Area of Potential Effect Attachment 1

N c:::J Area of Potential Effect 175 87.5 0 175 Feet c:::J Proposed Bridge Location Date: 7/22/2014 A Image produced under license from ESRI Attachment 2

Photo Locations

N C:J Area of Potential Effect Date: 7/22/2014 A 141o• c :::J70•r==o••••••140 Feet C:J Proposed Bridge Location lmag• produced under bnse lrom ESRI Attachment 2

Figure 1: View from top of New Power Plant looking southwest

Figure 2: View from southeast side of bridge looking north Attachment 2

Figure 3: View from southwest side of bridge looking north

Figure 4: View of deteriorated deck and railing looking south. Railing is severely bent in several locations.

Attachment 2

Figure 5: Typical condition of gusset plates showing advanced corrosion and minor section loss

Figure 6: East column at Pier 4 showing bent angle at bottom cord connection

Attachment 2

Figure 7: Pier 3 east column showing distortion

Figure 8: Typical hand rail connection showing advanced corrosion and section loss. Attachment 2

Figure 9: ACROW Modular Bridge

Figure 10: ACROW Modular Bridge. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 Michigan Avenue DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550

July 16, 2014

IN REPLY REFER TO: Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch

TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USACE) is proposing to construct a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace at the Saint Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks), which is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places. With this notice, the USACE is providing notification of the proposed project as required by 36 CFR 800.2 d (2)- Protection of Historic Properties and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). A document has been prepared describing the proposed project, which can be obtained for review online at: http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/EnvironmentalServices/EnvironmentalPublicN otices.aspx or a paper copy can be provided upon request

The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a bridge to ensure safe access to the New Power Plant in order to keep the plant maintained and operational. The New Power Plant is an essential part of the Soo Locks as it provides electrical power to a portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The existing bridge was designed to be a temporary structure and it does not meet current design and safety requirements. The existing footbridge is in poor condition with advanced corrosion throughout the entire structure including the base connections of the hand railings; and there is buckling of members in a few areas while most of the hand railing is bent or distorted. Continued use of the bridge poses a safety risk to Soo Locks personnel.

Alternatives being considered for the proposed project include: 1) Repairing the current bridge, 2) Construction of a berm and truss bridge, 3) Construction of a bridge similar to the existing bridge, and 4) No Action. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 as it will meet the project’s purpose and need. Upon completion of the proposed project, the existing footbridge would be removed to ensure it does impact future Soo Locks operations.

While the USACE has determined that the removal of the existing footbridge would not threaten the historic integrity of the Soo Locks as a whole, the removal of the existing footbridge has been determined to be an “adverse effect” to a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA. Given the finding of an “adverse effect” the USACE is in consultation with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, the National Park Service National Register Program, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to determine the appropriate mitigation necessary to protect the historic integrity of the Soo Locks to the extent possible.

Comments on the proposed bridge construction project must be made before the 30-day public review period which closes August 16, 2014; otherwise it will be assumed you have no comment. Please direct your comments to:

U.S. Army Engineer Corps of Engineers, Detroit District ATTN: CELRE-PL-E (Curtis Sedlack) 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan, 48226-2550

Comments received will be considered by the USACE as it makes a decision on which alternative to pursue per Section 106 of the NHPA.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Uhlarik Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Application for Section 106 Review

SHPO Use Only IN Received Date / / Log In Date / /

OUT Response Date / / Log Out Date / /

Sent Date / /

Submit one copy for each project for which review is requested. This application is required. Please type. Applications must be complete for review to begin. Incomplete applications will be sent back to the applicant without comment. Send only the information and attachments requested on this application. Materials submitted for review cannot be returned. Due to limited resources we are unable to accept this application electronically.

I. GENERAL INFORMATION THIS IS A NEW SUBMITTAL THIS IS MORE INFORMATION RELATING TO ER# Funding Notice Survey MOA or PA Other:

a. Project Name: St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks) Bridge Installation b. Project Address (if available): St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks), 3123 W. Portage Avenue, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 c. Municipal Unit: Sault Ste. Marie County: Chippewa d. Federal Agency and Contact (If you do not know the federal agency involved in your project please contact the party requiring you to apply for Section 106 review, not the SHPO, for this information.): United States Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District, Curtis Sedlacek, District Archeologist 313-226-3510 e. State Agency and Contact (if applicable): f. Consultant or Applicant Contact Information (if applicable):

II. GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (INCLUDING EXCAVATION, GRADING, TREE REMOVALS, UTILITY INSTALLATION, ETC.) DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY? YES NO (If no, proceed to section III.)

Exact project location must be submitted on a USGS Quad map (portions, photocopies of portions, and electronic USGS maps are acceptable as long as the location is clearly marked).

a. USGS Quad Map Name: Sault Ste. Marie South OE N (Attachment 2) b. Township: 47 Range: 01 Section: 6 c. Description of width, length and depth of proposed ground disturbing activity: d. Previous land use and disturbances: The property was open space. e. Current land use and conditions: The property is currently open space. f. Does the landowner know of any archaeological resources found on the property? YES Please describe: The Soo Locks are a National Historic Landmark and are on the National Register of Historic Places.

III. PROJECT WORK DESCRIPTION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) Note: Every project has an APE.

a. Provide a detailed written description of the project (plans, specifications, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Environmental Assessments (EA), etc. cannot be substituted for the written description): See Attachment 1, Section 3 Part d

b. Provide a localized map indicating the location of the project; road names must be included and legible. c. On the above-mentioned map, identify the APE. d. Provide a written description of the APE (physical, visual, auditory, and sociocultural), the steps taken to identify the APE, and the justification for the boundaries chosen. The APE was identified by the physical boundary of the project area. However the effects the St. Mars Falls Canal as whole will be taken into account as well.

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES a. List and date all properties 50 years of age or older located in the APE. If the property is located within a National Register eligible, listed or local district it is only necessary to identify the district: The St. Marys Falls Canal is a National Historic Landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The current footbridge is a contributing structure to the historic nature of St. Marys Falls Canal b. Describe the steps taken to identify whether or not any historic properties exist in the APE and include the level of effort made to carry out such steps: The Cultural Resource Management Plan For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks) Property (2005) was referenced for information regarding historic properties within and near the APE as was the 2012 NRHP Form for St. Marys Falls Canal. c. Based on the information contained in “b”, please choose one: Historic Properties Present in the APE No Historic Properties Present in the APE d. Describe the condition, previous disturbance to, and history of any historic properties located in the APE: The exisiting footbridge is the only land connection between the navigation locks and the New Power Plant and is in poor condition. Advanced corrosion is evident throughout the entire structure. Buckling of members is evident in a few areas. The base connections of the hand railings are showing advanced corrosion and most of the hand railing is bent or distorted.

