' SAGINAW RIVER DREDGE DISPOSAL PROJECT AT SAGINAW BAY, MICHIGAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FEBRUARY 1 ^4/
PREPARED BY
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
DETROIT, MICHIGAN STATEMENT OF FINDINGS PROPOSED DREDGE DISPOSAL FACILITY SAGINAW BAY, MICHIGAN
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 dredge disposal fa cility at Saginaw Bay, Michigan.
BACKGROUND
Construction of the proposed facility is authorized by the River and Har bor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611, Section 123) which provides for the confined disposal of polluted materials resulting from maintenance dredg ing of Federal navigation projects. Additionally, in 1970, the Governor of Michigan requested that the Corps of Engineers cease returning polluted dredged materials to the waters of the Great Lakes in Michigan. As part of the planning process for the proposed fa cility, two workshops were con ducted at Bay City in March 1974. These meetings were attended by govern ment representatives, city representatives, environmental groups and the general public. The purpose of the meetings was to provide and exchange information relative to the alternatives being considered for siting the facility. As a result of information generated at the workshops and con tinued coordination with the State of Michiv,—., the Channel-Shelter Island location was selected.
THE SELECTED PLAN
-The proposed disposal site is located on the southeast side of the Federal navigation channel in Saginaw Bay, approximately two miles northeasterly from the mouth of the Saginaw River. At the present time Channel and Shelter Islands exist at the disposal location, having been previously formed from dredged materials resulting from prior maintenance operations. These islands have not stabilized but have steadily eroded contributing to excessive shoaling in the navigation channel. The proposed confined • disposal facility is generally circular and w ill encompass the two exist ing islands and waters adjacent to them. Dikes to contain the dredged material have been designed to be impermeable and w ill be protected by rubblestone. The 285-acre facility w ill have a capacity for 10 m illion cubic yards of dredged m aterial, the estimated amount for 10 years of maintenance dredging and accumulated backlog. Monitoring of overflow ef fluent by the Corps of Engineers w ill be conducted in accordance with approved procedures and Environmental Protection Agency guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES
Five alternative sites, in addition to the alternative of no action, were considered during the planning process for the proposed fa cility. Three locations offered were privately owned upland or marsh areas. However, when the pertinent terms for disposal on private lands were explained to the property owners by the Corps, these locations became unacceptable. Further evaluation of additional areas was initiated. Two open water sites, were considered.
The Gull Island site, approximately one mile northeasterly from the mouth of the Saginaw River, was considered and rejected due to adverse environ mental and aesthetic effects to adjacent shore property owners.
A barrier dike at Nayanquing Point was also' considered and rejected due to limited access which would result in unnecessarily high costs.
The alternative of no action would mandate that no periodic maintenance dredging operations be performed. Continuous shoaling of the navigation channel would eventually impede the movement of commercial and recreational vessels dependent on this waterway. Existing public and private water re lated facilities would suffer economically as the channel decreased in its ability to provide safe and adequate navigation.
EVALUATION OF THE SELECTED PLAN
In evaluation of the selected plan, the following points were considered p e r tin e n t :
Environmental Considerations
Construction of the proposed facility w ill create 285 acres of upland area in Saginaw Bay, replacing Channel and Shelter Islands and approximately ~200 acres of bay bottomland. The rubblestone dike structure may encourage perch spawning in the area, enhancing sport fishing activities. The dis posal area w ill create a protected area in the bay to the lee of the faci lity. Presently occurring erosion from the existing dredge material islands w ill be eliminated. Confinement of the polluted dredgings w ill eliminate their re-introduction into adjacent waters and over time may assist in up grading both water and sediment quality of Saginaw Bay and nearby tributaries.
Social Considerations
The selection of this disposal location was made in such a manner to mini mize adverse environmental effects and to confer benefits on the people and community of Bay City as a whole. The creation of a recreational faci lity at the end of ten years time w ill provide to the public additional shoreline in an area of little recreational development. In addition, the Channel-Shelter Island location minimizes objections by shoreline property owners. Engineering Considerations
Construction of the facility around the existing dredge material islands w ill serve to eliminate their continuing erosion. Configuration of the dike .structure, as well as materials used in its construction, have been designed and selected to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance as well as minimize affected areas of bottomlands. Design criteria were also implemented to minimize adverse effects on the flow regime of inner Saginaw Bay.
Economic Considerations
Construction costs for the proposed facility have been estimated at $20.5 million. The total project cost is approximately $22 million. Annual cost per cubic yard of dredged material is approximately $4.15.
Other Considerations
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has expressed its support for the project as proposed. Concurrence for the placement of the facility was also received from the Federal Fish and W ildlife Service and the Envi ronmental Protection Agency.
CONCLUSION
After giving full consideration to all pertinent data, the expressed opinions of various individuals and agencies and the studies and investi gations referred to above, it is my decision to recommend construction of the facility as described in the Final Environmental Statement.
JAMES E . HAYS Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer ' DATE:
I concur in the preceding Statement of Findings.
WALTER'0 . BACKUS Brigadier General, U.S.A. Division Engineer DATE: _ I concur in che preceding Statement of Findings.
FOR THE CHIFF OF ENGINEERS:
(D a te ) y. W. MORRIS Major General, USA Director of Civil Works
SUMMARY
CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY FOR SAGINAW BAY, MICHIGAN
( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U. S. Army Engineer D istrict 150 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48225
1 . NAME OF A C T IO N : (X ) A D M IN IS TR A TIV E ( ) LEGISLATIVE
2 . DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construct a contained disposal facility for polluted dredged materials from Saginaw Bay navigation channel, Bay County, M ic h ig a n .
3 . (A ) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Construction of the fa cility w ill create 285 acres of upland in Saginaw Bay, replacing two small islands created by former dredging, and the surrounding bay bottomland and water. Ihis is a commitment of a water resource to another use, loss of associated aquatic communities, and a change in the hydraulic regime. It is expected the prospective island landform w ill create minor changes in the latter and short-term losses in the former, with long-term reinstatement of compar able if not improved values: potential re-establishment of fish habitat in rock dike; upgrading of water quality in bay and Lake Huron through removal of considerable quantities of polluted bottom sediments; creation of a protected area in the bay to the lee of the island for present losers of the area; elimination of continuing erosion from present spoil islands, a source of turbidity and channel shoaling; creation of a potential recrea tion area with resultant increased use of water resources of the bay for people and area w ildlife. Resumption of dredging w ill restore channel project depths and insure safe navigation without loss of shipping capacity which is of significant economic importance to the region and area.
(B ) ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: An irretrievable loss of approx imately 200 acres of Saginaw Bay bottomland and open water, with associated aquatic communities, w ill occur. The stone facing of the dike provides a stable substrate for such nuisance growths as Cladophera, a filimentous a lg a e .
4 . ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Gull Island Plan 4 . Inland sites
2 . Nayanquing Barrier Dike 5 . Upland industrial site
3 . Hampton Township Plan 6 . No a c t io n 5 . COMMENTS REQUESTED: The draft environmental statement was circulated to other government agencies and the public for comment. Government Agen cies who furnished comments on the Draft EIS are as follows:
Federal Power Commission U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration United States Coast Guard Department of Health, Education and Welfare U. S. Department of Interior Environmental Protection Agency
State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Department of State Highways and Transportation Department of State - Michigan Historical Division
Bay County Planning Commission
Southeast Michigan Council Of Governments
Copies of the comment letters are inclosed as Attachment No. H.
6 . Draft statement sent to CEQ on 18 December 1974.
7 . Final statement sent to CEQ on V 9 MAY T375______. TABLE OF CONTENTS
S e c tio n Page
I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 1
A . Purpose of the Project ...... 1 B. Requirements for Disposal of Polluted Spoil 2 C. Maintenance Dredging ...... 2 D . Characteris tics of Material to be Dredged 3 E. Need for the Proposed Project ...... 4 F . The Propose d P r o je c t ...... 4
I I ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT ...... 7
A . Water Curre nts in Saginaw Bay ...... 8 B. Ecology of Saginaw Bay ...... 14 F ish Resources ...... 14 Waterfowl Reso u rce s ...... 17 Benthic Organisms ...... 18 Phytoplankton ...... 19 G e o l o g y ...... 20 C. Social and Economic Environments ...... 20 D. Aesthetic Environments ...... 24 E . Archeology of the Area ...... 25
I I I RELATIONSH IP OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO LAND USE PLANS ...... 26
IV PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 27
V ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ...... 30
V I ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 31
VII RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ...... 39
V III ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN TH E PROPOSED A C TIO N SHOULD I T BE IMPLEMENTED ...... 40
IX COORDINATION AND COMMENT AND RESPONSES ...... 41
ATTACHMENT A - Disposal Site Location ...... 51 ATTACHMENT B - F is h C o l l e c t io n s ...... 53 ATTACHMENT C - Sediment Sample Analysis ...... 62 ATTACHMENT D - Ships Using Saginaw Harbor ...... 68 ATTACHMENT E - Benthic Sampling in Saginaw Bay.. 69 ATTACHMENT F - Bay County Board of Commissioners R e s o l u t i o n ...... 78 ATTACHMENT G - Wind Rose of Saginaw, Michigan . . 88 ATTACHMENT H - Letters in Pesponse to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.. 90 S e c t io n I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the project is to provide a contained disposal faci lity with sufficient capacity for a period not to exceed ten years for polluted dredgings removed from the existing channel in the lower Saginaw River and in Saginaw Bay during maintenance dredging operations. Shoaling activity has reduced navigability within the channel where maintenance dredging has not been performed since 1969 due to the lack of a designated disposal area for the polluted bottom sediments. To restore the channels to authorized project depths, it is estimated that 4 m illion cubic yards of accumulated sediments w ill need to be removed, in addition to annual amounts of 600,000 cubic yards over a period of ten years. Ihe total re quired capacity of the facility is 10 m illion cubic yards.
B. Requirements for Disposal of Polluted Spoil
The authority for the construction of a contained spoil disposal faci lity is Section 123 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611). This authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to construct, operate, and maintain (subject to the provisions stated below) contained spoil disposal facilities with the concurrence of appropriate local governments.
Prior to construction of any such facility, the appropriate State or States, interstate agency, m unicipality, or other appropriate political subdivision of the State, shall agree in writing to: (1) furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the fa cility; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction, operation, and maintenance of the faci lity; and (3) maintain the facility after completion of its use for dis posal purposes in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army.
Subsection 123(c) of the Act provides that appropriate non-Federal interest or interests shall agree to contribute 25 percent of the construc tion costs prior to the construction of any such facility. However, sub s e c t io n 123(d) provides that this contribution shall be waived upon a finding of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that there is appropriate compliance with an approved plan for water treatment facilities and applicable water quality standards are not being violated.
The participating non-Federal interests retain title to a ll lands, easements, and rights-of-way furnished and may transfer title to it only after completion of the facility's use for disposal purposes and after satisfactory maintenance is assured.
Authorization is given for a comprehensive program of research, study, and experimentation relating to dredged material.
C. Maintenance Dredging
Maintenance dredging for Saginaw Harbor requires removal of shoals from both the bay and river. Channels of twenty-two miles in the river and fourteen in the bay require maintenance.
Dredging of the seventeen-and-one-half miles upstream of the Penn Central Bridge is only required on an interm ittent basis with long inter vening periods wherein no dredging is required. A diked disposal area on middle Ground Island in Saginaw River has been provided by Bay City for disposal of material dredged from this portion of the river channel. The average annual quantities of dredged matarial from this portion of the channel are 150,000 cubic yards. Upon solidification and drying, city em ployees transport portions of the dredged materials to the city's sanitary landfill. The length of service of Middle Ground Island as a disposal site depends on both the quantity of materials deposited at the site and the amounts removed. The details of environmental impacts related to the Middle Ground Island disposal facility w ill be provided in a separate EIS currently under preparation. The river channel downstream of the Penn Central Bridge to the mouth of the river (4.5 miles) and the bay channel to the 27-foot contour (14 m iles), a combined distance of 18.5 miles, are normally maintained on a yearly basis. However, due to the constraints on placement of polluted dredged material, these reaches of the project were last dredged in 1969. Tests made in 1970 by the Environmental Pro tection Agency identified bottom sediments as polluted from the upstream lim it of the project to 5 miles lakeward of the river mouth (station 350+00). Annual shoaling of approximately 600,000 cubic yards occurs in this area. It was indicated by the E.P.A. and requested by the Governor of the State of Michigan that this material be placed in a containment site. This was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611), Section 123. Removal of the dredged materials in Saginaw Bay is done by hopper dredge operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Shipping logs for the Saginaw Bay area indicate the average carrying capacity of ships in this area to be between 11,000 and 13,000 tons. If the ships using the harbor were required to reduce their loads to reduce their draft by just six inches, it would lower each ship's carrying capa city by approximately 300 gross tons.
Decreased efficiency of transportation results in increased costs and prices throughout the industrial, commercial, and household sectors of the economy. In addition, many goods which rely on inland navigation for transport are too heavy or too bulky to be efficiently transported by other means. Ihe net effect of reductions in draft is a reduction in commerce and in the industrial activity dependent on commerce. The en tire economy of the Great Lakes area is largely dependent, directly or indirectly, on the availability of efficient low-cost transport of raw materials and finished products by water.
The 1973 statistics for Saginaw River report a total of 4,095,978 tons of freight inbound and outbound, a decrease from 1972 of 291,000 tons. The principal commodities carried in order of volume were limestone, sand and gravel, basic chemicals, com, gasoline, pig iron, fuel o il, cement, coal and lignite, soy beans, and non-metallic minerals. The pro ject contributes neasurably to the recreational facilities of the area; however, the proposed maintenance is justified solely on the benefits to commercial navigation. A table showing trips and vessel drafts for 1973 is inclosed as Attachment No. D.
D. Characteristics of Material to be Dredged
According to EPA standards, the material is polluted because it ex ceeds the maximum values for nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen, 00D, o il and grease (see Attachment C ). Physically, the material consists of soft deposits laying above project depths, conposed of varying amounts of s ilt, sand, and clay. Samples analyzed by Consumers Power Co., in August 1973, contained 80 to 90 percent clay and s ilt. Results of organic content tests showed a range from zero to almost 97 percent.
Construction of a cross dike would enable the Corps to place dredged materials in tha disposal area prior to completion of the entire dike. Construction of the facility is dependent upon availability of funds. Con struction w ill be completed two years after award of the contract.
It is estimated that 4 m illion cubic yards of polluted sediments w ill have accumulated in the channel from the time it was last dredged to the earliest time dredging can be resumed. The total capacity required of the disposal facility is, therefore, approximately 10 m illion cubic yards for the ten-year period.
Maintenance dredging in the bay and lower rive r channels has been performed economically by Government-owned and operated hopper dredges. In order to continue this practice, with the addition of the accumulated sediments, it is considered desirable to enploy the hopper dredge Markham which has a hopper capacity of approximately 2,800 cubic yards of mate ria ls. liiis ship requires a channel 24-1/2 feet deep and 200 feet wide to accommodate a 20-foot draft, and squat and clearance of 4-1/2 feet. The average depth of the bay is 20 feet, thus making it necessary to provide a channel for the dredge to any disposal site beyond pumpout distance from the channel.
E. Need for the Proposed Project
Based on recent surveys and shoaling previously experienced in the bay channel to the Detroit and Mackinaw bridge, the extent of shoaling is expected to be from 1 to 4 feet in the channel throughout this section of the project. The channel is now shoaled its entire width immediately lakeward of the shoreline.
The necessity for maintenance dredging arises principally from natural shoaling of navigation channels due to transport of sediments by the river and by water movements in Saginaw Bay. Since a navigation channel, once dredged, is deeper than the remainder of the waterway, sediments tend to be deposited within the channel. This deposition must be periodically re moved in order to maintain the authorized depth of the channel.
The usable draft within a navigation channel is dictated by the high est shoal. An accretion of sediment anywhere in the channel may therefore render the channel unusable, even though the authorized depth may be main tained elsewhere in the channel.
F. The Proposed Project
The proposed site is located on the southeast side of the shipping channel approximately two miles from the mouth of the Saginaw River be tween channel stations 75+00 and 140+00. This is also the site of two existing islands, Channel and Shelter Islands formed from dredging and deepening of the adjoining shipping channel in the 1960's. The islands have not stabilized but have steadily eroded since this time, contributing to shoaling in the channel that is particularly heavy at this location. The islands consist of hard s ilt on which willows, grasses, reeds and rushes have become established. Large numbers of gulls use these islands for resting.
