaped with native trees and shrubs by the Corps. A stone dike, 3, 500 feet in length and raised to 11 feet above Low Water Datum, would inclose the fill area along the river side. Supplemental construction items to be accomplished at Federal expense include extension of drain age facilities and restoration of the existing trailer sites and roadways. Additional campsites and other, recreational facilities would be developed by the city. In addition, the Economic Development District for the Upper Peninsula has devised a plan for complete community use of the new parkway, providing accommodations for playgrounds, fishermen, boat-watchers, picknickers, visiting campers, and boatmen. Plate #3 presents a schematic drawing of this proposed development.
Total area occupied by the proposed fill site is 30 acres, of which 11 acres are shallow river flats.
Overall costs for the bend widening and deepening program in the St. Marys River are estimated to be approximately $11.0 million. The contract for the Phase III work on angle course bends 1-2 is estimated at approximately $4. 0 million overall with dredging and disposal work costing $4.06 million and the renovation and beautification of the Riverside Drive Park amounting to $170, 000. All these costs would be borne by the Federal government. Onshore property would be furnished by the City of Sault Ste. Marie and use of the river shoal area approved by the State of Michigan. Existing park property was developed originally with the aid of a Federal grant of $28, 000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Work on the Phase III segment is scheduled to begin in September 1974 with the completion of dredging and filling operations set for November 1975. The landscaping program for the disposal site would be accomplished by July 1976. GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN
TABLE 1
SCHEDULE AS OF MARCH 1974
Estimate Project Dredging Anticipated Construction Phase Depth (1) Volume Dredging Contract Work Number Location (feet) (cu. yds. Method Aw a rd Completion
1 M. N. C . (2) 28. 0 95,500 Blasting May 72 Nov. 73 Angle and Course Dipper 8 and 9 Dredge
1 M .N .C . (2) 2 8.0 63,000 Dipper Angle Dredge Course 5 and 6
1 M .N .C . (2) 28. 0 65,000 Dipper Angle Dredge Course 7 and 8
2 M .N .C . (2) 27.0-28..0 310,000 Clam shell Nov. 73 June 75 (3) Angle Or Dipper Course Dredge 6 and 7
3 Angle 28.5 360, 000 Dipper Aug. 74 June 76 (3) Course Dredge 1 and 2
Deleted M .N .C .(2) 2 7 .0 Not Channel 1 imits widened Angle Necessary by adjust!i ng navigation Course 9 and 10. course. (1) Depth given below low water datum. The channels will be deepend to one foot overdepth. (2) Middle Neebish Channel. (3) Represents a schedule change from that presented in Final Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 1 (Phase I and II) dated 5 September 1973. TABLE 2
CONTROLLING DEPTHS, ST. MARYS RIVER
Up or Down Controllii NAME OF CHANNEL Length Bound Width Depth IGLD 1955 Depth Birch Point Course 29,500' + both 2, 000'-4, 000' 30. O' 599. 9-600. 0 30. O' Point Iroquois Anchorage Area 17,000' both 250'-4, 300' 2 9 .0 ' 600. 0 Incomplel Brush Point Course 16,200' both 1,250' 28. O'-30. O' 599. 9 28. O' Point Louise Turn 2,700' both 1,200' 2 8 .0 ' 599. 8 28. O' Point Louise Channel 6, 600' both 1,200' 2 8 .0 ' 599. 8 28. O' C C o M Point Aux Pins Course 12,900' both 1,200' O 599. 7 28. O' H o o m 0 o 1 ot ot OC OC o Vidal Shoals Channel 10,700' both 599.5-599.6 O Locks and Canal (See Map) Bayfield Channel Course 1 1, 500' t C O CO - T H Anchorage and Maneuver Area 7,700' both ) 2 8 .0 ' 577. 7 28. O' Angle Courses 1 and 2 5, 300' both 600'-l, 300' 2 8 .5 ' 577.6-577. 7 28. 5' Little Rapids Courses 2 and 3 20, 400' both 6 0 0 '- 900' 2 7 .0 ' 577.3-577.6 27. O' Lake Nicolet Channel 22,000' both 300'-l, 500' 29. O' 577.2 29. O' Lake Nicolet Anchorage 5, 500' both 1, 000' 2 8 .0 ' 577.2 28. O' C t o C 0 CO M M 1 Middle Neebish Channel* 96,600' up 300'-600'*** - 576.9-577.2 27. O' West Neebish Channel** 85,900' down 300' 27. 5'-28.5' 576.9-577.2 27. 5' H r o o Lower Course 8 25,000' both O 2 8 .0 ' 576. 9 28. O' Point Aux Frenes Turn 5,000' both 1,200' 2 8 .0 ' 576. 9 28. O' Round Island Course 20, 000' both 1,250' 2 8 .0 ' 575.9 2 8 .0 ' Lime Island Channel 38,500' both 1,000'-2, 000' 2 9 .0 ' 576.8 29. O' Pipe Island Course 17, 500' down 860'-l, 430' 2 9 .0 ' 576.8 2 9 .0 ' Watson Reefs Course 6,450' down - 3 0 .0 ' 576. 8 30. O' Detour Passage 25,000'+ both - 3 0 .0 ' 576.8 3 0 .0 '
* Middle Neebish Channel includes Courses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. ** West Neebish Channel includes Lower Course 4, Courses 5, 6, 7 and Upper Course 8. —"-'For westerly 600 ft. width of Course 8 and for westerly 300 ft. width of remaining Middle Neebish Chai courses, project depth is 2 7.0 and 28.0 ft. , for easterly part of Middle Neebish Channel, project depth is Controlling Depth Adopted 3 0 .0 ' 1956 Incomplete 1956 [16,200' both 1,250' 28. 0 '-3 0 . O' 599. 9 28. O' 1956 I 2, 700' both 1,200' 2 8 .0 ' 599. 8 28. O' 1956 6, 600' both 1, 200' • 2 8 .0 ' 599. 8 28. O' 1956 12,900' both 1,200' 2 8 .0 ' 599. 7 23. O' 1956 10,700' both 1 ,lOO'-l, 500' 2 8.0' 599. 5-599.6 28. O' 1956
1, 500' ! 7, 700' both 1, 890' 2 8 .0 ' 577. 7 28. O' 1956 5,300' both 600'-l, 300' 2 8 .5 ' 577.6-577. 7 2 8 .5 ' 1956 20, 400' both 6 0 0 '- 900' 2 7 .0 ' 577. 3-577.6 2 7 .0 ' 1956 22,000' both 300'-l, 500' 2 9 .0 ' 577.2 29. O' 1956 5,500' both 1,000' 2 8 .0 ' 577.2 2 8 .0 ' 1956 96,600' up 300'-600'*** 27. 0'-28. O' 576.9-577.2 27. O' 1956 85,900' down 300' 27. 5'-28.5' 576.9-577.2 27. 5' 1956 25,000' both 1,000' 2 8 .0 ' 576. 9 28. O' 1956 5,000' both 1,200' 2 8 .0 ' 576. 9 28. O' 1956 20, 000' both 1,250' 2 8 .0 ' 576.9 2 8 .0 ' 1956 38,500' both 1, 000'-2, 000' 2 9 .0 ' 576.8 29. O' - 17, 500' down 860'-1, 430' 2 9 .0 ' 576. 8 2 9 .0 ' - 6,450' down - 3 0 .0 ' 576.8 30. O' - 25,000'+ both - 3 0 .0 ' 576. 8 30. O' -
udes Courses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. pes Lower Course 4, Courses 5, 6, 7 and Upper Course 8. f Course 8 and for westerly 300 ft. width of remaining Middle Neebish Channel and 28.0 ft. , for easterly part of Middle Neebish Channel, project depth is 21.0 ft. 2 . ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT
A. THE REGION
The St. Marys River flows from Lake Superior into Lake Huron. Depending upon the course followed, it is 65 to 75 miles long, generally flowing southeasterly. Beginning in Whitefish Bay, Lake Superior, it flows easterly about ten miles to the St. Marys Falls at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, where most of the 22-foot drop in water elevation along its route occurs;‘then about three miles downstream the river splits to encompass saddle-shaped Sugar Island, which is about 15 miles long and ten miles wide. The channel to the west of the islands is partly man-made and is periodically dredged to accommodate commer cial navigation. The north channel carries no deep draft vessels and has remained undredged for many years. The river courses on both sides of the island, broadens to form Lake George and Lake Nicolet. Immediately below Lake Nicolet is Neebish Island, about ten miles long and five miles wide, encompassed by Middle and West Neebish Channels, which merge into Lake Munuscong, a broad river enlargement below Neebish Island. Immediately opposite Neebish Island and forming the east shore line of Middle Neebish Channel and Lake Munuscong is St. Joseph Island, a large land body about 20 miles long and 15 m iles wide. From Lake Munuscong the river flows into Lake Huron proper through Detour Passage formed by the mainland and Drummond Island, comparable in size to St. Joseph Island. The water separating these islands is dotted by the Potagannissing Island group. The St. Marys River also enters Lake Huron via the St. Joseph Channel and the North Channel located east of St. Joseph and Drummond Island. The international boundary follows the course of the St. Marys River. Sugar, Neebish, Drummond and the Potagannissing Islands are in United States waters.
A colorful history surrounds the St. Marys River and the "Soo" Locks which form a passage for ships around the falls. From 1623 when the first European, Etienne Brule, paddled a canoe up the St. Marys, this waterway has been used as a transportation route for raw materials; then furs, now iron ore and grain. In 1669 Joliet descended from the Sault down the Lake Huron shoreline, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and into Lake Erie. In 1793 about 4,000 bushels of Indian corn and nearly 200, 000 lbs. of flour went from Detroit to Sault Ste. Marie via the St. Marys River. The first small premonitory canal with a nine-foot lock was constructed in 1797 on the Canadian side. By the 1850's, interlake shipping was a factor in commerce. Steamers, sloops, and schooners brought their cargoes from Detroit up as far ns the barrier of the falls. From the other direction, ships carried iron ore and copper from the newly discovered ranges to the west. The 17. S. Congress granted Michigan a right of way to construct a lock to permit waterborne commerce between Lake Superior and the other Great Lakes. The new lock was placed in operation in 1855 under State ownership. . Commerce through the canal and the St. Marys Waterway grew to national importance and the need for additional facilities exceeded the State's capabilities, and as a result, in 1881, the locks were transferred to the U. S. Government and placed under the jurisdiction of the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Today, the four locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan pass large lake vessels through the St. Marys Falls. They are operated by the Soo Area Office of the Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. Operations generally extend from early April through mid December. As part of the study being conducted by the Corps of Engineers to determine the feasibility of extending the Great Lakes navigation season, the I960 season was extended to 11 January 1970, the 1970 season until 29 January 1971, the 1971 season to 1 February 1972, the 1972 season until 8 Febru ary 1973, and the 1973 season to 7 February 1974.
During 1953, a record of 128 million tons of freight was moved through the St. Marys River waterway. The average for the years 1965 through 1968 was about 94 million tons. With the extended season, tonnage for 1969 and 1970 was about 97 and 100 million tons respectively. In recent years, the number of vessels passing through the locks has averaged about 17, 000 per year. These passages include various sized vessels but are primarily large lake carriers which presently range in size from about 500 to 750 feet long with beams of about 80 feet. During the 1972 shipping season, a 1,000-foot vessel with a 105-foot beam, and a carrier 858 feet in length, began using the Great Lakes Channels. The 1972-73 extended season recorded slightly over 97 million tons of freight. The importance of the locks and the St. Marys Waterway to the nation's economy is indicated by the fact that two-thirds of the iron ore produced in the U .S . and Canada is shipped via this facility.
The limiting size for ships is the Poe Lock, which restricts the width to approximately 105 feet and the length to approximately 1, 000 feet. The Canadian Government also operates a small lock along its river bank opposite the United States locks. The names, lengths, widths and depths of each U .S . lock is as follows:
Length Between Lock Name Gates Width Depth
MacArthur 800' 80' 31' Poe 1200' 110' 32' Davis and Sabin 1350' .80' 23. 1'
The St. Marys River has an average flow of 73, 700 cubic feet/ second. Compensating works are operated to maintain the monthly mean levels of Lake Superior between elevations of 600.5 and 602.0 feet ( I .G .L .D ., 1955). Regulation of lake levels is in accordance with the Orders or Approval of the International Joint Commission issued 26 and 27 May 1914. Operated jointly by the United States and Canada, these compensating works consist of a structure with 16 gates controlled to vary the discharge from Lake Superior so as to maintain the proper lake levels.
The topography of the lands surrounding the St. Marys River is generally low-lying near the river but rising from 100 to 200 feet above the river elevation one to two miles inland. The river is normally shallow near shore, with extensive tracts of marsh in Lakes Munuscong and George. The upper reaches of the river are in general shallower than the lower. Natural depths range from about 20 feet below low water datum at the river head to over 100'feet at the mouth. At depths less than 25 feet, thick beds of rooted vegetation cover most of the bottom, especially in summer. Species of Potamogeton compose most of the rooted plants. In places of gentle or negligible flow, species of Myriophyllum and Isoetes and Eleocharis adieu laris cover the bottom. P. robbinsii is frequently abundant on the bottom of bays. P. stricti- folius and other narrow-leaved species are frequently present and in late summer commonly contribute to floating mats of broken vegetation. These beds of vegetation afford shelter to fish and to various zoobenthos such as snails, oligochaetes, and hydra. Sponges are occasionally found attached to the quillwort (Isoetes). Unionid and sphaeriid clams are common. The shores are commonly bordered by vegetation such as sedges, horsetail, and willows. Beds of these emergent plants provide a habitat for many immature insects. Under stones and other objects crayfish, * sculpins, and leeches (especially Haemopsis) are common inhabitants of shallow water.
Geologically, the area of the St. Marys River is situated principally south of the Pre-Camboian Canadian shield and is in an area of Paleozoic rock. These paleozoic sediments consist of sandstone, shales, limestone, and dolomites. Surficial soils and rocks plus terrain features have been deeply affected by glaciation.
The Sault Ste. Marie region has a maritime climate even though it is located far inland on the northern border of the United States. The city is said to be the "hub" of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron. Water in these Lakes stays cool in summer and does not ordinarily freeze over completely in winter. As a consequence of Sault Ste. Marie's nearness to these three lakes, temperatures are moderated somewhat from the more interior extremes and cloudiness and precipitation are above average. Weather changes are frequent because many pressure systems move eastward through this section of the United States and Canada and precipitation is well distributed throughout the year. Summer temperatures rarely reach 90° (F) while winters are cold and snowy. Seasonal snowfall has ranged from a low of 32" to a recent new high of 172.4" established during the winter of 1971-1972. Sunshine values average low and are especially so in winter when daylight will shrink to less than nine hours late in December. The latest date in spring that freezing temperatures have occurred is June 8 (1949) while the earliest date in the fall that freezing has occurred is August 22 (1950).
The St. Marys River area is relatively lightly populated. The two largest communities, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, population about 15, 000, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, population now over 70, 000 persons, are located at the head of the river. Detour, Michigan, located at the mouth of the river, has a population of about 500 persons. Chippewa County, which borders the St. Marys along its entire length, has a population of 32, 400 persons and a population desnity of 20. 4 persons/square mile. Summer populations rise because of recreational activities. Steel is manufactured in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and large quantities of dolomite are quarried and shipped from Drummond Island at the lower end of the river.
Recreation is a major industry in the area. Recreational uses include summer cottage use, sport fishing, game hunting, wilderness aesthetics, and small boating. The Soo Locks are one of the major tourist attractions in the United States. A daily tourist count for the Soo Locks varies between 8,000 and 12,000 persons with a season count of approximately 750, 000. Local officials decry the lack of city park facilities in the Sault area, the overcrowding during the summer months, and ihe need for expanded facilities which can be obtained only through additional land area. Summer cottage development is extensive on all ihe ma jor islands and along the entire United States shore of the river, except for the extensive marsh areas bordering Lake Munuscong. Many boat liveries are available for sport fishing and small boating. The Michigan State Waterways Commission has established a small boat harbor on the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The State presently owns about 45 percent of Drummond Island and the Potagan- nissing Island group, which are dedicated as the Munuscong State Forest.
The species of game fish inhabiting waters of the St. Marys River include rock bass, smallmouth bass, northern pike, perch, muskel- lunge, smelt, whitefish, walleyes, steelhead, salmon, and forage fish. The latter three species are most abundant during early spring and late fall. Numbers of water birds such as duck and geese, coots and shore birds inhabit these waters during migration periods. The St. Marys River is recognized as providing nesting and rearing habitat for several species of ducks, gulls and other water birds. The bald eagle, an en dangered species, has also been seen occasionally nesting along the St. Marys shoreline. Aquatic mammals include such important furbearers as beaver, mink, weasel, raccoon and muskrat.
The National Register of Historic Places now includes seven properties in Chippewa County: The St. Marys Falls Canal at Sault Ste. Marie, which is also designated as a National Historic Landmark; the John Johnson House, also at Sault Ste. Marie; and Fort Drummond, on the western end of Drummond Island; New Fort Brady, Lake Superior State College, Sault Ste. Marie; Old Ford Brady, Sault Ste. Marie; SS Valley Camp, moored at the old Union Carbide Dock, Sault Ste. Marie; and Naomikong Point Site, Strongs Vicinity. However, there are no known historical or archaeological sites within the proposed channel dredging limits, nor does the proposed project affect any existing or potential National Park Service areas. The Michigan Historical Commission has also confirmed that the proposed project would not affect any properties listed in the State Register of Historical Sites. (Letter of June 17, 1971 in response to Final Environmental Statement, Phase I, included in Appendix C . ) The Conference on Michigan Archaeology thru the Curator of Great Lakes Archaeology advises that the archaeological resources of the disposal area are presently unknown but that the probability for archaeological site occurrence is high along this connective waterway.
The Federal Water Quality Administration (whose functions are now administered by the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency-) reported bottom sample concentrations taken in June 1970 from 470 to 1,300 m g/kg, dry weight, phosphorus in the St. Marys River just below the locks at Sault Ste. Marie to Mission Point and lesser concen trations of 150 to 520 mg/kg, dry weight, further downstream to Lake Huron. The total phosphorus concentration in tlie sediments for hend area 6 -7 , for example, range from a minimum of 150 m g/kg, dry weight, to a maximum of 520 mg/kg, with an average of 360. The amount in general decreases from upstream to downstream. Mercury was not detected in these samples. However, tests during 1970 by a group from Lake Superior State College, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, indicated mercury contamination in fish from the river near the locks and in Lake Nicolet. The concentrations ranged from 0.6 to over 2 .0 m g/kg, dry weight.
Early explorers described the waters of the St. Marys tumbling down from Lake Superior as fresh and sweet. While this description may have suffered some in the intervening years, the water quality of the St. Marys River has been improving because of better treatment by municipal sewage treatment plants on both sides of the river, and a reduction in industrial effluents on the Michigan side. Water concen trations of phosphorus have been found to average about 0.01 mg/l, measuring fairly constant throughout the river course. Nitrogen concentrations throughout most of the river were found to average about 0.50 mg/l, with higher concentrations ranging from about 1.0 to 2 .0 mg/l below industries at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
B. THE PROJECT AREA
Lands involved for disposal purposes are all city-owned and include the Sault Boat Club property, the Mission Road Trailer Park with bathhouse, a two-story house occupied as a private home, and a small tenting-picnic area at the eastern extremity. Along the riverside
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also referred to as the Environmental Protection Agency and/or EPA in this text. 1 he* proposed fill area is bordered mainly by a low, marshy shore with shallow offshore flats. Man-made promontories which extend into the shallow waters are ringed with miscellaneous fill to a large measure, e.g., broken concrete, crushed brick, wharf timbers, gravel, cobbles and boulders. The inland areas are mostly open, grass-covered, with seatiered tree stands of willow, elm and aspen. A dense windbreak of spruce and red pine encircles the residence while a planting of scotch pine borders the road at the downstream tenting-picnic area. A large inlet almost bisects the park area. This marshy area is overgrown with willow and alder scrub and has been partially filled at its landward • i romities.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Fish Division has identified significant fisheries' populations in the off-shore area together with valuable bottom fauna for fishery needs. Northern pike, walleye, and rainbow trout, are commonly found in the waters of the project area. Although the St. Marys waterway provides a large migration path for waterfowl and is an accommodating habitat for a valuable fur animal resource, the proposed project disposal area is urbanized and within city limits while the dredging section is part of a busy commercial waterway thereby inhibiting this area's use to water- fowl and hunters.
In the section of river from the locks downstream approximately one mile to Mission Point, the Environmental Protection Agency has modified the former polluted classification. Samples taken in May 1972 have revealed the polluted sediments to be concentrated on the Canaidan side of the channel only, with the major portion of pollution occurring from industry in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Another reach of sub standard quality exists below Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. This reach receives nutrient from the municipal sewage treatment plant and occasionally displays high coliform levels. Recent water samples collected by EPA in January 1974 indicated high concentrations of mercury in the waters of the project area. Sediment samples were not obtained at the time, but this agency is concerned that the mercury content in the sediments might exceed pollution criteria. Appendix B contains the EPA's 1972 evaluation of sediment quality.
During the navigation season, vessel traffic must anchor in the Bayfield Channel due to heavy traffic or fog while waiting passage through the locks. Such anchored vessels have a tendency to concentrate waste in the river because of pumping bilges, ballast, or discharging sewage while in the river area. Municipal water intake stations for both Sault, Michigan and Sault, Ontario are located above the St. Marys Falls and upstream of the proposed project area.
The bottom fauna varies according to natural characteristics of a body of water, such as depth, temperature, and type of sediment. A biological survey undertaken in 1967 by the Ontario Water Resources Ccmmission in cooperation with the International Joint Commission (IJC) indicated that benthic populations on the Canadian side of the Bayfield reach of the river can be classed as a recovery zone. No impairment of water quality was observed on the American side of the river. A well-balanced fauna with a wide variety of organisms was found in this area, as well as the common occurrence of clean-water organisms. The mayfly genus Hexagenia was found at five of the nine sampling stations, and the genus Ephemera at two stations. Caddisflies, including the genera Trianodes and Caenis. were found at two stations. Sludgeworm and midge larvae populations were represented by a wide variety of species, including several types which are restricted to clean-water habitats. No wood particles or fibre were observed in the sediment at any of these stations, nor was oil or naphthalene odour. An iron determination at a station on the U.S. side showed 0. 16% Fe2 °3 in the sediment. It is evident that industrial wastes from the Canadian side do not impair the benthos along the western channel of Sugar Island.