V. PHOTOGRAPHS Note: All photographs must be keyed to a localized map. a. Provide photographs of the site itself. b. Provide photographs of all properties 50 years of age or older located in the APE (faxed or photocopied photographs are not acceptable).

VI. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

No historic properties affected based on [36 CFR § 800.4(d)(1)], please provide the basis for this determination.

No Adverse Effect [36 CFR § 800.5(b)] on historic properties, explain why the criteria of adverse effect, 36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1), were found not applicable.

Adverse Effect [36 CFR § 800.5(d)(2)] on historic properties, explain why the criteria of adverse effect, [36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1)], were found applicable.

Please print and mail completed form and required information to: State Historic Preservation Office, Environmental Review Office, Michigan Historical Center, 702 W. Kalamazoo Street, P.O. Box 30740, Lansing, MI 48909-8240

Attachment 1

Section 3, Part d, Project Description

The United States Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USACE) is proposing to construct a truss bridge at the St. Marys Falls Canal over the Unit 10 tailrace to ensure safe access to the New Power House (Attachment 1).

The existing bridge (a contributing structure to the historic nature of the St. Marys Falls Canal), which was built in 1948, is the only land connection between the navigation locks and New Power House. The existing footbridge is in poor condition. Advanced corrosion is evident throughout the entire structure (Attachment 4, Figures 5-8). Buckling of members is evident in a few areas. The base connections of the hand railings are showing advanced corrosion and most of the hand railing is bent or distorted.

Repairing the current bridge has been evaluated as a potential alternative to the construction of a new bridge. However, the existing bridge would need to be completely disassembled with the vast majority of parts being replaced due to the aforementioned buckling and advanced section loss. In kind replacement of parts would not be possible as those parts do not meet current safety and engineering standards.

Per the original design analysis for the footbridge (dated 4 August 1947), the design live load was 50 psf. The current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirement for pedestrian bridges is 90 psf. This means that if the bridge was disassembled and reassembled, the same size members could not be used in the reconstructed bridge, which would alter the structure’s appearance. Furthermore, because the superstructure is a truss it works as a system. One component affects the other, thereby requiring all members to be replaced with larger parts. It is also important to note that the vertical loads are not the only issue. The support bents are buckled because the bridge is under designed for wind loads. Therefore, both the lateral and vertical loads would require the entire substructure to also be rebuilt.

The extensive alterations necessary to bring the existing footbridge up to current safety and engineering standards would change to the bridge to such an extent that it would no longer be the same bridge and would likely no longer be eligible to be a contributing structure to the historic nature of the St. Marys Falls Canal.

Given the information provided above and the need to have safe access to the New Power House to maintain operations at the St. Marys Falls Canal, the USACE proposes to build an earthen levee and truss bridge across the Unit 10 tailrace that meets current AASHTO standards to the New Power House. Attachment 1

The earthen levee portion will be topped with a bituminous pavement or concrete path and vegetated with grass similar to existing embankments already present at the St. Marys Falls Canal. The truss bridge portion that will cross the Unit 10 tailrace and will physically connect the navigation locks and the New Power Plant will consist of an Acrow Bailey bridge. The Acrow Bailey bridge consists of galvanized steel trusses and a steel deck (Attachment 4, Figures 9 and 10). The bridge will use lighting fixtures that match the height of the existing Sabin Lock light poles and will be similar to the existing fixtures on the Poe and MacArthur Locks (Attachment 5, Page 6).

Given the sensitive nature of the St. Marys Falls Canal it is necessary to control access to the bridge and the New Power Plant. To control access several changes to fencing are proposed as part of this project. The fence north of the Sabin Lock will be modified with a gate to allow access to the new bridge. The crib dam fence near the New Power Plant will also be modified to provide access to the new bridge. A new fence will be constructed around the proposed bridge embankment (Attachment 5, Page 1).

Section VI. Determination of Effect

Given the information provided above the USACE has reached a determination of “no adverse effect”. While the installation of a new foot bridge will have a visual impact on the St. Marys Fall Canal complex as whole, its construction will not alter any of the characteristics or contributing structures of the property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.

If a response is not received within 30 days of receipt of this letter, the USACE will proceed to the next step in the process based on this finding. In addition to your office, the National Park Service, Historical and National Register Programs will be contacted regarding this project. Attachment 2 Project Location

WhlefiSh l;l.:lnd

I'I.!ITEFISH ISlAND Sault Ship Canal - IR

...... I I>

Em,jtne St

iii J S pru~ Sl W

I 75·Spur

Dillon Sl

Vl- <(~ Vl- ! ~ou rc~s: Esri, De'l!l'lfflie ~NA'J;fEQ, To~om, lntermap, increment P Corp , ~ GEBC&J, USGS, FAO, NPS, ~RCAN, G:eoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance " Surve£ Esri Japlan, METI, Es~ China (t%ng Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Communify, Copyright:©'2013 Esri, Delorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom N

Project Area ll:::J I Date: 4/8/2014 A Image produced under license from ESRI Project Location Attachment 3

A 17.•5 .. =87 :J.5iiiii= =I0•••••1•75 Feet ll::::J Project Area I Date: 4/8/2014 Image produced under license from ESRI Attachment 4

Photo Locations

Date: 4/8/201 4 lmag• prod!JC*

Figure 1: View from top of New Power Plant looking southwest

Figure 2: View from southeast side of bridge looking north Attachment 4

Figure 3: View from southwest side of bridge looking north

Figure 4: View of deteriorated deck and railing looking south. Railing is severely bent in several locations.

Attachment 4

Figure 5: Typical condition of gusset plates showing advanced corrosion and minor section loss

Figure 6: East column at Pier 4 showing bent angle at bottom cord connection

Attachment 4

Figure 7: Pier 3 east column showing distortion

Figure 8: Typical hand rail connection showing advanced corrosion and section loss. Attachment 4

Figure 9: ACROW Bailey Bridge

Figure 10: ACROW Bailey Bridge. Attachment 4

1 2 3 4 5

. -"/.

EXISTING POWERHOUSE CRIB DAM US Anny Corps /.' of Engineers• / Detroit District

/' . / , ', '

w c~ / . D . /

610 ·89 w w !

592·64 ~ >w 0: z w 0 c "'0 I= 591-4 7 !;l 0. 587·42 12 0.' fbw ..0: c EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD w ~ 0.