The proposed containment fa cility w ill encompass an area approximately 285 acres in size. This includes the two existing islands created by chan nel dredgings as well as the open water surrounding the islands. The shape of the new island w ill be irregular, though generally circular in order to create a more pleasing, natural landform for future use as a recrea tional area. The dike w ill have a top elevation of 14 feet above Low Water Datum (576.8 feet) and extend 14,000 feet around the perineter of the island. The facility w ill have a capacity for 10 million cubic yards of dredged m aterial, the estimated amount for 10 years of annual maintenance dredging and accumulated backlog. According to preliminary designs for the project, the dike w ill be comprised of stone in various sizes. The basic outline of the dike is described as follows: The top elevation of the dike w ill be 14.0 feet above Low Water Datum, be 10 feet wide at the top and slope to the lake bottom at 2% horizontal on 1 vertical slopes on the lakeside with 2 horizontal on 1 v e rtic a l on the inside; the outside o f the dike exposed to the wave and ice forces from Saginaw Bay w ill be protected with armor stone and w ill be placed in various layers for a total of 9 feet of total thickness. The outer layer w ill be large stone; the layers underneath this w ill be made up of stone weighing approximately 10 per cent of the cover stone. An 18-inch thick layer of mattress stone w ill be placed at the toe of the dike section under the protective stone. Final designs w ill develop as project plans advance and a fter fie ld work is accomplished to identify physical requirements related to the site. Dikes w ill be de signed to prevent leakage of contaminated m aterial, resist wave erosion, and prevent wave overtopping.
A discharge weir w ill be built into the dike to allow excess water to return to the bay. An oil skimmer w ill be installed in the weir. This is a manually operated device to trap oils and floating debris , which is then removed by maintenance crews. A design for sufficient settling time of dredged material within the diked area is intended to produce an effluent of acceptable quality based on prevailing standards. Monitoring of the effluent w ill be carried out by the Corps. The monitoring by the Corps w ill be conducted in accordance with approved procedures and EPA guide lines. Additional monitoring may be initiated as deemed necessary.
A turnout basin for the dredge w ill be constructed off the channel on the northeast side of the facility. A pipeline supported by trestles w ill carry the dredged material to the disposal area within the dike. By using a system of "y" and gate valves, the discharged sediment can be con trolled to create a drainage system which provides maximum retention time for runoff and settling time for suspended sediments.
Construction of the fa cility w ill be accomplished by waterborne equip ment, transported from convenient dockages. No on-site material w ill be used for the construction of the dike.
At the time dredging is resumed and operation of the facility begins, effluents from the weir w ill be sampled in order to determine if water quality standards are being met. This w ill be done in cooperation with th e E P A .
Following completion of the project after ten years, the island would be taken over by Bay County, having provided the necessary assurances to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and to the Federal government as required by PL 91-611 prior to construction of the project. Present planning by the local governments is to create a unique recreational re source for the area on the island. At the present time, recreational use of the bay is largely provided by over 7,000 acres of State w ildlife and game areas occupying extensive shallow, marshy shorelines around the bay.
The Congress, in directing the Secretary of the Army to confine polluted material, required the construction of such sites without regard to a strict calculation of the benefits of such sites relative to their costs, since they were envisioned as a temporary measure to relieve unacceptable environmental stress upon the water bodies subject to open lake disposal rather than as a permanent solution to the problem of disposal. Economic considerations are an important factor, however, in selection of a preferred site. S e c t io n I I
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT
The Saginaw River drains the east-central part of the lower peninsula of Michigan. It flows into the southwest comer of Saginaw Bay, the larg est indentation along the west shore of Lake Huron. The bay has an en trance width of 26 miles between Point Aux Barques and Au Sable Point, and a length of 51 miles running southwest from the entrance to the mouth of the Saginaw River. The most important portion of the Bay area lies south of a line extended from Sand Point in Huron County to Point Lookout in Arenac County. This inner Bay has over 133 miles of shoreline, including islands near Sand Point: North, Stony, Katechay, North Mineshas, Lone Tree, and South Mineshas Islands. References to the Bay in this report are to the inner Bay.
The Saginaw is the largest river system in the State and has a drain age area of 6,260 square miles (4 m illion acres). The Saginaw itself is only 20 miles long and flows from the City of Saginaw into Saginaw Bay at Bay City. Its tributaries, which flow together near Saginaw, include the Flint, the Cass, Shiawassee, and Tittabawassee Rivers. The Flint, Cass, and Shiawassee drain the southern half of the valley. The Tittabawassee drains the northern half of the Saginaw Valley. Although it is shorter, because of its greater fall and a greater velocity, it carries more water than the other three rivers combined.
The Saginaw River and tributaries serve urban areas populated by approximately a m illion persons. The major industries in the Saginaw-Bay City area along the Saginaw River, dependent on water transportation, are the Consumers Power Co. power plants, a shipyard, cement conpany, grey iron foundry, grain elevator, petroleum refineries and tank farms, chemical plants and coal and construction material docks.
The business district of Saginaw is 18-1/2 miles from the mouth of the river. The city extends 4-1/2 miles along the west bank and 6 miles along the east bank of the river. The Township of Carrollton is adjacent to Saginaw on the west bank at Sixth Street bridge. Saginaw has a popula tion of 91,849 people, which becomes 219,743 when applying to the SMSA surrounding. Zilwaukee, with 2,072 people, is located 2 miles farther downstream from this bridge, on the west side of the river. Bay City (population 49,449, SMSA, 117,339) is located 5 miles from the mouth of the Saginaw River, and extends 6 miles along each side of the river. The City of Essexville (population 4,990) is situated on the easterly bank of the river and adjacent to the northerly city lim its of Bay City. Two other industrial cities, Flint and Midland, are also located in the Saginaw River basin. Midland, a city of 35,175 population, located 20 miles northwest of Saginaw on the Tittabawassee rive r, is the home of Dow Chemical Co. A. Water Currents in Saginaw Bay
The water level in Saginaw Bay is subject to sudden changes due to the wind. A northeast gale may drive the water into the bay so as to raise the level at the mouth of the Saginaw River 3 to 4 feet sometimes in less than as many hours, while a southwest wind lowers the level at times sufficiently to cause large vessels to ground in the channel.
An investigation of currents by Johnson, 1956,* using drift-bottles, concludes that no one stable surface current pattern exists within the bay. Great variability of surface currents are related to winds and sub ject to continuous change. In analyzing currents, therefore, it is necessary to discuss specific locations and conditions.
Surface currents in Saginaw Bay Surface currents in Saginaw Bay determined from travel of d rift bottles determined from travel of d rift bottles released on August 10, 1956, during a released on October 12-13, 1956, during period of moderate westerly winds. Fariod of strong southeast-northeast w in d s .
♦ Johnson, James H. Water Movements of Saginaw Bay, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 1956. Lake Huron water flows into Saginaw Bay on the west, follows the shoreline, and exits to the east. Hie river, joining this current, tends to flow in a counter clockwise direction.(1) There is little or no litto ra l movement and trans p o r t .
-Typical surface-current flow for Saginaw Bay in the summer of 1956.
Although subsurface currents were not studied, it was theorized that because of the prevalence of shallow water and consequent transitory thermocline development, subsurface currents are highly influenced by surface currents and sim ilar in direction to them.
Outflowing tributaries modify the wind-dependent surface flow tc some extent. The Saginaw River flow behavior is described as a jet flow which spreads out upon reaching the bay while drawing in water laterally. Analyses by Dow Chemical of chlorides in the bay shews a consistent flow along the southeastern shore, tending to follow a counterclockwise pattern.
The greater portion of the bay is less than 20 feet deep. It is only near Lake Huron at the mouth of the bay that a well formed, persisting thermocline is present in the summer and early fa ll. Temporary stra tifi- dation does occur, however, within the bay during the summer. In 1956 a thermocline developed in certain inner areas but was ill-defined and tenporary. Approximately 25 percent of the total area of the bay became stratified and almost all of this area was at or near the mouth of the Bay. Thermal currents in the bay are contributed by Consumers Pcwer Com pany's two generating plants located at the mouth of the Saginaw River. The condenser cooling water for the J. C. Weadock and D. E. Kam Plants is withdrawn from the Saginaw River and discharged through a common channel to Saginaw Bay. Four 1971 water temperature surveys of the Kam-Weadock cooling water discharge were conducted for the purpose of gathering thermal data when the plaints were operating at various load conditions. The normal flow of the plume was to the southeast along the shoreline. Shoreline tem peratures in this vicinity were difficult to measure. The influence of the thermal plume along this shoreline was difficu lt to determine because the shallow inshore waters were often naturally warmer than the inshore waters in the vicinity of the discharge channel. Illustrations of the plume f o l l o w .
The outer edge of the plume was often observed as a band of calm water which became less distinct with increased distance from the point of dis c h a rg e .
The variations in size and shape of the plume were related to meteo rological conditions and to the volume of the discharge. The largest area of thermal influence was in the top two feet of the water column which would be subjected to wind, wave and current action. Results are attached for conditions under the influence of southwest and northwest winds.
The Saginaw River is a slow-moving stream having only a 2-foot drop in its total length of 22 miles. The depth, velocity, and discharge of the river are strongly affected by the height of water in Saginaw Bay. A sustained southwest wind lowers the level of the bay and temporarily in creases river velocity and discharge. A sustained northeast wind causes the opposite result. At times, the flow of the river reverses.
Water quality in the area of the proposed facility is largely deter mined by the flow of the Saginaw River. When winds blow from the north east down Saginaw Bay the water quality at the Channel-Shelter Islands is relatively free of pollutants reflecting the quality of Lake Huron. When the wind is west to southwest water from the Saginaw River is transported to the Islands area.
The water quality of Saginaw Bay reflects the abundance of waste materials received from the Saginaw River and other, small rivers tributary to the Bay. The existing water quality is adequate to support a ll desig nated uses with minor exceptions. The waters of the inner bay are consid ered substandard with respect to nutrients and coliform bacteria. Suffi cient nutrient levels exist to support algal blooms and extensive algal blooms have occurred.
Water quality along the western shore of Saginaw Bay, north of Bay City may be considered substandard because of high coliform levels at beaches which exist along this portion of the Bay.
Although many industrial plants along the river have achieved a very high degree of wastewater treatment, outflowing wastes from the river con tinue to have a severe inpact on the quality of the receiving waters. The waters of Saginaw Bay differ from those of the main body of Lake Huron in several respects: higher concentrations of calcium, sodium and potassium, chlorides and sulfates; greater degree of hardness; higher temperatures and more turbidity. Data collected by Dow Chemical at the mouth of the Saginaw River in 1971 show high concentrations of metals in the suspended solids collected over a period of three months in test tubes suspended in the water column.
The Saginaw River is the main source of water constituents to Saginaw Bay and the principal influence on water quality in the Bay. Five waste- water treatment plants use surface waters of the Saginaw River for waste- water treatment. Four - Essexville, Zilwaukee, Bay City and Buena Vista Township - have new secondary treatment plaints with phosphate removal, and the City of Saginaw anticipates completion of a sim ilarly updated plant within a year.
The Bay Metropolitan Water Supply System has a 48-inch water intake located approximately four miles northwest of the disposal site. The con struction of the disposal facility and its localized disruption of the pattern of current flow should have little effect on water quality at the i n t a k e .
B. Ecology of Saginaw Bay
Saginaw Bay contains most of the 29% marshlands of the Lake Huron shore line. Approximately 40,500 acres of marsh provide a featheredge shoreline on a gently sloping 7:1 gradient landward to agriculture lands. These lake plain, saturated-soil marsh lands may extend inland one mile. The distance from moist soil edge to a 6-inch depth of water ranges up to 3,000 feet, approximating a 700:1 gradient.
Recognizing the high w ildlife value, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has acquired six w ildlife areas around the Bay for pub lic fishing and hunting: Quanicassee, Nayanquing, Tobico, Fish Point, Wigwam Bay, and Wildfowl Bay.
Fish Resources* - Ninety species of fish have been recorded for the Bay area. Among the important species are smelt, white sucker, channel catfish, yellow perch, walleye, whitefish, bullheads, rock bass, carp,
♦ National Estuary Study, Vol. 3, U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and W ildlife Service, January 1970. alewife, smallmouth bass, northern pike, rainbow trout, and coho salmon. Numerous forage and non-commercial fish represent the remaining species.
Commercial fishing became an established industry in the mid-1800's as the expanding population created a demand for fishery products. The com mercial fishery during the period of 1879 to 1930 paralleled development of the fishery in the other Great Lakes. Production rose steadily between the mid-1800's and the turn of the century reaching a peak of 20 m illion pounds for Lake Huron in 1902. Lake Huron ranked third in commercial fishery landings during these years, behind Lakes Erie and Michigan.
The history of the total commercial production in Saginaw Bay has been one of a gradual buildup to a peak followed by a progressive decline to the low level of output in recent years. This decline in Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay is closely associated with the dramatic decline of the lake trout, whitefish, lake herring,'chubs, and yellow perch.
Saginaw Bay's fish coirmunity has been heavily altered, particularly in the last half century. Species composition has changed dramatically to low value fish, and fish production has steadily decreased to its pres ent low. Lake trout, walleye, whitefish, and lake herring once represented the bay's major resources; today they are scarce. Carp and yellow perch now compose the majority of the catch. Causes for these changes include changes in the foodweb, predation and competition from invading marine sea lamprey and alewives, changes in habitat, commercial fishing exploitation, and changes in water quality.
Lake trout had all but disappeared by the m id-forties; whitefish has been scarce and produced only in small quantities since the m id-thirties; walleye abundance has been low and production has not exceeded 100,000 pounds since 1948. Of the remaining principal species chubs and herring have been depleted, walleye may no longer be taken commercially, whitefish only by permit from the Department of Natural Resources, perch populations may be overharvested.
Intensive programs have been underway to control the lamprey, to improve methods of operations and to introduce high-value predatory species. Coho and Chinook salmon, rainbow, brown and lake trout have been stocked in large numbers in Lake Huron. Meanwhile the ecological bal ance has been disrupted and dominance has changed from high-value to low- value species.
In 1967, the Michigan catch for Lake Huron was about 3,200,000 pounds (one m illion pounds carp) as compared to the 1902 peak production of 20 m illion pounds.
Saginaw Bay supports an active, diverse, and year-round warm water sport fishery. The Bay traditionally has been a productive area for yellow perch and the shallow, weedy portions produce northern pike, catfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, panfish and carp.
Yellow perch is probably the most inportant sport game fish in the outer areas of the Bay. Boat fishing and wading for smallmouth bass are popular. Several communities conduct bass and perch fishing festivals.
In 1972 and 1973 the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory collected 18 species in and along the ship channel within a mile from the mouth of the Saginaw River. Alewife and carp were the dominant species captured in June, when spawning runs were beginning or underway for both species. Numerous carp were observed spawning near Channel and Shelter Islands immediately east and north of the site. Alewife, carp, spottail shiner, gizzard shad, and yellow perch made up 97 percent of the total numbers caught. Eleven other species accounted for the remainder. Yellow perch were the most abundant sport species in the area (7 percent of the total catch). Principal species and numbers of fish captured near the mouth of the Saginaw River during 1972 and 1973 are as follows:
T o t a l Percentage S p e c ie s Number o f T o t a l
A le w if e 1 ,6 7 9 67 C a rp 153 6 Gizzard Shad 62 2 Spottail Shiner 352 14 Yellow Perch 186 7
Fish collections were made by Consumers Power Company in 1972 to de termine populations in and around the Kam and Weadock plants. In the discharge channel and eastward, seasonal catches yielded dominant numbers of carp, shad, perch, shiners, and alewife. Collections in the bay areas are detailed in Attachment B.
In the fall of 1967, adult coho salmon were planted in the AuGres River and in the spring of 1968 smolts were planted in the Tawas River. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, has stocked western Lake Huron annually since 1970 with brown and lake trout.
The network of streams, lakes, and impoundments in the major water sheds of the basin provides excellent boat and bank fishing where public access is available and where shoreline conditions are suitable. Very little bank fishing is done around the bay in this area due to low marshy shorelines and shallow water offshore. Heavy runs of northern pike, suckers, and smelt move up the rivers during the spring. Some fishing for rainbow, brook, and brown trout is found in isolated reaches of streams and lakes emptying into the north part of Saginaw Bay. In addition to the above species, crappie, bluegill, rock bass, yellow perch, largemouth bass, and walleye are taken. The activities of sport fishermen are not nearly as well documented as the Great Lakes commercial fishery functions. However, as an example of the sport fishing pressure, it has been determined that a minimum of 240,000 anglers fish in the Lake Huron drainage for an angler-day usage of 4.8 m illion.
