E. Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Traps Iosco County, Michigan Integrated Detailed Project Report & Environmental Assessme

Integrated Detailed Project Report & Environmental Assessment

E. Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Traps Iosco County, Michigan

Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration

US Army Corps of Engineers ® Detroit District BUILDING STRONG ® April 2016

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The invasive sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) has colonized many rivers in the Great Lakes Region including the East Branch Au Gres River. The purpose of this integrated DPR and EA is to identify potential alternatives for improving sea lamprey population control in the East Branch Au Gres River under the authority of Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration. The main objectives of the study were:

1) Capture and remove more adult sea lamprey than the current average to further limit spawning; 2) Reduce the population of spawning-phase sea lamprey in the East Branch Au Gres River to reduce damage to the Lake Huron fishery; 3) Improve integrated sea lamprey control to potentially reduce or eliminate use of lampricide treatments.

The USACE, in coordination with the Great Lake Fishery Commission (GLFC), determined the best location for this project to be at an existing Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) sea lamprey barrier in Iosco County, MI. Five alternatives were developed for sea lamprey control at this site:

1) No Action – Use of temporary traps and TFM (chemical lampricide) 2) Alternative 2 – Use of TFM only 3) Alternative 3 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System at the west bank of the barrier 4) Alternative 4 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System at the east bank of the barrier 5) Alternative 5 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System across the entire face of the barrier.

The alternatives analysis demonstrated Alternative 2 is not acceptable since it does not address population control of adult, spawning-phase adults and it would increase reliance on lampricides. Therefore it was dropped from detailed analysis. Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 were identified as cost effective and were carried forward into the incremental cost analysis (ICA). The results of the ICA showed the incremental cost per incremental sea lamprey removed is lower for Alternative 3 therefore making it the recommended (NER) alternative. Alternative 3 was found to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the study, is cost-effective and reasonably maximizes ecosystem benefits. It has acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty. Alternative 3 is an acceptable and complete alternative and is the recommended alternative.

Using a permanent attractant water trap under Alternative 3 would increase trapping efficiency from approximately 20% (temporary trap) to 58% (permanent trap). Alternative 3 results in a net increase of 1,733 sea lamprey removed annually. The fully funded total project cost for Alternative 3 is $1,064,000 (Table 9 pg 45 derived from the cost engineering appendix).

E. Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Traps, Isoco County, Michigan Integrated Detailed Project Report & Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents * NEPA Information found in these Chapters, Sections & Appendices

Executive Summary ...... i CHAPTER 1 – *INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 – REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 1 1.2 – STUDY AUTHORITY ...... 1 1.3 – *STUDY PURPOSE, NEED & SCOPE ...... 3 1.4 – *STUDY LOCATION ...... 6 1.5 – *PERTINENT RECENT, PRESENT AND FUTURE REPORTS, STUDIES & PROJECTS ...... 8 CHAPTER 2 – *INVENTORY AND FORCASTING ...... 10 2.1 – OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS ...... 10 2.2 – *EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 10 2.3 – HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 10 2.4 – *FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ...... 11 2.5 – PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 11 2.6 – PLANNING GOALS & OBJECTIVES ...... 12 2.7 – PLANNING CONSTRAINTS ...... 15 CHAPTER 3 – *PLAN FORMULATION, EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN ...... 16 3.1 – *MEASURE IDENTIFICATION ...... 16 3.2 – MEASURE BENEFITS & COSTS ...... 17 3.3 – *ALTERNATIVE PLAN GENERATION & ASSUMPTIONS ...... 20 3.4 – ACCEPTABILITY, COMPLETENESS, EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY ...... 24 3.5 – EVALUATING ECOSYSTEM BENEFITS ...... 26 3.6 – COMPARING FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS ...... 29 3.7 – SELECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...... 40 CHAPTER 4 – *DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ...... 42 4.1 – *PLAN COMPONENTS & CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...... 42 4.2 – *REAL ESTATE CONSIDERATIONS ...... 43 4.3 – VIEWS OF PROJECT PARTNER(S) ...... 44 4.4 – COST SHARING AND SPONSOR RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 44 4.5 – SCHEDULE ...... 45 4.6 – PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS ...... 45 4.7 – *OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M) CONSIDERATIONS ...... 45 4.8 – *POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ...... 45 CHAPTER 5 – *EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) ...... 47 5.1 – *EA ORGANIZATION AND PRELIMINARY IMPACT SCOPING ...... 47 5.2 – *PHYSICAL SETTING AND LAND USE ...... 50 5.3 – *COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, FLOODPLAINS AND HYDROLOGY ...... 52 5.4 – *HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE (HTRW) ANALYSIS ...... 54 5.5 – *WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY ...... 55 5.6 – *PRIME FARMLAND AND WETLANDS ...... 57 5.7 – *GROUNDWATER AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLY...... 59 5.8 – *VEGETATION, WILDLIFE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE ...... 59 5.9 – *AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 60 5.10 – *THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 62 5.11 – *EXOTIC AND INVASIVE SPECIES ...... 64 5.12 – *CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 66