610 ·67 624.56 0: 589·27 "'<(

593· 14

·:o Oo zo z9 (j ,;; 0~ z 1- w I=~ ::l; ~~ ::J'" ~ z J ~~ 1-z ("j- o~· ~ C::l;~~ (.) ~- "'$ ~- u: 625·44 w .. "' c~ 6£ ~8 CHAIN LINK b FENCE 0"' -' Go.: 0. ;: ~ cw '"ww ""'zt!l ~~ I="'_., zw ::EO ~;:5 IDO: w~ w. ;:::!! ::J. B cz U)O. ~~ 590·26 "'" ·64 590 ·43 c 591-<)6

590·28 591·35 '"":=!

0 r 627· 01 0 -o- 591·27

ffi POST 591·33 590·27 590·69 ·39 CHAI~INKA9·20 590·75 • IJ CE 589· 12 589·82 589·98 590·44 10E---·· Of_.~

590 ·48 .··. - ...... r. -··· ... .

-.... ~-. Jii e CONCRETE ~:. METAL Of sLOPE ...... ········ HEADWALL PIPE iDE ..... ··· . 59111 ..... · ·ss9·:.io ...592 -{)2· --··· 589:.63 ....•..... l· 39_ ... ------A ---·· -.. -·- >- ---·· NOTE: GROUND MAT LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE ---·· --·-:.·· AND SHALL BE LOCATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

ttl 605·35 n SHEET EXISTING PLAN VIEW IDENTIFICATION RC102 SHE:ET 13 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

'.I\ \1 . -"/.

EXISTING POWERHOUSE CRIB DAM US Anny Corps /.' of Engineers• / Detroit District

/ · .. . / , ', '

w c~ / . D . /

~ REQ'D CONCRETE ~PLATFORM

610 ·89 w w !

592·64 ~ >w @;~ REQ'D 12' ACROW BRIDGE 0: z w 0 c "'0 I= 591-4 7 !;l 0. 587·42 12 0.' fbw ..0: c w ~ 0. 610 ·67 624.56 0: "'<(

593· 14

·:o Oo zo z9 (j ,;; 0~ z 1- w I=~ ::l;'" I ~~ ~ ::J I J ~~ 1- z I z \ I ("j- o~· I ~~ ~ C::l; (.) ~- u: \ "'$ ~- I 625·44 I w I .. "' c~ I 6£ ~8 I CHAIN LINK b I FENCE 0"' -' I ;: Go.: 0. ~ w cw -' '"ww 1) ""'zt!l ~~ I="'_., zw ::EO ~;:5 ;:::!! IDO: "'b w~ w. ::J. -' B cz U)O. a. ~~ I 590·26 "'" I I ·64 REQ'D RETAINING WALL I I I I 590 ·43 I I 591-<)6 I I I I I 590·28

0 627· 01 0 I EXISTING FOOT BRIDGE 591·27 I ffi POST I 591·33 I I 590·27 I 590·69 ·39 I 590·75 I • 589·82 I I I I ·44 EXISTING ELECTRICAL GROUND 10E Of_.~ I I MAT- 500 MCM CABLE CONNECTED ·86 ---·· NOTE: EXACT DIMENSIONS OF PROJECT COMPONENTS SHALL BE I I TO TOP OF 20, 1" DIAX 15' LONG DETERMINED BY LICENSED ENGINEER I ------·- ,-....., I GROUND RODS SPACED 10' 0/C ------·· (SEE NOTE). .-·. 3 ' - .. - ...... r. -··· ... . ,_,51~ .... ~-. Jii e CONCRETE ~:. METAL DE Of SL_O~£: ... · · · · · ...... HEADWALL PIPE 1 ... ----- :'. . .. I .. .. 589 30 I 589:.63 ....•..... I l· ------I 39_ ... - .. -.. -·-. I A ---·· >-- ---·· I

--·-:.·· ---··

... ttl n SHEET REQ'D OVERALL PLAN VIEW IDENTIFICATION sCALE: 1" -301-0" SB103 SHE:ET 14 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• Detroit District

\ .\ I w \ I c~ D \ I I I I REQ1D ACCESS ROAD \ I EALIGNMENT ' 590· 21 589·27 590 :s ~ I I J REQ'D EMBANKMENT ) I B I ~~AS? 24'-0" ' I ~ ~~~ ~Li""'.....,....,....,l~l ' ------.--610

~ ~1 ! ' $~,-"T rr- : I ' rr"::l V I I v (....--"' ' ') Vi'-- /' - I 59 4 ~/\ l> \ (' rx ,)>' \ I ~ ''./ I I I I 0+00 EXISTING GRADE 2+00 .Ax ~ :;:: ~>- 1\ , < r I ' ' ( I REQ'D 12'-0" WIDE ~v~ I ' BITUMINOUS ROAD w w V I !< ~ I c c I 1\ I I \ I I I '[' \ ' I \ I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I Dj REQ'D SECTION I ~ I "'w 0z c ' 0 I= I !;l !!. __.><--" ' ' "' ..a. fbw REQ'D RETAINING WALL REQ'D 12'-0" WIDE "' c BITUMINOUS ROAD - )( \ ' I \ 591-06 ...... ,; REQ'D EMBANKMENT ~ I ~.->-<" \ REQ'D ACROW BRIDGE ' v~" ~ I I ' I I I ' I I I I I \ 0 I I I l ~ REQ'D EMBANKMENT \ j ~ ,..,

I \ I - I I I \ ' (__~" ~ I \ I I I I I ~1~ \ I I 590·75 - I \ I \ I B 589·82 I I I I I b ·44 ' I I I I I I I REQ'D RETAINING WALL I I L I I \ I I I \ I I I I I I I \ I ~ ~

~ ~ ~ .... I I \ \ \ ', 2 REQ'D 12'-0" WIDE -- ______... -- --· I ~ . ___ .. ,--·· ACCESS ROAD eli oPE ...... :::i :"':--·· .-- I I - I I - I I I I I .. ... - ---- I - .. ... --·· I I I I I \ \ 605·24 REQ'D SECTION A 605·35

"' ~O?t

PLAN VIEW SHEET IDENTIFICATION CS101 SHE:ET 15 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• 18'-6" Detroit District

12'-0"

.. w .~ • H ~. ~ D I !~ .. ! I c ' I~ [I ' z ~ z' z' z' z' /. \ / z \~ ' ' =-o-- z / REQ'D ACROW EPOXY AGGREGATE ~ z' COATED DECK UNITS ' ' I \ I ' i \~; i(/ ' ' ~~ I I w, I I ' ' I ' • I~ ,I . ... "·~ • !~ . '~ ~· \¢: '- REQ'D ACROW TRANSOM .. j !t 11 ~ 2'-3 w w I. .I !