Ice fishing for panfish is an important aspect of the Michigan sport fishery in Saginaw Bay. In certain protected embayments, the ice fishing pressure almost equals that of open water fishing. Although the primary interest is catching panfish, "dark houses" are used to spear northern p ik e .
Waterfowl Resources - The Bay is a nationally known waterfowl concen tration area. Tremendous numbers of waterfowl are associated with the aquatic plants along the marshy shores. The species found belong to one of three general groups: geese and swans, diving ducks, and marsh birds such as coots and rails. The birds use the w ildlife areas during fall and spring migration and for breeding in the summer. In summer major use is the marsh areas and uplands bordering the Bay. Very few waterfowl win ter in Saginaw Bay. Open water is limited to the mouth of the Saginaw River and in the area of Consumers Power's effluent outfall. Although breeding birds utilize these areas, this is of secondary importance when compared to the use during the migration periods. Saginaw Bay is a link in the Chesapeake Bay migration corridor for diving ducks, with a sp lit in route for dabbling ducks which enter both the Atlantic and Mississippi f ly w a y s .
It is estimated that at least 30 species of waterfowl and marsh birds are available to hunters from October to December. Based on duck stanp sales, an average of 7,000 waterfowl hunters annually use the Bay area. Hunting is permitted on most of the following State game and w ildlife areas in the coastal regions of the bay:
T o b ic o M arsh S ta te Game A re a 1,829 acres Fish Point W ildlife Area 3,076 acres Nayanquing Point W ildlife Area 1,003 a c re s Quanicassee Bay W ildlife Area 217 a c re s Wigwam Bay W ildlife Area 136 a c re s Wildfowl Bay W ildlife Area 1,542 a c re s
Because of the abundance of these natural areas, Shelter-Channel Islands and surrounding open water are relatively unimportant for support ing waterfowl except gulls, which are the major users of this area.
The areas surrounding the proposed location provide habitat for numerous species of birds. Local habitats are conducive for birds adopted to marshlands and shallow and open water areas. Birds likely ob served in such areas include diving ducks, dabbling ducks, gulls, wading birds, shorebirds, and numerous species of songbirds. Although the wetlands are s till productive w ildlife areas, there has been a noticeable reduction in total numbers of various species. Human disturbance of marshlands has resulted in the decline of water dependent w ildlife in the Saginaw Bay area.
The lowlands and marshes bordering Saginaw Bay support muskrat and mink in the wetter areas and raccoon, weasel, skunk, opossum and fox in the drier areas. Higher water levels since 1964 have favored muskrat production. Burrowing muskrats, however, have caused damage to dikes and retaining walls in the Saginaw Bay area and the tributary streams. This has resulted in costly and time consuming repairs on public and private properties. Extended trapping seasons during this period have increased the harvest and exercised a control on the population. Mink appear to be decreasing. ' This decline is evident in the harvest. The number of mink trappers have been fairly constant throughout the bay region, but the annual harvest has been steadily dropping since 1964 although the resource prevails. There are also lesser numbers of other fur species such as skunk, opossum, fox, raccoon and weasel, trapped in the Bay area. The Saginaw Bay drainage supports populations of cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, and white-tailed deer. These provide hunting opportunities for thousands of Michigan sportsmen.
Benthic Organisms - The bottom fauna of Saginaw Bay includes many species representative of most groups of aquatic life . Changing water quality and aquatic environmental conditions affect the indigenous populations. Twenty major groups have been identified in the entire bay. The most abun dant forms were arphipods, oligochaetes, sphaeriid clams, tendipedids and nematodes. Oligochaetes were predominant in water depths less than 60 feet or most of the inner zone area. Amphipods dominate in those areas greater than 60 feet or in the outer zone and Lake Huron proper.
Oligochaeta, a biological indicator of enriched or polluted habitat, was most heavily concentrated at the mouth of the Saginaw River. This area was typified by an ooze bottom with strong sewage odors. No amphipods were found at the outlet of the Saginaw River, but increased in numbers lakeward in deepening waters. These more important benthic organisms are typical inhabitants of large, cold, deep non-polluted lakes. The presence of numerous macroinvertebrates along with extensive beds of aquatic vegeta tion provides a rich supply of foods for fish and w ildlife.
An ecological survey made in Saginaw Bay by Dow Chemical in 1971 com pared populations found in three areas of the Bay: north of the channel near the river mouth, two miles west and two miles east of the river mouth. Species diversity was found to be greatest in the western bay area, while a ll areas had a dominance of pollution-tolerant oligochaeta worms.
A study of benthic organisms is presently being undertaken by the U. S. Fish and W ildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and W ildlife for the Corps of Engineers Navigation Season Extension Program in Saginaw Bay. The site of the project is about 1 mile northeast of the mouth of the Saginaw River. The area enconpasses 3,000 feet of the channel and ad jacent bay floor and is southwest of the proposed disposal site. The dredged channel is about 350 feet wide and 27 feet deep; the adjacent bay floor has an average depth of 9 feet (low water datum).
An interim report, covering a period from 1972 through 1973, identifies three principal taxonomic groups present, with large numbers of organisms: Oligochaeta, Chironomidae, and Ostracoda. Diversity of organisms varied from 2 to 17 per station, highest at stations in the center of the channel and lowest at stations on the bay floor adjacent to the channel. Results of the benthos sampling is included as Attachment No. E.
Changes in population density of Oligochaeta and Chironomidae followed a systematic pattern during the seasons. Ostracoda were too mobile to be considered reliable indicators. Oligochaeta population density was high est at stations nearest the river mouth as might be expected, and at the edge of the channel bottom. Maximum density occurred early in the year then declined. In the bay floor, however, there was a marked reduction in population which then stabilized.
Chironomidae also exhibited a relatively consistent seasonal trend, were scarce in the area adjacent to the channel, and abundant in the center of the channel bottom. This pattern suggests migration from the bay floor into the channel during the fa ll, over-wintering, and migration.
Continued invertebrate sampling through all seasons of 1975 w ill pro vide additional data necessary to establish more definitive lim its on "normal" population changes.
Phytoplankton - Because Saginaw (inner) Bay is relatively shallow and has a high flushing rate, nutrients are constantly being introduced from various sources and are circulated throughout the bay. Levels of these nutrients are sufficient to cause nuisance algal blooms. Study in progress in Saginaw Bay is designed to identify and to model the processes that occur within the bay, to predict the effects on the adjoining areas of Lake Huron. This involves physical, chemical, and biological programs, initiated in October 1973 and terminating in 1975. The study is being conducted cooperatively by the Michigan Water Resources Commission, the University of Michigan, the Dow Chemical Company, various municipal agen cies, the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, and the Environmental Protec tion Agency, with grants to the Cranbrook Institute and the University of M ic h ig a n .
Observations made at the midpoint of the sampling program describe the development of a phytoplankton kinetics model which is to be integrated with a model describing the hydrological circulation in the bay. Patterns in systems are developed which show the effect of various levels of the nutrients, phosphorus, nitrogen, and silica on four important classes of algae; a diatom, green alga, and two blue-green algae. Tentative conclu sions, based on data-based simulations, are that drastic reductions in phosphorus loadings are necessary, with or without corresponding reductions in nitrogen, before any significant decrease in phytoplankton growth w ill occur in the bay.
Geology - Geologically, Saginaw Bay has been considered a shallow extension of Lake Huron. Formed by glacial advances during the Pleistocene epoch, Saginaw Bay cuts into a large formation of bedrock. Sediments in the Bay are mostly sand, silts and gravel.
The Channel-Shelter Island area is of relatively shallow water depth. The deepest portion in the area to be diked is approximately fourteen feet below the water surface. Islands located in this area were formed as the result of dredging in the shipping channel. The composition of the strata that the disposal site is to be built on is mostly fine sands and silts. Borings at the site w ill be taken before final design of the dike. Dikes built on dredge spoils at other locations have experienced minor mud flows as the dike material displaces the softer surface sediments and stabilizes itself on the lower harder layers. The final dike design w ill best meet the requirements of the soils, strata and wave conditions that are revealed through careful testing and sampling.
C. Social and Economic Environments
The Bay City and Saginaw areas can be categorized prim arily as indus tria l and blue-collar. Though adjacent to water (Saginaw Bay) the area has not developed as a recreational, tourist, or scenically residential locale; rather industries, especially u tilitie s and petrochemicals, have capitalized on the water-borne transportation capabilities of the Bay with the resultant industrial character of the area. The population of the area has been steadily increasing and is projected to continue to increase as long as the industrial base does not weaken. The future of the Saginaw River and Bay as dependable transportation routes w ill, of course, impact on the industrial base and labor force. More specific descriptions of present and projected social conditions follow.
Population Growth - Both Bay and Saginaw counties have experienced population increases; since 1960 the increases have been 10% and 15% re spectively. However, these increases are in the rural and suburban Census tracts; city populations have actually decreased 8% and 6% respectively.*
* U.S. Department of Coirmerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Popula tion and Housing, Census Tracts, (PHC(1)-21), Bay City and Saginaw, Michigan, Table P-1; 1970 Census of Population, Characteristics of the Population, Part 24 Michigan, Table 6. The Planning Commission for Bay County has projected the population w ill continue to grew until 1995, when the population of that county w ill reach 164,819, an increase of 40% over the 1970 figure of 117,339. This increase w ill be felt only in the suburban tracts; Bay City's population w ill con tinue to decrease by as much as 11%.* It is anticipated that Saginaw (city) w ill also experience a sim ilar trend. A visit to downtown Saginaw demon strates presently declining inner city, with vacant storefronts and build ings to be demolished. Downtown decay in Saginaw has prompted suburban shopping centers and development outward from the city. Since 1965, 12% of current suburban residents of Saginaw County have moved from the central city area to the suburbs; another 12% of the suburbanites moved to the area from outside the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area since 1965.
Residential Assets - Residential property values are generally higher in the suburban tracts surrounding Bay City and Saginaw. The median value of residential properties in Bay County is $14,900. Only one city Census tract, located outside the downtown area to the west, has higher median values. Also, the Census tracts along the western side of Saginaw Bay (water frontage) have lower median values, even though in our culture ac cess to water usually has resulted in higher relative property values. In Saginaw County, the median value of residential property is $16,300.* * But, again, the further away from the central city (and the Saginaw River), the higher the values. One could expect that in the future the trend to wards more valuable and desirable suburban housing in the area of Michigan would continue with less value being attached to residence in either of these two central cities.
Recreational Assets - Popular recreational activities are boating and fishing although little objective information was available on this use of the bay area. Heavy use is made of the "hip channels by a ll types of boats traveling between river dockages, the outer bay, and Lake Huron. Boat-watching is a form of shoreline recreation. A state park and state game area a few miles to the north provide a variety of activities, in cluding a full-tim e naturalist program. Recreation is relatively undevel o ped.
Natural and Scenic Assets - Few areas remain in this part of the bay which provide natural or scenic assets, other than those mentioned as re creational areas.
*Bay City Planning Commission, "Bay City Area Transportation Planning Study, Existing and Projected Population Data for Bay County and Subunits", September 11, 1973.
**U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing, Census Tracts, Table H -l, "Occupancy, U tilization, and Financial Characteristics of Housing Units: 1970". Water Uses - Industrial location reflects the availability of an economical water supply. Those industries which require large amounts of water for cooling or processing tend to locate near the Great Lakes. In Saginaw River Basin, with 11 industries reporting, there was a total con sumption of 494,693.4 m illion gallons per year used by industry, 492,555.17 MGY of which was surface water. Consumers Power plants use approximately 412,000 and the Dow Chemical coiqpany uses approximately 60,000 MGY of the total.
Agricultural uses of water are indicated by the following diagrams.
Educational Assets - Except for the state park, no other educational use of this area was identified. With the growing interest in natural areas, the demand for such outdoor educational laboratories w ill increase.
Traffic - Roads currently providing access to the area are poorly maintained. If extensive development of this area is made, improvements to the roadways leading to the access site w ill probably be needed.
Community Cohesion and Interest Group Conflict - Residential groups in this area are identified by subdivision rather than by the larger commu nity. However, insufficient data was collected to draw any conclusions about cohesion.
Summary - Bay C ity, adjacent to a large water body, does have poten tia l for recreational development and educational use of its water resources but to-date, little planned development along the bay has been acconplished. Rather, industrial development has occurred.
D. Aesthetic Environments
Typical aesthetic environments range from major urban areas such as Bay City and Saginaw through residential subdivisions, extensive agricul tural lands, and extensive Saginaw Bay frontage in a variety of land uses. For the aesthetic impact assessment it is appropriate to characterize the inner Saginaw Bay area only, the waters and the lands along the shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed project.
1 . Land - The land surface is essentially flat with little or no natural re lie f. Because much of the shoreline is in marshes or temporary beach, there is little apparent erosion. The islands of the inner bay in cluding Channel and Shelter, have a low and unstable profile with signifi cant continuous erosion evident. The only noticeably elevated areas are the fill site occupied by the power plant at the mouth of the river, and a nearby breakwater approximately 8 feet high extending into the bay for a short distance. Protective riprap facing has been placed along the shore line in several areas. There are no outcroppings of bedrock in the Bay City area. Bedrock approaches the surface near the entrance to the bay.
2 . Water - Because of the shallowness of the inner bay, near shore waters are relatively placid except during storm conditions. Clarity of the water is limited by fine s ilt in suspension most of the time and by the common occurrence of algae in the water or attached to shoreline ob j e c t s .
3 . Air - Unpleasant odors are occasionally borne on southerly or southwesterly winds from industrial areas up-river or at the river mouth. However, pollution episodes are unusual and infrequent. Sounds are related to transient activities, from boats mostly. Natural sounds are pleasantly noticeable. 4 . Bi°ta ” Vegetation is characterized by the low-lying shoreline and adjacent land, brushy and sparsely treed. The vegetation is dwarfed by large expanses of sky and water. An occasional row of willows contrasts with marsh plants and early successional plants on young soils. Gulls and, in season, large populations of migrating waterfowl are conspicuous.
5 . Man-made Structures - Beachfront residences are relatively densely packed and located immediately on the shore. The power plant is grossly out of scale with the natural setting and is not landscaped or planted. Landscaping is unusual in the area. In the residential area, large speci men trees are visually dominant over scattered shrubbery.
Summary - The predominant aesthetic effect of the area is generally pleasing, dominated by the bay and marshy shoreline interspersed with man made structures and developments.
E. Archeology of the Area
Archeological research of nearly a decade of excavation at the most productive ceramic sites known in Saginaw Valley concludes that there were no permanent agricultural villages in the valley, even during the favorable Neo-atlantic climatic episode. Interpretation of the sites excavated is that these were hunting camps, occupied seasonally by groups with both the Ottawa and Miami seasonal patterns. Following A.D. 1400, the valley ap peared to have been almost enpty up until the Chippewa settled in the area in the early eighteenth century after the establishment of the French post in Detroit.
The National Register of Historic places has been consulted and con tact has been made with the Michigan State History Division. No National Register properties have been identified on the site. No known archaeolo gical or historic sites have been identified in the area. Section III
RELATIONSHIP OF TOE PROPOSED PROJECT TO LAND USE PLANS
The Corps conducted two public meetings in March 1974 at Bay C ity, Michigan. These meetings were attended by planners, government represen tatives and the concerned public. The purpose of these meetings was to involve the public in the evaluation and selection of a disposal location which would be best suited to the public interest.
The proposed project was accepted by the Bay County Board of Coirmis- sioners unanimously on 12 November 1974. The Resolution is included in this report as Attachment F. Although the projected use of the site is undecided at the present time, the following uses have been suggested: recreational, for boating, fishing, camping, nature tra ils, picnic grounds, playgrounds, and museums; educational, for an outdoor classroom; commer cial, for possible industrial uses. Limiting factors are difficulties associated with supplying access, services, and maintenance.
The project w ill add 285 acres to existing county land, while removing an amount of bottom lands and public waters in the Bay in excess of the area provided by Shelter-Channel Islands. This commitment of use is being made by the Department of Natural Resources as a compromise, having advan tages for recreation, for stabilizing erosion of existing spoil islands, and for being relatively environmentally acceptable. S e c tio n I V
PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Construction of the diked disposal facility w ill transform bottom land around Shelter and Channel Islands into land. This w ill create a 285 acre island south of the channel, replacing the two existing islands. These islands presently provide a resting place for gulls, and protection for fishermen and boaters.