5.13 – *AIR QUALITY, NOISE, TRAFFIC AND AESTHETICS...... 68 5.14 – *SOCIAL SETTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 71 5.15 – *RECREATION ...... 73 CHAPTER 6 – *AGENCY COORDINATION AND EA CONCLUSIONS ...... 74 6.1 – *AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC REVIEW ...... 74 6.2 – *CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 76 6.3 – * SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...... 78 6.4 – *COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND EA CONCLUSIONS ...... 79 CHAPTER 7 – DPR RECOMMENDATION AND SIGNATURE ...... 82 CHAPTER 8 – PRELIMINARY FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (FONSI) ...... 83 CHAPTER 9 – *ACRONYMS ...... 84 CHAPTER 10 – *REFERENCES ...... 86

List of Tables

Table 1 – Efficiency of Measures ...... 19 Table 2 – Summary of Acceptability, Completeness and Effectiveness Evaluation ...... 26 Table 3 – Annual Alternative Effectiveness – Effects on Spawning-Phase Adults ...... 28 Table 4 – East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Removed ...... 34 Table 5 – Cost of Alternatives ...... 36 Table 6 – Cost Effectiveness Analysis in 2015 Dollars ...... 38 Table 7 - Incremental Cost Analysis in 2015 Dollars ...... 39 Table 8 - Economic Summary of Alternative 3 in 2015 Dollars ...... 41 Table 9 – Project Cost for Recommended Alternative, Cost Sharing Breakout and Schedule ...... 45 Table 10 – Summary of Alternatives and Plan Formulation ...... 47 Table 11 – Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 62 Table 12 – Determination of Effect on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 64 Table 13 – Approximate Sound Levels and Human Response ...... 68 Table 14 – Predicted Noise Associated with Construction Activities ...... 70 Table 15 – Summary of Census Data ...... 71 Table 16 – Summary of Potential Effects and Cumulative Effects...... 78

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map depicting the location of the East Branch Au Gres watershed and the proposed project location...... 4 Figure 2: Life cycle (Image credit: GLFC) and photo (Photo credit: USFWS) of the sea lamprey...... 5 Figure 3. Aerial photo of the East Branch Au Gres River Watershed and proposed project location...... 7 Figure 4. Photo from the 1980s of the barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River ...... 8 Figure 5. Example of permanent sea lamprey trapping system designed for a single AWT trap; located at Tippy Dam on the Big Manistee River...... 15 Figure 6. Overview of Alternative 3 with one permanent sea lamprey trap on the west bank of the stream, downstream of the MDNR barrier...... 22 Figure 7. Existing MDNR Sea Lamprey Barrier, looking east...... 23 Figure 8. Proposed Location of the permanent sea lamprey AWT system...... 23 Figure 9 - Cost Effectiveness Frontier ...... 38 Figure 10 – Incremental Cost Analysis Graph ...... 40 Figure 11. Map of the land use within the East Branch Au Gres River Watershed ...... 51 Figure 12. Upland area ...... 58 Figure 13. Map showing the location of the Blue Ribbon Trout Stream ...... 61

iii

Appendices

Appendix A – Engineering - Civil Design and Geotech Analysis Appendix B – Cost Engineering Appendix C – Real Estate Plan Appendix D – *Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Evaluation Appendix E – *Agency Coordination Appendix F – Significant Laws & Executive Orders Appendix G – Monitoring Plan

CHAPTER 1 – *INTRODUCTION

1.1 – Report Organization

This Integrated Detailed Project Report (DPR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) present the results of the East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Trap study. Information for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental evaluation can be found in Chapter 5 – Existing Environment and Environmental Assessment (EA) and Chapter 6 – Agency Coordination and EA Conclusions. Additional information to support the NEPA assessment can be found in starred (“*”) sections and appendices.