~ REQ'D SECTION ~ SCALE: 2" =1'-0" "'w 0z c 0 I= !;l !!. a.' "' u.. fbw LU REQ'D CONCRETE "' c ~PLATFORM -

' NOTES: I ' _xi 1. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. ACROW CORPORATION OF AMERICA ~i SHALL PROVIDE EXACT DIMENSIONS. cl, ~\ 2. CONFIGURATION OF BRIDGE IS CONCEPTUALL. ACROW CORPORATION o; OF AMERICA SHALL PROVIDE EXACT LAYOUT OF SUPERSTRUCTURE, DECK ui AND BEARINGS. ' ' ---- REQ'D ACROW BRIDGE \ I

I I' '

B ' I ' I 591 ·4 7 587-42

eli :::i

I ' A I '

PLAN VIEW SHEET IDENTIFICATION SB104 SHE:ET 16 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• Detroit District

w c~ D

EXISTING CRIB DAM 56'-0"

/ REQ'D CONCRETE SLAB REQ'D CONCRETE PIER CAP

: : : : : : I I I I I I ' I ' ' ' ' REQ'D CONCRETE I I I I I I "---- ' ' ' ' ' ' PILE (TYP)

REQ'D CONCRETE l.sEE NOTE ~ I PLATFORM I w w I !< ~ I c c I I I I I I I ~ I I REQ'D SECTION I ~ I "'w 0z c I 0 I= I !;l !!. I I a.' fb"' I u.. w I "' c I - I REQ'D ACROW BRIDGE

I ' I ' ' ..\..---- I ------'; 21'-0" I I I .------~------I 1 I J-- ' I ----~---' I ' I I I , I REQ'D CONCRETE SLAB I I I I REQ'DACROW I BRIDGE I

EXISTING CELLS EXISTING CRIB REQ'D CONCRETE DAM PIER CAP

B ,.SEE NOTE 1 .I REQ'D PLAN VIEW REQ'D SECTION

eli :::i

NOTE: 1. SPACING OF PILES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LICENSED ENGINEER. 2. FILL ON SOUTH SIDEOF CRIB DAM PROVIDES STABILITY FOR DAM. PLACEMENT OF PILES SHALL NOT FACILITATE REMOVAL OF ANY FILL. PLACEMENT SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DRILLING OR DRIVING. SHEET IDENTIFICATION SB502 SHE:ET 17 OF 17 FOR INFORMATION ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE 1 2 3 4 5

US Army Corps of Engineers® Detroit District . R PP A TE

D DA ON I T P I CR S E D K R A M . R PP A 2014 2014 - - TE il il r r p p DA A A - - 22 16 K C E H C K W E C I A V B E

R W

E S I E ON V C I O E T P R I

S -

E CR S O FP E R

D BC

1 -

E S FP R

HA 1

P E S HA P K R A M : . : . NO

0000 : - R NO X

- ON E I T B T C XX A M - A T I R YYYY : XK - NU C T

I L TE DD LE 911 ON - O I DA S C F M W ??? dgn . : 818 TE - : : R E Y DA SS

B M

O T R 1430 O NA . . KD L

Y : P C P F : Y L LE Y : I B

S B F

D LE D A R : Y E C E Y B TTE I S SS B

GN : EL I M O T AG 22 N S B Z R M O X ZE . . E W . . . . U I L P 34 N B D D S S B P S R S ' P C EE E ng V i

r it N m ee I ub n i S ... ng it f E o r

T P e NG

u e

l s a C ea E I V r c

n I GAN R I F T H O

S C I I D PS

M T , , R I S R T C T I

R O S N I I Y T O S

T I NG D

E E Y

F F T O I O

R A

O A R

P PS S ET R R D O Y C ET M ET D R D A . . S . U E GAN S I

S H C T ON LE I HOU N O R M R P E P

, , E T A M E

Y I E W T H GH R I C O C L A

A P -

M L S OUN OA . . P W C R LT E E

I TE R U N A

S PP B

- E & W A

E A LT

DG 10 E I ON

PP I C AU I T T

A I N S H BR E A

, , C R T T S UN I E

L K F I E C OO 14 B R F Y O F L HA

E R OO S

SHEET IDENTIFICATION R-818 FOR INFORMATION ONLY SHEET 30 OF 43

FOR INFORMATION ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 MICHIGAN AVE. DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550 April 24, 2014

Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch

Dena Sanford Historical & National Register Programs Midwest Regional Office c/o Agate Fossil Beds N. M. 301 River Road Harrison, NE 69346

Dear Ms. Sanford,

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USAGE) is proposing to construct a truss bridge at the St. Mary's Falls Canal (Sao Locks), which is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places, over the Unit 10 tailrace to ensure safe access to the New Power House (Attachment 1). The purpose of this letter is to coordinate this project with your agency pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The existing bridge (a contributing structure to the historic nature of the St. Marys Falls Canal), which was built in 1948, is the only land connection between the navigation locks and New Power House. The existing footbridge is in poor condition. Advanced corrosion is evident throughout the entire structure (Attachment 2, Figures 5-8). Buckling of members is evident in a few areas. The base connections of the hand railings are showing advanced corrosion and most of the hand railing is bent or distorted.

Per the original design analysis for the footbridge (dated 4 August 1947), the design live load was 50 psf. The current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirement for pedestrian bridges is 90 psf. This means that if the bridge was disassembled and reassembled, the same size members could not be used in the reconstructed bridge, which would alter the structure's appearance. Furthermore, because the superstructure is a truss it works as a system. One component affects the other, thereby requiring all members to be replaced with larger parts. It is also important to note that the vertical loads are not the only issue. The support bents are buckled because the bridge is under designed for wind loads. Therefore, both the lateral and vertical loads would require the entire substructure to also be rebuilt. 2

Given the information provided above and the need to have safe access to the New Power House to maintain operations at the St. Marys Falls Canal, the USAGE proposes to build an earthen levee and truss bridge across the Unit 10 tailrace that meets current AASHTO standards to the New Power House.

The earthen levee portion will be topped with a bituminous pavement or concrete path and vegetated with grass similar to existing embankments already present at the St. Marys Falls Canal. The truss bridge portion that will cross the Unit 10 tailrace and will physically connect the navigation locks and the New Power Plant will consist of an Acrow Bailey bridge. The Acrow Bailey bridge consists of galvanized steel trusses and a steel deck (Attachment 2, Figures 9 and 10). The bridge will use lighting fixtures that match the height of the existing Sabin Lock light poles and will be similar to the existing fixtures on the Poe and MacArthur Locks (Attachment 3, Page 6).