The facility w ill store polluted dredged bottom materials which gravi tate to the channel from the surrounding bay and from the river. Removal of this material w ill benefit the water quality of Lake Huron. Accumulated sediments above project depth at the present time are resuspended and re distributed as laden ships using the channel plow through the soft material.
Several minor outbreaks of duck poisoning (botulism) have occurred during the filling of similar disposal facilities. Anaerobic conditions conducive to the occurrence of botulism are recognized. It is possible to take remedial action should botulism occur on the site. This action is dependent on identifying those conditions favorable to the bacteria as they exist on the site. These conditions include warm shallow areas, with little or no water circulation, and the presence of food sources in the sediments, such as dead invertebrates, which si^pport anaerobic organisms. These bacteria, found everywhere, produce the toxin responsible for "duck sickness" under anaerobic conditions. Remedial actions may include flood ing or drying the area. The pipeline which w ill carry the dredged mate ria l into the dike has been designed using a system of "y" and gate valves. This w ill allow the discharged sediment to be controlled. This plan can help eliminate or control duck poisoning.
During consruction there w ill be short-term impacts including disrup tion of boating in the area, noise, and water quality deterioration result ing from the movement of bottom m aterials. These impacts are of short duration and w ill have no significant lasting effects.
By enclosing Shelter and Channel Islands, continuous erosion occurring in this area w ill be stopped, improving turbidity and shoaling in the ad joining channel.
Bottom organisms present, identified as pollution-tolerant Oligochaeta and Chironomidae, are temporarily removed by the dredging. Neighboring unaffected populations tend to re-establish these and other species.
Restoring channel depths to project levels w ill insure safe navigation without loss of shipping capacity, for commercial vessels carrying on the business of this and associated Great Lakes ports. Present hiqh lake levels have made it possible to continue near-normal operation of the port.
The dike* constructed with sizable stones for facing or armor, w ill provide 14,000 feet of potential habitat area for fish below the water and for fishermen above, on the dikes and in boats. To the lee of the islands the configuration of the dikes provides a protected area for boaters.
The rock faco of the dike constitutes a stable substrate which could be colonized by filiznentous algae such as Cladophora. This is a common nuisance, in such environments as provided by the shallow bay, when it be comes free floating and deteriorates. Although existing islands provide a certain amount of surface, this would be increased with the dike. *
The present islands provide a resting place for waterfowl of all kinds. The enlarged island in prospect would increase this use. This would be compatible with most of the uses being suggested for the site by the State and county.
During construction of the disposal site, fish using this area for spawning around Channel-Shelter Islands w ill be required to use other areas. This may cause losses which other areas do not replace. Re-establishment of fish habitats along the submerged portion of the dike is expected on a long term basis. Less mobile organisms w ill be eliminated in the proposed site. This cannot be quantified accurately based on insufficient back ground data but is probably not significant.
In addition to waterfowl use, the proposed island would provide a unique area available to the public. The present height recommended, 14 feet above Low Water Datum, would insure a safe land base for enjoyment of the bay. The value of islands has been documented by a B ill presented to Congress in 1973, recommending public acquisition of natural islands for public use.
While lack of land based access has been identified as a disadvantage it has been suggested that ferry service would provide one means of access. Maintenance costs of the dike after the Corps project is completed, consti tutes an adverse effect of the project for the sponsor as there is no immediate identification of a revenue producing use for the island. How ever, the potential for future recreational development has been recognized.
The location of the island has beneficial effects. Being that the project area is over two miles distant from residential areas along the shoreline, considerable enthusiasm was generated by inhabitants in these areas for this alternate site. It has been a consistent corollary of the need for these disposal facilities along the waterways that approval of the site is directly related to its distance from human habitation. How- ever, the proposed site is conveniently located along a highly traveled waterway. As am island, the circulation of water in this part of the bay is maintained and effects of changes in circulation considered minimal by Corps hydraulic engineers.
In addition, the proposed position of the facility near the channel minimizes the need to dredge additional access channels for the hopper d r e d g e .
Short term construction disturbances are minimized by the distance from habitation. Water borne s ilt from construction may tend to follow the deep water of the channel, wind driven from prevailing southwrsterlies, and may then be recovered by later dredging.
Any studies being conducted in the bay, in the area of the project, may be affected during dike construction if data being collected is in fluenced by the project. The project being carried on by the Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, U. S. Fish and W ildlife Service for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Season Extension Demonstration Program, w ill not be affected. The Environmental Protection Agency's study in Saginaw Bay w ill be including collection of background data in 1975.
However, where data collection has been completed, the placement of the island presents an opportunity to field test mathematical models being constructed around physical and biological parameters. S e c t io n V
ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Construction of the proposed facility w ill result in irretrievable loss of approximately 200 acres of open water and bottom land in Saginaw Bay. The remaining 85 acres of the proposed site are presently occupied by two islands formerly created by channel dredging in 1962.
Benthic organisms and other non-mobile species presently inhabiting bottom lands proposed for the disposal facility w ill be eliminated upon commencement of construction activities. Fish trapped within the enclosure of dikes w ill also be eliminated. Temporary disruption to the surrounding area w ill occur during construction.
There w ill be a change in water circulation in this area of the bay due to the creation of a larger land mass at the site of the two islands. This may constitute an adverse effect to research projects if data collec tion is incomplete. The extent cannot be established at this time. S e c tio n V I
ALTERNATES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Introduction - Historically, the Corps has been involved in locating suitable areas for the containment of dredged spoils for more than 10 years in the Saginaw area.In the Act of 23 October 1962 authorizing channel im provements, local cooperation was required to provide disposal areas as necessary. A report entitled "Feasibility Study on Provision for Alter nate Disposal Areas for Saginaw River and Bay Area, Lake Huron" was pre pared 29 August 1966. It discussed one large area enclosed with steel sheet piling cells in Saginaw Bay. Efforts for pollution abatement were defined for local interests on 11 April 1968, with specific recommendations, as a part of the study, "Dredging and Water Quality Problems in the Great Lakes" , issued September 1968. Three sites were proposed on the west side of the river for interim, short-term containment, and three alternatives were discussed for long-term uses. Early proposals were considered on the basis of economic considerations. Later proposals went through the pro cesses outlined by NEPA in 1969 and Public Law 91-611, Sec. 122, for en vironmental, social, and economic considerations. Guidelines interpreting P.L. 91-611, Sec. 123, indicated that all but one of the disposal areas recommended in 1968 were not feasible. This site, a diked island east of the channel about two miles lakeward of the mouth of Saginaw River, w ill be assessed in this report.
Feasible Sites - Subsection 123(c) of Public Law 91-611 in part pro vides that prior to construction of any such facility, the appropriate local sponsor(s) should agree to furnish all lands, easements, and right-of-ways necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the fa cility. Therefore, contained disposal facilities constructed pursuant to Public Law 91-611 must be located on public lands.
Placement of polluted materials on privately owned lands would require that the private owner provide the following:
a . Adequate diking, meeting the specifications of the D istrict Engineer, to assure containment and retention of the polluted material.
b . Adequate docking facilities for pumpout of the material.
c . An effluent weir or other effluent facility.
d . Uninterrupted right to enter upon the lands affected and the use of all facilities required, without cost to the United States.
e . Waiver of any and a ll damages, or claims for damages, as a result of the use of the facilities, including the land areas. f . An agreement to maintain the facility in a manner that w ill assure the retention of the polluted material in a manner satisfactory to the D istrict Engineer.
Sites on private lands which were considered included:
River site, on the north side of the Saginaw River near the mouth of the River. This small site would accommodate approximately 4 years of fill. Requested was a portion of bottom land along the river which would increase the capacity. An environmental assessment was made of the site, which included some site sampling. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources denied use of riverine bottomlands, as this would destroy wet lands. As private land, this site became unfeasible under P.L. 91-611. Private responsibility for dikes and other defined requirements were not offered by the owners.
An inland site north of the river, west of the bay, belonging to Dow Chemical Co., was offered in 1968. Environmentally acceptable engi neering and design work was completed for this site. The requirements of P.I.. 91-611 rendered this privately owned site infeasible. The offer for its use was withdrawn because of its need for other purposes.
Consumers Power Company offered a number of sites on their prop erty at the mouth of the Saginaw River and investigated the use of the ma terial as fill at their Quanticassee site. Both sites were rejected after analysis of dredge material for landfill. Consumers Power Co. withdrew their offer for the prospective f ill on all sites in 1973.
Three feasible sites were presented at public workshops in February 1974.
(a ) Shelter Channel Island - Large island east of the channel, about two miles lakeward of the mouth of the Saginaw River. Environmental considerations presented to the public included:
Erosion from the islands, which has contributed continuously to considerable shoaling in the adjacent channel, would be corrected by the construction of a new site for dredged material.
As an island, the site would have many of the characteris tics of the former small islands: circulation of water would continue around it; fish would lose habitats but gain extensive new areas in the rock face of the dikes. A certain amount of resting space for gulls would be maintained on the western island with more added as the dikes were con s t r u c t e d .
For the boater and fisherman, transient uses would continue. Advantages include greater value as a buffer and larger quiet areas for fishing. The beach on the western island could provide a small "harbor of refuge".
Aesthetically, the facility would have minor adverse im pacts because of its distance from the shore, and the adjacent property is industrial. The position of the island two miles from shore provides an isolation, preserving the essence of an island.
The placement of the facility adjacent to the channel in creases the efficiency of the maintenance dredging operation, and permits the use of the hopper dredge MARKHAM when required.
An adverse effect of the project is inherent in its two-mile offshore location for future management and maintenance after project completion. Use as a gull resting area would require minimum management and maintenance, whereas use as a recreation area would present problems of access, as well as management and maintenance.
(b ) Gull Island Plan - Bay County Port Plain, on island to the west of the channel, about one mile lakeward of the mouth of the Saginaw River. 'Environmental considerations presented to the public included:
This area is of relatively low value in the bay. It is shallow and within the immediate influence of polluted outflow from the Saginaw River which had had an adverse effect on life cycles of many spe cies of aquatic life here and in the bay. The proposed facility is located alongside the channel and w ill be constructed over shoals from former dredging. Dredging operations in the channel create a certain amount of turbidity in adjacent areas which also decreases biotic values.
Circulation of water w ill not be adversely affected by the fa cility. Flows from Lake Huron follow the shore from west to east, in fluencing river flows eastward into the bay. There are no littoral cur rents along the shore due to the shallowness of the bay and its position with respect to the axis of the lake.
Proposed future use of the project is for a public recrea tion area. Because of the natural marshy shorelines along the bay, this type of facility is minimally provided by 4100 feet of beach at Bay City State Park, four miles to the north of Bay City. This is an older park, consisting of 196 acres, locked in from expansion by development around it. It is a "typical" State park in a natural setting adjoining Tobico S t a t e Game Preserve, enploying a full-tim e naturalist and having an inter pretive program. The addition of an urban recreation area would permit the State park to develop more fully as a natural area and to shift intensive use areas and recreational activities to the new facility. Existing Saginaw Bay shore uses, in Bay County (to Sanilac County) are as follows:
Economic Uses: Miles of Shoreline
Residential 9 4 .2 Industrial and commercial 4 .1 Agricultural and undeveloped 4 9 .9 Public buildings, related lands .2
Recreational Uses:
P a rk s 4 .9 Beach zo n e (9 6 .5 )
Environmental Uses:
W ildlife preserves, gamelands 1 7 .1 Fish and w ildlife wetlands (offshore) (0 ) F o r e s ts 1 8 .7
TOTAL MILES OF SHORELINE: 1 8 9 .1
The need for this recreational facility should be fully explored with the local Bay County Planners, State park planners, and Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in order to become a part of the long-term planning of shorelands development in this region.
Present fishing demand in Saginaw Bay exceeds the supply. The 16,500 feet of stone-faced dike would provide fish habitats and more fishing for more people.
Aesthetically, the island constitutes an obstruction to the lakeward view of residential owners on the adjacent shore of the bay. Present residential development consists of one house facing the bay and several houses near the mouth of the river which face the river channel and the industrial development on the opposite shore. The one-mile off shore distance, relatively low dike height of 12.5 feet of the proposed fa cility, and eventual greening of the island profile mitigate the adverse effect, to an undetermined extent.
As a breakwater, the facility would create a zone of quiet water shoreward of the facility, aesthetically less attractive than waves to some people. The beach in this location is stoney, supports patches of vegetation and willow trees spaced along the water's edge.
Shorelands are low and subject to flooding in this area. The proposed island provides a barrier and a protection against wave action and erosion. Access to the island by boat lim its its use to numbers of people, which conflicts with the concept of an urban park. Also, there are no public lands for a public launching site at present on the adjacent shore areas, for access by boat.
Land access by construction of a causeway is not necessary to the project and would need to be provided by the sponsoring agency. Cost of this causeway constitutes an adverse effect. Connecting roadways from this causeway would be required because of the nature of existing unimproved, narrow d irt roads.
Trucking operations for dike construction over existing residential roads would introduce immediate adverse effects to bay shore people. This extends from 1-75 eastward to the bay, a distance of approx imately three miles.
A potential adverse effect exists in conflicting land use, between the offshore park and residential shore areas. Although the resi dential area is buffered by the intervening bay, users of the park would make the access environs quasi public.
(c ) Nayanquing Barrier Dike - Nayanquing Point. Barrier beach, positioned in the three areas off the State game area in Saginaw Bay. En vironmental considerations presented to the public include:
The W ildlife Area is located in a minor drainage area be tween Pinconning River two miles to the north and Kawkawlin River seven miles to the south. The surrounding area is sparsely populated and is mostly agricultural land.
The game area is a completely managed facility, having four permanent pools and four diked cropland areas developed in two zones paralleling the shore. Access roads, parking lots, boat ramps, pumping stations, and a restroom facility have been provided for the area. Present high water, however, have flooded areas planned for cultivation, washed out roads and parking lots, and have made some areas fa irly inaccessible. These conditions do not appear to permanently impair the basic quality of the wetland areas, however, which are amply endowed with diversity of plant species and habitats.
The wide, shallow and wet shore has been well protected by aquatic vegetation, but present high water levels have eroded, submerged, and destroyed large amounts of vegetation. Several hundred feet of the dry beach and ridge have been eroded to near breeching approximately 1/4 mile north of Nayanquing Point. This ridge is the eastern barrier en closing the bay to the west as a permanent pool, maintained during periods of low water. Principal damage has occurred to man-made dikes to the west of the ridge and Points Nayanquing and Mallard. These earth dikes 2 to 3 feet high connect with the natural ridges to complete the enclosures of the permanent pools. Water quality in this area of the bay is rated fair to good. There are no close urban areas, agricultural use is not extensive, and land surrounding the game preserve is sparsely populated.
Three configurations for the proposed disposal facility were suggested by the State of Michigan DNR. Two are attached to the land and the third is an island approximately a mile offshore. A ll three provide a barrier for the dry beach and ridge where erosional damage has o c c u r r e d .
Principal differences between the three designs relate to access, water circulation, and fishing areas. Access by land provided by two of the sites utilize a portion of the wetlands for the disposal area, creating new land-types, and causing change in the present shoreland. The facility extends the shoreland and increases the game area by the amount of the disposal area and dikes. Because the long, shallow wet beach is partially enclosed, it now would be possible to manage this area. During periods of low water, a controlling dike could be built from the southerly portions of the facility to the shoreline for control of water l e v e l s .
A more variable water circulation would be maintained by d e s ig n (a ). Designs (b) and (c) are oriented to the same direction as the natural bays to the west of the Points and would be flushed out by sim ilar winds mainly from the southeast. However, design (c) would have the least circulation because of its position in very shallow waters close to the shore. Since there is little or no littoral transport, what accretion occurs w ill result from trapping rather than transport of sediments, and water-borne debris. Water moving into the area from Lake Huron w ill not circulate into the wet beaches of (b) and (c) to the south of the facility. Rather, flushing water from the southeast having poorer quality w ill come into the area. This would have a tendency to lower the water quality in the wet beach area enclosed by the fa cility.
Inportant fishing areas identified in "drop off" portions of the bay beyond the wet beach have been untouched by design (c ). D e s ig n (b ), while interfacing with this area, does not infringe upon the Nayanquing sandbar opposite the Point, noted as an area for desirable predator fish. Design (a) is superimposed on both fishing areas to some extent.