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
a. Identified Environmental Impacts. Implementation of the proposed action would result in the following environmental impacts:
(1) Increased water turbidity due to the suspension of bottom sediments caused by dredging and disposal operation.
(2) Release and relocation of nutrients now lying in the river bottom sediments due to the disturbance of these materials by the dredging work.
(3) Increased noise and activity associated with the construc tion work would cause additional disturbance to the local area. (4) Displacement of the fish population including some fish kill and disruption of the aquatic food chain due to the stirring of the water in the work areas and the covering of spawning grounds.
(5) Enlargement of mainland area (disposal site) and the subsequent loss of river bottom and water area.
(6) Increased utilization by larger ships because of the easing of the bend courses, and subsequently
(7) Increased shore erosion along the St. Marys River because of the potentially greater wave wash.
(8) Impact of high fill levels would be the removal of most of the trees and vegetation now existing in the area, possible alteration of seenic views.
(9) Temporary loss of some of the present park facilities during filling operations for one to two years. (The trailer court would remain operative.)
(10) Establishment of a park area with increased facilities for recreational enjoyment.
b. Beneficial and Adverse Effects. During a public meeting (9 Nov. 1970), the question was raised of nutrient release during dredging. A definitive answer to this question could not be provided at the meeting. Subsequent inquiries with State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies revealed that there is insufficient information to make a positive judgment on the potential for, or possible effect of, nutrient releases in the St. Marys River. However, since the volume of material involved is sm all, and there are apparently low nutrient concentrations in the material, the total effect of nutrient releases may not be signifi cant. The Environmental Protection Agency's review indicates the project should have no appreciable adverse effect on public water supply or public health. (Letter received in response to Draft Environmental Statement - Phase I - dated 21 May 1971).
A portion of the existing silt and clay bottom sediments will be put into suspension due to the project dredging and disposal operation. It is also possible that dredging would release some amounts of other nutrients, such as organic nitrogen and ammonia, now lying in the river bottom sediments. The nature and potential extent of this release is not known at this time, but the monitoring program being conducted in the Phase I project areas is attempting to determine some of these conse quences.
EPA sediment samples taken in June 1970 gave no indication of mercury when analyzed by procedures with a detectable limit of 0.2 mg/kg. This value is considerably less than the accepted standard dangerous to health. Mercury buildup ranging from 0 .6 to 2.+mg/kg has been found in fish taken from locations immediately downstream of the locks and off Nine Mile Point. Although this content places these fish within the range considered unsafe for continuous human consump tion according to the criteria established by the U. S. Food & Drug Administration, the source of this mercury assimilation has not been discovered.
The normal working season for marine construction in this area of northern Michigan is from 1 May to 15 November. Passing vessels would be required to observe slow speeds and precautionary measures when transiting the work area; otherwise, navigation should not be restricted. The noise and activity associated with the dredging opera tions would cause temporary disturbance to the aesthetic setting of the St. Marys River area. In addition, there would be short-term effects on the fish population and aquatic food chain due to the stirring of the water in the immediate work areas. Spawning runs of popular sport fish such as walleyes, salmon and steelheads occur throughout April and May. Trout spawning occurs in late fall, mostly near the rapids, and should not be affected by dredging operations of the bend widening work. Since blasting is not necessary to accomplish the dredging work in the Phase III segment of the project, fish kill should be negligible in this reach.
Plans for placement of spoil material in this phase of the dredging work involve the extensive use of an existing city-owned campground (19 acres) combined with approximately 11 acres of submerged river bottom lands. Some suspension of sediments would occur around the perimeter area of the disposal site during disposal operations, disrupt ing spawning and feeding grounds of fish and bottom dwelling organisms that exist in the immediate shoreline area. However, it is expected that aquatic growth and fishing in the areas adjacent to the newly formed shoreline would recover within a short period of time. The off-shore placement of the limestone retaining dike should increase the potential feeding grounds for some fish species (e.g. walleye pike) and make the area more accessible to fishermen as well.
Residents in the neighborhood of the Riverside Park disposal area would be subjected to the inconveniences created by a heavy construction project. Increased levels of noise, dust and traffic could be expected during the period of ongoing construction. In addition, the river view presently available to some home sites along Portage Avenue would be altered by the increased elevations of the park site.
Although partial use of the existing camping facilities will be lost during filling operations, the proposed plan for utilizing dredged materials to expand the land area would aid the city in the development of more recreational facilities to relieve the overcrowding that occurs in the region during the summer months.
• Easing of the bends should tend to stimulate utilization of the channel by larger ships. It is anticipated that larger ships traveling at the same rate of speed as the smaller vessels may produce greater wakes and thus cause increased shore erosion along the St. Marys River. However, it is expected that the larger ships would replace the older, smaller ships, increasing the tonnage carried on each trip and decreasing the number of trips. The effect of the offsetting decreases in frequency of trips as opposed to the possible greater wave wash from larger individual ship passages cannot be quantified at this time from available data.
c. Mitigation. Remedial, and Protective Measures. The questions of the magnitude of nutrient release during dredging cannot be answered at this time by any of the State and Federal water resource agencies. Due to the lack of information on this matter, meetings with represent atives of these agencies were held, wherein it was agreed to use at least the Phase I segment of the bend widening project as a pilot test area for monitoring such items as nutrient release, turbidity, fish kill, siltation, and erosion from dredging. The proposed monitoring program consists of four phases: (1) predredging; (2) during blasting; (3) during dredging; and (4) post project testing. The first and fourth phases will include bottom sediment sampling. The second and third phases will include bottom sediment and water quality sampling. Sediment samples will be tested for such factors as benthos populations, percentage of solids, and chemical oxygen demand, among other para meters. Water quality samples will be tested for chemical analyses, suspended and settleable solids, turbidity, and plankton content. Aerial photography will be accomplished during dredging operations to deter mine the extent of the sedimentary plume. This program would not prevent any adverse effects from the dredging work, but it should provide definite information that can be useful in evaluating future dredging practices. At this time, the initial, predredging sampling has been completed by the Great Lakes Fisheries Laboratory and fish kill has been monitored during blasting operations on Angle Course 8-9 by personnel from the U. S. Fisheries Laboratory and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Results of these observations are presented in Appendix A . Continuation of the monitoring program is not contemplated for the Phase III dredging operation.
Contract specifications for the work include several provisions to minimize turbidity due to dredging, transportation and placement of spoil material. Use of hydraulic dredging plant and/or methods would be prohibited also in this phase of the Bend Widening Project. Scows utilized to haul the excavated materials to the disposal site would be washed down before leaving the dredge and must be watertight to prevent drainage of silt, sand, and rock fines back into the river during trans portation. Graded stone would be used to construct the exterior dikes for containment of the materials removed from the Bayfield Channel - Little Rapids bend areas. Additional construction procedures specified in the work contract would mitigate the possibility of eroded and water borne silt being carried into the St. Marys River. Although passageways for the movement of scows would exist in the perimeter dikes, placement of excavated material must be at least 200 feet from these openings. Also, since disposal operations would proceed from the downstream end of the site, any siltation runoff would be trapped in the basin between the disposal point and the scow entryways which would always be located upstream of the disposal operation. This method was employed in the Phase I operations with satisfactory results. These dikes would also serve other purposes, e.g., increase the potential feeding grounds for sport fish, make the area more accessible to onshore fishermen, straighten the unsightly, irregular shoreline, thereby enhancing hydraulic flow conditions of the river, afford shoreline protection from erosion caused by wave and ice action, and overall generate a more attractive environment. Regarding the potential increase in shore erosion from greater wakes created by large ships traveling at the same rate of speed as the sm aller vessels, the Coast Guard has stated that it would be alert to these developments and would consider appropriate speed limits to alleviate this condition as it may develop. The United States Coast Guard asserts that the bend widenings should reduce the hazards of groundings for deep draft vessels, and therefore the potential for water pollution, the frequency of post grounding vessel hull inspections and the number of search and rescue incidents from such groundings.
The Riverside Drive Park disposal plan evolved from the Corps of Engineers' desire to utilize,the dredged material in some manner having potential public use value. The plan, as now proposed, was developed from a concept advocated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and approved by the City of Sault Ste. Marie and the Corps of Engineers. Plans for the Phase III campground disposal site include grading and landscaping. The existing bath house and residence building, together with the trees bordering the home, would he cordoned off from the disposal materials. Disposal work would be conducted so that the trailer court area could remain in use during the periods 1 June to 15 September of each construction season. Other trees, the trailer parks and utilities would be replaced and restored by the Corps. Other landscaping features would create minor undulations in the ground surface for aesthetic appeal and higher ground elevations sloping gradually toward the river from the roadway. In addition, the Economic Development District for the Eastern Upper Peninsula has devised a plan for complete community use of the new parkway, pro viding accommodations for playgrounds, fishermen, boat watchers, picknickers, visiting campers and boaters. The recreation area thus developed would provide approximately 2, 500 feet of shoreline restora tion between the city's sewage treatment plant and the Sugar Island - mainland ferry slip at Mission Point.
Overall, the park expansion plan is considered to be one which would have the least impact on the environment and at the same time provide sorely needed recreational opportunities for the tourist and local populace as well. 4. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED.
Included in the discussion below are the adverse effects which cannot be prevented by means of contractual restrictions, control measures or design methods should the proposal be implemented.
Enlargement of the existing city park areas through the disposal of dredged materials would cover a habitat for fish and bottom fauna. Approximately 11 acres of shallow off-shore flats of the St. Marys River upstream of Mission Point would thus be converted to a terres trial environment.
The elevation of the present ground surface would be raised seven to eight feet above existing levels; views of the St. Marys River now observed by nearby residents would be altered by the elevated surfaces. Another impact of the high fill would be the destruction of many trees and the lesser vegetation in the area until the time when landscaping plans for restoration have been effected. Filling operations would temporarily deny the use of portions of the park area for a period up to two years. As described previously, the park area is mostly open and grass covered, with scattered tree stands of several species, e.g. , willow, elm, aspen, spruce and pine. None of these wooded areas are unique in appearance, size or species.
Dredging work would remove approximately 12 acres of river bottom to a minimum depth of 28.5 feet. This action would effectively remove the existing benthic organisms and periodic maintenance dredging would preclude any significant recovery in the channel areas. There would be some increased noise, turbidity, siltation, nutrient releases and occasional fish kills from the dredging work. The extent of these impacts has not been documented during past dredging operations and cannot be accurately predicted. Only normal turbidity associated "with the dredging process and construction of the confinement structures is anticipated and this should be of a temporary nature. Moreover, the monitoring program being carried out during Phase I could establish the probable magnitude of these various effects. Sampling completed prior to dredging operations in the Middle Neebish Channel of the St. Marys River have indicated that the navigation channels contain only sparse populations of benthic flora and fauna. Increased usage of the channels by larger ships could contribute to shore erosion problems. If speed limit restrictions are unable to curb the wakes from the larger vessels, the greater water displacement and subsequent wave wash could cause more lateral erosion of the river bottom area and increased bank erosion with subsequent damage to aquatic and shore ecosystems as well as to shoreline properties; how ever, bank erosion in the park area should be negated by the stone dikes inclosing the disposal area.
5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
One alternative to the proposed project would be to forego its development, thereby avoiding disturbance of the recreational and fish and wildlife resources, or delay its inception until such time as the effects of the earlier project phases can be more accurately estimated. The adoption of the "no-actionM alternative in this case would handicap the navigation improvement program and reduce the effectiveness of funds and effort expended so far on Phases I and II. The project is cited as needed for the safe passage of the larger vessels now being employed. However, the new vessels are presently using the channel without the bend-widening project. Many of these vessels have bow thrusters which would aid them to negotiate the present bends. The extensive use of bow thrusters would probably increase shore erosion at the bend areas by creating a churning action. The most significant effect of foregoing this project would be the increased safety hazard. Since vessel speeds are limited in restricted areas of the St. Marys River, high crosswinds could result in grounding of these large vessels, even with the use of bow thrusters. A grounded 1, 000-foot long ship at .. .one of these bends would interfere with channel navigation and create a safety hazard to other ships and tneir crews, as well as damage to the ship itself.
Another alternative to be considered is the use of tugboats at the sharper channel turns to assist navigation in lieu of the proposal to widen the channel bends. Present navigation does not require the use of such assistance. The new 1, 000-foot vessel (and others of similar size) now in use can also navigate the existing channels without tugs; howrever, the safety of the vessel and crew and the need to keep the channels open dictates that the critical bends be widened in the interests of preserving the necessary minimum margins of safety. It is believed that there will not be the intensity of use by 1, 000-foot vessels which is necessary to justify the establishment of a tugboat industry in the St. Marys River. The approximate cost of maintaining a large tug is over $1, 500 per day, and it is felt that in order to justify this type of invest ment by private industry, many more vessels of the 1, 000-foot size will have to be in service. There is no legal basis for the Government establishing such a service for the private shippers. It is anticipated that the number of passages by vessels of all sizes would not take a quantum jump regardless of whether the bend widening project is carried out or not. Safety is the primary purpose of the proposed project and, although tugboats can furnish that necessary safety, there is no reasonable basis to anticipate that such service would be furnished in the foreseeable future.
A third alternative to the bend widening and deepening would be to restrict the larger ships from using the St. Marys River Channel. Several agencies have expressed the belief that there should be a limit on size and draft of ships to be accommodated in the Great Lakes Con necting Channels. At this time there is no legal authority to limit vessel size. The only constraints to vessel size are the physical dimensions of the navigation locks and channels.
Within the proposed project there are several alternatives. In the construction procedure, alternative areas are available for spoil dis posal. Disposal could be in deep water, as near the head of Sugar Island. Such disposal, leaving a clear swept depth of 20 feet below L.W. D. and utilizing the existing deep water dumping grounds, would result in coverage of approximately 37 acres of lake bottom, eliminating deep water game fish areas and the supporting ecosystems. The state and Federal fishery representatives have labeled this means highly undesirable; therefore, other potential disposal sites were investigated during project formulation. Five alternatives to dumping in open lake waters have been proposed and considered for the Phase III bend widen ing project: (1) the proposed upland park-shoal area combination site; (2) an island site in the St. Marys River downstream from the project area; (3) a modified version of (1) wherein a greater expanse of the submerged river bottom lands (shoal areas) would be used for disposal. (4) Use of rock material removed from the bend areas for erosion control along the channels. (5) Other upland disposal areas. The proposed alternative (1) is the recommended plan and has been described in the PROJECT DESCRIPTION of this statement. This proposal is commonly referred to as the DNR Plan. The alternative island disposal site (2) is designated as Island No. 7.
Dredge spoil from the angle coarse 1-2 bend area would be disposed of on this government-owned island, approximately two miles down stream of the project site on the westerly side of the channel known as the Little Rapids Cut of the St. Marys River. This island was formed from earlier spoil disposal operations and would be reshaped with dikes to contain the dredging spoil. Although the island exposes a heavy brush cover and light tree growth, much of the interior area is under water. The island would have to be shaped with riprap dikes to contain the disposal material and prevent erosion along the channelward shorelines. The navigation channel lies close by the east side of this island and the wash from passing vessels has eroded the island in this area. Under present conditions the island has little apparent recrea tional usage. Use of Island No. 7 for disposal purposes was not the preferred alternative for several reasons. Property owners on the mainland, including several resorts, would face the exposed dredging spoil and then uncontrolled vegetative growth would block mainland views of the shipping channel and Sugar Island. Because of the longer hauling distance to dispose of the dredgings, cost estimates for utilizing this site are approximately $400, 000 more than the proposed park site.
The third alternative that was given extensive consideration was originally put forth by the Corps in an effort to find a more utilitarian purpose for the dredged materials than merely relocating them in another sector of the waterways. Referred to in some correspondence as the "Corps plan, " this proposal also sought to use the Riverside Drive Park area for a disposal site. This plan would have extended the fill area some 300 feet into the river, covering approximately 20 acres of sub merged bottom lands. However, the height of the fill deposits would have been to a maximum of 8 feet above L.W.D. instead of the maximum 14-foot elevations as now designed in the preferred alternative. The Corps' plan was not supported by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources because of the larger occupation of river shoal area and the subsequent elimination of a habitat for fish and bottom fauna.
Use of rock material removed from the bend areas for erosion control structures along the channel was a suggested alternative to be considered in lieu of the proposed sites. The erosion problems being experienced currently are most likely the result of several factors; e .g ., the high water conditions of recent years, the disregard of speed limitations by both pleasure craft and commercial vessels, and the increased use of the waterway by such craft. The amount of rock to be removed from the work areas would not be sufficient to protect the entire reach of the river. Any such placement, therefore, would have to be done on a selective basis along privately owned river banks. Such a program would enhance some property to the detriment of others, and the Corps of Engineers does not have authority to prevent or correct shore erosion to private property due to temporary high water conditions or vessel wave wash. Utilization of any dredged material for bank erosion control would be much more costly than disposing of the material as proposed.
Other upland sites were not deemed economically justifiable because of the innate increase in handling and transportation costs; nor were any consequential advantages apparent in such a choice over the proposed site.
6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCE MENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.
It can be expected that recreational activities, such as fishing and water sports, would be disrupted in the immediate work areas for the duration of the project. As previously indicated, the extent of change or modification to the river environment and associated lakes due to project dredging and disposal operations cannot be accurately predicted; however, in this instance, complete recovery will probably not take place due to periodic maintenance dredging performed to maintain navigable channel depths. Only limited use of these natural assets would be available during this period of time. Over the long term period it is unlikely that there would be a significant effect on the fish population or overall biological balance of the river environs as it exists today because of the minor scope of work. Utilizing the city park area for disposal purposes would reduce short term recreational pursuits in the area but the long term benefits would be expanded by providing more opportunities for recreation to more people.
Easing of the critically narrow bends would provide for easier and safer passage of the larger vessels through the shipping channels in the St. Marys River, thereby reducing the probability of ship groundings and the potential threat of a pollution incident. The more favorable channel conditions would tend to stimulate utilization of the channel by larger and more recently constructed ships. In many of the newer lake carriers fuel is carried in double bottoms and could escape in the event of a rupture to the outer bottom. It is anticipated that the larger ships could produce greater wakes than present ships with the associated potential for causing increased shore erosion along the St. Marys River. The current high water levels have completely submerged the beaches and allowed waves, both natural and ship caused, to attack and under mine the adjacent shoreline property. However, it is expected that the larger ships would replace the older, smaller ships increasing the tonnage carried on each trip and decreasing the number of trips, The total effect of the off-setting decrease in frequency of trips as opposed to the potential increase in wave wash from individual ship passages cannot be quantified at this time from available data.
Whether or not the easing of these critical bends with their potential for enhanced economic and associated social benefits would infringe upon the short or long term natural productivity and allied values for recre ation in the St. Marys River is the object of the ongoing "Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study, " scheduled for completion in 1980.
That the effects of this project on water quality would be minimal and of short duration is supported by the Environmental Protection Agency. The surveillance program during the Phase I contract should determine the effects of the dredging project on water quality and could furnish data that may be useful in upgrading construction procedures to further minimize the environmental effects of subsequent dredging projects.
vAlthough.the.bend widening.project-is-expecieel to increase channel , capacities in this reach of the river by approximately'5%~the~effects — • upon water levels, flow distribution, ice cover, and the operations of two hydroelectric power plants at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, should be negligible. Compensating works irt,theSt. Marys River at the head of the St. Marys Falls are foj^jocrflfrolling Lake Superior water levels <'and flows into the St.^Marys Waterway. No changes in the regulation >of these works are-anticipated as a result of the proposed dredging operations. -However, depending upon conditions, the outflow can be increased or decreased as the situation warrants by the control gates ^at the head of the-falls,___ 7. IDENTIFY ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED.
The wetlands, shoal waters, and open waters of the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels provide ecosystems which support a wide variety of plant and animal organisms important to mankind's recreation, health, and aesthetic well-being. Preservation of such areas is important for two reasons: first, it is considered to be the most productive of all types of wildlife habitat; second, it is the most vulnerable to the inroads of civilization since these regions can be readily drained, diked, filled, or dredged and converted to other types of land or water use. Natural causes - erosion by wind and water - are also responsible for degradation and loss of wetlands.
The St. Marys River has 34, 040 acres of shoal waters, practically all of which are important to fish and wildlife sustenance. The proposed action would cover 11 acres of river shoal, converting this area from an aquatic environment to a terrestrial playground for man's use. This represents .03% of the St. Marys shoal area. The proposed action would remove 12 acres of river bottom to a minimum depth of 2 8.5 feet (some 332, 000 cu. yds.) out of a total area of 1, 928 acres of river bottom in the Bayfield-Little Rapids Channel reaches of the St. Marys River. The impacts of this dredging on aquatic and alluvial benthic systems should be minor because periodic maintenance dredging, boat activity, river flow and water level fluctuations have created conditions not conducive to colonization, growth and reproduction of aquatic biota in areas attendant to the navigation channels. The capital investment and labor required for the project is also considered to be a commitment of resources.
8. COORDINATING WITH OTHERS
a. Public Participation. The basic bend widening project was developed in coordination with the Lake Carriers Association. At a public meeting held on 9 November 1970 to inform local citizens of the project, a faculty member of Lake Superior State College, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, expressed strong concern about phosphorus release resulting from dredging and disposal operations. Subsequent to the public meeting correspondence was exchanged and meetings were held with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory to discuss the subject of nutrient releases during dredging operations. A ll agencies agreed that little was known about the potential for nutrient releases in the St. Marys River or the possible related biological activity. In addition, it was expressed that little was known about turbidity, siltation, and erosion due to dredging operations. It was jointly recommended with the foregoing agencies that a surveillance program of the bend widening, dredging and disposal work be established to monitor and test the effects. The surveillance program has been initiated in the Phase I contract with continued coordination between the interested agencies and local citizenry to assure that meaningful data are gathered and analyzed. Interim test results of the monitoring program are indi cated in Appendix A. The final series of sampling data for this program are scheduled to be obtained in October 1973.
No additional public meetings are planned f
b. Government Agencies. During the subsequent planning process, the proposed plan of improvement was coordinated with concerned Federal, state and local interests, including Federal and Provincial authorities in Canada. The coordination work was carried on through correspondence, field trips and public and private meetings.