Given the information provided above the USAGE has reached a determination of "no adverse effect". While the installation of a new foot bridge will have a visual impact on the St. Marys Fall Canal complex as whole, its construction will not alter any of the characteristics or contributing structures of the property that qualify it for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.

In addition to your office, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office will also be contacted regarding this project. Any questions regarding this project can be directed to Mr. Curtis Sedlacek, District Archeologist, Environmental Analysis Branch (313-226-251 0), or myself at 313-226-2476. ~~,t~Y~ Environmental Analysis Branch Enclosures Attachment 1 Project Location

A 17.•5 .. =87 :J.5iiiii= =I0•••••1•75 Feet ll::::J Project Area I Date: 4/8/2014 Image produced under license from ESRI Attachment 2

J Photo Locations

Date: 4/8/201 4 lmag• prodi.ICed unde• lte•n" from ESRJ Attachment 2

Figure 1: View from top of New Power Plant looking southwest

Figure 2: View from southeast side of bridge looking north Attachment 2

Figure 3: View from southwest side of bridge looking north

Figure 4: View of deteriorated deck and railing looking south. Railing is severely bent in several locations.

Attachment 2

Figure 5: Typical condition of gusset plates showing advanced corrosion and minor section loss

Figure 6: East column at Pier 4 showing bent angle at bottom cord connection

Attachment 2

Figure 7: Pier 3 east column showing distortion

Figure 8: Typical hand rail connection showing advanced corrosion and section loss. Attachment 2

Figure 9: ACROW Bailey Bridge

Figure 10: ACROW Bailey Bridge. Attachment 2

1 2 3 4 5

. -"/.

EXISTING POWERHOUSE CRIB DAM US Anny Corps /.' of Engineers• / Detroit District

/' . / , ', '

w c~ / . D . /

610 ·89 w w !

592·64 ~ >w 0: z w 0 c "'0 I= 591-4 7 !;l 0. 587·42 12 0.' fbw ..0: c EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD w ~ 0.

610 ·67 624.56 0: 589·27 "'<(

593· 14

590·28 591·35 '"":=!

0 r 627· 01 0 -o- 591·27

ffi POST 591·33 590·27 590·69 ·39 CHAI~INKA9·20 590·75 • IJ CE 589· 12 589·82 589·98 590·44 10E---·· Of_.~

590 ·48 .··. - ...... r. -··· ... .

ttl 605·35 n SHEET EXISTING PLAN VIEW IDENTIFICATION RC102 SHE:ET 13 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

'.I\ \1 . -"/.

EXISTING POWERHOUSE CRIB DAM US Anny Corps /.' of Engineers• / Detroit District

/ · .. . / , ', '

w c~ / . D . /

~ REQ'D CONCRETE ~PLATFORM

610 ·89 w w !

592·64 ~ >w @;~ REQ'D 12' ACROW BRIDGE 0: z w 0 c "'0 I= 591-4 7 !;l 0. 587·42 12 0.' fbw ..0: c w ~ 0. 610 ·67 624.56 0: "'<(

593· 14

--·-:.·· ---··

... ttl n SHEET REQ'D OVERALL PLAN VIEW IDENTIFICATION sCALE: 1" -301-0" SB103 SHE:ET 14 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• Detroit District

\ .\ I w \ I c~ D \ I I I I REQ1D ACCESS ROAD \ I EALIGNMENT ' 590· 21 589·27 590 :s ~ I I J REQ'D EMBANKMENT ) I B I ~~AS? 24'-0" ' I ~ ~~~ ~Li""'.....,....,....,l~l ' ------.--610

I \ I - I I I \ ' (__~" ~ I \ I I I I I ~1~ \ I I 590·75 - I \ I \ I B 589·82 I I I I I b ·44 ' I I I I I I I REQ'D RETAINING WALL I I L I I \ I I I \ I I I I I I I \ I ~ ~

"' ~O?t

PLAN VIEW SHEET IDENTIFICATION CS101 SHE:ET 15 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• 18'-6" Detroit District

12'-0"

~ REQ'D SECTION ~ SCALE: 2" =1'-0" "'w 0z c 0 I= !;l !!. a.' "' u.. fbw LU REQ'D CONCRETE "' c ~PLATFORM -

I I' '

B ' I ' I 591 ·4 7 587-42

eli :::i

I ' A I '

PLAN VIEW SHEET IDENTIFICATION SB104 SHE:ET 16 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• Detroit District

w c~ D

EXISTING CRIB DAM 56'-0"

/ REQ'D CONCRETE SLAB REQ'D CONCRETE PIER CAP

: : : : : : I I I I I I ' I ' ' ' ' REQ'D CONCRETE I I I I I I "---- ' ' ' ' ' ' PILE (TYP)

REQ'D CONCRETE l.sEE NOTE ~ I PLATFORM I w w I !< ~ I c c I I I I I I I ~ I I REQ'D SECTION I ~ I "'w 0z c I 0 I= I !;l !!. I I a.' fb"' I u.. w I "' c I - I REQ'D ACROW BRIDGE

I ' I ' ' ..\..---- I ------'; 21'-0" I I I .------~------I 1 I J-- ' I ----~---' I ' I I I , I REQ'D CONCRETE SLAB I I I I REQ'DACROW I BRIDGE I

EXISTING CELLS EXISTING CRIB REQ'D CONCRETE DAM PIER CAP

B ,.SEE NOTE 1 .I REQ'D PLAN VIEW REQ'D SECTION

eli :::i

US Army Corps of Engineers® Detroit District . R PP A TE

D DA ON I T P I CR S E D K R A M . R PP A 2014 2014 - - TE il il r r p p DA A A - - 22 16 K C E H C K W E C I A V B E

R W

E S I E ON V C I O E T P R I

S -

E CR S O FP E R

D BC

1 -

E S FP R

HA 1

P E S HA P K R A M : . : . NO

0000 : - R NO X

- ON E I T B T C XX A M - A T I R YYYY : XK - NU C T

I L TE DD LE 911 ON - O I DA S C F M W ??? dgn . : 818 TE - : : R E Y DA SS

B M

O T R 1430 O NA . . KD L

Y : P C P F : Y L LE Y : I B

S B F

D LE D A R : Y E C E Y B TTE I S SS B

GN : EL I M O T AG 22 N S B Z R M O X ZE . . E W . . . . U I L P 34 N B D D S S B P S R S ' P C EE E ng V i

r it N m ee I ub n i S ... ng it f E o r

T P e NG

u e

l s a C ea E I V r c

n I GAN R I F T H O

S C I I D PS

M T , , R I S R T C T I

R O S N I I Y T O S

T I NG D

E E Y

F F T O I O

R A

O A R

P PS S ET R R D O Y C ET M ET D R D A . . S . U E GAN S I

S H C T ON LE I HOU N O R M R P E P

, , E T A M E

Y I E W T H GH R I C O C L A

A P -

M L S OUN OA . . P W C R LT E E

I TE R U N A

S PP B

- E & W A

E A LT

DG 10 E I ON

PP I C AU I T T

A I N S H BR E A

, , C R T T S UN I E

L K F I E C OO 14 B R F Y O F L HA

E R OO S

SHEET IDENTIFICATION R-818 FOR INFORMATION ONLY SHEET 30 OF 43

FOR INFORMATION ONLY SUBJECT TO CHANGE United States Department of the Interior National Park Service Midwest Regional Office NRHP: KS, NE, ND, MI, SD c/o Agate Fossil Beds National Monument 301 River Road Harrison, NE 69346

