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.