Boat tours of the St. Marys River were made to acquaint interested parties with all phases of the proposed bend widening work and examine possible spoil disposal sites. Representatives of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW), the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR), the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Michigan Department of Commerce and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) joined the Corps of Engineers in the on-site inspections. The views of each agency were requested regarding the proposed bend widening work and a particular request was made for suggestions on possible spoil disposal areas for the project. The governmental authorities of Canada were consulted and has no objections to the proposed bend widening work nor did they express any opinion whether the dredging or disposal procedures would jeopardize water quality, or be of particular hazard to fish and wildlife in the area. The Canadian officials expressed concern that the blasting operations required at bend8-9 should be properly controlled by regulation and supervision. The BSFW, BOR and MDNR subsequently recommended for consideration various disposal sites and options, covering the entire bend widening project. The proposed disposal site plans evolved from these agencies' suggestions and subsequent coordination with the aforementioned authorities. Letters relating to the inter-agency planning and coordination are attached to this draft environmental statement (Appendix C).
A combination land-water tour of the St. Marys River by govern ment agency representatives in November 1971 indicated two preferred disposal sites, the city trailer park, and Island No. 7. The Corps, shortly afterward, recommended use of the park area and approximately 20 acres of adjacent river bottom land for disposal purposes. The plan was to contain the dredged material with a stone dike since the bottom sediments of this reach of the St. Marys River had been classified as polluted by the EPA in 1970. A s pointed out elsewhere in this statement (page 9), this classification has since been rescinded for materials to be removed from the project channel area. By using the dredgings to expand the city recreational area, the Corps felt a more useful purpose was to be gained than merely dumping the materials on a remote island. The city officials of Sault Ste. Marie supported this plan; however, the .Michigan Department of Natural Resources objected to the Corps proposal for the following reasons:
(1) It extended into the river over public waters of the State of Michigan in an excessive amount and would consume 20 acres of water surface.
(2) The extension would cause possible interference with recrea tional watercraft immediately adjacent to the main expanded navigation channel at this point. Safety of watercraft in a constricted area (100 feet wide at narrowest point), was a serious concern.
(3) Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Division identified significant fisheries population in this area and valuable bottom fauna for fisheries needs. The BSF&W and the BOR stated that their confirmation of the proposed disposal site was contingent to approval by the MDNR. In addition, the BOR pointed out that permission would also be needed from the Secretary of the Interior to alter the use of the park site to disposal purposes since development of this facility had been funded through a grant from the BOR's Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (P .L . 88-578) which states that no property developed with a ssist ance under this section shall be converted to other than outdoor recreation uses without the approval of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
Many discussions were held through the remainder of 1972 between the city, the Corps, and the DNR. However, the impasse continued until the DNR presented an alternative fill plan for the park site which provided the necessary capacity for deposition of all of the dredged material obtained from Angle Course 1-2 with a minimum extension- into public waters. This plan, which is the proposed project plan, differed from others by raising the level of the fill an additional three feet to six feet, thereby reducing the protrusion into the waterway area by approximately 50%. This plan was supported by the Corps and approved by the City of Sault Ste. Marie in a resolution adopted by the City Commission on 5 February 1973.
Previous responses of the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation and the Michigan Depart ment of Natural Resources to the Phase I segment of the project also made the point that the Corps should undertake a study to determine the maximum feasible limits on the size of ships that can be accommodated within the existing channels and harbors of the Connecting Channels system, as the alternative to continual enlargment of the channels in the system to accommodate larger ships being built. Determinations ■ such as this will be addressed in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbor Study which was initiated by the Corps of Engineers in June 1971, and are not within the scope or authority of the present bend widening and deepening projects for the St. Marys River.
This supplement to the environmental statement was sent to the following government agencies requesting their review and comments:
Canadian Dept, of Public Works,- Executive Office of the Governor for Northern Ontario (Michigan) Office of Planning Coordination (No Comments Received) U .S. Department of Transportation Michigan Dept, of Natural United States CoastGuard Resources
Federal Power Commission Michigan Dept, of Commerce (No Comments Received) U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Michigan Historical Commission Soil Conservation Service (No Comments Received)
U.S. Environmental Protection Board of Commissioners, Agency Chippewa County (No Comments Received) U.S. Dept, of Commerce Ass't. Sec. for Science and City of Sault Ste. Marie Technology (No Comments Received)
U.S. Department of the Interior Conference on Michigan Ass't. Sec., Program Policy Archaeology
Comments from government agencies responding to the Draft Environmental Statement were mostly uncritical of the proposed project at angle course 1 and 2. Some governmental units expressed the need for more data and inventory information. Sections in the final statement were expanded to describe the aquatic flora and fauna. The Department of Interior in particular was critical, viewing this project as another link in the long chain of dredging projects which were contributing to the biological degradation of the St. Marys River complex.
c. Citizen Groups. The Environmental impacts of the Phase III segment of the bend widening project would be sim ilar to those issues identified for the other phases. Response from concerned citizens or organized conservation/environmental groups was not forthcoming and has been negligible since the public first expressed their concerns during the planning stages of the Phase I section of the bend widening project. The Corps has made efforts to remedy or mitigate those complaints by altering plans and construction methods when possible and economically practicable. At this time no other environmental impacts are apparent other than as described herein.
Copies of the correspondence received in response to the Draft Environmental Statement are attached hereto as Appendix D. A summary of their comments and response thereto is presented in the following pages. Public Works of Canada - Ontario Region.
1. Comment
Copies were provided to agencies in Canada concerned with natural resources and I am pleased to advise that no objections were registered against Phase III as outlined in the statement.
U. S. Dept, of Transportation - Coast Guard.
1. Comment.
This office has reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement and has no comments to offer at this time.
Federal Power Commission
1. Comment
Since the proposed dredging operations are below the existing Carbide and St. Marys Falls hydroelectric power plants, there will be no effect upon these power plants. There are no hydroelectric plants on the St. Marys River below the proposed dredging operation, therefore we have no comments regarding the supplemental statement.
U. S. Dept, of Agriculture - Forest Service.
1. Comment
We note that the Corps, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the City of Sault Ste. Marie have reached agreement on a disposal site and that while many trees will be destroyed, the Corps will plant native trees and shrubs on the berms and along the periphery of the site. In view of this agreement, we have no comment on the draft.
United States Dept, of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service.
1. Comment
The statement gives considerable attention to re-vegetating this area after the project is completed, but nowhere are there plans for stabilization during the placing of the fill on the site. The project will take 2 years to complete and should include provisions for either temporary seeding or completion in segments with mulch and perman ent seeding.
Response: Although there are no plans for interim mulching and seed ing of the disposal area, it is anticipated that the dike enclosure and packing from the machinery moving and placing the dredged materials would accomplish sufficient stabilization until the landscaping plans are effected.
2. Comment
Sediment samples indicate a considerable proportion of silt in the dredgings and this will make the fill very susceptible to water erosion. Water running off the dredgings could carry a heavy silt load unless the excess water in the dredgings is put into a sediment basin.
Response: Construction procedures to contain sediment runoff have been added to Section 3c. These techniques have been used at the disposal sight for Phase I with proven reliability.
3. Comment
Literature research and concensus of several biologists should be able to restablish a range of recovery time in years, instread of the statement "period of years" on page 12, paragraph 3 and page 16, paragraph 3.
Response: Characteristic recovery periods for waterways exposed to a "one time" dredging operation normally varies between 10 and 15 years. During this time, complete productivity is generally restored. However, in this instance, complete recovery will probably not take place, due to periodic maintenance dredging performed to maintain navigable channel depths. The text has been modified.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1. Comment: We have classified our comments as Category ER-2. Specifically, this means we have environmental reservations because of the unknown mercury content of the sediment. As indicated on page 12 of the EIS, EPA sediment samples taken in June, 1970 gave no indication of mercury when analyzed by procedures with a detectable limit of 0.2 m g/kg. On January 12, 1974 our Michigan District Office collected 17 water samples in the project area. These samples were analyzed and high concentrations of mercury were found in the water. As a result of this recent data we are concerned that the mercury content of the sediment might exceed our pollution criteria. (1 mg. per kg. dry w t.)
Response: The Corps proceeded with plan formulation after being assured by EPA that the bottom sediments in the project area were unpolluted. Note EPA letters of August 29, 1972 and October 5, 1972, pages C-21 and C -25 in the environmental statement. These unpolluted classifications were based upon testing done by EPA units in May 1972 (results contained in Appendix B of environmental statement) in response to a Corps' request of December 23, 1971 as indicated on page C -6 of the statement. Apparently these sediments were not analyzed for mercury content at the time they were classified as unpolluted?
2. Comment: We request that the Final EIS under "Alternatives" discuss and describe the construction and operation of a modified confined disposal site that will be utilized if the sediments are deter mined to be polluted. The discussion of this confined disposal site should be detailed to provide us with the opportunity to review the adequacy of the structure and to determine the effect of any discharges from the structure.
Response: If the dredged sediments are determined to be polluted, the containment dikes would be altered in a manner to eliminate the access ports through the perimeter and a weir structure would be implaced to retard water run-off. However, dipper dredging operations generally do not develop an excess of supernatant water in the disposal site.
Details of such a structure cannot be presented in this environ mental statement because they will not be formulated until the new sediment classifications have been delineated by EPA. However, it is a matter of normal procedure that the EPA, as well as other government agencies, is given the opportunity to review the details of proposed Corps' structures at the time the plans and specifications memorandum is presented for agency review. I 3. Comment: Thank you for allowing us this additional review time to incorporate the results of our recent data into the review of this EIS.
U. S. Department of Commerce
1. Comment: Discussion of the beneficial effects of the project seems complete and indicates that discussion and cooperation between govern ment agencies has led to an efficient and economical plan of action in regard to spoil disposal.
2. Comment: Discussion of adverse environmental effects has been limited due to a lack of hard data which would allow adverse effects to be quantified. The program monitoring the effects of dredging could be profitably expanded to include investigation of effects that various patterns of spoil disposal in and along the periphery of the river might have in altering the pattern of current stream direction and velocity and of the effect these changes may produce on the pattern of ice formation and decay in critical portions of the navigation channel.
Response: Preliminary study indicates that velocities will increase in the area to be dredged approximately 15 to 80 percent. Current direc tion in area upstream of the turn will not change appreciably in the area to be widened. However, current direction downstream of the turn is expected to change about 8 to 16 degrees clockwise toward the U. S. shoreline to run more nearly parallel with the new channel line.
It is difficult to determine what effect this may have on the change in total flow distribution around Sugar Island or what effect this may have on the flow pattern of broken ice on the Little Rapids Channel without a model study.
3. Comment: At the top of page 10, it would be helpful to provide additional information on fishing aspects of the area. This information should include data on the number of angler days of effort, species sought, fishing success, etc. Since the location is identified as a spawn ing and forage area, it would also be helpful to include information on the species utilizing the area, the spawning locations, their importance to the local fishery, and the types and numbers of forage organisms present.
Response: Statistical information of this nature has not been catalogued for this area by any of the state or federal agencies concerned with such data. Fishing is concentrated during the periods of the various species' runs and confined for the most part to those waters outside the navigation channel. Data has been added to this section describing the benthic flora and fauna found in the area.
4. Comment: At the bottom of page 10, under Identified Environmental Impacts (3.a(4)), all available major information should be shown to document the terse statement, "Displacement of the fish population including some fish kills and disruption of the aquatic food chain due to the stirring of the water in the work areas and the covering of spawning grounds."
Response: Specific species and reactions that could be influenced by the dredging have been documented in the environmental statement and the attached appendices. Documented impacts from dredging operations in other areas can be transposed only in a general way because of the differences indigenous to the areas themselves, i.e . , the water quality, the native fishes, the benthic community, the water movement, etc. Generally speaking, we have evidence from past experience that fish life quickly develops an avoidance reaction to the work area; therefore, fish kill would be limited to those unfortunate few caught in the pro pellers or prop wash of attending tugs and tenders. Whatever nutrient compounds were in the bottom muds would be resuspended into the water column by the dredging action. The waters would be temporarily discolored by sedimentation as the finer particles are swept downstream to eventually settle out in the stiller waters of the lake parts of the waterway which contain the spawning grounds of some species, e . g . , northern pike. Evidence to date from the program monitoring the Phase I dredging contract has not revealed any unusual impacts develop ing directly as a result of the channel dredging in that sector of the St. Marys River.
5. Comment: Subsection (c) on page 13 should include information on a construction schedule that could somewhat mitigate the effects of dredging on the fishery. In addition, consideration should be given to using a siltation reduction device downstream of the project area to further reduce siltation.
Response: The short work season (Miy to November) in this region leaves little leeway for non-work periods without escalating costs.
Experience in the first contract (Phase I) indicates that dipper dredging in consolidated materials produced a limited amount of sedimentation. Consideration was given to the use of "curtains, " a siltation containing device, but the streamflow velocities characteristic of this section of the St. Marys River would make their use ineffective.
U. S. Department of the Interior
1. Comment: This bend widening project is one phase in a gradual evolution from a biologically rich and productive river-lake complex toward a more sterile navigation channel environment.
The final statement should discuss in more detail the rela tionship of this particular project to potential future navigation projects, plus cumulative, long-term effects likely to be imposed upon the river.
Response: This comment reaches beyond the scope of the bend widening project, which comes under the provisions of the River and Harbor Act of 1956 as stated on page 1. The Committee on Public Works of the U. S. Senate, by resolution dated 2 June 1969, authorized the Corps of Engineers to review existing reports concerning the Great Lakes Con necting Channels and Harbors with a view to determining the feasibility of further modifications in the system in the interest of present and prospective deep-draft commerce in order to accommodate the safe operation of vessels up to the maximum size permitted by the St. Marys Falls Canal. Commercial navigation interests have requested that the channels and harbors be improved by further widening and deepening. Other groups expressed concern with the effects such actions would have on the environment. This study is presently scheduled to take five or six years to complete and to date no plans have been formulated concerning the desired changes.
2. Comment. In Section 2 .A ., the detailed description of the St. Marys River should include the original state of the river (pristine condition) as opposed to what it is today. Such items as depths and widths of navigation channels, total amounts of materials dredged, spoil locations and annual dredging would give the reviewer a better perspective when considering this project.
Response: Based upon available information, the environmental setting section has been expanded to discuss these items. Table No. 2 shows navigation channel statistics. Periodic maintenance dredging of the St. Marys is a separate project operation from the bend widening program and, as such, will be addressed in an independent environmental statement at a later date. For information purposes, approximately 200, 000 cubic yards are dredged biennially of which some 14, 000 cubic yards have been classified as polluted sediments. Disposal of the unpolluted materials obtained from hopper dredging has been in an open water dumping ground in Lake Munuscong. Disposal of materials from the derrickboat dredging operations have been made along the shoreline.
3. Comment: We suggest inclusion of more information, particularly regarding aquatic resources such as fish nursery and spawning areas.
Response: See response to comment no. 3, Department of Commerce.
4. Comment: /Tn Section 3.a._7” Item 9 recognizes the temporary loss of present park facilities for one to two years during the filling operation. However, Colonel Snoke's letter of December 23, 1971, to the Environmental Protection Agency states that maintenance dredging will require the disposal of 5, 500 cubic yards of material annually for ten years. This section should describe where the maintenance dredge spoils are to be placed and the effects they will have on the public use and enjoyment of the Mission Road Park.
Response: The dredging requirements of 5,500 cubic yards are not a part of the bend widening project but are average annual dredging amounts for the existing navigation channel in that reach of the river. Since these sediments are unpolluted, they may be placed in deep water disposal grounds instead of a confined disposal site and, therefore, will have no effect on the Riverside Drive Park.
5. Comment: /Tn Section 3.b._/ Discussion of the piecemeal deterior ation of the biologically rich and productive St. Marys River toward a more sterile navigation channel should be contained in this section. The loss of diversified habitats, the reduction in carrying capacity and biological productivity of the St. Marys River complex also should be related to the proposed increase in recreational usage at the City's park.
Response: This comment cannot be meaningfully evaluated within its present context without additional quantifying information. The Corps of Engineers has been charged by Congress through numerous River and Harbor Acts dating back to 1870 to construct and maintain naviga tional channels and facilities as to provide the safe and efficient move ment of commodities through the St. Marys Waterway while at the same time considering factors pertinent to the balance of commercial and recreational/environmental interests. In this instance, the Corps has endeavored to maintain this balance by the efficient utilization of dredged material to enhance adjacent park facilities. At the present time, the St. Marys River supports a considerable fishery and conse quently has a large recreational demand. Due to the small scope of this project and statements made by the MDNR to the effect that fishery resources will not be appreciably affected, this project cannot be viewed as contributing in any significant degree to a "more sterile navigational channel environment." Expansion of the present park facilities will serve to accommodate the increased recreational demand continually being experienced in this area.
6. Comment: /Tn Section 3.c.7 On page 14, reference is made to the various purposes to be served.by stone dikes, including to "straighten the„unsightly, irregular shoreline." Since an irregular shoreline is not intrinsically unsightly, support for such a statement should be given.
Response: The accumulation of man-made debris that makes this shoreline "unsightly" is described on pages 9 and 10 of the Draft Environmental Statement.
7. Comment: We disagree with the statement on page 15 that the park expansion plan is the least environmentally damaging. Filling 11 acres of the St. Marys River is almost certainly more damaging than certain types of land disposal and certainly more damaging than no action.
Response: Considering all the facts involved, i.e ., the biological losses, the recreational gains, the expressed wishes of local authorities, and the fact that "no action" is not a viable concept at this point in time, plus the fact that you are quoting only part of that sentence, we choose to leave the statement as is.
8. Comment: Section 4 should also relate the loss of 23 acres of aquatic habitat to the overall decline in available habitats caused by the total navigation project. In reality, the St. Marys River complex will undergo another decrease in biological productivity. Continually reducing productive natural habitat while at the same time continually increasing commercial usage of the available resources could lead to a collapse or dramatic decline in certain components of the present biological structure of the St. Marys River.
Response: It is true that the navigational projects represent a loss of aquatic habitat, but this is balanced against increased navigational safety and the creation of needed recreation areas. The total project - meaning the bend widening project, Phases I, II and III - altered 84 acres of river bottom by channel dredging and 35 acres were covered by disposal sites. Many professionals believe that the rocky perimeters of the disposal sites will create an enhanced aquatic environment more biologically productive than the covered habitat. Similar information was provided in preceding environmental statements.
9. Comment: A discussion of upland disposal sites and methods would be a desirable addition to the list of alternative disposal sites in or adjacent to the St. Marys River. (Section 5 .)
Response: A discussion of this alternative has been added to the final environmental statement. Preparations required for use of upland disposal sites are described in Supplement No. 1 to the environmental statement.
10. Comment: /Referring to Section 67 The project has the effect of decreasing available productive aquatic habitats while promoting increased consumptive uses of resources. The overall effect is pro motion of short-term uses of the environment. We believe that the navigation' project should be related to long-term biological productivity, and that pertinent findings from the "Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study" should be reflected in this statement.
Response: Commercial navigation uses of the St. Marys River has been going on for some 300 years. This is not a short-term use of the environment based upon man's life-span. Biological productivity has survived during that period and should continue viable since much of the watercourse remains uninfluenced by the navigation projects. The Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study (1969 authoriza tion) has evolved no conclusions at this period in time pertinent to this environmental statement. Under present funding allotments, that study is not scheduled for completion until 1980.
11. Comment: As indicated on page 25, Mission Road Park was developed through a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (P. L . 88-578), and, in accordance with this Act, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources must receive approval from the Secretary of the Interior to use portions of the park as a disposal site. According to our records, a request for such approval has not yet been received from the State.
Response: This would be an item of "local cooperation" which must be accomplished before the Corps could make use of the park disposal site.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
1. Comment: We find the statement factual and appropriate. It provides a thorough, unbiased listing of the environmental impacts.
2. Comment: We commend your office for assisting in the improve ments of a recreation area by making otherwise unwanted spoil available for a useful public benefit.
The Conference on Michigan Archaeology - Curator of Great Lakes Archaeology.
1. Comment: The impact of the recommended disposal plan which is intended to culminate in the Riverside Drive Park on archaeological resources is at present unknown. There has been no systematic survey of the St. Marys River performed to date, although the archaeological potential of this connective waterway is high.
2. Comment: An archaeological survey be funded for the projected disposal site such that impact on possible unlocated sites, disturbed or undisturbed, prehistoric or historic, be appraised. Such a survey should incorporate test excavations to detect possible sites not visible through surface survey.
Response: Archaeological survey and salvage activities are the responsibility of the National Park Service and are not considered to be project responsibilities. However, the Corps must give appropriate consideration to possible project impacts on archaeological values in the preparation of environmental impact statements. Accordingly, the Corps will contract with outside experts for a literature search and site reconaissance to establish the need for any further effort. 3. Comment: If sites are located in this area, salvage funds be made available to avert the loss of information which would occur through destruction.
Rvsjiojnse: Considerations to this effect are placed in the construction coni ract when advertised for bids. The paragraph included in construc tion contracts: " Recording and Preserving Historical and Archaeological Finds. All items having any apparent historical or archaeological interest which are discovered in the course of any construction activi ties shall be carefully preserved. The Contractor shall leave the archaeological find undisturbed and shall immediately report the find 1o the Contracting Officer so that proper authorities may be notified."
The District Engineer will cooperate in the salvage activities to the fullest extent possible. (EH 1105-2-12, 15 May 1972.) However, it should be noted that the expenditure of civil work funds for archae ological survey or salvage or for the relocation, restoration, preserva tion or maintenance of cultural resources on civil works lands is not authorized without the specific approval of Congress. REFERENCES
Great Lakes Basin Framework Study; Great Lakes Basin Commission; Appendix No. 4, Limnology of Lakes & Embayments; Appendix No. 7, Water Quality; Appendix No. 8, Fish; and Appendix No. 17, Wildlife.
Annual Report, Environmental Evaluation Work Group, Great Lakes & St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation Season Extension Demonstration Program 1972.
Biological Survey of the St. Marys River by the Ontario Water Resources Commission in cooperation with the I.J.C. 1968.
Hatcher, H. & Walter E., 1963, A Pictorial History of the Great Lakes.
Landon, Fred, 1944, The American Lakes Series, Lake Huron.