IN REPLY REFER TO: 8.A.4 H3417 (MWR-CR/NRHP)

May 23,2014

Charles Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers 4 77 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226-2550

Dear Mr. Uhlarik:

Thank you for submitting for National Park Service (NPS) review documentation related to the proposed construction of a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace, located within the Saint Marys Falls Canal National Historic Landmark (NHL) in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The information was submitted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As Federal Administrator of the NHL program, the NPS is responsible for monitoring NHLs. For the reasons explained below, the NPS cannot concur with the conclusion of "no adverse effect" on the Saint Marys Falls Canal NHL.

The submitted documentation suggests that the addition of a new truss bridge would not have a visual impact on the St. Marys Fall canal complex as a whole. While this may be the case, such a modification would nonetheless change the historic appearance of the Unit 10 tailrace area by both the introduction of a new truss bridge and associated earthen levee. The introduction of a new design and new materials within the historic district is still considered an adverse effect. Other modification to existing fences are identified, as well, and it is not clear if the historic bridge is to remain in place, but unused.

Mitigating the introduction of new construction within an historic district requires compatible new design, following the Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The proposed new truss bridge appears to be a standard Bailey Bridge, which does not have the same truss system as the historic truss. Nor is the deck in the same location, relative to the truss system. Has the Corps of Engineers considered a new design that replicates the particular truss system of the historic truss bridge, but which also meets current safety standards? Has new design included consideration of the lighting system on the bridge? Is the earthen levee required for safety compliance, and if not, can a new truss be installed that does not include the levee? The Midwest Regional Office would like offer our assistance to meet the requirements of Section 11 0 of the NHPA, to ensure that adequate measures are taken to minimize harm that may be affected by this proposed undertaking. If you have questions, please contact me at 308-436- 9797, or via electronic mail at dena [email protected].

Sincerely,

Dena Sanford, Architectural Historian National Register Programs cc:

Mr. Brian Conway, State Historic Preservation Officer Michigan State Housing Development Authority 702 W. Kalamazoo St. P.O. Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240

2 From: Sedlacek, Curtis H LRE To: "Sanford, Dena" Cc: Uhlarik, Charles A LRE; Tapp, James D (Jim) LRE; Imbrunone, Jon T LRE; "Grennell, Brian (MSHDA)"; McKay, Robbert (MSHDA) Subject: 8.A.H3417 (MWR-CR/NRHP) Soo Locks Footbridge (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:28:00 PM Attachments: USACE to NPS-Soo Locks Footbridge-Additional Information.pdf

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Hey Dena, attached is further information about the Soo Locks foot bridge project and answers to the questions in your letter dated May 23rd.

I figured at this stage that we could keep it more informal. Once everything is worked out we can formalize everything, if that works for you. It just helps information move a little faster.

Brian Grennell and Robbert McKay of the MI SHPO are also cc'ed on this email as they had requested similar information.

Please feel free to contact me with any further comments or questions about the project.

Thanks,

Curtis Sedlacek District Archeologist and Tribal Liaison CELRE-PL-E, USACE, Detroit District 477 Michigan Ave, Detroit, MI 48226 Email: [email protected] Office Phone: 313-226-3510

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE United States Army Corps of Engineers Response to National Park Service Questions regarding proposed Soo Locks Bridge

1. Has the Corps of Engineers considered a new design that replicates the particular truss system of the historic truss bridge, but which will also meets current safety standards?

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USACE) has considered a new design that would be similar to the historic truss bridge. However, the costs were determined to be prohibitively high because the USACE would need to acquire all new materials. None of the existing bridge can be reused because all of the members are undersized for current design standards.

The current proposed bridge configuration uses a significant amount of government owned materials. The Bailey bridge was military surplus and was acquired by the USACE at no cost. The installation of the proposed 220 foot Bailey bridge, not including the embankment, is approximately $1M.

The cost of designing, acquiring materials and constructing a bridge that meets current safety standards and is similar to existing foot bridge to cross just the 220 foot gap between the proposed embankment and the New Power House would require an additional $1.2M (total of approx. $2.7 M). The costs associated with a new truss bridge that could cross the entire 440 foot gap (without the embankment) would be approximately an additional $2.1M (total of approx. $3.6 M).

In addition to the cost implications referenced above, we also took into account the operational challenges of the existing footbridge and replacing it “in kind” with a footbridge. The existing footbridge was planned to be, and constructed as a temporary structure with the thought that the New Power Plant would eventually be expanded. An expanded Power Plant would have allowed for land access to the power plant thus reducing operations and maintenance costs, and increased accessibility for emergency vehicles. The replacement bridge, as currently planned, will address the issues that will contribute to reductions in the yearly operation and maintenance costs associated with the Power Plant in addition to addressing access issues for emergency personnel. An “in kind” replacement that would address the safety issues, operational issues, and maintenance issues would cost nearly $4M.

2. Has the new design included consideration of the lighting system on the new bridge?

Initially, the lighting for the new bridge was designed to use light poles similar to those that already exist on the Soo Locks grounds. However, upon further consideration, the USACE has determined that the use of historic lighting fixtures on the new bridge would not be in keeping with the design of the bridge and would not be in keeping with the rest of the Soo Locks or the existing footbridge.

The use of lighting similar to the lighting that already exists at the Soo on the earthen levee of the portion of the bridge is something that the USACE is currently considering.

3. Is the earthen levee required for safety compliance, and if not, can a new truss be installed that does not include the levee?

The USACE has considered a bridge that could be installed without the earthen levee. However, the costs were determined to be prohibitively high. By using an earthen levee and the Bailey bridge the USACE can significantly reduce the costs associated with this project. The cost to build the proposed bridge and embankment is $1.5M. An entirely new truss bridge would for the entire 440 ft span then it will increase costs to approximately $3.6 M.