Access to a ll configurations, by hopper dredge, is an inportant considera tion of this alternate site. It is estimated that a channel 8.3 miles long, 200 feet wide, and 24.5 f t . b e lo w LWD w ill be reouired to perform the neces sary maintenance dredging and to remove the accumulation. This channel w ill change an area of the bay presently used by aquatic organism, sports men and for recreation. It w ill remove habitat and introduce turbidity, a channel flow, and possible stratification during summer months. Should the deeper channel waters not mix, some impairment of water quality may result with the lower oxygen levels.
In addition to stress on the biota, channel access is likely to introduce new, conflicting users into the game area, by boat. Present users come by land, purposefully. Boats of many sizes, in the lake for other reasons, w ill be able to enter the game area. Casual users have a potential for contributing additional pollutants to the area.
- The disposal facility could function as a harbor of refuge for an increasing number of residents occupying land on either side of the game a re a .
Aesthetically, the new facility changes the cultural and his torical importance of the natural area. The bays and points which dis tinguish this shoreline are features which result from prolonged wave and current activity over a great period of time. Those who use the area associate all zones of the shoretype with a life style, which would be changed.
The size of the facility, its construction and operation w ill create secondary changes which should be evaluated by the game area managers in relation to the primary benefits of erosion control. The addition of this facility constitutes an approximate 35% addition to the existing game area, and introduces a different type of area.
Public concurrence was reached on Shelter-Channel Islands as the site having the least objections and the most advantages. This is the site presently being proposed. Following the workshops, however, meetings with Michigan Department of Natural Resources resulted in their request for further consideration of additional sites presented at the workshop and l a t e r .
Hampton Township proposed a site east of Consumers Power Co. prop erty adjacent to the shore which would require the filling of shoreline marshes once considered by the Michigan D.N.R. for acquisition as a wild life area. Consideration of this site was given by the governor of Michigan, upon request by the local Bay County government. The compromise decision reached was in favor of using Shelter-Channel Islands, preserving the shoreline. This site was unacceptable to the D.N.R., E.P.A., and Federal Fish and W ildlife Service.
Inland sites were considered but not offered. Private land was identified which could be purchased by the local government, filled by the Corps of Engineers, and used when completed for recreational land. Pre- lirainary engineering designs and plans were prepared, environmental con siderations investigated, and costs provided. Advantages identified were the relatively low construction costs to the Federal government, acceptance by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Federal Fish and W ildlife, and Environmental Protection Agency. Disadvantages identified included high cost of land acquisition; heavy, permanent loss of productive agricultural land unacceptable locally; aesthetically objectionable land area resulting, non-conforming to the area; accessibility difficult because of height of la n d . The site was smaller than required. This site was eliminated after a series of meetings on all feasible sites.
Upland industrial site was considered but not offered. This was unacceptable to Bay County planners in consideration of the lack of long term planning to determine land use feasibility. Disadvantages were sim ilar to the inland sites.
A generalized approach to upland sites was prepared by the Detroit District, Corps of Engineers to indicate the hinds of considerations necessary, basic to all such sites. Factors such as secondary placement of dredge materials, necessary when distances exceed operational capabilities of the pumpout process, increased costs as well as secondary environmental effects. As an example, it was estimated that the punping and trucking operations for a 400 acre site 20 miles inland could cost $45.4 m illion. This site would provide a 9 year dredging capacity.
No Action. Consideration given this alternative resulted in ac tion by local governmental groups to obtain State assistance for eliminating this alternative. Considerable documentation was provided to show the dis advantages of this alternate decision in comparison with obtaining a site so dredging could be resumed. Action was taken by the Governor's office to arrive at a compromise decision among feasible sites, to select the viable site. The proposed site described in this draft environmental state ment is a culmination of all considerations. With an alternative of no action, environmental impact due to the project would be avoided. Section VII
RELATION BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
In order to maintain safe navigational depths at Saginaw Harbor for required and authorized commercial use of the Federal channel, it is neces sary to remove accumulated shoaling and to resume annual dredging. These dredgings are classified as polluted on the basis of their chemical con tent. The objective of the proposed action is the storage of 10,000,000 cubic yards of polluted dredge materials to be removed from the channel over a period of 10 years. The proposed action continues the practice of eliminating the disposal of polluted materials into Lake Huron. The pro posed facility w ill provide a short-term benefit to the water quality and bottom deposits in Saginaw Bay by storing pollutants that would eventually enter the lake.
Saginaw Harbor is an important link in the commercial waterways of the Great Lakes and supports an essential segment of the economy in the commu nities along Saginaw River. Although the present high water conditions have prevented a severe impairment in harbor use, the shoaling conditions have continued. Maintenance of the channel is necessary now and as water levels decline, in order to have continued use of the facilities of the p o r t .
The large volume of polluted dredgings which w ill be removed should make a significant contribution to pollution abatement in the bay as it effects the oligotrophic nature of Lake Huron. Inprovement in the elimina tion of sources of pollution are being made, in updating of sewage treatment plants along the rive r, cooperation with erosion control programs, shore line protection, and other actions related to pollution abatement practices. Through identified programs aimed at removing point sources of objectionable m aterial, the removal of accumulated substances should contribute to long range improvement in water quality and a slowing up of eutrophication pro c e sse s .
A further long range implication of this facility is the resultant change in use of the bay. At the present time urban centers are on the river west of the bay. Shoreline use is dominated by industry at the irouth, residential occupancy, and marshlands preserved as w ildlife areas. The facility has a potential use for recreation which would provide a unique resource in the bay for people. As an island it would effect minimally present natural processes of the bay while affording a location for the enjoyment of these processes. In an area destined to continue urban growth, this increases in value over time. Such use could be made in harmony’with other existing natural uses of the bay by waterfowl and aquatic animals. Section VIII
ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
Waters and bottomlands of the bay surrounding Shelter-Channel Islands, to be included in the 285 acre site w ill be converted to dry land after fillin g of the facility is completed. No unique species or inhabitants of the area have been identified through search of literature or field investigations being conducted. The site contains no ecologically critical elements except as it represents a segment of the bay, an integral part of unique and complex bio-physical-chemical systems. The present function of the area, as a resting place for gulls, a fishing area and a recreational site for humans, w ill continue and should be improved. Its use for a diked disposed area could provide for expanded recreational uses in the future as well as provide greater protection for boaters to the leeward as soon as the dike is constructed.
The labor, fuel, and materials used in construction of the disposal site should be considered as a irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. S e c t io n I X
COORDINATION AND COMMENT AND RESPONSE
A. Public Participation
Two workshops were conducted in March 1974 at Bay City. These meet ings were attended by planners, technicians, natural resource managers, environmentalists, government representatives, and the general public. The purpose of the meetings was to provide and obtain information relative to the alternate sites being proposed. At this time the three feasible sites were Nayanquing Point W ildlife Area (a barrier dike), Gull Island Plan (an island offshore west of the channel), and Shelter-Channel Islands (a recreational island).
Citizens were in unanimous opposition to the Gull Island Plan, located offshore in the vicinity of a residential area. Professional participants found disadvantages in the W ildlife area barrier dike plan because of the 9 mile long approach channel needed in the bay for the dredge boat. A majority approved the Shelter-Channel Islands site, but the commitment to this use of bottomlands and problems of a well defined use for this site (without land-based access) were problems needing answers.
As a result of the workshops and continued coordination, alternate sites increased to seven (four additional) with various configurations of the new sites.
Site selection was further finalized through the cooperation of the members of a special ad hoc committee established by the Governor of Michigan. Members of this committee includes representatives of the Governor, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Bay County Commissioners, Port of Bay County and the Corps of Engineers.
A series of meetings were arranged with the site selection committee, with managers from various concerned agencies and governments, and with local people needing information. The Bay County Board of Commissioners and port director took an aggressive part in the negotiations which ensued to find a viable site. A meeting with the governor of the state was re quested by the local committee for assistance in arriving at a decision. Col. James E. Hays, Detroit D istrict Engineer, attended this meeting at Bay City and alternate sites were discussed and inspected. With the assist ance of environmental experts on his staff, a decision was reached at a later date in favor of Shelter-Channel Island site.
Much professional consideration has been given the selection of the optimum site for the proposed facility. Clearly, this issue is controver sia l, and the proposed site a compromise decision, arrived at through a process of thorough investigation and purposeful communication between con cerned parties on many community and governmental levels. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS
Copies of the draft environmental impact statement were sent to United States Senators and Representatives, State Governors, concerned Federal and State agencies and local governments, interested private or ganizations and concerned citizens, and in response to all requests.
Comments posed by agencies and responses to those comments follow below. Copies of the letters received in response to the Draft EIS are included in Attachment H.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Federal Power Commission
1. ■Comment; Since the proposed Saginaw Bay Dredged Materials Disposal Facility apparently would pose no major obstacle to the construc tion or operation of any bulk or electric power facilities, hydroelectric developments, or natural gas pipeline facilitie s, we have no comments on the Draft EIS.
U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
1 . Corment ; The Draft Environmental Statement for the proposed Saginaw Bay Michigan dredged materials disposal facility has been reviewed by this office and we have no comments.
Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard
1 . Comment: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project at Saginaw Bay, Michigan, has been reviewed by this office and at this time we have no comments to offer.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1 . Comment: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Saginaw Bay Diked Disposal project. To our knowledge, and based upon the information provided, this project w ill not impact to any signi ficant degree on the health, education or welfare of the population. United States Department of Interior
1. Conment: A detailed discussion should be provided concerning the Shelter-Channel Island disposal area itself.
Response; Additional information has been added to the Final EIS.
2. Comment; Include information on the geology of the area of the proposed dike facility and on possible effects of loading in construction of the facility.
Response: Additional information has been added to the Final EIS.
3. Conment: It is not clear as to what species of benthos will "re-establish" in the navigation channel. The reference to "migrating fall populations" should be discussed in greater detail.
Response; This statement has been changed in the Final EIS.
4. Comment; Since Saginaw Bay is recognized as an extremely pro ductive portion of Lake Huron, and because 200 acres of aquatic habitat within the bay w ill be lost, an effort should be made to gather site-specific biological data for the disposal area in order to better define project im p a c ts.
Reponse: Additional information concerning fish and benthos populations in the Shelter-Channel Island area has been included in the F in a l E IS .
5. Comment: The statement should discuss potential biological prob lems which could arise during filling. As the area fills, it can be ex pected to go through various stages of ecological succession, from a shallow water habitat to a terrestrial one on the completed site. It is quite probable that migratory waterfowl w ill be attracted to the site, and at certain stages during filling, the area could conceivably be used as a feeding or even a nesting area. It also is possible that botulism could be a problem if stagnant anaerobic conditions prevail.
Response; Additional information concerning this is included in the Final EIS.
6 . Comment; During certain stages of filling, the area could become conducive to the production of mosquitoes or other insects. This possible impact also should be mentioned in the final statement.
Response; The projects distance from population centers and its design to minimize ponding of water should negate the inpact of insect pro duction. The insects that do reproduce at the site w ill provide a food supply for fish in the area. Upon completion, prior to extensive fillin g the 285-acre area with the diked area should have enough wave action to prohibit large insect production.
7 . Comment: The draft EIS contains several references to future recreation use of the diked disposal area. We suggest that the final statement be more specific in describing the type of recreation use that the island would support and contain some discussion of how this use would relate to potential industrial and commercial uses that were mentioned.
Response: See Comment No. 1, State of Michigan, Department of State Highways.
8 . Comment: It should be stated that benthos w ill be destroyed since these organisms do not possess the m obility necessary to escape. In addition, any fish trapped inside the completed dike w ill perish unless steps are taken for their removal.
Response: This is a valid comment and a statement to this effect has been included in the Final EIS.
9 . Comment: The section on Alternatives to the Proposed Action contains very little environmental information. We urge that comparisons of environmental inpacts be given for the various alternatives, and that the analysis include site-specific assessments of fish and w ildlife habitat values.
Response: Additional information has been added to the Final EIS. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1. Comment: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project at Saginaw Bay, Michigan which was transmitted to us on 19 December, 1974. We have no major objections to the proposal as described in the EIS. A 2. Comment: Information should be provided in the Final EIS regarding the design of the confined disposal facility.
Response: Specific design work w ill be done upon completion of extensive borings to be taken at the proposed site.
3. Comment: The location of the o u tfa ll and pumpout fa c ilit ie s , and the effects the bay currents w ill have upon the clay core material before the armor stone is in place should be discussed in the EIS. If there are alternative design configurations, eacli design should be described. Maps and diagrams should suffice for this additional information.
Response: A map locating the pumpout and weir is inclosed in the Final EIS.
4. Comment: No mention was made to the type of dredge to be employed for maintenance operations. In general, the use of hopper dredges should be minimized in polluted harbors because they allow fine materials to be discharged during the concentrating of solids in the hoppers. Se lection of dredges is dependent on a v a ila b ility and economics; however, the effects on the environment should also be one of the considerations.
Response: Dredging by dredges of the Hains, Markham classes is the only feasible means of removal of sediments from an area such as Saginaw Bay. A hydraulic dredge would remove the materials with less fines re-entering the water. However, the pipeline required to transport the materials the distance required at Saginaw Bay would be too costly and a hazard to navigation.
5. Comment: Discharges from the CDF should be monitored outside of the 100 foot mixing zone for turbidity and total and suspended solids. If the monitoring indicates turbidity levels in excess of 15 mg/1, we recommend that further monitoring for other parameters be conducted to determine whether Federally approved State Water Quality Standards are exceeded. I f these standards are violated , increased s e ttlin g times w i l l be neces sary before discharge over the w eir. Chemical flocculents may have to be added to facilitate settling or dual settling ponds utilized if in creased detention time proves to be an in s u ffic ien t measure to meet' standards. Response: Monitoring of water re-entering the bay w ill be conducted in accordance with approved procedures and EPA guidelines.
6. Comment: A discussion in the Final EIS should be presented which would completely elucidate whether or not thermal currents contributed by Consumers Power's e le c tric generating stations would have any in ter action with the effluents discharged over the weir. If so, septic, odorous conditions could develop.
Response: Extensive investigations of the Karn-Weadock thermal efflu en t, in relation to the NAVISEX Thermal Ice Suppression Demonstration test, have been conducted by the Corps. The investigation indicated that the thermal currents flow south along the south shore o f the bay, away from the diked disposal project. See pages 11-13, attachment G page 83.
7. Comment: Information should be provided on the present lake levels, the height the CDF dikes w ill be above the present lake levels and how ofter wave action w ill overtop the CDF. Since the location of the proposed CDF is 2~h miles offshore, the effects on currents and shoreline damage should be discussed.
Response: Investigations into waves heights possible in Saginaw Bay is being completed by Corps Hydraulic engineers. Dike heights and side slopes are designed to prevent overtopping. The location of disposal fa c ilit y in rela tiv ely shallow water minimizes any possible e ffects on currents or shoreline damage. STATE AGENCIES
State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources
1 . Comment; We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact State ment for the Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project. The statement is accept able although we have comments we think would strengthen it. We would have preferred the upland disposal site but recognize that land acquisition costs made this alternative unsuitable.
2 . Comment; It would be helpful to include the following: a map of present islands showing contours of existing bottomland depths and island shorelines with the proposed project superimposed thereon and sampling data of the existing bottomland flora and fauna within the project area.
Response; A map of the.Channel-Shelter Islands area has been added as Attachment No. A- The results of benthos sampling near Channel and Shelter Islands is enclosed as Attachment No. £.
3 . Comment; Discuss the previous disposal practices of the Corps within the project area. This would strengthen the finding that no unique or rare aquatic resources would be destroyed since much of the existing area was filled with spoil.
Response; Additional information has been added to the Final EIS.
4 . Comment; Although the fillin g operations are not covered under the refuse act of 1965 (Act 87), we would object to future material classi fied as refuse under the act being disposed of at this site.
5 . Comment; Lake herring, chubs and lake trout do not have the relative importance to the fishery resources as largemouth bass, crappie and bluegills.
Response : This has been corrected in the Final EIS.
6 . Conment: We recommend the last sentence be modified so as to read "This decline in Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay is closely associated with the dramatic decline of the lake trout, whitefish, lake herring, chubs and yellow perch.
Response: This has been changed in the Final EIS.
7. Comment: Chubs and herring have been depleted, walleye may no longer be taken commercially, whitefish only by permit from the Department of Natural Resources, perch populations may be overharvested. Response : The Final EIS has been changed to reflect this comment.