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS
WIDENING & DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER
PHASE III
APPENDIX A
PROGRESS REPORT; MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE DREDGING IMPACTS (PHASE I CONTRACT) GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING OF BENDS IN ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN
TABLE NO. 2: Observations of fish kill caused by contractor blasting operations in Angle Course 8-9.
DATE SPECIES NUMBER LENGTH
* 6-17-72 Smelt 300-400 Northern Pike 1 Spottail Snier 1
* 6-19-72 Smelt 1000 +
** 6-20-72 Smelt 1000 + 4"-6" White Sucker 4 15"-21"
** 6-21-72 Smelt 700-800 4"-6" White Sucker 2 15"-18"
* 6-22-72 Smelt 12 White Sucker 2
** 6-27-72 Walleye 1 13" White Sucker 1 23" Alewives 12 Adult
** 6-30-72 Smelt 50-100 4"-6"
***6-15-72 Smelt Many to White Fish 2 11-29-72 Sucker 27 Walleye 14 Northern Pike 5 Rock Bass 1
* ' Observation made by Great Lakes Fishery Lab, BSFW. ** Observation made by Fish Habitat Biologist, MDNR. *** Observation made by Government inspector on contractor's drill boat. **** Addenda: Contractor is working around the clock with blasts occurring approximately 12 hour apart.
Work is proceeding downstream from the upper end of the bend area.
Observations of the drilling indicated a very minimum of siltation of the water. Likewise, after the detonation relatively little muddying of the water is noted. The blast did very little damage to fish life - at least not much visible damage. We believe that all of the underwater noise during the drilling operation causes most of the fish to move out of the blast vicinity. Samples of the smelt and suckers were collected and measured; the suckers felt as if they had been crushed; many of the smelt had hemorrage spots along their flanks.
It does not appear as if any significant fish mortality is occurring since most of the game species, i.e. walleyes, small mouth bass, pike and perch are still in the warmer waters of Munuscong Lake. The water temperatures in the St. Marys River ran from 47° to 50°F on June 21.
Addenda from reports submitted by Fish Habitat Biologist, MDNR. St. Marys River Study - Progress Report
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory
Prepared by:
Jarl K. Hiltunen
August 1972 Judith Krzynowek 8/21/72
Progress Report: Biological and chemical sampling of St. Marys River
Biology
Biological sampling on lower St. Marys River was initiated May 1971.
Motorboat crew and sampling gear was provided by EPA, Grosse lie, Michigan.
The primary biological concern of the sampling program is to monitor the population of mayflies before, during, and after blasting and dredging operations in the river this year. Seventeen stations were located along four ranges or transects in the river. One month later, staff from this laboratory established two additional sampling ranges (6 and 7) in Lake
Munuscong (Fig. 1). Triplicate bottom samples were collected with a Ponar grab from all stations, In October, another set of samples (63) were collected from all ranges except range 6.
A third set of samples (75) was collected in May 1972 by the laboratory staff, and James Merna of the Institute for Fisheries Research, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. The fauna from all samples has been sorted, catalogued, and the data recorded onto ADP punch-cards. The presence and abundance of the benthic forms vary from station to station.
The six most common or abundant invertebrate groups encountered are: midge larvae (Chironomidae), oligochaete worms, mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera), snails (Gastropoda), fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae), and caddis fly larvae (Trichoptera). Population estimates of the mayflies appear in
Table 1.
Two more series of bottom fauna samples are scheduled following the dredging operation. Chemistry
Blasting commenced off Johnson's Point in mid-June. A temporary cros'S-channel range of five water sampling stations was established immediately downstream from the blast site (Fig. 1). The stations were designated as 1-5. Samples generally from surface and bottom, were taken on five occasions. The current flow was through stations designated
4 and 5 and partially through station 3. Station 1 displayed no turbidity when blasting commenced. Additional water samples were taken from a station on ranges 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Values for six parameters tested appear in Table 2.
Most of the tables indicate that the dredging operation has had little effect on the parameters measured. The exceptions are a definite rise in chloride and silica values for stations 1, 4, and 5 from June 16 to June 22. This is not surprising for stations 4 and 5 in the direct path of the current. The rise in those values for station 1 would be difficult to explain without additional knowledge of the area (i.e. , the rise in values may be due to factors other than blasting).
Water samples will again be taken once dredging and dumping resumes in September. Monitoring of spill from the spoil site will be covered by
Range 3 stations immediately downstream from the site.
2 Table 1.— Estimates of abundance (no/m ) of mayfly nymphs (prim arily Hexagenia and Ephemera) in the St. Marys River
Ranges and stations
D a te R a n g e 1 R a n g e 2 R an ge 4 R an ge 5 R an ge 6
13 14 16 17 21 22 24 25 41 42 4 3 * 44 51 52 53 54 55 61 62 63 64
M ay 1 9 7 1 55 31 0 85 4 95 7 68 2 14 5 179 14 5 654 59 9 0 2 , 2 9 3 41 6 8 9 2 6 9 365 7 0 9 - - - -
J u n e 1 9 7 1 ------51 9 289 36 5 234
October 1971 344 248 6 6 8 427 29 6 62 7 1 , 4 2 5 5 9 9 66 1 213 571 1 , 7 7 0 41 441 45 5 138 331 - - - -
M a y 1 9 7 2 39 3 70 2 4 3 4 1 , 0 4 0 337 551 1 ,0 8 8 1 , 5 3 3 7 8 5 46 1 26 2 2 , 1 2 1 0 117 372 62 585 227 28 9 158 0
* In May 1971, station 43 was established in the shipping channel but when it yielded no mayflies, the station was relocated eastward
sampling trips. 2 timates of abundance (no/m ) of mayfly nymphs (prim arily Hexagenia and Ephemera) in the St. Marys River
Ranges and stations
R a n g e 2 R a n g e 4 R a n ge 5 R an ge 6 R ange 7
17 21 22 24 25 41 42 4 3 * 44 51 52 53 54 55 61 62 63 64 71 72 73 74
9 5 7 6B 2 145 1 7 9 1 4 5 654 599 0 2,293 41 6 8 9 2 6 9 365 7 0 9 ------
------5 1 9 2 8 9 36 5 234 393 6 0 6 10 9 24 8
4 2 7 2 9 6 627 1 , 4 2 5 5 9 9 66 1 213 571 1 , 7 7 0 41 441 455 138 331 - - - - 55 117 107 55 8
1 , 0 4 0 33 7 551 1,088 1,533 785 461 262 2,121 0 1 1 7 372 62 585 227 2 8 9 1 5 8 0 3 3 1 531 351 7
established in the shipping channel but when it yielded no m ayflies, the station was relocated eastward on subsequent 1A U LE 2
Nitrate ♦ Nitrite (ppb "N")
Before b l a s t i n g A f t e r blasti ng D a t e a n d Station and depth ( f e e t ) S t a t i o n and depth ( f e e t ) s.a n p le 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 53 62 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 )
J u n e 16
S u r f a c e 17 2 17 0 157 164 1 6 0 1 5 8 18 2 157 154 1 6 0 ------
B o tto m - - - - 1 6 0 1 4 0 143 161 194 ------
J u n e 17
S u r f a c e ------173 1 6 0 143 157 153 142 - --
B o tto m ------13 9 167 14 9 167 155 172 ---
J u n e 1 9
S u r f a c e ------15 5 167 214 203 1 7 9 - --
B o tto m ------137 1 5 7 199 191 20 2 - - -
J u n e 21
S u r f a c e - - - 1 2 2 138 151 171 - 14 6 1 2 5 ------
B o t to m - - - 141 133 164 134 - _ 116 119 ------
J u n e 22 « • _ S u r f a c e 1 6 9 7 9 83 9 9 123 197 161 16 0 153 151
B o t to m 195 1 1 0 100 9 8 8 9 - - - - - 207 214 1 6 6 17 0 147 - - - 1 AB L E 2
Nitrate + Nitrite (ppb ”N")
l a s t i n g After blastinq d e p t h ( f e e t ) S t a t i o n an d depth (feet)
15 23 43 53 62 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 53 6 2 (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 )
1 5 8 1 8 2 157 154 16 0
ICO 1 4 0 143 16 1 194 ------
_ . 173 1 6 0 143 157 153 1 4 2 - - - - -
167 - - - - 1 3 9 149 167 155 1 7 2 - - - - -
_ _ . 155 167 214 203 1 7 9 - - - - -
- - - - 137 157 199 191 2 0 2 - - - - -
1 3 8 1 5 1 171 1 4 6 125 _ - - - - - 1 0 8 107
1 3 3 16 4 134 - - 11 6 119 ------1 1 2 10 6
- ---- 197 161 1 6 0 153 1 5 1 - - - ■ - -
- ---- 207 214 1 6 6 1 7 0 1 4 7 - - - - - Silica as ppm SiO^
Before blastin'? * After blastim D a t e a n d Station and depth (feet) Station and depth (feet) s a m p le i 2 3 4 5 15 23 4 3 53 62 i 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 )
J u n e 16
S u r f a c e 1 . 8 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 3 .4 2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 ------
B o tto m - - - - - 2 . 2 4 . 4 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 ------
J u n e 17
S u r f a c e ------1 . 9 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 .5 2 . 0 - - -
B o t to m ------2 . 0 3 . 4 2 . 0 2 . 6 2 . 2 2 . 0 --
J u n e 1 9
S u r f a c e ------2 . 8 2 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 9 2 . 5 - - -
B o tto m ------•- - 2 . 6 2 . 1 3 .0 3 . 0 2 . 4 - - -
J u n e 21 /N. S u r f a c e — 2 . 2 2 .3 2 .3 2 . 1 * 2 . 4 2 . 3 ““ “ “ *
B o t to m - - - - 2 .3 2 . 2 2 . 2 2 . 4 - - 2 . 4 2 . 3 ------
J u n e 22
* S u r f a c e 6 . 2 3 . 6 1 8 . 8 8 . 5 - - - - - 5 . 8 2 .4 2 . 4 1 1 . 0 6 . 6 ---
* B o tto m 5 . 1 2 .1 4 . 9 5 . 4 - - - - - 5 . 0 6 . 5 2 . 4 6 . 6 4 . 4 - - -
Below detectable lim its (<0.2 ppm) Silica as ppm SiO^
I n s t i nq After blastinq Jonth (feet) Station and depth (feet)
15 23 4 3 53 62 i 2 3 4 5 1 5 23 43 53 6 2 (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 )
2 . 0 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9
2 . 2 4 . 4 1 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 8 ------
---- 1 . 9 1 . 8 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 5 2 . 0 - — -
~ - - 2 . 0 3 . 4 2 . 0 2 . 6 2 . 2 2 . 0 . - - -
--- - - 2 . 8 2 . 9 2 . 1 2 . 9 2 . 5 - - -
--- “ 2 . 6 2 .1 3 .0 3 . 0 2 . 4 - - -
2 . 3 2 .3 2 .1 -- 2 . 4 2 . 3 - - - - 2 .3 2 . 4
2 . 2 2 . 2 2 . 4 - - 2 . 4 2 .3 ------2 . 4 2 . 2
- - --- 5 . 8 2 . 4 2 . 4 1 1 . 0 6 . 6 - - -
- - -- - 5 . 0 6 . 5 2 . 4 6 . 6 4 . 4 - - - Chloride as j pm Cl
• Before blastinq After blasting C a t e a n d Station and depth (feet) Station and depth (feet) s a m p le 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 4 3 53 62 1 2 3 4 5 1 5 23 43 (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 )
J u n e 16
S u r f a c e 1 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 .3 1 . 2 1 . 3 1 . 4 1 . 3 5 .7 ------
B o tto m - - - - - 1 . 1 1 . 5 1 . 1 1 . 1 7 . 2 ------
J u n e 17
S u r f a c e ------4 . 4 1 .1 2 . 7 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 1 - -
B o tto m ------3 . 0 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.7 - -
J u n e 19
••* S u r f a c e ------
**• B o tto m ------1 . 1 - -
J u n e 21
* * * S u r f a c e - - - - * - - ** --- - -
• • * * •* B o tto m ------
J u n e 22
* S u r f a c e 0 . 2 0 . 1 1 . 7 5 . 7 - - - - - 1 3 .3 * 0 . 1 ** - -
* * B o tto m 2 . 4 5 . 0 4 . 0 0 . 8 1 . 0 - - - - - 6 . 0 0 . 9 3 . 2 - -
* Below detectable lim its. Chloride as [pn Cl
'1 After blasting ( f e e t ) Station and depth (feet)
23 43 53 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 S3 6 2 (2 9 ) (51) (24) (37) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 )
1 .3 1 .4 1 . 3 5 . 7
1 . 5 1 .1 1 . 1 7 . 2 ------
- - - 4 . 4 1 .1 2 . 7 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 1 «. —
- -- 3 . 0 1 . 7 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 4 1 . 7 - - - -
-- - - - _ * * * _ _ _
* * * -- - - 1 . 1 - - - -
* * - - * * - - - • _ * *
** • • ------* •
- - - - 1 3 .3 * 0 . 1 * * - - _ _
• * - - -- 6 . 0 0 . 9 3 . 2 - - - - Total Phosphorus as ppb P
Before blasting After blasting D a t e a n d Station and depth (feet) Station and depth (feet) sa m p le 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 4 3 53 62 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 )
J u n e 16
S u r f a c e 1 3 . 0 2 0 . 4 1 0 . 4 1 1 . 3 8 . 9 9 . 3 < 1 . 0 2 . 0 1 0 . 2 1 0 . 5 ------
B o tto m - - - - - 1 0 . 6 1 1 . 8 1 0 . 9 1 2 . 8 1 3 . 0 ------
J u n e 17
S u r f a c e ------1 7 .3 1 5 .3 17.7 15.9 21.0 18.8 ---
B o tto m ------2 2 . 4 1 6 . 4 2 0 . 6 1 7 . 0 3 1 . 0 1 5 . 2 -- -
J u n e 19
S u r f a c e ------10.1 9.8 13.6 20.2 28.9 - - -
B o tto m ------14.8 7.1 13.0 16.0 3 1 . 1 - - -
J u n e 21
S u r f a c e - - - - - l o s t 1 5 . 8 1 9 . 3 - - 2 0 . 6 1 4 . 6 ------
B o t to m - - - - - 1 4 .4 2 1 . 8 1 1 . 9 - - 9 . 8 1 6 .3 ------
J u n e 22
S u r f a c e 1 6 . 2 1 6 . 8 1 6 . 4 2 5 . 2 1 1 . 8 - - - - - 1 9 . 2 16.1 9.2 5.7 17.4 ---
B o t to m 1 8 .4 1 6 . 0 9 . 2 1 3 . 4 1 4 . 0 - - - - - 1 1 .7 1 5 .7 1 7 . 0 8 . 6 1 9 . 2 - -- Total Phosphorus as ppb P
i l a s t i n q After blastinq depth (feet) Station and depth (feet)
15 23 43 53 62 1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 53 6 2 (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (i4) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 )
9 . 3 <1.0 2.0 10.2 10.5
1 0 . 6 1 1 . 8 1 0 . 9 1 2 . 8 1 3 . 0 ------
- - - - 1 7 .3 1 5 . 3 1 7 . 7 1 5 . 9 2 1 . 0 1 8 . 8 - - - - -
---- 2 2 . 4 1 6 . 4 2 0 . 6 1 7 . 0 3 1 . 0 1 5 . 2 - - - -
- --- - 1 0 .1 9 . 8 1 3 . 6 2 0 . 2 2 8 . 9 - - - - -
“ - 1 4 . 8 7 . 1 1 3 . 0 1 6 . 0 3 1 . 1 - “ “ -
l o s t 1 5 . 8 1 9 . 3 -- 2 0 . 6 1 4 . 6 ------1 9 . 0 1 3 . 5
14.4 21.8 11.9 - - 9 . 8 1 6 . 3 ------1 2 . 3 1 0 . 6
- - -- - 1 9 . 2 1 6 . 1 9 . 2 5 . 7 1 7 .4 - - - - -
---- - 1 1 .7 1 5 . 7 1 7 . 0 8 . 6 1 9 . 2 - - - - - Conductivity in umbos
Before blasting * After blasting Date and Station and depth (feet) Station and depth (feet) sample i 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 53 62 i 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 )
J u n e 16
S u r f a c e ------
B o tto m ------
J u n e 17
S u r f a c e ------88 91 -- -
B o tto m ------89 91 91 - --
J u n e 19
- - S u r f a c e ------9 0 90 91 8 9 93 -
- -- B o tto m ------88 9 0 91 91 98
J u n e 21
-- 8 8 - -- S u r f a c e - - - - 91 91 91 90 - - 90 90
B o tto m - - - - 91 90 91 8 9 - 8 9 91 - - 8 9 - - -
J u n e 22
S u r f a c e 8 9 9 0 89 8 9 9 0 - - - - - 9 0 90 90 - - - - -
B o tto m 8 9 9 0 8 9 90 8 9 - - - - - 9 0 90 90 8 9 8 9 - - - Conductivity in unhos
r > la s t in <7 ’ After blastincj depth (feet) Station and depth (feet)
1 5 23 43 53 62 i 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 53 6 2 (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 )
.
------
------88 91 - - - - -
------89 91 91 - - - - -
- - - - 90 90 91 8 9 93 - - - - -
- - - - 88 9 0 91 91 98 - - - - -
91 91 9 0 - - 90 9 0 - - 8 8 - - - - 91
9 0 91 8 9 - - 8 9 91 - - 89 - - - - 90
- --- 90 9 0 90 ------
- - -- 9 0 90 90 8 9 89 - - - - - Total solids (mg/1)
Before M asting After blasting D a t e a n d Station and depth (feet) Station and depth (feet) s a m p le i 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 53 62 .1 2 3 4 5 15 23 43 (3 4 ) (2 0 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 )
J u n e 16
5 4 .3 4 7 . 1 - 6 4 . 4 5 2 . 6 6 1 . 0 5 6 . 5 S u r f a c e 6 3 . 0 5 7 . 5 ------
5 2 . 2 5 9 . 0 4 9 . 6 6 0 . 6 6 2 . 5 B o t to m * • - “ - - -
J u n e 17
S u r f a c e ------6 1 . 0 5 3 .3 5 5 . 5 4 8 . 7 6 0 . 6 6 0 . 2 - - -
B o t to m ------5 3 . 0 61.0 55.9 59.3 6 9 . 5 5 4 . 9 - - -
J u n e 1 9
S u r f a c e ------5 9 . 2 6 0 . 2 6 1 . 9 6 7 . 3 4 6 . 7 _
B o tto m ------3 2 .1 6 1 . 5 4 5 . 6 7 8 . 1 7 1 . 9 _ _ J u n e 21
S u r f a c e - - - - 5 5 . 9 5 1 .4 5 4 . 9 5 5 . 6 - - 5 9 .7 5 8 .1 ------
B o t to m “ 5 8 . 2 5 7 . 5 6 0 . 5 5 8 . 9 5 5 .1 6 2 . 5
J u n e 22
S u r f a c e 5 7 . 0 5 2 . 5 5 9 . 5 5 1 . 0 5 3 .1 - - - - - 6 2 . 8 5 5 . 5 58.5 52.0 53.0 -- -
B o t to m 6 3 . 0 5 4 . 5 5 1 . 0 5 4 . 6 4 9 . 2 ------6 5 . 9 5 3 . 0 5 4 . 0 5 0 . 5 - - - Total solids (mg/1)
!2______A f t e r blasting ( f e e t ) Station and depth (feet)
23 43 53 6 2 .1 2 3 4 5 15 23 4 3 53 6 2 (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 ) (3 4 ) (2 8 ) (2 0 ) (2 3 ) (1 0 ) (3 4 ) (2 9 ) (5 1 ) (2 4 ) (3 7 )
6 4 . 4 52.6 61.0 56.5
59.8 49.6 60.6 62.5 ------
__ 6 1 . 0 5 3 . 3 5 5 . 5 4 8 . 7 6 0 . 6 6 0 . 2 .
-- - 5 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 5 5 . 9 5 9 .3 6 9 . 5 5 4 . 9 - - - - -
- -- - 5 9 . 2 6 0 . 2 6 1 . 9 6 7 . 3 4 6 . 7 .
- - * - 3 2 . 1 6 1 . 5 4 5 . 6 7 8 . 1 7 1 . 9 - - - - -
5 4 . 9 5 5 . 6 - - 5 9 . 7 5 8 .1 ------5 6 .7 6 1 . 9
6 0 . 5 5 8 . 9 5 5 .1 6 2 . 5 - - - 5 5 . 9 6 3 . 0
- -- - 6 2 . 8 5 5 . 5 5 8 . 5 5 2 . 0 5 3 . 0 - - - - -
--- - - 6 5 . 9 5 3 . 0 5 4 . 0 5 0 . 5 - - - - - St. Marys River Study - Progress Report
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory
Prepared by»
Jarl K. Hiltuncn January 1973 Judith Krzynovrck 1/15/73
Progress Report: Biological and chemical sampling of St. Marys River
Biology
In October, staff of the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory collected the fourth set of samples for benthos at the established stations in the vicinity of Neebish Island, St. Marys River. These samples are now being analyzed.
Chemistry
Collateral to the above biological collections, water samples were also taken. To provide greater coverage of control data, especially upstream from the dredging site, another water sampling series was con ducted in November. Approximately 300 water samples were gathered from
St. Marys River in October and November. All samples collected in Octcber were analyzed for total phosphorus, chlorides, silica, nitrate plus nitrite, total solids, and conductivity.
November's sampling was different, in that sampling above the dredge site was not restricted solely to the control site. Stations included
Sault Ste. Marie, Lake Nicolet, and the North Channel (see attached chart for location of stations). Also, on sampling dates November 16 and 18, dredging operations were suspended. All November samples were analyzed for total phosphorus but analyses for the other five parameters were performed only on samples collected November 20 and only on the control site and stations downstream from the dredge site. The results from these analyses are included in the following tables. More sampliny for chemical determinations is not anticipated.