1.2 – Study Authority

This sea lamprey project is pursued under the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) program, as established by the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. GLFER Section 506 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to cooperate with other federal, state, and local agencies and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) with a required 35% cost sharing contribution from a non-Federal sponsor.

SECTION 506 OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000: GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 42 USCS § 1962d-22 § 1962d-22. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration. (a) Findings - Congress finds that— (1) the Great Lakes comprise a nationally and internationally significant fishery and ecosystem; (2) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem should be developed and enhanced in a coordinated manner; and (3) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem provides a diversity of opportunities, experiences, and beneficial uses. (b) Definitions - In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Great Lake (A) In general- The term “Great Lake” means Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (including the St. Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of latitude). (B) Inclusions- The term “Great Lake” includes any connecting channel, historically connected tributary, and basin of a lake specified in subparagraph (A). (2) Great Lakes Commission- The term “Great Lakes Commission” means the Great Lakes Commission established by the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 414). (3) Great Lakes Fishery Commission- The term “Great Lakes Fishery Commission” has the meaning given the term “Commission” in section 931 of Title 16. (4) Great Lakes State- The term “Great Lakes State” means each of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin. (c) Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration (1) Support plan (A) In general- Not later than 1 year after December 11, 2000, the Secretary shall develop a plan for activities of the Corps of Engineers that support the management of Great Lakes fisheries.

(B) Use of existing documents- To the maximum extent practicable, the plan shall make use of and incorporate documents that relate to the Great Lakes and are in existence on December 11, 2000, such as lakewide management plans and remedial action plans. (C) Cooperation- The Secretary shall develop the plan in cooperation with— (i) the signatories to the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries; and (ii) other affected interests. (2) Reconnaissance studies- Before planning, designing, or constructing a project under paragraph (3), the Secretary shall carry out a reconnaissance study— (A) to identify methods of restoring the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes; and (B) to determine whether planning of a project under paragraph (3) should proceed. (3) Projects- The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. (4) Evaluation program (A) In general- The Secretary shall develop a program to evaluate the success of the projects carried out under paragraph (3) in meeting fishery and ecosystem restoration goals. (B) Studies- Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in consultation with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. (d) Cooperative agreements- In carrying out this section, the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the Great Lakes Commission or any other agency established to facilitate active State participation in management of the Great Lakes. (e) Relationship to other Great Lakes activities- No activity under this section shall affect the date of completion of any other activity relating to the Great Lakes that is authorized under other law. (f) Cost sharing (1) Development of plan- The Federal share of the cost of development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) of this section shall be 65 percent. (2) Project planning, design, construction, and evaluation- Except for reconnaissance studies, the Federal share of the cost of planning, design, construction, and evaluation of a project under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (c) of this section shall be 65 percent. (3) Non-Federal share (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way- The Secretary shall credit the non- Federal interest for the value of any land, easement, right-of-way, dredged material disposal area, or relocation provided for carrying out a project under subsection (c)(3) of this section. (B) Form- The non-Federal interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non- Federal share required under paragraphs (1) and (2) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions. (4) Operation and maintenance- The operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

(5) Non-Federal interests- In accordance with section 1962d-5b of this title, for any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal interest may include a private interest and a nonprofit entity. (g) Authorization of appropriations (1) Development of plan- There is authorized to be appropriated for development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) of this section $300,000. Other activities- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) of this section $100,000,000.

HISTORY: (Dec. 11, 2000, Public Law (P.L.) 106-541, Title V, § 506, 114 Stat. 2645; Nov. 8, 2007, P.L. 110- 114, Title V, § 5011, 121 Stat. 1194.)

HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES References in text: "Secretary", as used in this section, means the Secretary of the Army, pursuant to § 2 of Act Dec. 11, 2000, P.L. 106-541, which appears as 33 USCS § 2201 note.

Explanatory notes: This section was enacted as part of Act Dec. 11, 2000, P.L. 106-541, and not as part of Act July 22, 1965, P.L. 89-80, which generally comprises this chapter.