8 . Comment: It would be informative to note that of the 3.2 million pounds harvested in 1967, more than one m illion pounds were carp.
Response: The Final EIS has been changed to reflect this comment.
9 . Comment: In addition to coho salmon, chinook salmon, rainbow trout, brown and lake trout have also been stocked in larae number. Costly plantings were not made for the benefit of commercial fishing but rather to restore a proper balance to the structure of the fish population and the primary benefit of sport fisheries.
Response: The Final EIS has been corrected to reflect this comment.
1 0 . Comment: Largemouth and smallmouth bass, and panfish should be added to the lis t.
Response: The Final EIS has been corrected to reflect this comment.
11. Comment; Yellow perch rather than smallmouth bass is the most im p o rta n t s p o r t game f i s h .
Response: The Final EIS has been corrected to reflect this comment.
1 2 . Comment: Relating to marshes, these areas are important food producing nursery and spawning areas for fish. Turtles, snakes, toads, frogs, salamander and marsh birds should be included in the lis t of animals for whom this habitat type is necessary.
Response: The Final EIS has been corrected to reflect this comment.
1 3 . Comment: We do not agree that the area "has not developed" as a recreational locale.
Response : The Bay City and Saginaw Metropolitan areas are mostly nondeveloped concerning recreational facilities. The Saginaw Bay area pro vides recreation for the community and its visitors.
1 4 . Comment: The submerged portion of dike riprapping w ill provide a habitat type important to the variety of fish species which is in short supply in the bay.
Response: Agreed. These comments are included in the Final EIS.
1 5 . Comment: The proposed spoil island w ill be a permanent fixture on the landscape of Saginaw Bay and every effort should be made to maximize its aesthetic and utilitarian design. State of Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation
1 . Comment: Ihe statement indicates a possible future need of road way improvements to the study area. It is felt that more emphasis be placed on determining the extent of this secondary impact. An estimate of the potential recreational value of the 284 acre island disposal site should be determined, so this Department can determine future transportation plan ning to this area, /dditionally, this information would be required to determine the extent, if any, that ferry service would be necessary to pro vide recreational access to the island. This study would also provide a better basis for determining the future land use potential of the island.
Response: In ten years, when the disposal area is fille d , the Corps w ill turn the island over to Bay County. The final decisions for usage of the lies with the county. If the county plans to extensively develop the island then the roads which service the surrounding area w ill need improvement.
2 . Comment; In addition to the biological sediment study included, a table should be included showing the existing chemical parameters of water quality and how they relate to state and federal guidelines.
Response: Additional corrments concerning water quality in Saginaw Bay have been added to the Final EIS.
Michigan Department of State Michigan History Division
1 . Comment: Our staff has found that no known historic sites w ill be endangered by the project. However, we wish to point out that no com prehensive survey of the area's historical resources has been made. You should contact Mr. W illiam W right, Bay Regional Planning Commission, 904 N. Madison, Room 202, Bay City, Michigan, 48706, for more information on possible uncatalogued sites.
Response; Mr. William Wright has been contacted. A letter from the Bay County Planning Commission by Mr. Wright is enclosed in Attachment N o . G • LOCAL AGENCIES
Bay County Planning Conmission
Comment: This office has conducted a review of available refer ence materials in regards to possible uncatalogued archeological sites which would be affected by the proposed maintenance dredging and spoil disposal project in Saginaw Bay. This was done in conjunction with the Director of the Museum of the Great Lakes here which is operated by the Bay County Historical Society.
It is our conclusion that there are no such sites in the project area. ATTACHMENT A
DISPOSAL SITE LOCATION
ATTACHMENT B
FISH COLLECTIONS IN SAGINAW BAY
MADE BY CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
(Excerpts) TABLE 10 - SUMMARY OF FISH COLLECTIONS IN SAGINAW BAY
Method of Location Collection Species Number Date
Saginaw River 25' Otter Trawl Perch 93 U-18-72 (Kara In let Channel) (8 Haras) Sucker (White) 3 Black Bullhead 2 Spottail Shiner — 1,500 Trout-Perch — 800 Carp 3 Channel Catfish 1
Perch 10 5- 2-72 Sucker (White) 81 Black Bullhead 3 Spottail Shiner -5 0 0 Trout-Perch -2 0 0 Carp - Channel Catfish 17
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Carp. 75 5-23-72 (Kam-Weadock Discharge (1 Trawl - 150 Channel) Yards)
Saginaw Bay G ill Net 125' Carp 17 12- 1-72 (Kam-Weadock Discharge ' 1-1/2" - U" Gizzard Shad 181 Channel) Mesh Size Black Crappie 2b (2L Hours) Northern Pike 3 Perch 3 Channel Catfish 1
Hundreds o f longnose and spotted garpike observed in the discharge channel in the summer months and several large catfish were taken on hook and lin e. Method of Location Collection Species Number Date
Saginaw Bay 20' x h' Minnow Pumpkinseed 1 6-26-72 (West o f River Mouth) Seine Lake Emerald Shiner 5 (U Hauls) Perch 20 Largemouth Bass 1 White Sucker 1
Saginaw Bay 20' x U' Minnow Spottail Shiner 71 6-26-72 (Northeast of Kam Plant) Seine Bluntnose Shiner lU (2 Hauls) Lake Emerald Shiner 9 Yellow Perch 6 Channel Catfish k Yellow Bullhead 1
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch 2 7-20-72 (3 Miles NE of Kam & (One 5-Min Alewife 8 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Yellow Bullhead 1
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch h 7-20-72 (6 Miles NE of Karn & (One 5-Min Alewife 5 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 1 Bluntnose Shiner 2
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch h 7-20-72 (9 Miles NE of Karn & (One 5-Min Alewife 19 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Lake Emerald Shiner 1 Trout-Perch k Yellow Bullhead 1 Smelt 1 Misc Fry 17 Method of Location Collection Species Number Date
Saginaw River 25’ Otter Trawl Perch 93 U-18-72 (Kara Inlet Channel) (8 Hauls) Sucker (White) 3 Black Bullhead 2 Spottail Shiner ~ 1,500 Trout-Perch — 800 Carp 3 Channel Catfish 1
Perch 10 5- 2-72 Sucker (White) 81 Black Bullhead 3 Spottail Shiner — 500 Trout-Perch -2 0 0 Carp m m Channel Catfish 17
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Carp 75 5-23-72 (Kam-Weadock Discharge (1 Trawl - 150 Channel) Yards)
Saginaw Bay G ill Net 125‘ Carp 17 12- 1-72 (Kam-Weadock Discharge 1-1/2" - U" Gizzard Shad 181 Channel) Mesh Size Black Crappie 2h (2U Hours) Northern Pike 3 Perch 3 Channel Catfish 1
Hundreds of longnose and spotted garpike observed in the discharge channel in the summer months and several large catfish were taken on hook and lin e. Method of Location Collection Species Number Date Saginaw Bay 20' x U' Minnow Pumpkinseed 1 6-26-72 (West of River Mouth) Seine Lake Emerald Shiner 5 (U Hauls) Perch 20 Largemouth Bass 1 White Sucker 1 Saginaw Bay 20' x U' Minnow Spottail Shiner 71 6-26-72 (Northeast of Kara Plant) Seine Bluntnose Shiner lU (2 Hauls) Lake Emerald Shiner 9 Yellow Perch 6 Channel Catfish k Yellow Bullhead 1 Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch 2 7-20-72 (3 Miles NE of Kara & (One 5-Min Ale wife 8 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Yellow Bullhead 1 Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch b 7-20-72 (6 Miles NE of Kara & (One 5-Min Alewife s Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 1 Bluntnose Shiner 2 Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch b 7-20-72 (9 Miles NE of Kara & (One 5-Min Alewife 19 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Lake Emerald Shiner 1 Trout-Perch k Yellow Bullhead 1 Smelt 1 Mi sc Fry 17 Method of Location Collection Species Number Date Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch (12 Miles NE of Kam & 57 7-20-72 (One 5-Min Alewife 5U Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Alewife 2 7-20-72 (15 Miles NE of Karn & (One 5-Min Haul) Weadock Discharge) Method o f Location Collection Species Number Date
Saginaw River 25’ Otter Trawl Perch 93 1+-18-72 (Karn Inlet Channel) (8 Hauls) Sucker (White) 3 Black Bullhead 2 Spottail Shiner — 1,500 Trout-Perch —800 Carp 3 Channel Catfish 1
Perch 10 5- 2-72 Sucker (White) 81 Black Bullhead 3 Spottail Shiner - 5 0 0 Trout-Perch -2 0 0 Carp - Channel Catfish 17
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Carp 75 5-23-72 (Kam-Weadock Discharge (1 Trawl - 150 Channel) Yards)
Saginaw Bay G ill Net 125' Carp 17 12- 1-72 (Kam-Weadock Discharge 1-1/2” - V Gizzard Shad l8 l Channel) Mesh Size Black Crappie 2k (2U Hours) Northern Pike 3 Perch 3 Channel Catfish 1
Hundreds of longnose and spotted garpike observed in the discharge channel in the summer months and several large catfish were taken on hook and lin e . Method of Location Collection Species Number Date
Saginaw Bay 20' x L' Minnow Puxnpkinseed 1 6-26-72 (West of River Mouth) Seine Lake Emerald Shiner 5 (U Hauls) Perch 20 Largemouth Bass 1 White Sucker 1
Saginaw Bay 20' x L' Minnow Spottail Shiner 71 6-26-72 (Northeast of K&m Plant) Seine Bluntnose Shiner lU (2 Hauls) Lake Emerald Shiner 9 Yellow Perch 6 Channel Catfish ■ h Yellow Bullhead 1
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch 2 7-20-72 (3 Miles NE of Kam & (One 5-Min Alewife. 8 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Yellow Bullhead 1
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch u 7-20-72 (6 Miles NE o f Karn &> (One 5-Min Alewife 5 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 1 Bluntnose Shiner 2
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch K 7-20-72 (9 Miles NE of Karn & (One 5-Min Alewife 19 Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2 Lake Emerald Shiner 1 Trout-Perch k Yellow Bullhead 1 Smelt 1 Mi sc Fry 17 Method of Location Collection Species Number Date
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Perch 57 7-20-72 (12 Miles NE of K a m & (One 5-Min Alewife 5U Weadock Discharge) Haul) Spottail Shiner 2
Saginaw Bay 25' Otter Trawl Alewife 2 7-20-72 (15 Miles NE of Karn & (One 5-Min Haul) Weadock Discharge) ATTACHMENT C
1974 SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSIS IN SAGINAW FIELD REPORT
CHANNEL: Saginaw Bay
STATE: Michigan
SAMPLED: June J, 1976
SAMPLE t DEPTH STATION NO. LOCATION FEET OBSERVATIONS
76-9559 Approx. 12.3 mi1e* 32' Petersen dredge, 95* silt, 5% cl.y, SB-7 N.E. o f the mouth c o lo r grey of the Saginaw River center of channel
76-9560 Approx. 10 miles N.E. 32' Clemen grab , ICC?, s i l t . c o lo r -g re y , SB-6 o f the mouth o f the bloodworms, sludgeworms. Saginaw River. Center of the channel
76-9561 Approx. 8.5 miles N .E. 30* Ekman grab , 8C% s i l t . 1C% seed SB-5 of the mouth of the l/2SM. 1C% clay, color grey-bro^n, Saginaw River center of 6loodworms. channel
76-9562 Approx. 7.6 miles N.E. 32' Ekman grab , 100% s l i t , c o lo r -g r e y - SB-6 o f the mouth o f the brown, trace of o il, bloodworms i- Saginaw River. Center slu dge worms. of channel.
76-9563 Approx. 6.6 miles N.E. 32* Ekman g r . b , 95X s i l t , 5* c l. y , SB-3 of the mouth of the trace of oil, color-grey, blood Saginaw River, center of worms, tludgeworms. the channel.
76-9566 Approx. 5*7 miles N .E. 32' Ekman grab, 100% slit, color-grey, SB-2 of the mouth of the trace of o il. sludgeworms. Saginaw River. Center Of the channe1.
76-9565 Approx. k.O miles N.E. 30' Ekman grab , I0C% w ilt , c o lo r -g re y , SB-9 of the mouth of the trace of o il. bloodworms, sludge- Saginaw River. Center worms. # of the channel
76-9566 Approx. 1.9 miles N.E. 29* Ekman grab , 100% s i l t , c o lo r -g re y , SB-8 of the mouth of the trace of o il, sludgeworms. Saginaw River. Center of the channel
.76-9567 Approx. 0.5 miles N.E. 28' Elunan gr.b, 90* tilt, 1(24 leaves SS-I . of the mouth of the B twigs, color-gray, trace of Seglnew River. Center o il, sludgeworms. of the Channel.