Interpretation of all chemical data will follow in a final report in progress and expected to be finished by the end of January. ST* marts RlvER P PM CMLORire at STATION SURFACE and eCTTwM tA I £ R SAMPLES
STATION 23 2 3 31 32 33 %1 42 91 92 93 94 95 Si
10/26 S 1.26 0.7% 0.63 0.98 2.77 0*52 0*80 1*01 0.83 1 • 13 1.04 4.12
B 2*99 0.95 1.01 0.83 l.%3 1.15 0.80 0.72 3.78 l.o: 1.41 3.47
10/30 S 0.39 0.36 1.9% 1.39 1.07 1.50 1.05 1*42 1.31 l.Otf 2.20 l.lo
B 0.80 l.%8 1.67 2.0% l.%2 1.92 0.80 0.89 0.9% 1.71 1.63 1-27
10/31 S 1.60 l.ie 1.45 0.38 0..2 0.70 0.33 0.27 0.46 0.31 0.53 0.25 0.65 *0.05 0.53 0.98
B 1.84 1.45 0.57 0.%2 0.87 1.06 0.40 0.38 0.23 -0.10 0.42 0.14 1*21 0.27 0.33
ST* MARYS RIVER PPM SILICA ttt STATION SURFACE AND BOTTOM MATER SAMPLES
STATION 23 2 3 31 32 33 %i 62 91 92 93 9% 95 S3
10/26 S 2.06 2.*7 2.35 2.06 1.93 2.32 2.22 2.08 1.99 1.66 1.80 1.62
B 1.91 1.91 1.99 2.28 1.87 1.81 1.85 1.91 1.75 2.17 1.89 1.99
10/30 $ %.17 2.%3 3.9% 2.41 2.01 3.18 2.36 1.78 3.25 1.75 3.59 2 . 3«
B 2.35 2.80 3.59 2.24 1.68 3.%% 1.75 3.05 1.89 5.3% 1.62 2.17
10/31 S 2.76 2.72 2.92 2.81 2.88 3.2% %.7% 3.03 5.80 3.65 2.57 3.30 3.25 3.02 3.39 2.29
B 3.29 2.92 2.77 2.90 3.04 3.51 3.11 %.7% 2.93 2.92. 2.22 2.50 2.62 3.20 2.81 „ St. MARYS RIVER rPB TOTAL PwOSPmCKUS AS P B» STATION surface a :.; bottom water samples
STATION 23 2 3 31 32 33 41 42 91 92 93 94 95 33
10/2* S 12.12 14.31 22.44 9 .00 18.79 11.86 23.56 2 4 .6 4 13.3 2 1 5 .4 . 5* 35 2 1 *2 9
6 29.37 23.2 9 29.44 12.23 15.78 23.32 14.53 2 4 .7 1 2 9 .1 0 16.04 11.19 u . 3 4
I0 / J0 s 14.84 1 7 .OS 17.77 7.98 9 .4 4 10.44 6.02 1 1 .6 7 1 .5 6 10.17 9 .3 0 8.14
e 11.19 14.29 41.22 13.16 9 .03 9.52 12.33 1 2 .1 7 11 .6 7 10.42 16.03 2 9 .0 5
10/31 S 6.33 AS.AS 1 0 . 1A 13.59 19.40 12.24 16.87 11.84 13.15 9 .9 6 12.7 6 17.37 14.26 9 .24 12.12 1 2 .e2
6 9.09 1 0 . 1A 18.56 16.92 11.76 12.78 25.96 14.80 12.8 8 15.3 4 14.39 2 6 .3 4 10.99 13.08 13.7 7
ST. MARYS RIVER PPB NITROCEN AS NITRATE PluSMTRITE BY STATION SURFACE AND BOTTOM v a TER SAMPLES
STATION 23 2 3 31 32 33 41 42 91 92 93 94 95 53
10/26 $ 234.63 139.20 175.62 221.61 196.16 141.03 200.36 234.37 163.06 236.31 222.32 191.19
B 165.06 169.70 224.63 211.17 212.81 226.24 164.64 197.30 231.02 237.06 239.23 187.76
10/30 S 192.24 200.98 446.20 262.86 270.08 371.71 260.77 267.99 264.23 273.39 271.91 272.46
B 154.00 322.70 360.37 298.12 335.36 425.77 212.99 256.46 236.03 266.61 295.15 a53.1v
10/31 S 273.20 345.87 236.21 267.13 266.74 263.60 269.67 247.20 274.73 269.06 274.96 271.66 273.06 271.21 270.59 263.38
263.91 256.21 233.99 B 233.31 262.14 267.67 261.33 273.46 260.90 273.66 261.33 273.69 271.96 262.97 267.75 ST. MARYS RIvER PPB NITROGEN AS M T R a TE plus NITRITE BY STATION SURFACE AND BOTTOM .ATfR SAMPLES NOVEMBER 20. 1972
•CONTROL SITE SPOIL SITE 200 METERS BELOW SPOIL SITE STATION 22 23 2* 31 32 *1 *2 SURFACE 292.B3 277.02 273.85 282.17 281.07 27*.6* 273.35 BOTTOM 291.27 278.5b 273.73 280.5* 277.*5 27*.16 27*.12 LAKE MUNUSCCNG DISTANCE FROM DRECGING 3000 METERS *100 METERS 5500 METERS STATION 91 92 97 93 9* 96 62 95 53
SURFACE 270.22 269.88 277.*2 266.62 273.*3 273.98 265.09 273.23 257.37 BOTTOM 273.23 273.93 266.55 27*.92 26*.*3 273.00 269.2* 267.79 267.*0
ST. MARYS RIVER PPn CHLORIDE b y s tation SURFACE ANO BOTTCm WATER SAMPLES NOVEMBER 20.1972
CONTROL SITE SPOIL SITE 200 METERS BELOW SPOIL SITE STATION 22 23 2* 31 32 A1 *2
SURFACE 1.C9 1.3* 1.30 1.06 1.18 1.23 1.0* BOTTOM 3.26 0.99 1.3* 3.20 1.01 1.03 l.*9 LAKE MUNUSCCNG
distance from DREDGING 3000 METERS *100 METERS 5500 METERS STATION 81 92 97 93 9* 96 62 95 53
SURFACE 0.97 0.9* 1.0* 0.95 1.C6 0.9- 0.92 0.99 0.96 BOTTOM 0.99 0.98 l.C* 1.16 1.07 0.76 1.00 1.08 1.02
ST. MARYS RIVER PPM SILICA BY STATIDN SURFACE ANO BOTTOM WATER SAMPLES NOVEMBER 20. 19T2
CONTROL SITE SPOIL SITE 200 METERS BELOw SPOIL SITE STATION 22 23 2* 31 32 *1 *2 SURPACE 2.52 2.*9 2.IT 2.8T *.68 2,07 2.65 BOTTCM 1.92 2.62 2.60 2.5* 2.*5 2.18 2.56 LAKE MUNUSCCNG DISTANCE FROM DREDGING 3000 METERS AlOO METERS )S00 METERS STATION 81 82 87 93 9* 96 62 95 S3
SURFACE 2.32 *.86 2.12 2.73 2.*3 2.*1 2.*8 3 . 3 * 2.35 BOTTOM 2.*8 2.*0 *.01 2.18 2.12 2.58 2.37 2.*2 , . 0 3 ST. m a r t s RIvER PP6 TOTAL Pm SSPh JPj S AS P ST STATION SURFACE a n d BOTTOM wATER SAMPLES
• ELOw SAULT LOCKS BElOw SAULT STE. MAC IE. MICh . BELOW SAULT STE. M A B I t . o n T. statio n 101 102 103 201 202 2C3 20* 301 332 303
11/16 S 6.0« T.01 7.63 29.21 6.29 S.T1 B.36 S.23 7.2* 9.62
B 3.52 7.66 1.11 I B . 09 5.92 6 .1 * 12.56 7.69 1.00 16.76
11/16 3 3.69 7.91 6 .36 1.33 3.91 2.01 3.9* 3.02 6.36 6 0 .'8
B 3.07 6 .88 8.39 37.67 2.81 3.39 7 .3 6 3.12 3.60 7.66
H /20 S 2.36 6.09 6.39 25.22 3.05 6.86 3.30 3.13 6.31 18.65
B 7.91 6.62 3.60 12.31 6.13 2.69 6.73 3.72 2.37 3131
LOWER LAKE N1COLET NORTH Channel CONTRL SITE SPOIL SITE STATION I* IS 16 801 832 833 22 23 26 31 33
11/16 S 9 .3 0 B.66kkkk..k» 9.21 8 .16 9.29 6 .3 3 6.83 7.32 7.6 6 3.77
6 8.36 13.08 8.93 6.91 10.65 6.IB 7.13 3.89 7.25 8.21 7.66 il/1* S 7.29 6.31 3.32 6.71 6.66 6.21 3.77 6.11 5.63 17.22 6.35
B 6 .3 9 3.86 5.33 6 .9 6 6.9* 3.60 16.37 7.91 6.27 20.32 8 .16
11/20 S 6.18 6.39 1.39 7.66 3.26 6.53 7.79 2.79 9.33 6.02 3.13
B 1.99 7.32 3.37 6.17 6.66 9.10 7.63 7.80 7.23 8.27 7.62
LAKE MUNUSCCNO
BELOW SPOIL SITE PETERS FROM DREDGING 3000 M 6100 M 3330 " STATION *1 *2 91 92 97 93 96 96 52 93 S3
11/16 S 6.63 *.62 3.38 8.66 7.16 3.68 3.39 6.66 3.96 9.90 33.25
B 6.99 6.66 3.87 9.39 3.17 6.SS 3.05 6.32 6.97 6.19 9.37
11/1* S 8.73 10.62 9.6* 6.66 3.83 10.1* 7.19 3.38 8.23 8.67 7.36
B 10.01 11.38 12.62 6.93 7.23 9.32 6.62 6.3* 10.37 8.61 7.67
11/20 S 6.63 9.83 7.61 *.76 6.23 6.23 8.96 6.72 6.03 3.13 7.03
B 6.2* 11.86 6.23 6.63 6.63 10.1* 9.88 3.61 6.1* 3.07 5.56 Conductivity (micromhos)
lake Munuscong
Control Site Distance from dredging 2000 meters from dredging 440 meters above blast Dredqlnq Site S p o i l S i t e 200 meters from spoil 3000 meters 41C0 meters
22 23 24 2 3 31 32 33 41 42 91 92 97 93 94 96
O c t 2 6 S 55 4 0 45 51 52 4 0 43 55 45 55
B 55 50 50 49 59 55 50 55 55 55
O c t 3 0 S 40 35 45 s o 53 53 55 62 60 57
B 4 8 48 45 55 53 53 55 53 55 57
O c t 31 S 75 95 7 9 7 0 7 5 75 70 70 7 0 70 8 0 8 0 75 75
B 8 0 85 7 0 80 75 7 0 70 70 7 0 80 8 0 75 75
N ov 1 6 S 56 59 6 0 58 56
B 58 ' 6 0 6 0 59 58 '
NOV 18 S 64 63 61 63 62
B 62 6 5 61 62 62
N o v 2 0 S 95 95 95 95 U n d e r 95 9 S 95 95 95 95 95 9 5 92
B 95 95 95 95 S p o i l 95 95 98 95 95 95 95 92 92 Conductivity (mlcrorohos)
Lake Munuscong
Distance from dredging 2000 meters from dredging S p o i l S i t e 200 meters from spoil 3000 meters 41C0 peters 55C0 peters
31 32 33 41 42 91 92 97 93 94 96 53 95 53
4 0 45 51 52 40 4 9 55 45 55 58 55
5 0 50 4 9 53 55 50 55 55 55 58 45
35 45 50 53 53 55 62 60 57 60 63
48 45 55 S3 53 55 53 55 57 62 63
7 0 75 75 70 70 7 0 70 8 0 80 80 90
7 0 80 75 7 0 7 0 70 70 8 0 8 0 80 80
58 56
59 58
63 62
62 62 ,
95 U n d e r 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 92 95 95 95
95 S p o i l 95 95 9 8 95 95 95 95 9 2 92 95 95 9 S Total Solid. (>9/1)
tat* Hunuscong Control Sit* Distance from dredging 2000 aetere fro* dredging 440 asters above blast Dredging Sit* Spoil Sit* 200 veters from spoil 3000 aetere 4100 meters
33 23 24 2 3 31 32 33 41 42 91 92 97 91 94 96
Oct 26 S 27.0 66.5 75.0 66.5 62.4 70.5 48.5 67.5 66.0 65.5
B 54.9 72.0 64. B 62.5 70.0 71.8 436.0 52.0 70.5 68.0
Oct 30 S 17.6 13.5 50.6 51.5 67.4 64.1 59.4 63.0 60.6 47.6
B 35.2 37.6 46.6 59.2 70.7 66.9 52.2 66.9 50.6 59.6
Oct 31 S 59.0 200.5 58.4 57.3 60.2 66.5 62.8 67.9 64.0 57.3 64.7 70.3 67.4
B 64.0 70.5 67.4 74.4 89.0 63.0 78.2 66.7 61.9 59.4 54.7 66.1 64.1
Nov 30 6 58.5 47.0 46.5 4S.5 46.0 50.0 53.6 60.0 54.0 60.5 62.5 64.5 67.5
B 56.5 58.5 49.S 50.0 46.0 51.5 66.0 53.6 53.0 51.5 67.5 78.5 54.5 Total Scllds (mq/l)
Lake Hunuscong Distance from dredging 2000 meters from dredging Spoil Sit* 200 meters from spoil 3000 meter* 4100 meters 5509 meters
31 32 33 41 42 91 92 97 93 94 96 52 95 53
66.5 75.0 66.5 62.4 70.5 48.5 67.5 66.0 85.5 45.5 51.5
72.0 64.8 62.5 70.0 71.9 438.0 52.0 70.5 68.0 65.0 69.0
11.S 50.6 51.5 67.4 64.1 59.4 63.0 60.6 47.6 56.7 64.2
37.6 46.6 58.2 70.7 66.9 52.2 66.9 58.6 59.6 59.0 45.9
57. J 60.2 66.5 62.8 67.9 64.0 57.3 64.7 55.5 S
69.0 63.0 78.2 66.7 81.9 59.4 54.7 66.1 64.1 58.0 55.0
45.5 46.0 50.0 53.6 60.0 54.0 60.5 62.5 64.5 67.5 60.0 64.0 62.5
50.0 46.0 51.5 66.0 53.6 53.0 51.5 67.5 78.5 54.5 58.0 68.5 62.3 2 Tab] 2 - — Relative abur.Jir.ee fr.o./m ) cf r.ajcr groups of benthic organises collected from the St. Marys River, 1971-1972.
Range and season— Oligochaeta Chirononidae Epheneroptera Trichoptera Gastropoda Sphaeriidae
Range 1
S 71 3,459 2,261 544 88 1,322 1,076 F 71 1,016 1,186 427 12 2 651 628 S 72 1,458 3,056 539 200 943 677
Range 2
S 71 1,147 993 288 22 .405 108 F 71 1,188 520 742 74 222 300 S 72 727 2,503 754 79 24 114
Range 4
S 71 1,587 1,0 0 0 1,159 45 216 503 F 71 2,278 744 804 86 277 518 S 72 962 938 980 69 229 451
Range 5
S 71 -558 415 508 29 250 284 F 71 668 424 341 81 281 441 S 72 752 721 284 71 460 288
Range 6
S 71 1,215 484 473 17 152 487 F 71 ------S 72 303 515 169 9 172 492
Range 7
S 71 2,712 365 433 9 248 189 F 71 632 458 234 59 491 325 S 72 389 881 305 52 491 613 St. Marys River Study - Progress Report
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory
Prepared by:
Jarl K. Hiltunen
July 1973 Progress Report: Biological sampling of St. Marys River
All benthos samples collected from the St. Marys River in fall 1972 have been analyzed. The attached table provides comparative abundance estimates of selected groups for the four periods sampled.
At nearly all sampling locations, the organisms were, by far, more abundant in fall 1972 than on the prior dates. Some unaccountable, but apparently natural, environmental conditions were beneficial to the entire benthic community since high numbers were evident throughout the area.
In May 1973 the benthos sampling series was repeated and the samples are now being analyzed. Final sampling is expected to occur in October 1973. Table . — Relative abundance (no./m^) estimates of major groups of benthic organisms collected from the St. Marys River, 1971-72. ]• Ti.qc and Oligochaeta Chi ror.cnii Jaa Ephcneroptera Trichoptera Gastropoda Sphaeriidac 4son— range 1
S 71 3,459 2,261 544 88 1,322 1,076 F 71 1,016 1,186 427 122 651 628 S 72 1,458 3,056 539 200 943 677 V 72 5,404 3,484 650 323 864 1,268
Range 2
S 71 1,147 993 288 22 . 405 108 F 71 1,188 520 742 74 222 300 S 72 727 2,503 754 79 24 114 F 72 4,368 2,538 1,426 230 448 471
Range 4
S 71 1,587 1,000 1,159 45 216 503 F 71 2,278 744 804 86 277 518 S 72 962 938 980 69 229 451 F 72 4,022 1,767 1,008 44 234 1,108
Range 5
S 71 558 415 508 29 250 284 F 71 668 424 341 81 281 441 S 72 752 721 284 71 460 288 F 72 1,611 1,484 361 138 484 587
Range 6
S 71 1,215 484 473 17 152 487 F 71 ------S 72 303 515 169 9 172 492 F 72 1,446 1,488 165 99 886 964
Range 7
S 71 2,712 365 439 9 248 189 F 71 632 458 234 59 491 325 S 72 389 831 305 52 491 613 F 72 3,866 1,942 494 197 1,583 1,639
— ^ S = spring; F = fall
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS
WIDENING & DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER
PHASE III
APPENDIX B
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
EVALUATION
OF
SEDIMENT
QUALITY MICHIGAN HARBORS AND NAVIGATION CHANNELS
EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT QUALITY
OCTOBER 1972
U.S. ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region V Michigan District Office Grosse lie , Michigan APPENDIX B
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY OF DREDGED SPOIL DISPOSAL TO THE NATION'S WATERS
Use of Criteria
These criteria were developed as guidelines for EPA.WQO evaluation of proposals and applications to dredge sediments from fresh and saline waters.
Criteria
The decision whether to oppose plans for disposal of dredged spoil in U.S. waters must be made on a case-by-case basis after considering all appropriate factors; including the following:
(a) Volume of dredged material. (b) Existing and potential quality and use of the water in the disposal area. (c) Other conditions at the disposal site such as depth and currents. (d) Time of year of disposal (in relation to fish migration and spawning, e tc.). (e) Method disposal and alternatives. (f) Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the dredged material. (g,) Likely recurrence and total number of disposal requests in a receiving water area. (h) Predicted long and short term effects on receiving water quality.
When concentrations, in sediments, of one or more of the following pollution parameters exceed the limits expressed below, the sediment will be considered polluted in all cases and, therefore, unacceptable for open water disposal.
Sediments in Fresh and IC one. Percent Marine Waters (dry wt. basis) Mg/Kg
Volatile Solids* 6.0 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 5.0 50,000 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.10 1,000 Oil-Grease 0.15 1,500 Mercury 0.0001 1 Lead . 0.005 50 Zinc 0.005 50
♦When analyzing sediments dredged from marine waters, the following correlation between volatile solids and COD should be made: If the results show a significant deviation from this equation, additional samples should be analyzed to insure reliable measurements.
The volatile solids and COD analyses should be made first. If the maximum .limits are exceeded, the sample can be characterized as polluted and the additional parameters would not have to be investigated.
Dredged sediment having concentrations of constituents less than the limits stated above will not be automatically considered acceptable for disposal. A judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis after considering the factors listed in (a) through (h) on the preceding page.
In addition to the analyses required to determine compliance with the stated numerical criteria, the following additional tests are recomnended where appropriate and pertinent: Total Phosphorus Total Organic Carbon(TOC) Immediate Oxygen Demand (IOD) Settleability Sulfides Trace Metals (iron, cadmium, copper, chromium, arsenic, and nickel) Pesticides Bioassay
The first four analyses would be considered desirable in almost all instances. They may be added to mandatory lis t when sufficient experience with their interpretation is gained. For example, as experience is gained, the TOC'test may prove to be a valid substitute for the volatile solids and COD analyses. Tests for trace metals and pesticides should be made where significant concentrations of these materials are expected from known waste discharges.
All analyses and techniques for sample collection, preservation, and preparation shall be in accord with a current EPA, WQO analytical manual on sediments. APPENDIX B
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIONS OF ODOR *
Code Nature of Odor Description (such as odors o f:)
A Aromatic (spicy) t camphor, cloves, lavender, lemon Ac cucumber Synura
B Balsamic (flowery) geranium, violet, vanilla Bg geranium Asterior.ella Bn • nasturtium Aphanizomenon Bs sweetish Coelosphaerium Bv violet Mallorronas
C Chemical .industrial wastes or treatment chemicals Cc chlorinous free chlorine Ch hydrocarbon oil refinery v/astes Cm medicinal phenol and iodoform Cs sulfuretted hydrogen sulfide
D Disagreeable (pronounced, unpleasant) Df fishy Uroqlenopsis, Dinobryon Dp pigpen Anabaena Ds septic stale sewage
E Earthy damp earth Ep peaty peat
G Grassy crushed grass
M Musty decomposing straw Mm moldy • damp cellar
Y Vegetable root vegetables
♦Standard Methods of Examination of Water & Wastewater, 11th Edition, p. 255.
ONTARIO.