Additional Information: This project will not impact the existing footbridge. In the future the USACE will evaluate alternatives regarding the existing footbridge and will consult with the National Park Service and Michigan State Historic Preservation Office before taking any action.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 MICHIGAN AVE. DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550 June 19, 2014

IN REPLY REFER TO: Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch

Brian Conway, State Historic Preservation Officer Stat Historic Preservation Office Environmental Review Office Michigan Historical Center W. Kalamazoo Street, P.O. Box 30740 Lansing, Ml 48909

Dear Mr. Conway,

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USAGE) has additional information regarding the USAGE proposal to construct a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace at the St. Mary's Falls Canal (Soo Locks), Chippewa County, Michigan which is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project would ensure safe access to the New Power House as described in our letter dated 24 April 2014. The purpose of this letter is to coordinate additional project information with your agency pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

While not part of the proposed project, the USAGE is proposing that the existing foot bridge (a contributing structure to the historic nature of the Soo Locks) be removed within 5 years of the completion of the new bridge, depending upon the availability of funding, due the safety hazard it presents to personnel and the continued operation of the Soo Locks. The removal of the existing foot bridge, which would not be possible without the new bridge being installed, will be an alteration of a contributing structure to the historic nature of the Soo Locks.

Given the information provided above the USAGE has revised its previous determination of the proposed project, under 36CFR800.4, of "no adverse effect" to a finding of "adverse effect". In addition to your office, the National Park Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will also be contacted regarding our determination. Any questions regarding this project can be directed to Mr. Curtis Sedlacek, District Archeologist, Environmental Analysis Branch (313-226-2510), or myself at 313-226-2476.

s~.. , L/t-1 !l Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 MICHIGAN AVE. DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550 June 19, 2014

IN REPLY REFER TO: Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch

RE: 8.A.H3417 (MWR-CR/NRHP)

Dena Sanford Historical & National Register Programs Midwest Regional Office c/o Agate Fossil Beds N. M. 301 River Road Harrison, NE 69346

Dear Ms. Sanford,

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USAGE) has additional information regarding the USAGE proposal to construct a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace at the St. Mary's Falls Canal (Sao Locks), Chippewa County, Michigan which is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project would ensure safe access to the New Power House as described in our letter dated 24 April 2014. The purpose of this letter is to coordinate additional project information with your agency pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

While not part of the proposed project, the USAGE is proposing that the existing foot bridge (a contributing structure to the historic nature of the Soo Locks) be removed within 5 years of the completion of the new bridge, depending upon the availability of funding, due the safety hazard it presents to personnel and the continued operation of the Sao Locks. The removal of the existing foot bridge, which would not be possible without the new bridge being installed, will be an alteration of a contributing structure to the historic nature of the Soo Locks.

Given the information provided above the USAGE has revised its previous determination of the proposed project, under 36CFR800.4, of "no adverse effect" to a finding of "adverse effect". In addition to your office, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will also be contacted regarding our determination. Any questions regarding this project can be directed to Mr. Curtis Sedlacek, District Archeologist, Environmental Analysis Branch (313-226-251 0), or myself at 313-226-2476. S~erely, a/~4 Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 MICHIGAN AVE. DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550 June 19, 2014

IN REPLY REFER TO: Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Tom McCulloch The Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 803 Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. McCulloch,

The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USAGE), is proposing to construct a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace at the St. Mary's Falls Canal (Soo Locks), Chippewa County, Michigan, which is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project would ensure safe access to the New Power House (Attachment 1).

The existing bridge (a contributing structure to the historic nature of the St. Marys Falls Canal), which was built in 1948, is the only land connection between the navigation locks and New Power House. The existing footbridge over the Unit 1 0 tailrace is in poor condition. Advanced corrosion is evident throughout the entire structure including the base connections of the hand railings. There is buckling of members in a few areas and most of the hand railing is bent or distorted (Attachment 2).

Repairing the current bridge has been evaluated as a potential alternative to the construction of a new bridge. However, the existing bridge would need to be completely disassembled with the vast majority of parts being replaced due to the aforementioned buckling and corrosion. In kind replacement of parts would not be possible as those parts do not meet current safety and engineering standards.

Per the original design analysis for the footbridge (dated 4 August 1947), the design live load was 50 pounds per square foot (psf). The current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirement for pedestrian bridges is 90 psf. This means that if the bridge was disassembled and reassembled, the same size members could not be used in the reconstructed bridge, which would alter the structure's appearance. Furthermore, because the superstructure is a truss it works as a system; where one component affects the other, thereby requiring all members to be replaced with larger parts. It is also important to note that the vertical loads are not the only issue. The support beams are buckled because the bridge is under designed for wind loads. Therefore, both the lateral and vertical loads would require the entire substructure to also •:j_ be rebuilt.

The extensive alterations necessary to bring the existing footbridge up to current safety and engineering standards would change to the bridge to such an extent that it would no 2 longer be the same bridge and would likely no longer be eligible to be a contributing structure to the historic nature of the St. Marys Falls Canal.

The USAGE has also considered a new design that would be similar to the historic truss bridge. However, the costs were determined to be prohibitively high because the USAGE would need to acquire all new materials. None of the existing bridge can be reused because all of the members are undersized for current design standards.

The current proposed bridge configuration uses a significant amount of government owned materials. The Bailey bridge was military surplus and was acquired by the USAGE at no cost. The installation of the proposed 220 foot Bailey bridge, not including the embankment, is approximately $1M.

In addition to the cost implications referenced above, the USAGE also took into account the operational challenges of the existing footbridge and replacing it "in kind" with a footbridge. The existing footbridge was planned to be, and constructed as a temporary structure with the thought that the New Power Plant would eventually be expanded. An expanded Power Plant would have allowed for land access to the power plant thus reducing operations and maintenance costs, and increased accessibility for emergency vehicles. The replacement bridge, as currently planned, will address the issues that will contribute to reductions in the yearly operation and maintenance costs associated with the Power Plant in addition to addressing access issues for emergency personnel. An "in kind" replacement that would address the safety issues, operational issues, and maintenance issues would cost nearly $4M.

Given the information provided above and the need to have safe access to the New Power House to maintain operations at the St. Marys Falls Canal, the USAGE proposes to build an earthen levee and truss bridge across the Unit 10 tailrace to the New Power House that meets current AASHTO standards (Attachment 3).