Amendments: 2007. Act Nov. 8, 2007, in subsec. (c), redesignated paras. (2) and (3) as paras. (3) and (4), respectively, inserted new para. (2), and, in para. (4)(A) as redesignated, substituted "paragraph (3)" for "paragraph (2)"; and, in subsec. (f), in para. (2), substituted "Except for reconnaissance studies, the" for "The", and substituted "(3) or (4)" for "(2) or (3)", in para. (3), in subpara. (A), substituted "(c)(3)" for "(c)(2)", and in subpara. (B), substituted "100 percent" for "50 percent", and, in para. (5), substituted "In accordance with" for "Notwithstanding."

The Congressional Delegation for this study area includes the following:

Senators – Debbie Stabenow (D) and Gary Peters (D) Representative – Daniel Kildee (D-MI) 5th District.

1.3 – *Study Purpose, Need & Scope

The East Branch Au Gres River flows in a northwest-to-southeast direction through the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan and empties into Lake Huron (Figure 1). The purpose of this integrated DPR and EA is to: identify potential alternatives for improving sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) population control in the East Branch Au Gres River (namely increasing capture and removal of adult spawning- phase lamprey), evaluate the positive and negative social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with these alternatives, and investigate the feasibility of implementing these alternatives.

Figure 1. Map depicting the location of the East Branch Au Gres watershed and the proposed project location.

The sea lamprey is a primitive, invasive, predatory fish species native to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 2). Sea lampreys spawn in tributaries to the Great Lakes and spend their early, non-parasitic life in river sediments. Per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) it is estimated that the most downstream portion of the East Branch Au Gres River between the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) barrier and Lake Huron is home to approximately 33,000 larval sea lamprey on average, making this river one of the larger known sea lamprey spawning and nursery rivers in the Great Lakes. There are no known sea lampreys upstream of the existing barrier, which effectively blocks upstream migration.

After three to six years as larvae, sea lampreys transform into their adult parasitic form and enter the Great Lakes where they attach to large fish such as salmon and lake trout to feed on their body fluids. The fish sea lamprey feed upon are typically unable to survive. On average, a sea lamprey kills 40 pounds of fish during its lifetime. The fish mortalities caused by sea lamprey led to a coalition between the United States and Canada being developed in the 1950s. The coalition was named the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission (GLFC) and its purpose was to control the sea lamprey and restore Great Lakes Fisheries (see “Problem Description” in Section 2.5 for additional details).

Adult Sea Lamprey-Parasitic Phase

Figure 2: Life cycle (Image credit: GLFC) and photo (Photo credit: USFWS) of the sea lamprey. The complete lifecycle from egg to adult averages 5 to 8 years.

Through the authority granted in Section 506 of the WRDA of 2000, as amended (Section 1.2), the USACE Detroit District has been requested by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (“GLFC”, the cost- sharing partner / non-Federal sponsor) to study a suitable sea lamprey control project on the East Branch Au Gres River. The GLFC will hold title on various easements required for the project and is eligible as a non-Federal sponsor.

The functionality of this sea lamprey project relies on another agency (USFWS funded by the non- Federal Sponsor) to “operate” the completed project after construction, for the project to be as effective as intended.

The USFWS, acting as the sea lamprey control agent for the GLFC, has identified streams in the U.S. where the construction of permanent sea lamprey control projects would be expected to be successful, cost effective, and have virtually no adverse ecological effects (i.e., traps) or minimal effects (i.e., barriers). The selection of stream reaches best suited for lamprey control and the determination of general trap locations within those reaches was accomplished following protocols adopted by the GLFC’s Sea Lamprey Barrier Transition Team in January 2000. The transition team was formed to take the sea lamprey barrier program “from a developmental program to an enhanced lamprey barrier program.”

Seven criteria were used by the GLFC and the USFWS to rank those streams considered suitable for enhanced lamprey control: . Sea lamprey production; . Lampricide treatment costs; . Potential reduction in treatment cost;

. Treatment problems; . Site feasibility; . Multi-purpose functions; and . Biological effects.

Reach and site selection was based on past and present sea lamprey distributions and the location of spawning and larval habitat, as well as stream hydrology, fish passage requirements, topography, soils, endangered species, special legislative designations, historic/archaeological considerations, and infrastructure. Of the 243 streams being treated with 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM) in the Great Lakes Region, temporary traps, or a combination of the two at least once every seven years, 90 were found to be candidates for a new barrier and/or trap construction. Based on this analysis, the GLFC has requested the USACE to study the potential construction of sea lamprey control measures under Section 506 at a variety of sites including the East Branch Au Gres River at the existing MDNR barrier.