— . 3 AULT STC. MAN It
X -veto 4 ' J y ^ *
@ \ ------^ r > r \ / / v x \ 3=51 3 AULT STf. MARIE \ * N,02 i
1,M>,,“ J @ /47/'& 'ft... & GvJ i i \ / o j s I I G A N >-vijj |\)\ \ ------1
LCOCWP . ( I r\\ A \\ \ *\ V r / 3 U 3 A R " ■ © Cf3e.RU. \ \ u V ' V I
G2J 3..,^;=^... V\9 ]t\V’n) »^«0 (*?) ttp’Bfotory BlsIOflcrl S«m»t*< \ '^1 ....A, \l //
I l Pto’ltel Ar#o \ \ V ' ^\ V. . I I P eo lM * 3l>po»ol Art* v\ \ ' \ \
W V x 1
•______v O V ' k i . TABLE 2 Bottom Sediment Sample Analysis St. Marys River - 1972
Station Depth Sediment Description No. ( f t .) Lab. No. Color Odor* Oil Percent Composition
SM-43 27 22050 red brown E no silt-10, sand-90
SM-44 28 22051 ed brown E,Df no gravel-5, sand-95 (si)
SM-45 35 052 red-black ' Ds(sl) no wood chips, fibers-10, gravel-20 Mm sand-30, silt-40
SM-46 24 22053 brown E no pebbles-16, silt-24, clay-60
SM-38 22054 brown E no gravel-1, sand-19, silt-80
SM-37 10 22055 brown Df no pebbles-2, gravel-2, sand-48, silt-48
SM-47** 12 22056 gray-brown no ooze-10, sand-10, s1lt-SO
SM-48** 10 22057 brown Ds(sl) ooze-10, sand-10,mud-80
* For description see Appendix B
** Exploratory . TABLE 2 Bottom Sediment Sample Analysis St. Marys River - 1972
% Passing Sediment Description No. 10 Color Odor* Oil Percent Composition Mesh Screen red brov/n E no silt-10, sand-90 99.9 red brown E.Df no gravel-5, sand-95 93.3 (si) red-black Ds(sl) no wood chips, fibers-10, gravel-20 86.3 Km sand-30, silt-40 brown E no pebbles-15, silt-24, clay-60 84.0 brown E no gravel-1, sand-19, silt-80 99.1 brown Df no pebbles-2, gravel-2, sand-48, silt-48 96.3 . gray-brown no ooze-10, sand-10, silt-SO brown Ds(sl) ooze-10, sand-10,mud-80 May 24
Station Depth Sediment Description No. ( f t .) Lab. No. Color Odor* Oil Percent Composition
SM-49 ** 12 22070 red-brown no clay-10, sand-90
SM-50 ** 7 22071 red-brown no clay-20, silt-20, sand-60
SM-51 ** 12 22072 red-brown. no clay-40, sand-60
SM-52 ** 19 22073 red-brown no silt-50, sand-50
SM-53 ** .19 22074 red-brown r.o clay-50, sand-50
* For description see Appendix B ** Exploratory % Passing Sediment Description No. 10 Color Odor’1' Oil Percent Composition liesn Screen red-brcwn no clay-10, sand-90 red-brown no clay-20, silt-20, sand-60 red-brown. no clay-40, sand-60 red-brown no silt-50, sand-50 red-brown no clay-50, sand-50 St. Marys River - 5/23
Tot. Kjeldahl Solids Phenol Nitrocen Total Phosphorus Station (parcent) (r3a/kq) (v?/kq) (r.q/kp) (rcp/kp) No. Total Tot. Vol: Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry 8 Wet B Dry 8
SM-43 73.9 2.4 29,000 39,000 <97 150 200 290 390
SM-44 77;4 0;8 9,400 12,000 <97 n o 140 210 270
SM-45 76.9 V.6 17,000 22,000 <97 180 230 290 380
SH-46 65.7 2.1 20,000 30,000 <97 170 260 360 550
SM-38 76.2 0.7 6,700 8,800 <97 160 210 160 "210
SM-37 82.8 0.4 4,700 5,700 <97 89 n o 100 .120 Tot. Kjeldahl COD Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Oil 6 Grease (ria/kq) (;ic/kq) (tnq/ka) (rco/! 29,000 39,000 <97 150 200 290 390 50 1,200 9,400 12,000 <97 n o 140 210 270 480 620 17,000 22,000 <97 180 230 290 380 520 680 20,000 30,000 <97 170 260 360 550 360 550 6,700 8', 800 <97 160 210 160 210 60 79 . 4,700 5,700 <97 89 n o 100 120 180 220 May 23 L.W.D. Depth Core Description Station No. (ft .) Lab. No. Color Odor* Oil Percent Ccrroosition Bottom 19.2 SM-40-fl 19.2-21.2 22000 brown red Bs,M no gravel-5, silt-45,sand-50 SM-40-02 24-26 22001 reddish brown M • no gravel-10, pefcbles-15, clay-25, silt-25,sand-25 SM-40-#3 28.5-30.5 22002 reddish brown Bs,M no silt-5, gravel-95 % Passing Core Description No. 10 ' Lab. No. Color Odor* Oil Percent Ccirposition Nesh Screen 22000 brown red Bs.M no gravel-5, silt-45,sand-50 95.2 22001 reddish brown M • no gravel-10, pebbles-15, 74.9 clay-25, silt-25.sand-25 22002 reddish brown Bs,M no silt-5, gravel-95 10.0* (estircated) May 23 Tot. Kjeldahl Solids COO Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus _ (flercent) (ma/kq) (-uq/kq) ‘ (rr.q/kq) (mq/kq) Station No. Totali Tot. Vol. Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B Wet 3 Dry B Wet B Dry B SM-40-ifl 77.1 0.7 6300 8200 97' 120 130 170 200 260 SM-40-J2 88.2 0.2 780 880 <97 17 19 310 350 SM-40-#3 89.5 0.4 780 870 <97 16 18 170 190 Tot. Kjeldahl COD Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Oil & Grease (yng/kg) (tq/kq) * (rr.q/kq) (mq/kq) (rr/kq) Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B 00 8200 97 120 130 170 200 260 300 390 '80 880 <97 17 19 310 350 310 350 '80 870 <97 16 18 170 190 460 510 May 24 L.W.D. Depth Core Description . Station No. (ft .) Lab. No. Coliar 0dor,c Oil Percent Composition Bottom 12.8 SM-41-H 12.8-14.8 22003 reddish brown E no silt-10, pebbles-10, sand-40, gravel-40 SM-41-02 20-22 22004 reddish brown E no clay-1, pebbles-20, sand-39, gravel-40 SM-41-#3 28.5-30.5 22005 brown E no clay-5, pebbles-5, gravel-25, sand-25 %'Passing Core Description . No. 10 : Color Odor” Oi 1 Percent Composition Mesh Scrconn reddish brown E no silt-10, pebbles-10, sand-40, 79.7 gravel-40 reddish brown E no clay-1, pebbles-20, sand-39, 60.3 gravel-40 brown E no clay-5, pebbles-5, gravel-25, 82.8 sand-25 Kay 24 Tot. Kjeldahl Solids COO Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus (percent) (nc/ka) (no/kg) ("q/kc) (r.ci/kq) Station No. Total lot. Vol. Wet B Dry B Wet'B Dry ¥ Wet B iryB v.'et B Dry B SK-41-i?l 84.7 0.3 770 910 <98 16 19 250 300 SM-4W2 90.6 0.4 1200 1300. <90 16 18 230 250 SM 41-#3 • 87.1 0.3 770 880 <98 16 18 280 320 Tot. Kjeldahl COD Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Oil & Grease (nc/ko) (~ sA ?) (ra/kq) (rrjy.n) Dry B ket B Dry B T ctB Ury B Wet B B Wot B Lry B 910 <98 16 19 250 300 <50 1300. <98 16 18 230 250 <50 880 <98 16 18 280 320 <50 ' May 25 L.W.D. • Depth Core Description Station No. ( f t .) Lab. No,. Color Odor* Oil Percent CoToosition Eotton 20.4 SM-42 #1 20.4-22.4 22010 brov/n-gray E no pebbles-5, gravel-25, clay-70 SM-42 #2 24.9-26.9 22011 light- brown E no pebbles-40, gravel-20, sand-40 SM-42 i?3 28.5-30.5 22012 light brown E no pebbles-15, gravel-15, sand-70 % Passing Core Description h'o. 10 Color Odor* Oil Percent Composition Mesn Screen brown-gray E no pebbles-5, gravel-25, clay-70 90.7 light- brown E no pebbles-40, gravel-20, sand-40 50*{est1r. light brown E no pebbles-15, cravel-15, sand-70 79.3 May 25 Tot. Kjeldahl SolIds COD Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus (percent) (rcq/ka) (itci'Ap) ' (rr.q/kq) (rca/ka) Station No. Total Tot. Voi. Wet B Dry B l.'ct B Dry B Wet B Dry B Wet B Dry B / SM-42-#l,: 71.6 1.3 3900 5400 <98 49 ee 440 610 SM-42-02 91.7 0.4 < 390 <98 10 n 250 270 •SM-42-13 89.9 0.2 770 860 <98 15 17 230 260 Tot. Kjeldahl Phenol Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Oil & Grease (uti'/ka). ' (rr.a/kq) (mo/ko) (rc/!:o) l.'et B L’r.y B Eet B UrylT l.'et B Dry B Let B Lrv H <98 49 68 440 610 <50 U) o <98 10 11 250 270 <98 15 17 230 260 <50 Results of Core Sampling Three locations were sampled within the proposed dredging area using a Corps of Engineers coring rig. Sediments were collected at 3 depths:. 1) just under the mud-water interface 1 to 2 feet into the sediments; 2) at approximately one-half the proposed dredging depth, and 3) near the bottom of the project dredging depth. None of the core samples contained objectionable quantities cf polluted materials. The analyses results are presented in Table- 2. ppsults of Exploratory Biolccncal Sampling A field reconnaissance of the benthic fauna inhabiting the U.S. side of the St. Marys River from below the locks to Mission Point was conducted on May 23-25, 1972. Screened sediment samples were examined in the field and notes made on the type and relative abundance of various aquatic organisms. The results are presented in Table 2. . Members of the cosmopolitan family Chironomidae (Bloodv/orm) were the most widespread organisms. Various kinds of Chironomidae were noted at all locations sampled. Organisms associated with polluted conditions were not found in significant numbers. As in a previous survey, only small numbers of a variety of benthic organisms were found. Relatively sparse populations were noted both in and out of the navigation channel indicating unpolluted conditions. May 23-25 Station Depth No. I f t J . Benthic Organisms Found SM-37 10 Chironomidae, variety of types (Bloodworms) SM-33 Chironomidae, variety of types Trichoptera, (Caddisflies) Petromyzontidae - ammocetes (lamprey) SM-43 27 Chironomidae Sphaeriidae (fingernail clams) SM-44• 28 Chironomidae SM-45 35 Sphaeriidae Chironomidae SM-46 24 Chironomidae SM-47 12 Chironomidae, variety o f types Isopoda (aquatic sowbugs) Ephemeriidae (burrowing mayflies) Hirudinea (leech) Decapoda (cray fish) SM-48 lo Chironomidae, variety of types Isopoda Spaeri idae 7u iifi:idae (sludgc^.o'-m) Relative Abundance cordon conmon rare rare rare rare rare ccrr^on rare coirmon abundant abundant common rare rare abundant ccrron rare rare Kay 23-25 Station Depth No. IlkI Benthic Organisms Found SM-49 12 Chironomidae, variety'of types Gastropoda, variety of types Isopoda Amphipoda (scuds) SM-50 7 Tubificidae Planaria s£ Helisoma sp Chironomidae SM-51 12 Chircnomidae • Gastropoda « ■ Isopoda Ephemeriidae-' SM-52 19 Chironomidae Gastropoda Sphaeriidae Trichoptera SM-53 19 Chironomidae Tubificidae Relative Abundance corrr.on ro7 on rar^ rare cc7.7on rare rare rare c ox.7. on ccr.7cn rare rare cordon ccrr.on rare rara cor.r.on rare TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT QUALITY No. of No. of Pollution • Project/Locatlon Samples Analyses Status General Quality l Remarks St. Marys River Locks to Mission Pt. 6 42 u** Clean sand & s ilt. Core samples to project depth 9 63 u** Clean sand & gravel subsoils. Sebewaing River Ooze;,high vol, solids, COD, From Buoy RN1Q, 9,500! 4 28 P Oil & grease, nitrogen. Into the river Bay Port 63 'U** Sand, s ilt; generally clean within and outside channel. Casevllle Harbor Inner river to within 500' of mouth 1 7 • y** Sand, mud, gravel; 500' upstream from 2 14 P Ooze, mud, s ilt ; high solids, COD, river mouth, 1300' oil & grease, nitrogen , mod, . lakeward levels of phosphorus. Outer lake channel, 1 7 u** Sand, mud. 1500' offshore • * See pages for data and sample location maps ** Pending metal analyses p 3 Polluted u 3 Unpolluted Pollution Reference Status General Quality l Remarks Paqes* u** Clean sand & s ilt. 6 u** Clean sand & gravel subsoils. 0oze;,h1gh vol, solids, COD, 20 P Oil & grease, nitrogen. u** Sand, silt; generally clean within 23 , and outside channel. 26 ( • y** Sand, mud, gravel; • ' ' P Ooze, mud, s ilt ; high solids, COD, • oil & grease, nitrogen , mod. levels of phosphorus. u** Sand, mud. GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING & DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER PHASE III APPENDIX C CORRESPONDENCE OF COORDINATING AGENCIES DURING PROJECT PLANNING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FEDERAL. WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION- R E G IO N V 33 EAST CONGRESS PARKWAY. ROOM AIO CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60605 January 20, 1971 Colonel ^fyron D. Snoke District Engineer Detroit District, Corps of Engineers P.0. Eox 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Col.. Snoke: Reference in made to your letter of November 20, 1970 regarding the possibilities for, or resulting consequences of nutrient release in the proposed St. Mary's bend widening dredging work, with special concern about the release of phosphates. To provide the necessary background for an answer to your letter we will briefly review the existing water and sediment quality in t.ho St. Marys River. The FWQA conducted a study of the bottom sediments of the River in May and June of 1970. Your office has been provided maps showing the locations of the sample points as well as copies of the chemical analyses and visual observations of the samples. The biological ob servations made during this study show that below the locks,, the Ct. Marys can be roughly divided in half along the international boundary. The U. S. half contained benthic organisms often associated with clean to lightly polluted rivers: fingernail clams, a variety of bloodworms, bryzone snails, sludgeworms in moderate numbers and a variety of aquatv- vascular plants occurring near shore. In the center of the river very few organisms were found, probably due to the turbulence from passing ships and the lock operations. On the Ontario side, fingernail clams and white fiberous material, de scribed as "sphaerotilus" sewage fungus, were found in association with paper mill wastes, for a distance of approximately 3 miles downstream of the locks. In the lower river, LateNicolet contained burrowing Mayflies (Hexazenia), fingernail clams, operculate snails and occasional leeches and sludge- worms.. Plants encountered were Elodea and Chara. Caddisflies were found in areas of fast current while burrowing Mayflies, bloodworms, Ceratopogonidae larvae and Potomogeton associations were established in the lakes of this area. On the basis of the results of this survey we have classified the River as follows: 1. Locks to Mission Point, mainly on Canadian side - polluted. ^ . Remainder of River - unpolluted. Except for part of Contract 3> all of the proposed widening project will involve material classified as not polluted. The International Joint Commission also monitors the water quality of the St. Marys River and in the thirty-seventh progress report March, 1970 to this group by the Advisory Boards to the International Joint Ccmmscion on Control of Pollution of Boundary Waters it states that "1969 phosphorus concentrations (as P) in the St. Marys River showed little variation in levels from Range SMU 15.5 at the Lake Superior "little differences in the total nitrogen concentrations were found between stations along Range SMU 15.5 in the Upper St. Marys River and sampling points located on ranges in the channels of the lower portion of the river. The average concentration at Range SMU 15.5 was 0.53 mg/l compared to the combined average concentration of 0.50 mg/l at ranges SMD 18.1 W, SMD 16.9 M and 25.0 E in the three channels of the Lake Huron inlet. These data compare closely to those observed in 1968." "There were, however, significant local increases in total nitrogen below the outfalls of the Algoma Steel Corporation and the Abitibi Paper Co. Stations adjacent to the Canadian shore on ranges SMD 0.8, SMD 1.0 and SMD 1,2 downstream of these two companies had average total nitrogen values of 1.10, 0.95 and 1.81 mg/l respectively." In reviewing the data from the FWQA survey we note that the total P concentration in the sediments from the areas scheduled for dredging during Contracts 1, 2, & 4 ranges from a minimum of 150 mg/kg dry weight to a maximum of 520 mg/kg with an average of 360 and a median of 420. 'There is also a steady decline in concentrations from 1,500 at Little Rapids; to 1,300 in the Lake Nicolet Channel; to 430 at Course 7, Middle tleebish Channel; to 150 at Pt. Aux Frenes. Considering the total P is around 700 mg/kg upstream of the . Locks it appears there is an input of P downstream of the Locks which is in such form that it settles out as it goes downstream. Because the IJC reported no measurable localized increase in F concentration below municipal and industrial outfalls, the source of this input is unknown at present. These data indicate that P is present in the sediment, although net. in substantial quantities in the majority of the samples. Whether this P will be released during dredging and, if it Is,what tie results will be on the water quality and the bottom biota are the questionr of interest. Two further facets of these questions that will also need answering concern how much of the sediment will be spilled or stirred up during the dredging operation; and how much P will be released from the spilled or stirred material. The answer to the quantity of sediment spilled or stirred up depends on the type of dredging and the care with which it is performed. Re gardless of the type and care there will be some spillage and stirring. We have not made any calculations on the distance the resuspended sedi ments will travel or the quantity of the material involved,but we feel the quantity would be small and wouldn’t be carried too far. In this matter your staff could come up with some good estimates based on prac tical experience. One effect that the turbidity caused by spillage and stirring would have on the bottom biota is illustrated in the aforementioned biologic,al evaluation. In this case the turbidity is caused by the turbulence created by passing vessels with the result there are very few organisms present in the channel. Because of the frequent passage of vessels, this turbulence prevents the establishment of a benthic community whiif in the case of dredging the turbidity would be of a temporary nature and we do.not believe any irreversible damage would be done to the ex isting biota. The answer as to how much P will be released from the resuspended sedi ment is very complex. There are so many variables that, in essence, a separate survey would be needed for each project to make the determina tion. Factors that influence the amount of phosphorus adsorbed, and the degree to which it is tightly held on sediment particles, include the chemical nature of the sediment material itself, the climatic ex posure of the soil prior to erosion, the chemical condition of the sedi ment environment (oxidizing or reducing), the presence of and type of biological action (aerobic or anaerobic) in the undisturbed sediment layer, and the amount of phosphorus exposure the particles have been subjected to. There are a number of studies that show a large increase in the total P in streams during periods of high flow when the bottom sediments are resuspended. (Relative Contributions of Nutrients to the Potomac River From Various Sources, N. A. Jaworski & L. J. Hetling, Cornell University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management, 1970) The P is obviously coming from the resuspendedsediments, but whether it is fixed to the particles in such a form that it can be readily available is not known. It could be in a soluble form occupying the interstitial spaces on the particles or the voids between particles and become readily available, or it could be tightly adsorbed on the particles and be extremely difficult to remove. In both of these cases the amount of P released would vary with the type of sediment. If the sediments contain a large amount of clay particles to which the P is tightly fixed by adsorption, then very little might be released during the resuspension. If the sediments contained particles with large amounts of interstitial space, then the soluble P could be readily released. Sand and gravel material would not contain any significant amounts of phosphorus and the dredg ing of this material should have no measurable effect on the water quality. The condition of the bottom is also important. Studies have shown that in some cases the material immediately below the mud-water inter face at the river bottom may be in an anaerobic condition. When this is the case, as soon as a bite is taken from the bottom by the dredges, the remaining newly exposed surface immediately starts reacting with the components of the water phase, and p could be put into solution. Any spillage or stirrings would suspend the bottom material and the P could similarly go into solution. On the other hand, if the sediment is composed of material which has a high affinity for adsorbing P and the particle surfaces are actually phosphorus-poor, the sediment could remove this nutrient from the liquid phase and produce a water of higher quality. This has been measured in a number of studies and obviously would be a benefit of the dredging operations. Current research work, being conducted at several U. S. Environmental Protection Agency research laboratories and at university research facilities, is investigating the degree of substantivity of phosphorus to sediment particles, the leachability of this adsorbed material, and the problems of determining the biologically-available versus the totally-inert phosphorus fractions. In the absence of definitive answers for these important considerations, it is recommended that an investigation into the nature of the sediment-phosphorus condition in selected areas in the St. Marys River be undertaken. These areas would include those portions of the proposed work where the bottom sediment material would indicate favorable phosphorus retention characteristics. Leaching tests of the sediment under both aerobic and anaerobic con ditions, analyses for soluble nutrients in the interstitial spaces, and determination of the inorganic and organic types of phosphorus should be carried out before dredging operations are initiated. We appreciate the opportunity of replying to your inquiry and will be pleased to provide you with any further information as it becomes available from current research programs. Sincerely yours, Carlysle Pemberton, Jr. Director, Office of Technical Programs Mr. U rlyilt tabcrtoo, Jr. Director, Office of Technical Frogrou Cnvlrooaeatal Protection Agency Water (guilty Office, legion V toe* 4 l 0 t 33 K. Congru* Parkway Chicago, Illiaoia 60605 bear Mr. fenberton: inference ie sade to your letter of January 20, 1971, copy attached as luclosure 1, concerning the St. Marys diver bend *leaning work. Inference la also node to the Lake ttnaa bottan sod Inset analyses forwarded by year latter of May 3, 1971, to General Ernest Graves, Division Engineer of the Jortb Central Division. The u v i ro rw a u l Protectioa Agency has adjudged as polluted that reach of the St. Marys (Uver bstoaen tbs locks at fault Sta. Maria, Michigan and russlon feint. A rev lev af the prsllslury pleas far both the St. Marys diver bend widening prvgrea and the centalnod spell disposal facilities pregrm indicates that the Pederal cost for conplate cootainoeat of a ll Materials dredged fren this area of the river is substantial. based on the ceaflament of ell sateriele Iron this area, capacity w ill have to ha provided for 35,000 cubic yards for naiatanatce operations ( 5,300 cubic yards par year for 10 years) and 340,000 cubic yards for the bend widening. Angle 1 and 2 . Aoy reduction in the quantity to be confined w ill result in e corresponding reduction la federal sxpeodlturss. In evaluating the polluted classification for M aterials to be roMoved fren this area, th is o ffice b eliev es taat the following should be coos i dsred in data rain in g the necessity for coaf In m ost of these M aterials: a. location of the Federal project with respect to the heavily pelleted areas. The referenced letter of January 29, 1971, stated that the St. Marys Elver can ha roughly divided In half aLong the international bosrodary, with tha U.S. portion clean or lightly pelleted and the Canadian portion heavily polluted. LacInsure 2 indicates, la red, tha lim its o f tha Federal authorised project within tha area currently adjudged pelluted. The majority of the Federal project la located within 0.S. waters. Tha channel between the Canadian lock and the Federal project is maintained by tha Canadian Government. b . Maintenance dredging operation. Of tha 3,300 cubic yards dredged annually, about 331 of tha material is rsewvsti from tha lock approaches (Indicated as area 'A* on Inclosure 2), 201 from KayfieId Channel (area 'B '), and 231 from Angle 1 and 2 (area *£'). In the Bayfield Chennai and Angla 1 and 2, skoals nemally accumulats along ths U.S. shorsllne. The materials removed consist of broken ledge rock, boulders, sand, gravel, and clay. The material Is rare vert by a darrlekboat with a clamshell and has bean disposed of either la deep water near tha head of Sugar Island or on upland areas near ths east and o f tha Bertheaat (hasp. c . Band widening, Angle 1 and 2. Tha materials to be removed to vldea tha band at Angla 1 and 2 (shaded area on Incleaurs 2) are described as sandy clay with gravel and boulders. Vtorfc will ha performed by contract with apprcmimatsly 360,000 cubic yards to be removed aad disposed o f along the shoreline. Due to tbs nature of the materials ami location of the disposal area, i t la anticipated that dredging w ill be performed by bucket or eimsshell dredge. Bottom sod Input analyses (3M 37 and SK 38) ladicste tha surface material la impel luted or lightly polluted. Underlying materials do not appear te have bean tasted. Prior to expend log Federal funds for coot aim s at a f a ll materials to be dredged from tui* area, it la requested that your office! e . Evaluate The polluted classification of each of the areas where malatamance dredging is performed. b. Determine i f the underlying virgin material to be removed during tha bend widening o f Angle 1 aad 2 is pelleted and requires confinement, If additional tabling is required, tha Boo Area Office will ha available for assistance. Tour cooperation would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, 2 Inc Is KTBQ3 D. SWXX As stated Colonel, Corps o f Engineers D istrict Engineer .Mr. Dale Granger, Chief hydrological Survey Pivn. bureau of Water Management Mci. Dept, of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason building Lansing, ill chi pan 4b92f» Dear Mr. Granger: The disposal areas for dredged material from Angle Course 1-2 of the St. Marys Fiver bend Widening. Program, as indicated in my letter of 15 November 1971, have been codified. The attached drawing, SK-1, snows the revised City-owned area. You will note that thin area has been enlarged considerably by a westerly ex tension from Mission Street. The proposed City-o-.mcd area represents a considerable enhancement of a current public recreation area, not only from the standpoint of camping and picnicking but land access to fishing in the river would be provided where there was none before. The area provided by the disposal operation would be of considerable value to the people of Sault Ste. .Marie. The alternate area is shown on the attached drawing, SK.-2. It ia farther downstream than the one pointed out to you previously. Your comments on the disposal areas proposed will be appreciated. Sincerely yours. 2 Incl P. McCALLISTER Drawings Chief, Engineering Division EDITOR'S NOTE: The two inclosure drawings referred to m above letter show the proposed disposal sites indicated on Plate //1, and therefore were not included here. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 1 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 24. January 72 Colonel Ilyron D. Snoke District Engineers, Detroit District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Eox , 1027 Detroit, Michigan 4.8231 Dear Colonel Snoke: Reference is made to your letter of December 23, 1971, concerning the St. Marys River maintenance dredging and bend widening project. We have reviewed the bottom sediments mentioned in your letter and agree that the majority of the project is located within the U. S. waters where the bottom sediments have been classified as clean or lightly polluted. We feel however, that before we can arbitrarily change our classif ication of this stretch of river we would prefer to take further bottom sediment samples in the bend widening area and review this analysis data. We are requesting our Michigan District office to take this series of samples as early as possible this spring, so we can definitely support whatever classification we make of the river as the basis of current information. This new sampling will be coordinated with your Soo area office. We appreciate the opportunity of commenting on this project and if we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Merle W. Tellekson Acting Chief, Surveillance & Analysis Division STATE OF MICHIGAN W ILLIAM G. M ILLIKEN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48926 RALPH A. MAC MULLAN. Director January 25, 1972 Colonel Myron D. Snoke U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Re: St. Mary's River Bend Widening Program Dear Colonel Snoke: In response to Mr. McCallister's letter of January 12, 1972, concerning the above project, we wish to advise that we have met with our Site Review Committee to discuss the suggested modifications and alternate disposal site indicated in this letter and on the attached maps. It is the consensus of our interested Departmental divisions, that we oppose the dumping of this material on the City-owned park property, which was shown on your modified survey dated 15 November 1971. It is our position that the extension into the river is unreasonable and would set an undesirable precedent for private interests to follow in this area. We expect to contact the City in the near future to advise they may still plan additional filling at this location under provisions of our Inland Lakes and Streams Act. In other words, we would consider any reasonable shoreline extension which would tend to promote a smooth-flowing contour. We therefore strongly recommend that the Corps use the "disposal area Number 7" as outlined on your drawing entitled "Course 2, Little Rapids Channel." We believe that the development of this island within a protected riprapped perimeter should minimize siltation to downriver waters and at the same time, eliminate what now represents a small boating hazard. We trust that this project can now proceed without further delay. Should you have any further questions or comments, please advise. Sincerely, BUREAU OF WATEK'flANAGEMENT '"Dale W. Granger, P.E., Cfrief Hydrological Survey Division cc : H. Miller, T. Doyle, L. Davenport J. Cook, R. Lawrence United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 February 2, 1972 Col. Myron D. Snoke District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District Detroit P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Col. Snoke: This is in response to Mr. McCallister's letters of December 27, 1971, and January 20, 1972, concerning spoil disposal sites for dredged material from Angle Course 1-2, St. Marys River Bend Widening Program. The proposed disposal sites and alternate sites No. 1 and No. 2 have been reviewed with Michigan Department of Natural Resources personnel. We believe that these sites would not result in a serious loss of fish and wildlife aquatic habitat. However, we are concerned about the acreage of public waters that would be lost between Mission Point and the city sewage plant of Sault Ste. Marie. The channelward edge of the proposed dike, although within the harbor line, seems to be an unnecessary extension of a fill area into the river. We agree with views expressed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources that additional fill in this area may benefit the city of Sault Ste. Marie but the present proposed diked boundary must be realigned in order to minimize the acreage loss of public river habitat. The Bureau will approve a confined disposal area adjacent to the Municipal Park only when it is acceptable to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We recommend that the primary disposal area for Angle Course 1 and 2 be confined to"disposal area number 7 ” as outlined on your drawing entitled "Course 2, Little Rapids Channel." Should you have any further modifications on proposed disposal sites adjacent to the City Parr, or new sites are considered along the river please advise. * Sincerely, Charles A. Hughlett Acting Regional Director UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION LAKE CENTRAL REGION 3853 RESEARCH PARK DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104 in February 23, 1972 Project 26 - 00141 District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48241 Dear Sir: This is in response to Mr. McCallister's December 8, 1971, and January 20, 1972, letters requesting our comments to various proposals to dispose of dredged materials from Angle Courses 1-2 (Phase 2) and 6-7 (Phase 3) of the St. Marys River bend widening program.* The disposal area proposed for dredged material from Angle Course 1-2 includes a portion of Mission Road Park and the river adjacent to the park. Mission Road Park is owned and operated by the City of Sault Ste. Marie and was developed through a grant from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (P.L. 88-578). Section 5(f) of this Act states: No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary (Department of the Interior), be converted to other than outdoor recreation uses. Since the disposal of dredged materials on the park property must be interpreted as a nonrecreation use of a fund assisted project, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources was contacted to determine if the State proposed to request secretarial approval to permit the place ment of spoil on Mission Road Park. In a letter of February 15, 1972, Mr. Forrest Wicks stated that the Department of Natural Resources does not, at this time, wish to request any changes of use approval from the Secretary of the Interior for the Mission Road Park project. We are also in receipt of a copy of a letter dated January 25, 1972, from Mr. Dale Granger to you which stated the Michigan Department of Natural Resources opposes the dumping of spoil material in the city-owned park property as currently proposed ♦EDITOR'S NOTE: New scheduling lists Angle Courses 6-7 as Phase II and Angle Courses 1-2 as Phase III. nd by the Corps of Engineers. That letter further indicated that the State would consider a modified shoreline realignment plan but recommended disposal at an alternate site (Disposal Area No. 7) on Course 2. Unless the Department of Natural Resources requests Secretarial approval to use the park for other than recreation pur poses, the Bureau must also oppose the plan for disposal on Mission Road Park as presented. Although disposal on the park property, with proper landscaping and development, would provide for more public recreational opportunity through expansion of the park area, we feel that Disposal Area No. 7 would be the next best alternative. In regard to the proposed disposal areas for Angle Course 6-7, we favor Area A (the Chicken Islands site). This choice is made with the under standing that the dredge material to be disposed of is not polluted. The application of top soil and afforestation of the disposal areas would be required to lessen the aesthetic impact and would serve to provide possible future opportunities for limited recreational use. We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments for your con sideration. Sincerely yours, Robert H. Myers Assistant Regional Director UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 1 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606 Colonel Myrcn C. Snoke r r n r- U. S. Department of the Army rto 25 1972 Corps of Engineers, Detroit D istrict P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Snoke: Reference# is made to your request for our Agency's comments on the proposed disposal areas for Angle Course 1-2 of the St. Mary's River Bend Widening Project. These areas were inspected by representatives of our Michigan D istrict Office on November 22, and 23, 1971, and we would like to make the following brief comments regarding these sites. The development of alternate site No. 1 (see attached map for ready reference) would result in irreplaceable loss of shallow river bottom lands, although this site would provide future economic benefits through the development of a park. We feel the loss of the river por tion of this area should be avoided i f at a ll possible, but would have no objection to the site if the appropriate natural resource agencies would register no opposition to the loss of this river sector. Alter nate site No. 2, if developed, would require clearing a second growth woods from the islands. Since much of this area is above water level, the volume of spoil anticipated would require a larger confined dis posal area. In summary then we would not be opposed to the use of site No. 1 pro viding it was acceptable to the Michigan Department of Natural Re sources and to the Bureau of Sports Fisheries & Wildlife of the U. S. Department of the Interior. We would have no objections to alternate site No. 2. We would like to make the following general comments regarding the construction of any confined disposal facility located at these sites. 1. The dike system should be constructed using non-polluted material and the construction methods should be such as to minimize any degrada tion of water quality. 2. The effluents from any over flow weirs provided in the confined disposal structure should be such that appropriate water quality standards are not violated. 3. Alternate site No. 2 should be landscaped upon completion of the fillin g operation in order to prevent erosion and enhance the environ ment through reforestation. We appreciate the opportunity of commenting on these sites. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely yours, 8 HAS »3/'2 MCI ED-T Mr. rule Granger, Chief hydro]Survey Division Bureau of hater Management Mich, Dept. of Matural kesourccs Steven:; T. Mascn building Lansing, Michigan 48926 Dear Mr. Grander: This is in regard to your letter of 25 January 1972 concerning the proposed disposal areas for Contract tl2, Angle Course 1-2, for the St. Marys Bend widening Project. Your letter indicated that you were opposed to disposing on the City-owned park property on the basis that an excessive amount of river bottom voulc be occupied and that the proposed shoreline did not. promote a smooth floving contour. In view of this, you recorssended the use of "Disposal Area Wumber T *. The two sites have subsequently been reviewed and it is considered that there is no greater use of river bottom on the proposed City- owned park site than on the disposal area no. 7. Disposal area no. 7 is of little value for public recreation while the use of the City- owned par!; area would not only increase the size of an area already intensively used for camping and recreation but would provide public bank fishing which i3 presently non-existent. It seems that the proposed site cous promote a smooth flowing contour since it extends into the stream about the same amount as Welches dock. I feel that further discussion of the site would be beneficial and suggest that a data for a reeting be established as soon as possible. You ray contact either Mr. Mechler (226-6733) or Mr. Malcmud (226-67S1) for this purpose. Sincerely yours. P. McCALLISia.. Chief, Engineering Division STATE OF MICHIGAN WILLIAM G. M ILLIKEN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T MASON BUILDING. LANSINii. MICHIGAN 48926 RALPH A MAC MULLAN. Director March 27, 1972 Myron D. Snoke, Colonel District Engineer U. S. Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Re: St. Mary's River bend widening Angle Course 1-2 Dear Colonel Snoke: This will acknowledge your letter of 8 March 1972, concerning the above project and the question of the City interest in fillin g certain submerged bottomlands adjacent to the City Park with spoil from this Corps project. We have since discussed the contents of your letter with members of the Department's Site Review Conmittee and find that there is no change of attitude concerning the original position of the Department. We sincerely believe that the spoiling of this material on Island No. 7, as originally indicated on your plan, would best serve the interest of the public in this important waterway area. We plan, however, to contact the City officials directly concerning the possibility of the City placing additional fill material in order to improve their park property and to straighten the general shoreline at this location. We believe that the City may place additional material to enhance their park property without having to extend as far into the river as originally proposed in the Corps plan. Your office will be kept Informed of our contact with the City. Very truly yours, BUREAU OF WATER MANAGEMENT Dale W. Granger, P.E Chief Hydrological Survey mvision Mr. Morgan LeiIson f.uhrorrou Lane's Management Section ,‘:ichipan Loj-t. of Natural Resources Stevens T. Mason Building Lansing, Ilicliigan 43126 Dear Hr. Lcilson: This is in regard to the disposal area on City-ovn?.cd land proposed for Mr.le Course 1-2 in the St. Ifarys Diver as discussed in rcy letter of 8 Larch 1C*72. The proposed disposal area shape has been changed to reduce the degree of projection into the river and the top elevation is increased to maintain the required spoil capacity as shown on the inclosed drawing. These changes are in agreement with the ouncestior.s mace in Hr. Crrar.=r's letters of 25 January 1972 and 27 March 1972. I understand that the proposed changes have been brought to the attention of Mr. Granger by Dr. Gale Gleason. It is requested that you review the incloaed plan of the revised dinposal area and furnish us with your comments. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely youra, P. tfcCAiLISTER Chief, Engineering Division UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RLGION '< 1 NORTH WACU'LR DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 00606 August 29, 1972 Col. Myron B. Snoke, D istric t Engineer Department of the Army, Detroit D istrict Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Attention: Mr. Bernard Malamud Dear Col. Snoke: Reference is made to your letter of December 23, 1971 and our reply of January 24, 1972, both referring to the maintenance dredging and river bend widening work on the St. Marys River below Saulte Ste. Marie, Michigan. As requested in our letter, our Michigan D istrict Office has resampled the bottom sediments in the areas of concern and collaborated with your area engineer at Saulte Ste. Marie in taking core samples. We are enclosing copies of the analytical results of the laboratory testing of these samples. As noted from the analytical results the material in the sediments and cores now appear to be in the unpolluted category when compared with our dredging crite ria. In regard to the maintenance dredging operation described in paragraph ■ b1 on the second page of your December 23rd letter, we feel that i f the areas to be dredged are located as described in this paragraph we would have no objection to the open water disposal uf this material. The only area of question seems to be in area 'C' (angle 1 and 2 area). I f the shoals have accumulated along the 1). S. shoreline then the re sults of our sampling indicate that this material is not polluted and is suitable for open water disposal. However, i f the shoals extend any distance out into the channel it s e lf then we would be forced to assume that our 1970 data was the controlling factor and this material would be classified as polluted and should be confined. The analytical results of the analysis of the core samples taken in the bend widening at angle 1 and 2 area show the material to be non-polluted and we would have no objection to the disposal of this material along tne shoreline as you plan. We appreciate the opportunity of reevaluating these bottom sediments to help determine with greater exactness the classificatio n of bottom sediments in this area. If we can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, Merle W. Tellekson Acting Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division EDITOR'S NOTE: Sampling data made part of Appendix B. Mr. Merle W. Tollckson, Acting Dir. Surveillance end Analysis uivn. Environnrental irctection Agency Region V 1 .\crtii Wnckor Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Dear Mr. Tellerson: Reference is made to your letter dated 2) August 1972 regarding the maintenance creeping and river bend widening work on the St. Marys River below Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. lour latter i..pliac. that the materials to be. dredged, except for one questionable area of maintenance dredging, is classified un polluted. The a ran in question is located within the linit9 of the Fcjeral navigation channel near Angie Course 1 and 2. The Inclosed sketch indicates the location where the major portion of the annual erecting takes place in this area. The total cstirated amount of annual maintenance dredging in this area is approximately 1,00J cubic yards. With tan above information it is requested that you determine the classification of dredgings from this area. Your early attention to this matter is requested in order to plan for a containment area if the dredgings are determined to be polluted or to discon tinue all planning lor a contained disposal area fot the St. Marys River if the area is determined to be unpolluted. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call.. Sincerely yours. MYRON D. SNCKE Colonel, Corps of Engineer District Engineer UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 1 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 October 5, 1972 Colonel Myron D. Snoke District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P. 0. Box 1072 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Snoke: Reference is made to your letter of October 3, 1972, requesting that we determine the pollution classification of bottom sediments of the Federal navigation channel near Angle Course 1 and 2. Our Michigan District Office conducted a sampling program of the bottom sediments in the St. Marys River near Saulte Ste. Marie, and their study revealed that the shoals which accumulate along the U.S. shoreline are not polluted and are suitable for open water disposal. The area which you want to dredge, as indicated on the map you sent us, is sufficiently close to the U.S. shoreline to be considered not polluted. We therefore would have no objections to the deposition of the dredge spoil in the open vrater. We appreciate the opportunity of commenting on the pollution classi fication of bottom sediments in the area around Angle Course 1 and 2. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, Robert W. Zeller, Ph. D. Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division November 24, 1972 Kr. Gcorpo Tnnek, Chief Submerged Lands Xanagement Section Durenu of Water Management Dcpartr.cnt of Natural Resources Dtevenr. T.- Kason Building REt Application for State Permit Lansing, MI 43926 No. 72-4-11 Dear Nr. Taack: As we discussed in your offico on Friday, November 17, 1972, the City is hoping that the proposed fill by the Corps of Engineers can be extended approximately 150 feet into the St. Nary's River for the following.reasonsJ 1) At the present tine, there arc two sunken shows which arc hazardous to navigation. These would be covered by the proposed fill. 2) In addition, there is an island approximately a foot and one-half above existing water levels which is hazardous to n navigation. We propose to fill to this island. 3) The Sault Saintc Xaric Boat Club at the present tine has r.o protection for the 55 boat slips. The fill as proposed by the Corps of Engineers would offer a good deal of protection for the Boat Club. 4) The City plans to extonu its municipal trailer park and municipal camp r.ito if wo aro pemittou to fill as the tho Corps of Enginooru had proposed. 5) \.'o have ordered a good deal of recreation equipment that would be placed by tho trailer park and camp site. This equipment would provide recreational activities for approximately 300 minority families living in the Shunk Road area. 6) The City Commission, on Novomber 20, officially designated this area as city park and recreational property. This means that Ilia property cannot bo sold without a voto of the taxpayers. Vo vould appreciate your discussing these points with aPA and tho Fish and Vdld Life Service ropresentativo so tlut va could havo a definito plan by December C, 1972. Thank you for the courtesy of allowing mo to moot with you in your office without having an appointment. Most sincerely, GEORGE DE FRENCH City Manager STATE OF MICHIGAN WILLIAM C. MILLIKEN. Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING, LANSING. MICHIGAN 48920 R A L P H A. MAC M ULLAN. D.ractor December 4, 1972 Mr. George DeFrcnch, City Manager City of Sault Ste. Marie 325 Court Street Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 Re: Application for State Permit No. 72-4-11 Dear Mr. DeFrench: This is in reference to your letter of November 24th, concerning the above State permit and your interest in filling farther into the waters of the St. Mary's River. We have discussed this proposal with members of our staff and our Site Review Committee, which has previously reviewed this proposal as a possible site for the spoil material from the Corps of Engineers' bend widening project. The six items referred to in your letter do not give any Justification for placing additional fill into these waters. We cite the tollowlng reasons In response to the items raised in your letter: 1) The two sunken skows can be removed if necessary. There is no reasonable justification to fill such an obstruction. At this time, we have no information from the Coast Guard or the Corps of Engineers that these skows are actually "hazardous to naviga tion." 2) The island referred to, again is no justification to permit its elimination by filling. This Island can be easily bouyed or marked, should it be a problem to small boat traffic. 3) The boat club has operated at this site for several years without any serious problem insofar as protecting the 55 boat slips. The club can, under provisions of Act 291, Public Acts of 1965, as amended, make application for a breakwater or other structure, should they have any problems. A) There is a definite trend for more private trailer park develop ment and less public development. I, personally, feel that private enterprise could develop a better site for a trailer park than what the City proposes at this location. 5) The recreational equipment can easily be used in other locations throughout the City on their various park areas. We have been under the impression that the City park project, at this location, was for all citizens and not dedicated to any particular group. 6) The mere designation of the park site by the City Commission, again is no justification to permit filling an additional 150 feet of river bottom. We see no reason to arrange for any meeting concerning further review of thin permit, unless you wish to follow the provisions of the statute by formally requesting a public hearing as outlined under Section 1A(2). If you wish to follow this proceuure, please advise at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, BUREAU OF WAT^fT m ANAGEMENJ Dale W. Granger, P.E. Ciief Hydrological Survey Division STATE OF MICHIGAN W ILLIAM G. MILLIKEN. Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. LANSING. MICHIGAN 4a926 RALPH A. MAC MULLAN, Director December 27, 1972 Colonel Myron D. Snoke District Engineer IJ. S. Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, MI 48231 Dear Colonel Snoke: In accordance with our discussion last week concerning the proposed riverfront park development at Sault Ste. Marie, we are forwarding to you a copy of the containment system which was submitted by the City for this project. We have superimposed on this sheet, a green line which is the line which was indicated by the Department as being acceptable for the proposed development. You will recall that we discussed several alternatives to manage the volume of spoil which would have been contained riverward of the green line, out to the dike line of the original proposal. We are planning to estimate the volume of spoil that could be placed landward of the green line at an elevation about six (6) inches higher than the road elevation as indicated on this print. We believe that considerable space could be found by raising the height of this spoiling system as indicated. We will hope to hear from you further regarding this matter and your evalua tion of other alternatives that may be possible here. I would add that due to the Director's illness with the flu, I have been unable to firm a date for the hearing requested by the City on this matter. We will advise you shortly on the return of the Director. Very truly yours, BUREAU OF WAT^R/flANAGEMENT uale W. G$>qng^r, fOu., Chief Hydrological Sunygiy Division Glity nf 0aul! &U. xSart*. fHirifigats January 101 1973 Mr* A. Gene Gazlay Director* Michigan Department of Natural Resources Stevens T« Mason Building Lansing, MI 48926 Dear Mr* Gazlay: Thank you for your letter of January 4, 1973 concerning the proposed fill for public recreational use adjacent to the St* Mary's River* Tha Department of Natural Resources "modification" of the original proposal mado by the Corps of Engineer's certainly cannot be viewed as cooperation. Ve have been advised that the Corps of Engineer's Detroit District office could not economically f i l l at two (2) sites* Their engineers have stated that the additional cost would be $400,000* The DNR continuously refers to "public tru st." I see no reason why the recreational project cannot be carried out so as to benefit the "public tru st." I think you will agree that thousands of tourists to the City of Sault Sainte Marie would make use of the proposed recreational fa c ility . Very few people are now offered any recreational use such as fishing and small boating in the area that we propose to have fille d due to shallow water depth. Having talked with persons who have lived in the City for a number of years, it has been stated on more than one occasion that the location we propose to f i l l couldn't even support clams, few persons have ever caught a fish in the area, and the fact is that the limestone dike' would increase potential fish feeding* Recently Dr* Gale Gleason, Chairman of the Department of Biological Sciences at Lake Superior State College pointed out that.some o f the best protection and food supply for fish has been among course rubble in rivers*One half mile of limestone dike would increase the potential feeding grounds for walleye and at the same time make this area o f the St* Mary's River more accessible-to fishermen* The DNR has on more than ono occasion recommended island number seven for dumping of sp o ils.If that site were to be used it would be le ft un finished ard exposed to the water and the action of greater ship wash. As Or. Gleason pointed out, those who own property facing island number seven would face for two or three years the unsightly exposed spoil and then un controlled vegetation would block their view of the shipping channel and Sugar Island. The elimination of hazards to navigation is exactly what had beet! proposed on May 1972 plans prepared by the Cbi-ps of Engineer's which the DNR "modified" to the extent that all navigational hazards would still exist. Your letter was read publicly at our City Commission meeting on Monday, January 8, 1973* The City Commission would like to meet with representatives of your department to discuss the proposed f i l l and the 1-3 0 0 application. If possible, the City would also like to get these problems resolved without having to resort to a formal public hearing. The City Commission would be able to meet on Monday, January 22, or on Monday, January 29, 1973 in the afternoon or evening. Ve would hope that the meeting could be held in the City so that representatives of the DNR would have the opportunity to view the area we propose to have filled* . This would be an informal meeting with City and Corp of Engineer officials exclusively. Most sincerely, GEORGE DE FRENCH City Manager rmh Enc. cci Senator Robert Griffin Senator Philip A. Hart Senator Robert Davis Congressman Philip E* Ruppe Representative Charles H* Vamum Mr* Clifford Aune, Corps of-'Engineers C ongrc^ of tijc £lm'tefc States; JL)oute of iUprefieruCtibes Hlaefjfngton, 33.C 20515 January 19, 1973 Mr. George weErench City Manager City of Sault Ste. Marie .Sault Sue. Marie, Michigan A97S3 near >.r. bei’reach: Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the proposed land fill along tne St. Ilary's River, using material from the Corps of engineers' dredging project. As you know, the State of Michigan had raised questions about tne auvisability of depositing all of tne dredged material in the manner proposed by the City, because of the large area that would have Leon required, however, in recent phone conversations with the Michigan department of Natural Resources, and with State Senator Robert navis' office, I was advised that a plan has now been developed that will provide for depositing all of the dredged material at one site, thus giving Sault Stc. Marie the requested recreational area, without conflicting with tne State's policy regarding preservation of public trust waters. It is my understanding that the Department of Natural Resources will be reviewing this proposal with the Corps of Engineers in tne very near future, and that subsequent meetings will be scheduled with City and public representatives. I appreciate your having kept me informed on the City's position in tills matter, and I am very hopeful that the new plan will be acceptable to all parties concerned. With oest wishes, 1 am Sincerely, Philip E. Rifppe Member of Congress RESOLUTION BE IT RSSOLV t the proposed Riverside Drive Park concept as shown on plans prepared by the Department of Natural Resources' Recreation Services Division, dated January, 1973» be approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized to submit a revised application for a permit in accordance with Act 291, Public Acts of 19 6 5 , as amended, which would allow the U.S. Corps of Engineers to dispose of dredged material from the St. Mary's River as shown on said development plan, as proposed by the Department of Natural Resources, dated January, 1973. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a resolution adopted by the City Commission of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 5, 1973. D. K. STRICKLAND, City Clerk 8 FEB 1973 Honorable Philip E. Ruppe Houee of Representatives Washington, E. C. 20515 Dear Hr. Ruppe: This Is to keep you informed of developments concerning the proposed modification of the St. Marys River Project (bend widening at Angle Course 1-2), particularly the use of dredged materials for the expanaloe and future development of the City-owned Mission Point Park at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. As you know, several plans had been proposed and discussed between the interested parties: the City, the Corps, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Recently, the State presented to us an alternative fill plan for the park site which provided the necessary capacity for deposition of all of the dredged material which will ba obtained from Angle Course 1-2 with a minimum extension Into public waters. A subsequent meeting was held at Sault Sta. Maria, Michigan on 29 January 1973 In which the Corps and State officials prcaentsd that plan to the City officiala. The proposed plan was Indicated by the City to be acceptable for its future use as a trailer park and recreation area. This plan differs from previously discussed plans by providing for raising the lsvsl of the fill to the same level as the highway running parallel to the river and the park sita. In addition, an earth berm would be provided to screen the roadway and adjacent municipal waste water treatment plant from the park site. Thssa refinements In the grading plan would provide the necessary capacity for tha dredged materials without protruding aa far into tha waterway area. Upon completion of tha land fill, the area would be topselled and seeded and the periphery berms would be landscaped with native trees snd snrubs by tbs Corps. The Interior of the perk could then be developed by the City. Our currant planning schedule far thla phase of tha band widening project, of corn a, la dependant upon appropriation of funde at a auffldant level to permit Grdarly prograea. As I'm anra you know, the Preaidant's FY 1974 Budget cantalna $850,000 for this project, and development of plans and specificadena and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement will proceed in FT 1973; than, pro viding the President's FT 1975 Budget contains sufficient fvoids for reasonable contract progress, we would centsuplate a contract award late in FT 1974. You will be furnished a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement when it becomes avallabls, and I will keep you informed of any other pertinent Information an this project. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions. Sincerely yours, MYRON D. SNORE Colonel, Corps of Engin**** District Engineer !tr. George DcFrcnch City Mar ■’gar City of far.lt Ftr.. Marie Sault Cte. Ilario, Michigan 49783 Dear Hr. DcFrcnch: Thin is in regard to the disposal site at Mission Point Park as proposed by the State of Michigan for disposal of the dredged material from the St. IIary3 River Project (bend widening at Angle Course 1-2). The results of our meeting on 29 January 1973 concerning the new Gitc configuration have been related to our Division Office in Chicago. The gc t i al plan was veil racel- cd and I e-i pleased to in forts you that all of the items required to develop the site, as discussed at our meeting, were approved for construction at Federal expense. These items include extension of drains'o facilities; grading, topsoiling and seeding ct the completed fill site, including shaping of the berms; planting of trees and shrubs on the terns and along the periphery of the site; restoration of the existing trailer cites and roadway; and raising of the existing utility building, and residence to the grade of the conpleted fill. If this plan is acceptable to you, it is requested that you furnish us with the necessary information for restoration of the trailer facilities and buildings so that we can continue with our planning on the bend widening project, we will also prepare the necessary disposal easement vhirh will include the items listed above as obligations of the Federal Government. I appreciate your cooperation on this project and hope that we have arrived at a mutually beneficial solution to the disposal problem. Sincerely yours, MYROU D. SNOKE Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Copy to: Mr. Dale Granger, Mich. DNR MICHIGAN HISTORICAL COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF STATE IANSING. 48918 RICHARD H. AUSTIN SECRETARY OF STATE June 17• 1971 P. McCalllster Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Mich, Dear Mr, McCallisteri We have read and reviewed your draft of the proposal to widen and deepen the bends in the St, Marys River, We do not feel that the proposal, if adopted, will endanger any of the National Register properties in Chippewa County, Our Commission also maintains the official State Register of Historic Sites, None of these would be effected' by the adoption of your proposal. However, I believe that an archaeological viewpoint should be obtained by your office, I suggest that you contact the Conference on Michigan Archaeology, send them a copy of the draft, and ask for comments1 Dr, Charles Cleland, Secretary Conference on Michigan Archaeology The Museum Michigan State University East Lansing, Mich, Sincerely yours, Donald Chaput Chief Historian United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARR SERVICE MID-ATLANTIC REGION 143 SOUTH THIRD STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19106 JAN 16 1974 Col. Myron D. Snoke, District Engineer Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan b8231 Attention: Environmental Resources Branch Dear Col. Snoke: I am writing to confirm a telephone conversation of January lb, 197b between Mr. John Collis of your office and Mr. Wilfred Husted con cerning an archaeological assessment of disposal areas for the Great Lakes Connecting Channels-Widening and Deepening Bends in the St. Marys River, Michigan (Phase III). In response to the draft environ mental impact statement, the Conference on Michigan Archaeology recommended that disposal areas be surveyed for possible historical and archaeological remains. Mr. Collis inquired whether or not the National Park Service would carry out the survey. As Mr. Husted related, the National Park Service has no legal authority to fund archaeological assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190)• Mr. Collis said that under the circumstances, the Corps of Engineers would undertake an archaeological survey of the disposal areas. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Husted at (215) 597-0758. Sincerely yours, Chester L. Brooks Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING & DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER PHASE III APPENDIX D CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 PublicWorks Travaux publics Canada Canada Ontano Region Region de I'Ontario 123 March Street, 5th Floor Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 2Z5 January 7, 1974 Col. James E. Hays District Engineer Corps of Engineers Department of the Army P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Col. Hays: Re: Draft Environmental Statement, Supplemental Revision No. 2, Bend Widening and Deepening, Navigational ______Project. St. Marv*s River. Michigan______ I wish to refer to the above statement. Copies were provided to agencies in Canada concerned with natural resources and I am pleased to advise that no objections were registered against Phase III as outlined in the s t a t e m e n t . Yours truly E. B. Asht o n Assistant Project Manager Marine & Civil Engineering Northern Ontario DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD •5922/rpw 6 December 1973 Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, MI 48231 RE: NCEED-ER ,30 Nov.1973 Dear Sir: This office has reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact Statement and has no comments to offer at this time. Sincerely, >W.E'. MASON Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Marine Environmental Protection Branch By direction of Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District Federal Power Commission REGIONAL. OFFICE United States Custom House 610 S. Canal Street, Room 1051 Chicago, Illinois 60607 December 11, 1973 Colonel James E. Hays District Engineer, Detroit Department of the Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Hays: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 2,for Phase III of the Widening and Deepening Bends in St. Marys River, Michigan furnished us with your letter dated November 30, 1973. Since the proposed dredging operations are below the existing Carbide and St. Marys Falls hydroelectric power plants, there will be no effect upon these power plants. There are no hydroelectric plants on the St. Marys River below the proposed dredging operation, there fore we have no comments regarding the supplemental statement. Thank you for furnishing this draft environmental statement for our review. Sincerely yours, Lenard B. Young Regional Engineer U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e F o r e s t S e r v i c e NORTHEASTERN AREA. STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY 6 B 1 6 M a r k e t S t r e e t , U p p e r D a r b y , P a . 1 9 D B 2 TELEPHONE (215) 952-5800 8400 December 5, 1973 Col. James E. Hays District Engineer Detroit District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Refer to: NCEED-ER Dear Col. Hays: Reference is made to your circular of November 30, transmitting a Draft Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 2, for Great Lakes Connecting Channels Widening and Deepening Bends in St. Mary's River, Michigan (Phase III). We note that the Corps, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the City of Sault Ste. Marie have reached agreement on a disposal site and that while many trees will be destroyed, the Corps will plant native trees and shrubs on the berms and along the periphery of the site. In view of this agreement, we have no comment on the draft. We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft. Sincerely, R0BERTI d X RAISCH Directox UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE_____ Room 101. 1405 South Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823 January 11, 1974- Colonel James E. Hays District Engineer, Corps of Eng. Department of the Army Detroit District P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel If.iys: The draft environmental statement, supplement No. 2, on widening and deepening bends in St. Marys River, Michigan (Phase III), was reviewed by the staff of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Michigan. The following comments are for your consideration: 1) The statement gives considerable attention to re-vegetating this area after the project is completed, but nowhere are there plans for stabilization during the placing of the fill on the site. The project will take 2 years to complete and should include provisions for either temporary seeding or completion in segments with mulch and permanent seeding. Sediment samples indicate a considerable proportion of silt in the dredgings and this will make the fill very susceptible to water erosion. 2) Water running off the dredgings could carry a heavy silt load unless the excess water in the dredgings is put into a sediment basin. 3) Literature research and concensus of several biologists should be able to establish a range of recovery time in years, instead of the statement "period of years" on page 12, paragraph 3 and page 16, paragraph 3. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed projects Arthur H.Cratty State Conservationist cc: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C. Kenneth E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C. Fred II. Tschirley, Act. Coord., Environmental Quality Activities, Washington, D.C. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY R E G IO N v 1 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 February 21, 1974 Colonel James E. Hays, District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P.0, Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Hays: In response to your letter of November 30, 1973, we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Great Lakes Connecting Channels Widening and Deepening Bends in the St. Marys River, Michigan (Phase III). We have classified our comments as Category ER-2. Specifically, this means we have environmental reservations because of the unknown mercury content of the sediment and we believe more informa tion should be provided in the EIS on an alternate design of the confined disposal area. This classification and the date of our comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. We offer the following comments: As indicated on page 12 of the EIS, EPA sediment samples taken in June, 1970 gave no indication of mercury when analyzed by procedures with a detectable limit of 0.2 mg/kg. On January 12, 1974 our Michigan District Office collected 17 water samples in the project area. These samples were analyzed and high concentrations of mercury were found in the water. As a result of this recent data we are concerned that the mercury content of the sediment might exceed our pollution criteria. ( 1 mg. per kg. dry wt.) When conditions are favorable, possibly in May of this year, we plan to sample the sediments in the project area. If the bottom sediments are found to contain excess concentrations of mercury, open lake disposal would be prohibited. Since the project proposes to utilize a confined disposal site there would not be any significant design changes in the dike construction if the sediment is determined to be polluted. Therefore we request that the Final EIS under "Alternatives" discuss and describe the construction and operation of a modified confined disposal site that will be utilized if the sediments are determined to be polluted. The discussion of this confined disposal site should be detailed to provide us with the opportunity to review the adequacy of the structure and to determine the effect of any discharges from the structure. Thank you for allowing us this additional review time to incorporate the results of our recent data into the review of this EIS. If you wish to discuss the project please contact Mr. Gary Williams of my staff. Sincerely yours, Donald A. Wallgren Chief, Federal Activities Branch OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Washington. D.C. 20230 January 15, 1974 Colonel James E. Hays Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Department of the Army Detroit District Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Hays: The draft environmental impact statement for Great Lakes Connecting Channels Widening and Deepening Bends in St. Marys River, Michigan (Phase III), which accompanied your letter of November 30, 1973, has been received by the Department of Commerce for review and comment. The statement has been reviewed and the following comments are offered for your consideration. The justification and authority for completion of this project appear adequate. Discussion of the beneficial effects of the project seems complete and indicates that discussion and cooperation between government agencies has led to an efficient and economical plan of action in regard to spoil disposal. Discussion of adverse environmental effects has been limited due to a lack of hard data which would allow adverse effects to be quantified. The proposed program to monitor the effect of dredging on nutrient release, turbidity, fish kills, siltation, and erosion should provide much useful information for future planning. This program could be profitably expanded to include investigation of effects that various patterns of spoil disposal in and along the periphery of the river might have in altering the pattern of current stream direction and velocity and of the effect these changes may produce on the pattern of ice formation and decay in critical portions of the navigation channel. At the top of page 10, it would be helpful to provide additional information on fishing aspects of the area. This information should include data on the number of angler days of effort, species sought, fishing success, etc. Since the location is identified as a spawning and forage area, it would also be helpful to include information on the species utilizing the area, the spawning locations, their importance to the local fishery, and the types and numbers of forage organisms present. At the bottom of page 10, under Identified Environmental Impacts (3. a(4)),all available major information should be shown to document the terse statement, "Displacement of the fish population including some fish kills and disruption of the aquatic food chain due to the stirring of the water in the work areas and the covering of spawning grounds. 11 Subsection (c) on page 13, should include information on a construction schedule that could somewhat mitigate the effects of dredging on the fishery. In addition, consideration should be given to using a siltation reduction device downstream of the project area to further reduce siltation. Sincerely, Sidney^R. ja ile r Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NORTH CENTRAL REGION 536 SOUTH CLARK STREET CHICACO, ILLINOIS 60605 January 28, 1974 Col. James E. Hays District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District Detroit P.0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Col. Hays: This is in response to your request of November 30, 1973, for a Department of the Interior review of the draft environmental state ment, Supplement No. 2, for the Great Lakes Connecting Channels, Widening and Deepening Bends in St. Marys River, Michigan (Phase III). On the basis of our review of the statement in areas of our juris diction and expertise we believe that the following comments should be addressed in the final statement: GENERAL: This bend widening project is one phase in a gradual evolution from a biologically rich and productive river-lake complex toward a more sterile navigation channel environment. The final statement should discuss in more detail the relationship of this particular project to potential future navigation projects, plus cumulative, long-term effects likely to be imposed upon the river. SPECIFIC: 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT A. THE REGION The detailed description of the St. Marys River should include the original state of the river (pristine condition) as opposed to what it is today. Such items as depths and widths of navigation channels, total amounts of materials dredged, spoil locations and annual dredging would give the reviewer a better perspective when considering this project. The description of the biological resources of the project area is rather abbreviated. We suggest inclusion of more information, particularly regarding aquatic resources such as fish nursery and spawning areas 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION a . Identified Environmental Impacts Item 9 recognizes the temporary loss of present park facilities for one to two years during the filling operation. However, Colonel Snoke's letter of December 23, 1971, to the Environmental Protection Agency states that maintenance dredging will require the disposal of 5,500 cubic yards of material annually for ten years. This section should describe where the maintenance dredge spoils are to be placed and the effects they will have on the public use and enjoyment of the Mission Road Park. b. Beneficial and Adverse Effects A discussion of tne piecemeal deterioration of the biologically rich and productive St. Marys River toward a more sterile navigation channel should be contained in this section. The loss of diversified habitats, the reduction in carrying capacity and biological productivity of the St. Marys River complex also should be related to the proposed increase in recreational usage at the City's park. c . Mitigation. Remedial, and Protective Measures On page 14, reference is made to the various purposes to be served by stone dikes, including to "straighten the unsightly, irregular shoreline". Since an irregular shoreline is not intrinsically unsightly, support for such a statement should be given. Also, we disagree with the statement on page 15 that the park expansion plan is the least environmentally damaging. Filling 11 acres of the St. Marys River is almost certainly more damaging than certain types of land disposal and certainly more damaging than no action. 4. ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED This section should also relate the loss of 23 acres of aquatic habitat to the overall decline in available habitats caused by the total navi gation project. In reality, the St Marys River complex will undergo another decrease in biological productivity. Continually reducing productive natural habitat while at the same time continually in creasing commercial usage of the available resources could lead to a collapse or dramatic decline in certain components of the present biological structure of the St. Marys River. 5. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION A discussion of upland disposal sites and methods would be a desirable addition to the list of alternative disposal sites in or adjacent to the St. Marys River. 6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The project has the effect of decreasing available productive aquatic habitats while promoting increased consumptive uses of resources. The overall effect is promotion of short-term uses of the environment. We believe that the navigation project should be related to long-term biological productivity, and that pertinent findings from the "Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study" should be reflected in this statement. 7. COORDINATING WITH OTHERS As indicated on page 25, Mission Road Park was developed through a grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (P.L. 88-578), and, in accordance with this Act, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources must receive approval from the Secretary of the Interior to use portions of the park as a disposal site. According to our records, a request for such approval has not yet been received from the State. Sincerely, Madonna F. McGrath Staff Assistant to the Secretary STATE OF MICHIGAN WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A. GENE GAZLAY, Director January 3, 1974 Colonel Myron B. Snoke District Engineer Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Re: NCEED-ER Dear Colonel Snoke: We have reviewed the Draft EIS for Phase III, Widening and Deepening Bends in St. Marys River. We find the statement factual and appropriate. It provides a thorough, unbiased listing of the environmental impacts. We would like to express our appreciation for the Corps' cooperation throughout the project planning phases in which we were involved. We commend your office for assisting in the improvements of a recreation area by making otherwise unwanted spoil available for a useful public benefit. Thank you for providing the opportunity to review this report. SincereW, A. Gene Gazlay Director MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY bast lansing • Michigan 4s82j December 11, 1973 Colonel James E. Hays Department of the Army Detroit District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Hays: This is in response to your 30 November correspondence concerning Phase III widening and deepening projects on the St. Mary's River, Michigan contained in Draft Environmental Statement, Supplement No. 2. The impact of the recommended disposal plan which is intended to culminate in the Riverside Drive Park on archaeological resources is at present unknown. There has been no systematic survey of the St. Mary's River performed to date, although the archaeological potential of this connective waterway is high. In addition to the fact that this stream is a natural water route between two major water bodies, the disposal area is located at a point where the river diverges around an island. This is an area with high probability for archaeological site occurrence. My impression as to the amount of modern construction activity which has taken place is that for the most part fill activities have been confined to river bank modification. Likewise, little in the way of modern structures are present in the proposed disposal area. The remainder of the effected area is open and grassy with scattered trees. In view of the above, the following recommendations are submitted: 1) That an archaeological survey be funded for the projected disposal site such that impact on possible unlocated sites, disturbed or undisturbed, pre historic or historic, be appraised. 2) That this survey incorporate test excavations to detect possible sites not visible through surface survey. 3) That if sites are located in this area salvage funds be made available to avert the loss of information which would occur through destruction. I thank you for the opportunity to comment on these plans. Sincerely, William A. Lovis Curator of Great Lakes Archaeology for The Conference on Michigan Archaeology