5EDIHENT EVALUATION
CHANNEL: Saginaw Bay
STATE: Michigan
SAMPLEO: Jun« J , 197*»
EVALUATING MAX. ACCEPTABLE VALUE AT EACH STATION AS A PEA CENT CP CRY WEIGHT PAMHETEA VALUES * SB-7 SB-6 SB-5 SB-4 SB-3 SB-2 SB-9 SB-8 SB-1
Volatile Solids 6.0 9.8 12.6 4.5 11.6 11.5 12.5 11.5 12.7 11.7 Chemical Oxy. Demand s . o 8.7 12.0 3.8 12.0 12.0 12.0 I I . 0 14.0 12.0 Tot, Kjet, NItn> cn 9 0.10 0.130 0.120 0.C69 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.140 0.130 0.150 O SI-Create 0.15 0.095 <0.020 0.100 0.180 0.160 0.200 0.250 0 . 7 1 0 0.230 Mercury o . o o o i <0.00004 <0.00005 <0.00003 <0.00005 <0.00004 <0.00004 <0.00004 <0.00004 <0.00003 lead 0.005 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.005 0.005 Zinc 0.005 0.017 0.021 0.0C8 0.020 0.006 0.021 0.022 0.045 0.055 flanganese' N on , A v a ila b le 0.051 0.058 0.023 0.052 0.068 0.051 0.050 0.065 0.069 N ickel II 0.027 0.030 0.012 0.029 0.0070 0.023 0.023 0.029 0 . 0 2 6 Total Phosphorus II 0.065 0.072 0.033 0.075 0.073 0 . 0 9 5 0.084 0.150 0.160 A rse n ic II 0.0007 0 . 0 0 0 5 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004 0 . 0 0 0 8 <0.0004 0.0007 0.0005 Barium II <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 <0.0060 Cadmium H 0 . 0 0 0 9 } 0.0012 0.00021 0.001} <0.00006 0.C01I 0.00084 0.0017 0.0011 Chromium II 0.0077 0.0073 0.0058 0.0070 0.0052 O.OC64 0.0080 , 0.0091 0.0110 II Cohalt 0.0044 0.0037 0.0022 0.0052 <0.0015 0.0060 0.0031 0.0062 0.0033 Copper It 0.0010 0.001} < 0 . 0 0 0 3 <0.0005 <0.0005 0.0013 0.0008 0.0036 0.0062 H 1 ron 2.2 . 2 . 4 1.2 2.3 1.6 2.2 2.2 3 . 0 3 . 2 SAGINAW BAT MACA0INVEATE8RATES 6/jm
DIATEAA SB-I S B -2 SB-J S B -lt S B -5 S B - 6 S B - 7 S B - 8 S B - 9
Cer*topogonld»« it Proclpdlus sp. 12 lt6 27 to 3 lit 38 57 CHIrononlri! 2 1 Chlrono-Mjs sp. 1 8 it k CHI ronoril nd*« 2
CLIGOCHAETA
Tublfe* jp. 8 16 20 10 8 12 CIAOOCEM turyccrcus l»m*1l»tus 2 C0°tAOOA C y c lo p ld a * 1 Cyclops vernpllt 1 Ncsdcyelops ed»n 16 ATTACHMENT D SHIPS USING SAGINAW HARBOR TRIPS AND DRAFTS OF VESSELS A A T t K A A r ...... "" — ..... D f c . - U l. - J V M i» * w * j u n *t M il • C.* « L » #» )»1W|) %.■» *• • »» ■ • d l l i t ll.f W VIUI3 III; . 1 DRAFT * FEET 1 t o t a l »«S5t r • t o t a l t » 0 1 , 0 | ?»*•<« 4R.T ■ t » * : * « ,3 1 N v i i « P«/ fV» fo 1 *•* t »* , 1 SAC ISA* RIVER, RICH, i ? INSOUSO 0 U T 4 3 L N 8 24 4 4 1 ! 1 25 11 14 4 1 24 11 3 ’ 14 4 , 23 2 2 2 24 4 : 2 2 1 0 3 11 ‘ 1 2 1 13 4 1? 21 * 3 14 104 19 3 19 1 4 | 1 1 90 2 0 ! 4 24 ! ♦ 2 0 2 32 2 2 7 24 1 8 12 4 23 44 4 9 a 12 1 3 1 11 1 4 4 1 4 1 « 1 1 * ! 14 * • 3 14 1 4 7 1 * 1 * 4 19 2 1 3 4 7 1 4 14 13 1 ? A**3 l £ S S - • ...... 2 0 4 14 29 2 4 ? 2 2 3 i • 19 49 2 4 ’ TOTAL - ...... 2 0 8 T» 30 1 42 4 4 3 *•» i 44 2 ? 1 u 4 3 5 i I ATTACHMENT E BENTHIC SAMPLING IN SAGINAW BAY Source: INTERIM REPORT fo r THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS by THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE -j'uifc a. Classification of benthic fauna found at the Saginaw Bay demonstration site. - Taxon Common name Oligochaeta Aquatic earthworms Manayunkia sneciosa Polychaete worn Chironomidae Midges Ceratopogonidae Biting midges Psychodidae Moth flies Chaoborus Phantom midge Empididae Flies Ostracoda Seed shrimp Cladocera Water fleas Copepoda Copepods Gamnarus Side-swimmer Hyalella azteca Scud Coleoptera Beetles Elraidae Riffle beetles Dubiraohia — ■ ------Riffle beetle Hydrophilidae Water scavenger beetles Acarina [Hydracarina] Water mites Nemata Roundworms Bryozoa Moss animals Rhabdocoela Flatworms Hydra Hydra Nemertinae Proboscis worms Physa Freshwater snail Tardigrada Water bears Ephemeroptera Mayflies Caenis Mayfly Hydroptilidae Caddisflies Leptoceridae Caddisflies .Benthic fauna (number of organisms/m 2 ) collected during fall 1972. A plus sign [+J indicates that this taxor, was present. , . . a / Station number and (in parex.th'uses) rank in diversity— 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Taxon (4) (ID (2) (4) (ID (7) (5) (17) (6) Oligochaeta 3967 5144 41 1694 9396 1136 5310 13098 3905 Chirononidae 21 661 0 62 1921 21 21 661 145 Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 21 0 Chaoborus 0 21 0 0 41 0 0 41 0 Ostracoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Cladocera 103 392 21 434 1334 227 145 826 516 Copepoda 41 239 0 62 310 248 103 3760 186 Gammarus 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 537 0 Coleoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Acarina [liydracarina] 0 124 0 0 243 0 0 227 21 Nemata 0 83 0 0 62 41 0 248 41 Bryozoa 0 4 0 0 4 - 4 4 + 0 Rhabdocoela 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 Hydra 0 21 0 0 0 21 0 103 0 Uemertinea 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 62 0 Physa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Ephemeroptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Hydroptilidae 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 a/ 18 = highest; 1 = lowest 3enthic fauna (number of crganisms/m 2 ) collected on April 20, 1973. A plus sign-[ + ] indicates that this taxon v;as present. Station number and (in parentheses) rank in diversity— ^ 1 2 3 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18* Taxon (2 ) (8) (6) (4) (7) (9) (3) (6) (9) (4) (5) (3) Oligochaeta 331 13491 15722 62 5661 21590 3037 11694 46423 22210 3058 124 Manayunkia speciosa 0 537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chircncmidae 0 207 826 62 1735 2376 0 1529 3987 2500 62 0 Chaoborus 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 21 0 Erapididae 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 62 0 0 0 Ostracoda 0 62 186 0 20660 1260 0 20660 1529 661 145 10 Cladocera 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .Gamma rus 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 21 0 Acar rna 0 0 124 83 0 165 21 207 393 0 0 21 IhydracarinaJ Nemata 21 62 227 0 103 310 21 145 393 103 0 0 Bryozoa 0 + + 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 Rhabdocoela 0 21 0 0 186 41 0 0 21 0 0 0 Tardigrada 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 Leptoceridae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 — 15 = highest; 1 = lowest * Indicates a mean of 2 samples. 2 Benthic fauna (number of organisms/m ) collected during early May, late May, and nid October of 1973. A plus sign [+] indicates that taxon was present. Station number and (in parentheses) rank in diversity— ^" Early May sample collection 7* 8 9 10 11 12 12 11 15 16 17* le* Taxon (4) (6) (7) (5) (7) (5) (4) (3) (7) (5) (8) (3) Oligochaeta 392 22726 31932 28511 4091 413 3512 4483 32436 14917 1539 206 Chironomidae 10 1012 971 2459 930 62 21 0 3078 1591 51 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Ostracoda 0 26660 1715 1818 21' 0 0 20660 1777 558 10 0 rianunarus 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 10 0 Dubiraphia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 Acarina 124 0 10 [Hydracarina] 0 124 0 21 0 0 124 0 0 Memata 10 0 62 744 21 21 0 0 289 0 10 20 Bryozoa 0 + 0 + + 0 + 0 + + - f 0 Rhabdocoela 10 0 165 0 0 0 21 0 62 0 10 0 Tardigrada 0 124 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — ^ 12 - highest; 1 = lowest * Indicates a mean of 2 samples. Station number and (in parentheses) rank in diversity—^ Late May sample collection 7* 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* 14 15 16 17* 18* Taxon (3) (6) (7) (5) (4) (2) (8) (8) (7) (5) (4) (5) Oligochaeta 302 7293 19214 32560 1146 320 5278 19544 19627 10888 836 227 Chironomidae 0 661 1240 3636 0 0 185 909 868 393 41 0 Ceratopogonidae 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 Chaoborus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 . 0 10 0 Ostracoda 0 2087 4297 1364 10 0 247 1591 1715 62 51 404 Hyalella azteca 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrophilidae 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acarina (Hydracarina] 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 21 21 0 0 0 Nemata 0 186 41 0 20 0 20 21 165 62 0 30 Sryozoa 0 + + + + 0 + + ♦ + 0 + Rhabdocoela 0 103 83 0 0 0 10 21 145 0 0 10 Caenis 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 —^ 13 = highest; 1 = lowest * Indicates a mean of 2 samples. Station number and (in parentheses) rank in diversity—^ Mid October sample collection 7* 8 9 10 11* 12* 13* 14 15* 16* 17 18 Taxon (4) (6) (6) (7) (4) (2) (4) (2) (4) (8) (3) (2) Oligochaeta 4276 2231 1364 8760 2737 2251 2117 1508 5155 4744 868 1559 Chironomidae 30 62 248 1715 83 123 51 0 1354 1477 21 30 Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chaoborus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 Ostracoda 278 0 41 227 10 0 10 3677 445 351 0 0 • Gammarus 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hyalella azteca 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Acarina . , [HydracarinaJ 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 21 0 Nema ta 10 21 21 83 10 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 Bryozoa 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 Hydra 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nemertinea 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 —^ 13 = highest; 1 = lowest * Indicates a mean of 2 samples. ATTACHMENT F BAY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Resolution 12 November 1974 THE PORT OF BAY CITY Bay County Department of Port and Industrial Development Bay County Building Annex #1 Bay City, Michigan 48706 902 N. Madison Dial 517-894-4562 November 13, 1974 JAMES W MCGOWAN PORT COORDINATOR. MGR fOREIGN TRADE ZONE Col. James E. Hays, District Engineer Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Col. Hays: Enclosed are certified copies of three resolutions unanimously approved by the Bay County Board of Commissioners at their regular meeting on November 12, 1974. As you w ill note, the resolutions put Bay County squarely in agreement with the site recommended by the special Governor's task force, namely, the Channel-Shelter Island area. Additionally, they put Bay County on record as agreeing to furnish the required local assurances to the State of Michigan and provide the authority for formal application to the State of Michigan for the necessary Saginaw Bay bottomland for the creation of the Dredged Material Containment Facility. They also authorized this department to seek a waiver of the 25% local interest construction cost participation, a move I now understand is already underway by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, With site selection now completed, this project, hopefully, w ill proceed without delay. Please accept Bay County's thanks for your Department's coop eration and assistance in bringing this most important project to this point. It is appreciated. S i n c e r e l y , THE-PORT OF BAY C ITY/ ‘"'James W. McGowan, Port Coordinator COUNTY OF BAY OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MICHIGAN CO UN IT OF BAY ' I______STEVEN TOrn ______Clerk of the County of Bay, and State aforesaid. Do Hereby Certify, that I have compared the annexed_PORT-JiND-INDUSTRIAL------ -... TUESDAY,. NCVEaHER.-l?, . 137^______ with the original _... RFS.0LUTX0N______ ______and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m y hand and affixed the seal of the Circuit Court of Bay County, Bay City, Michigan, this------12th------day of...... NOVEMBER,______A. D. 19JZ.lL___ County Clerk MOVED BY W ILLIAM SCHM IDT, SUPPORTED BY WEAL. ADOPTED 18 NAYS, 0 NAYS. YEASs Houle, Wackerly, Glaza, Laskowski, Neal, Wilson, Redmond, Decker, Beattie, Witzke, Suhak, negick, Majeske, Ponder, Middleton, Ruhland, Schmidt, and H aranda. ABSENT: Boutell, Holmes, and Karbowski. By Port and Industrial Development Committee Resolved That the Chairman of the Bay County Board of Commissioners, the Port and Industrial Development Committee and the Port Coordinator are hereby authorized and directed to make aop1ication ____ for and on behalf of the County of Bay, to the Michigan Department ______ of Natural Resources, for a use permit under terms of Act 247,______ ____Public Acts of 1955 as amended, known as the Submerged Lands T'.ct, ______to provide to the County of Bay, all lands necessary for the con- ______ ____struct!on, poor?tion and lu? iance of a dredged material con- ______tainment facility of approximately 10 m illion cubic yards capacity ______ to be located on, near and around two dredged material create d ____ # ______islands known as Shelter and Channel Islands which are located east of the navigation channel of Saginav; Bay and eastward of navigation ______B u o y S t a t i o n s # 27 a n d # 2 8 .______ ______Be it further resolved; that precise sine, location and con- ______ figurations bo subject to discussion and negotiation between the ______ Corns of hnqinoors, the Michigan Deoartnent of Datura! Resources______and the Port and Industrial Development Committee and the Port ___ Coordinator, and shall be based on engineering, esthetic, environ- ___m e n t a l a n d f u t u r e u s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . ______COUNTY OF BAY OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MICHIGAN ) COUNTY OF BAY f ss' I______S'l'EVEM TO T H ______-Clerk of the County of Bay, and State •aforesaid, Do Hereby Certify, that I have compared the annexed_____£Pl^..ANILIIOU5TniAL— ------ - - n^'t/iPUEMT RESOLUTION _ PASSED-BY-BAY .COUUTY-BOAED-OP. CCi2>2S5ICNERS - ...... - - ...... TUESDAY , -NOVEMBER _12 »_197U______— - v/ith the original_____ RESOLUTION______—------—------ ______and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Circuit Court of Bay County, Bay City, Michigan, this------12±h.------day of._„ ______...NOVEMBER,______A. D. 19t 2i----- County Clerk MOVED BY W ILLIAM SCHMIDT, SUPPORTED BY NEAL. I ADOPTED 18 NAYS, 0 NAYS. YFASj Houle, Wackerly, Glaza, La3kowski, Neal, Wilson, Redmond, Decker, Beattie, Witzke, Suhak, Begick, Majeske, Ponder, Middleton, Ruhland, Schmidt, and H aranda. ABSENT* Boutell, Holmes, and Karbowski. £ y • . Port, and Industrial Development Committee______ Resolved Pereas: Governor William Milliken, on October 7, 1974, appointed a special task force to study alternative ______ ____sites proposed for construction of a dredged material containment ____facility, and ______Whereas: the special task force, representing the Governor's ______office, The State Department of Natural Resources, the State Department of Commerce, the State Department of Highways and______ Transportation, the Midland County Board of Commissioners, the______Saginaw County Board of Commissioners, and the Bay County Board of Commissioners, has studied the advantages and disadvantages _ of the various alternatives, and has recommended that the ______ fa cility be constructed on a site on or near two dredged material created islands known as Shelter and Channel Islands, located __ east of the Saginaw Bay Navigation Channel, and ______^_____ Whereas: a statement of agreement, proposed by Hr. Hark Mason,____ Administrative Aide to Governor M illiken found no opposition from task force members, now therefore be it ______Resolved that: The Bay County Board of Commissioners does hereby adopt and approve the said statement of agreement, the ______ c o n t e n t s o f w h ic h f o l l o w : ______,______ ______SAGINAW RIVER DREDGING PROJECT______Thursday, October 24, 1974 ______ ______1 . T he site selected is the Shelter-Channel Islands area. ______2 . B ay County w ill provide local assurances for this site. 3 . T h e State w ill: Seek changes in federal policy which would allow total funding fer this project. — Request federal agencies to examine the possibility ______of using the island area for experimental purposes, for example, as an element in the winter navigation program. — Study the feasibility of using the completed island f o r recreational’purposes. 4 .___ Commercial interests w ill be"asked to examine possible industrial uses of the completed site. Resolved *______'______ ______5. During the time required for project design and______procedural reviews, state officials w ill continue______to examine a lt e r n a t iv e means fo r d is p o s a l o f dredge______spoils which would not require the construction of a ______containment site, or alternatively, require a smaller ______containment a re a .______COUNTY OF BAY OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK AFFIDAVIT STATE OF MICHIGAN ) COUNTY OF BAY 1 ss’ I,------__Clerk of the County of Bay, and Static aforesaid. Do Hereby Certify, that I have compared the annexed_____?PvT. . INDUSTRIAL...... ______T)FAT” /)J^>tPJTP.F3OLtJTIpN_PASSrT)3JY_PAYJ^OutT[T_IY^ftPDOFC0:TTSSI0h,SS ______TUESDAY, -E0SEM3EB_12»-iaZU.______ with the original__ RESOLUTION______ ------— and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of such original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the Circuit Court of Bay County, Bay City, Michigan, this______l£ih______day of______NOVUEER.,______A. D. 197>1_ Ciounfy'^Clerk t MOVED BY W ILLIAM SCHMIDT, SUPPORTED BY imEA l,. r ADOPTED 18 YEAS, 0 NAYS. *EAS: Houle, W&ckerly, Glaza, Laskowski, Neal, Wilson, Redmond, Decker, Beattie, Witzke, Suhak, Begick, Majeske, Ponder, Middleton, Ruhland, Schmidt, and Haranda. ABSENT: Boutell. Holmes, and Karbowski. Port and Industrial Development Committee Roi'olved The Bay County Board of Commissioners agrees to furnish to the State of Michigan the local assurances as set out _ in _S ect-ion 123 (c ) (1 ), (C ) (3), (c) (4), and (d) of the Federal______Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, being Public Law 91-011, so that identical assurances may be made by the State of Michigan to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. ______Pursuant to this Resolution, Bay County agrees to: ______1. Furnish al 1 lands, easements and righv.s-of-way necessary______fcr the construction, operation and maintenance ~of the______Dredged Material Containment facility to be located on ______o r n ear S h e lte r and Channel Is la n d s , two former dredge ______d is pos a l a reas lo c a te d e a s t o f the Saginaw Bay n av igatio n ______channel: ______2. Hold and save the United States and the State of Michigan free from damages due to construction, operation and maintenance of the facility: 3. Except as provided in sub-section (f) of the Act, maintain the facility after completion of its use for disposal ______pureoses, in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of th e ___ Army. __ Be it further Resolved: that the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, the Chairman of the Board's Port and Industrial Development Committee, and the Port Coordinator are hereby authorized and instructed to make immediate application through appropriate channels and to appropriate agencies for a waiver of the twenty-five per centum construction contribution requirement of the Act (Section 123 (c) (2). The waiver provision is set out in Section 123 (d) of Public Law 91-611, the text of which follows: (d ) The requirement for appropriate non-federal interest or interests to furnish an agreement to contribute ewenty-five per centum of the construct ion costs as set forth in Subsection (c) shall be ______waived by the Secretary of the Army upon a finding ______by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that for the Area to which such construction appliei, the State or States involved, interstate B y , Resolved _ agency, m unicipality, and other appropriate political subdivision of the State and industrial ______concerns are participating in and in compliance ______with an approved plan for the general geographical ______area of the dredging activity for construction, ______ modification, expansion, or rehabilitation of waste treatment facilities and the Administrator has found that applicable water quality standards are not being v i o l a t e d . * Be it further Resolved: that the County of Bay gives and i s sues the above assurances only on the condition that: The U. S. Corps of Engineers agrees that prior to the com pletion of the use of the facility for dredged material disposal, and prior to the assumption of the facility by the local interest, ______ the facility shall be so improved, modified or repaired so as to ______provide maximum protection of the facility against damage or over- ______ topping by wave or ice, and that all technology developed since ______construction of the facility w ill be applied to it so as to assure _____ minimum costs to Bay County in maintaining the facility in the future. ATTACHMENT G WIND ROSE OF SAGINAW MICHIGAN Source: CONSUMERS POWER 1972 ATTACHMENT H LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT EIS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE REGION V 300 S O U T H W 1C k I» own,* CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606 0, , lCt orr;i-)N »i r.T >« Fe b ru a ry 1, 1975 Mr. P. McCallister Chief, Engineering Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P .0 . Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project Saginaw Bay, Bay County, Michigan Dear Mr. McCallister: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above project. To our knowledge, and based upon the information provided, this project w ill not impact to any significant degree on the health, education or welfare of the population. Sincerely yours, Robert A. Ford Regional Environmental Officer c c : Charles C u sta rd , OEA Warren Muir, CEQ Federal Power Commission REGIONAL OFFICE 31st Floor, Federal Building 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 31, 1974 Colonel James E. Hays District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Attention: Environmental Resources Branch Dear Colonel Hays: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement transmitted with a letter dated December 19 from Mr. P. McCallister, Chief, Engineering Division, covering the Proposed Saginaw Bay, Michigan, Dredged Materials Disposal Facility. You request our comments. Comments of th is o f f ic e are made in accordance w ith the N a tio n a l Environmental Act of 1969 and the August 1, 1973 Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality. Our principal concern with developments affect ing land and water resources is the possible effect of such developments on bulk and electric power facilities including potential hydroelectric developments and on natural gas pipeline facilities. Since the above noted proposed project apparently would pose no major obstacle to the construction and operation of such facilities, we have no comments on the Draft EIS. The foregoing statements are of this office and therefore do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Power Commission. Thank you fo r the o p p o rtu n ity to comment on the D ra f t Environm ental Statem ent. Sincerely yours, Lenard B. Young Regional Engineer By. A c tin g U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHW AY ADMINISTRATION R E G I O N 5 P. 0. Box 147 Lansing, Michigan 48901 January 10, 1975 U. S, Army Engineer District P. 0 . Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Attention Environmental Resources Branch Gentlemen: The Draft Environmental Statement for the proposed Saginaw Bay Michigan dredged materials disposal facility has been reviewed by this office and we have no comments. Sincerely yours, David A. Merchant Division Engineer DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION Addftss rer » to: COMMANDS =. (rr.ep) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Ninth Coast G.ard District 12-50 East 9t“ St. Cleveland. C ‘ 3 4-5199 Pnone: 216-522-3913 5922 Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear S ir : The Draft Environmental Impact Statements listed below have been reviewed by this office and at this time we have no comments to o ffe r. Draft Environmental Statements entitled: Maintenance Dredging of Unpolluted Harbors in Michigan Maintenance Dredging of the Polluted Sediments in Toledo Harbor, Michigan Maintenance Dredging of Polluted Sediments Monroe Harbor, Michigan Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project at Saginaw Eay, Michigan _ • * Sincerely, r.’ . ' c . CCHMAN* Captain, U.S. Coast C". • rd Chief, Marine Safety Division By d irection of the Ce:;nap.der, Ninth Coast Guard D is tric t United States Department of the Interior o m c i : or t h e s i c k i .i a r y NOR 1 [I CENTRAL REGION LOOS. DEARBORN STREET. l.’nJ HOOK CHICAGO. ILLINOIS t.nbOl February 4, 1975 Colonel James E. Hays District Engineer U. S. Army Engineer D is tric t D etroit P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Hays: The Department of the In te rio r has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project at Saginaw Bay, Bay County, Michigan, as requested in Mr. McCallister’s trans m itta l le tte r of December 19, 1974, to our Assistant Secretary-- Program Policy. Our comments which are of both a general and specific nature relate to areas of our jurisdiction and expertise and have been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. I I . ENVIRON?IENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT This section contains a general description of Saginaw Bay but also should provide detailed environmental information concerning the Shelter-Channel Island disposal area itself. We also suggest the draft environmental statement be amended to include information on the geology of the area of the proposed dike facility and on possible effects of loading in construction of the f a c i l it y . Ecology of Saginaw Bay The contents of pages 14 and 15 have been reversed. IV. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT The fourth paragraph on page 25 is confusing. It is not clear as to what species of benthos w i ll "re -e sta b lis h " in the navigation channel. The reference to "migrating fall populations" should be discussed in greater detail. The first paragraph on page 26 states that the actual impact on fish and other aquatic life cannot be quantified. Since Saginaw Bay is recognized as an extremely productive portion of Lake Huron, and because 200 acres of aquatic habitat within the bay w i ll be lost, an effort should be made to gather site-specific biological data for the disposal area in order to better define project impacts. This section of the statement should discuss potential biological problems which could arise during f il l i n g . As the area f i l l s , i t can be expected to go through various stages of ecological succession, from a shallow water habitat to a te rre s tria l one on the completed site. It is quite probable that migratory waterfowl will be attracted to the site, and at certain stages during filling, the area could conceivably be used as a feeding or even a nesting area. It also is possible that botulism could be a problem if stagnant anaerobic conditions prevail. This possibility should be addressed in the EIS. During certain stages of filling, the area could become conducive to the production of mosquitoes or other insects. This possible impact also should be mentioned in the final statement. The draft EIS contains several references to future recreation use of the diked disposal area. We suggest that the final statement be more specific in describing the type of recreation use that the island would support and contain some discussion of how this use would relate to potential industrial and conmercial uses that were mentioned on page 56 of the d ra ft. V. ANY PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED It is stated on page 28 that "Fish and benthic organisms which are in this area will be displaced." It should be stated that benthos will be destroyed since these organisms do not possess the m obility necessary to escape. In addition, any fish trapped inside the com pleted dike will perish unless steps are taken for their removal. V I. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION This section contains very little environmental information. We urge that comparisons of environmental impact be given for the various alter natives, and that the analyses include s ite -s p e c ific assessments of fish and wildlife habitat values. Sincerely yours, „ Madonna F. McGrath Acting Special Assistant to the Secretary UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 Mr. P. McCalIister Chief, Engineering Division U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit j P. 0. Box 1027 FEB H I' 75 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project at Saginaw Bay, Michigan which was transmitted to us on December 19, 1974. We have classified our comments as Category LO-2. Specifically, we have no major objections to the proposal as described in the EIS. However, we believe additional information should be provided in the Final EIS regarding the design of the confined disposal facility (CDF). The classification and date of our comments will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on other agencies projects. The following comments are for your consideration in the preparation of the Final EIS. The Draft EIS lacked some general information on the design of the CDF which would aid our review and assessment of the impacts. The design configura tion of the CDF, the location of the outfall and pumpout facilities, and the effects the bay currents will have upon the clay core material before the armor stone is in place should be discussed in the EIS. If there are alternative design configurations, each design should be described. Maps and diagrams should suffice for this additional information. No mention was made to the type of dredge to be employed for maintenance operations, in general, the use of hopper dredges should be minimized in polluted harbors because they allow fine materials to be discharged during the concentrating of solids in the hoppers. Selection of dredges is dependent on availability and economics; however, the effects on the environ ment should also be one of the considerations. Discharges from the CDF should be monitored outside the 100-foot mixing zone for turbidity and total and suspended solids. If the monitoring indicates levels of suspended solids in excess of 15 mg/l, we recommend that further monitoring for other parameters be conducted to determine whether Federally approved State Water Quality Standards are exceeded. If these standards are violated, increased settling times will be necessary before discharge over the weir. Chemical flocculents may have to be added to facilitate settling or dual settling ponds utilized if increased detention time proved to be an insufficient measure to meet standards. A discussion in the Final EIS should be presented which would completely elucidate whether or not thermal currents contributed by Consumers Power's electric generating stations would have any interaction with the effluents discharged over the weir. If so, septic, odorous conditions could develop. Information should be provided on the present lake levels, the height the CDF dikes will be above the present lake levels and how often wave action will overtop the CDF. Since the location of the proposed CDF is 2-1/2 miles offshore, the effects on currents and shoreline damage should be discussed. We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. When the Final EIS is filed with the Council on Environmental Quality, please forward two copies to us. Sincerely yours, Donald A. WalIgren Chief, Federal Activities Branch STATE OF MICHIGAN JTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ^ CARL T JOHNSON E M LAITALA WILLIAM G MILLIKEN. Governor DEAN PRiDGEON HILARY f SNELL DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HARRY H WHfTfLEY STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING, LANSING. MICHIGAN 48926 JOAN L YVOLEE HOWARD A TANNER. Director CHARLES G YOUNGLOVE February 4, 1975 Mr. Phillip McCallister Chief, Engineering Division Corps of Engineers Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project. The statement is acceptable although we have comments we think would strengthen it. We would have preferred the upland disposal site but recognize that land acquisi tion costs made this alternative unsuitable. It would be helpful to include the following: a map of present islands showing contours of existing bottomland depths and island shorelines with the proposed project superimposed thereon and sampling data of the existing bottomland flora and fauna within the project area. Also discuss the previous disposal practices of the Corps within the project area. This would strengthen the finding that no unique or rare aquatic resources would be destroyed since much of the existing area was filled with spoil. Although the filling operations are not covered under the refuse act of 1965 (Act 87), we would object to future material classified as refuse under the act being disposed of at this site. The following comments are referred to by page and paragraph. Page 13, paragraph 5 Lake herring, chubs and lake trout do not have the relative importance to the fishery resources, as largemouth bass, crappie and bluegills. Page 13, paragraph 7 We recommend the last sentence be modified so as to read "This decline in Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay is closely associated with the dramatic decline of the lake trout, whitefish, lake herring, chubs and yellow perch. " Page number 14 should be page number 15 and page number 15 should be page number 14. Corrected page 14, paragraph 2, sentences two and three are incorrect. Chubs and herring have been depleted, walleye may no longer be taken commercially, whitefish only by permit from the Department of Natural Resources, perch populations may be overharvested. Page 14, paragraph 3 It would be informative to note that of the 3.2 million pounds harvested in 1967, more than one million pounds were carp. Page 14, paragraph 4, first sentence In addition to coho salmon, Chinook salmon, rainbow trout, brown and lake trout have also been stocked in large number. Sentence 2, these costly plantings were not made for the benefit of commercial fishing but rather to restore a proper balance to the structure of the fish popula tion and the primary benefit of sport fisheries. Page 14, paragraph 5, second sentence Largemouth and smallmouth bass, and panfish should be added to the list. Page 14, paragraph 6 Yellow perch rather than smallmouth bass is the most important sport gamefish. Page 15, paragraph 6 Relating to marshes, these areas are important food producing nursery and spawning areas for fish. Turtles, snakes, toads, frogs, salamanders and marsh birds should be included in the list of animals for whom this habitat type is necessary. Page 18, paragraph 3 We do not agree that the area "has not developed" as a recreational locale. Page 25, last paragraph The submerged portion of dike riprapping will provide a habitat type important to the variety of fish species which is in short supply in the bay. The proposed spoil island will be a permanent fixture on the landscape of Saginaw Bay and every effort should be made to maximize its aesthetic and utilitarian design. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Howard A. Tanner Director HIGHWAY COMMISSION STATE OF MICHIGAN E. V, ERICKSON C h a i r m a n CHARLES H. HEWITT VICE CHAIRMAN PETER B. FLETCHER WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR CARL V. PELLONPAA DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION STATE HIGHWAYS BUILDING - POST OFFICE DRAWER K - LANSING. MICHIGAN 48004 JOHN P. WOODFORD, DIRECTOR January 8, 1975 Mr. P. McCallister, Chief Engineering Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P .0 . Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: This is in response to your request of December 19, 1974 requesting the Michigan Department of State Highways and T ra n s p o rta tio n to review and comment on the D raft Environmental Statement for the Saginaw River Disposal Project at Saginaw Bay, Michigan. The draft impact statement indicates significant communications, between community groups and governmental agencies, including Michigan executive approval. This sort of cooperation and involvement represents a willingness to achieve a balanced decision to this controversial project. This Department recognizes the compromise involved in the proposed decision of placing the dredged spoil material at the Shelter-Channel Island site. However, this Department would l ik e to make the fo llo w in g comments: 1. Page 22 of the statement indicates a possible future need of roadway improvements to the study area. It is felt that more emphasis be placed on determining the extent of this secondary impact. An estimate of the potential recreational value of the 284 acre island disposal site should be determined, so this Department can determine future transportation planning to this area. Additionally, this information would be required to determine the extent, if any, that ferry service would be necessary to provide recreational access to the island. This study would also provide a better basis for deter mining the future land use potential of the island. 2. In addition to the biological sediment study included as Attachment I, a table should be included showing the existing chemical parameters of water quality and how they relate to state and federal guidelines. Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. Sincerely yours, Gf. Robert Adams, Administrator Environmental & Community Factors Division MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE r RICHARD H. AUSTIN SECRETARY OF STATE [ LANSING _____ i MICHIGAN 48918 * (517) 373-0510 MICHIGAN HISTORY OlVISlOf ADMINISTRATION. PUBLICATIONS. RESEARCH. AND HISTORIC SITES 208 N. Capitol Avenue January 30, 1975 STATE ARCHIVES 3406 N. Logan Street STATE MUSEUM 605 N. Washington Avenue U.S. Amy Engineer District, Detroit ATTN: Environmental Resources Branches P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Corps of Engineers Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project. Our staff has found that no known historic sites w ill be endangered by the projecrt. However, we wish to point out that no comprehensive survey of the area's historical resources has been made. You should contact Mr. William Wright, Bay Regional Planning Oaimission, 904 N. Madison, Rocrn 202, Bay City, Michigan 48706, for more information on possible uncatalogued sites. The State Archaeologist, Dr. James Fitting, carments that the reference to archaeological sites on page 23 of the Draft Environmental Inpact Statement, is an interpretation of archaeological evidence which has been challenged by sane archaeologists, namely, Jim Brcwn at Northwestern University and Jerry Fairchild, and Bernard Spencer of the Michigan Archaeological Society. They believe that there ware Late Woodland agricultural villages in the Valley. We do not know of ary specific sites, however. If you have any further questions, please contact us. S in c e r e ly , Martha M. Bigelow Director, Michigan History Division and State Historic Preservation Officer BAY COUMTY PLAMNIflG COMMISSIOM BAY COUNTY ANNEX<1 904 N. MADISON AVE. R O O M 2 0 2 T W 2-6011 T W 4-2 49 1 BAY CITY. MICHIGAN 48706 February 5» 1 975 Mr. Ron Erickson U.S. Array, Corps of Engineers Environment Resources Branch ? . 0 . Box 1027 Detroit, MI I4.8 2 3 I Dear Mr. Erickson: This office has conducted a review of available ref erence materials in regards to possible uncataloged arche ological sites which would be affected by the proposed main tenance dredging and spoil disposal project in Saginaw Bay. This was done in conjunction with the Director of the Museum of the Great Lakes here which is operated by the Bay County Historical Society. It is our conclusion that there are no such sites in the project area. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to pro vide some input on this matter. If there is anything further which we at this office can- do, please do not hesitate to c a l l . S in c e re ly , % **’ 1 • William W, Wright SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS January 6, 1975 Mr. Thomas Odle U. S. Army Engineer District, Detroit Attn: Environmental Resources Branch P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, MI 48231 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Saginaw Bay, Michigan, dredged materials disposal faci l i t y . 'D e a r Tom: The subject Draft E.I.S. would not appear to have any direct or indirect environmental significance to the SEMCOG region, con sisting of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, Monroe, St. Clair and Livingston Counties. After our phone conversation of January 2, 1975, concerning this request for review, I conferred with several staff members for possible comments. It was determined that without a clear indication of significant impact we cannot allocate staff time for review of projects outside of the SEMCOG region. Consequently we are returning the copy of the subject Draft E.I.S. which your office submitted for review. Perhaps you can use the extra copy. C o r d i a l l y , R ich a rd W. T f a ff, J r . A -95 Coordinator