The earthen levee portion will be topped with a bituminous path and vegetated with grass similar to existing embankments already present at the St. Marys Falls Canal. The truss bridge portion that will cross the Unit 10 tailrace and physically connect the navigation locks and the New Power Plant will consist of an ACROW Bailey bridge. The ACROW Bridge consists of galvanized steel trusses and a steel deck. 3

Given the information provided above, it is our determination, under 36CFR800.4, that the proposed project will have an adverse effect on historic resources as the existing foot bridge will eventually be removed after the construction of the new bridge. In addition to your office, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office and Ms. Dena Sanford, History and Register Programs, National Park Service, will also be contacted regarding this project and our determination. Any questions regarding this project can be directed to Mr. Curtis Sedlacek, District Archeologist, Environmental Analysis Branch (313-226-251 0), or myself at 313-226-24 76.

Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Enclosures

Project Location Attachment 1

A 17.•5 .. =87 :J.5iiiii= =I0•••••1•75 Feet ll::::J Project Area I Date: 4/8/2014 Image produced under license from ESRI Attachment 2

Photo Locations

Date: 4/8/201 4 lmag• prod!JC*

Figure 1: View from top of New Power Plant looking southwest

Figure 2: View from southeast side of bridge looking north Attachment 2

Figure 3: View from southwest side of bridge looking north

Figure 4: View of deteriorated deck and railing looking south. Railing is severely bent in several locations.

Attachment 2

Figure 5: Typical condition of gusset plates showing advanced corrosion and minor section loss

Figure 6: East column at Pier 4 showing bent angle at bottom cord connection

Attachment 2

Figure 7: Pier 3 east column showing distortion

Figure 8: Typical hand rail connection showing advanced corrosion and section loss. Attachment 2

Figure 9: ACROW Bailey Bridge

Figure 10: ACROW Bailey Bridge. Attachment 2

1 2 3 4 5

. -"/.

EXISTING POWERHOUSE CRIB DAM US Anny Corps /.' of Engineers• / Detroit District

/' . / , ', '

w c~ / . D . /

610 ·89 w w !

592·64 ~ >w 0: z w 0 c "'0 I= 591-4 7 !;l 0. 587·42 12 0.' fbw ..0: c EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD w ~ 0.

610 ·67 624.56 0: 589·27 "'<(

593· 14

590·28 591·35 '"":=!

0 r 627· 01 0 -o- 591·27

ffi POST 591·33 590·27 590·69 ·39 CHAI~INKA9·20 590·75 • IJ CE 589· 12 589·82 589·98 590·44 10E---·· Of_.~

590 ·48 .··. - ...... r. -··· ... .

ttl 605·35 n SHEET EXISTING PLAN VIEW IDENTIFICATION RC102 SHE:ET 13 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

'.I\ \1 . -"/.

EXISTING POWERHOUSE CRIB DAM US Anny Corps /.' of Engineers• / Detroit District

/ · .. . / , ', '

w c~ / . D . /

~ REQ'D CONCRETE ~PLATFORM

610 ·89 w w !

592·64 ~ >w @;~ REQ'D 12' ACROW BRIDGE 0: z w 0 c "'0 I= 591-4 7 !;l 0. 587·42 12 0.' fbw ..0: c w ~ 0. 610 ·67 624.56 0: "'<(

593· 14

--·-:.·· ---··

... ttl n SHEET REQ'D OVERALL PLAN VIEW IDENTIFICATION sCALE: 1" -301-0" SB103 SHE:ET 14 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• Detroit District

\ .\ I w \ I c~ D \ I I I I REQ1D ACCESS ROAD \ I EALIGNMENT ' 590· 21 589·27 590 :s ~ I I J REQ'D EMBANKMENT ) I B I ~~AS? 24'-0" ' I ~ ~~~ ~Li""'.....,....,....,l~l ' ------.--610

I \ I - I I I \ ' (__~" ~ I \ I I I I I ~1~ \ I I 590·75 - I \ I \ I B 589·82 I I I I I b ·44 ' I I I I I I I REQ'D RETAINING WALL I I L I I \ I I I \ I I I I I I I \ I ~ ~

"' ~O?t

PLAN VIEW SHEET IDENTIFICATION CS101 SHE:ET 15 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• 18'-6" Detroit District

12'-0"

~ REQ'D SECTION ~ SCALE: 2" =1'-0" "'w 0z c 0 I= !;l !!. a.' "' u.. fbw LU REQ'D CONCRETE "' c ~PLATFORM -

I I' '

B ' I ' I 591 ·4 7 587-42

eli :::i

I ' A I '

PLAN VIEW SHEET IDENTIFICATION SB104 SHE:ET 16 OF 17 1 2 3 4 5

US Anny Corps of Engineers• Detroit District

w c~ D

EXISTING CRIB DAM 56'-0"

/ REQ'D CONCRETE SLAB REQ'D CONCRETE PIER CAP

: : : : : : I I I I I I ' I ' ' ' ' REQ'D CONCRETE I I I I I I "---- ' ' ' ' ' ' PILE (TYP)

REQ'D CONCRETE l.sEE NOTE ~ I PLATFORM I w w I !< ~ I c c I I I I I I I ~ I I REQ'D SECTION I ~ I "'w 0z c I 0 I= I !;l !!. I I a.' fb"' I u.. w I "' c I - I REQ'D ACROW BRIDGE

I ' I ' ' ..\..---- I ------'; 21'-0" I I I .------~------I 1 I J-- ' I ----~---' I ' I I I , I REQ'D CONCRETE SLAB I I I I REQ'DACROW I BRIDGE I

EXISTING CELLS EXISTING CRIB REQ'D CONCRETE DAM PIER CAP

B ,.SEE NOTE 1 .I REQ'D PLAN VIEW REQ'D SECTION

eli :::i

IN REPLY REFER TO: 8.A.4 H3417 (MWR-CR/NRHP)

June 24, 2014

Charles Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers 4 77 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226-2550

Dear Mr. Uhlarik:

Thank you for submitting for National Park Service (NPS) additional information related to the proposed construction of a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace, located within the Saint Marys Falls Canal National Historic Landmark (NHL) in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The information was submitted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and proposes that the existing foot bridge, a contributing structure to the NHL, will be removed. The NPS concurs with the conclusion of"adverse effect" on the Saint Marys Falls Canal NHL.

The Midwest Regional Office is available to consult with your office and the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office regarding development of mitigation measures. If you have questions, please contact me at 308-436-9797, or via electronic mail at dena [email protected].

Sincerely,

Dena Sanford, Architectural Historian National Register Programs cc:

Mr. Brian Conway, State Historic Preservation Officer Michigan State Housing Development Authority 702 W. Kalamazoo St. P.O. Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240