Before any sea lamprey project is constructed, the feasibility of the project must be determined through the development of a Detailed Project (“Feasibility”) Report (DPR). A DPR contains an in-depth review of existing conditions versus the potential benefits gained from a proposed project and an analysis of specific restoration measures. This combined DPR and EA includes the recommendation of the most cost efficient, engineering feasible and environmentally beneficial alternative (in coordination with the GLFC and USFWS), a preliminary design of the recommended alternative, a detailed construction cost estimate, and an evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the recommended alternative under the NEPA. Continued Federal interest and justification in developing a sea lamprey control project on the East Branch Au Gres River is considered through development of this DPR.

1.4 – *Study Location

The East Branch Au Gres River flows approximately 47 miles through the northern lower peninsula of Michigan, through the towns of Hale and National City, and enters Lake Huron at Whitney Township. The study area is at the existing MDNR sea lamprey barrier located on the East Branch Au Gres River in National City, Iosco County, Michigan (Figures 1 and 3). The legal location of the proposed sea lamprey permanent trap placement site is T21N, R06E, Section 10 and the approximate coordinates of the site are 44⁰13’19.32”N, 83⁰41’51.67”W.

Figure 3. Aerial photo of the East Branch Au Gres River Watershed and proposed project location.

The East Branch Au Gres River was historically a major tributary to the Au Gres River, but in the 1920s it was diverted to Lake Huron through the Whitney Drain due to flood concerns. It remains hydrologically disconnected today.

The existing MDNR sea lamprey barrier was constructed in 1983 with the addition of a coffer dam in 1986 (Figure 4). The existing barrier is located approximately fourteen river miles upstream of where the river mouth empties into Lake Huron. MDNR owns the barrier and the surrounding property.

Figure 4. Photo from the 1980s of the barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River (Source: Report of the Evaluation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Program of Sea Lamprey Barrier Dams, January 1988).

The East Branch Au Gres River had many functions throughout the history of northeast Michigan. Native Americans used the river as a transportation route and its fishes for food. Early Europeans used the river for commercial logging, fishing, and trapping. As the lumber supply was depleted, farming became more prevalent throughout the watershed, although agriculture makes up a relatively small percentage of the land base today (approximately 8%) as much of the land has reverted back to forest. Recreational fisheries became popular on the East Branch Au Gres River in the late 1800s. The river continues to serve as one of Michigan’s premier recreational assets. It is considered to have one of the best trout fisheries in the state and twelve miles of river upstream of the MDNR sea lamprey barrier have been designated a blue ribbon trout stream by MDNR. Refer to Chapter 5 for additional details pertaining to the existing environment and resources.

1.5 – *Pertinent Recent, Present and Future Reports, Studies & Projects

The following reports and studies have contributed to the development of this report:

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2011–2020. December 2011.

Huron Pines in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rifle-Au Gres-Tawas Rivers Rapid Watershed Assessment, March 2008.

USACE, Detroit. Preliminary Restoration Plan East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Trap, Section 506 (GLFER) Project, Iosco County, Michigan. USACE, Detroit, December 2013.

USACE, Detroit. Section 905(b) Reconnaissance Study, Western Lake Huron Basin Watershed Study, Michigan. May 2012. The purpose of this expanded reconnaissance study was to review water resource problems and opportunities in the WLHB study area. It should be noted that this study

also recognizes the negative impacts sea lamprey and other significant invasive species render on the fishery of the Great Lakes, and calls for watershed-based management measures to reduce the populations of these invasives and their associated impacts in the basin.

Other Projects and Sea Lamprey Management Efforts in the Vicinity

Au Sable Permanent Sea Lamprey Trap at Foote Dam: The USACE, in conjunction with GLFC and USFWS is planning construction of a permanent sea lamprey trap on the Au Sable River at Foote Dam, approximately 20 miles northeast of the MDNR sea lamprey barrier, in 2016. Similar to the East Branch Au Gres site, the USFWS currently performs seasonal temporary sea lamprey trapping in conjunction with the barrier at this site.

GLFER Sea Lamprey Barrier / Trap Projects: Several other area rivers are being considered for potential studies to place a permanent trapping system and / or barrier and permanent trapping system: Bad River, WI; Cheboygan River, MI; Little Manistee, MI; Muskegon River, MI; Saginaw River tributaries, MI; St. Mary's River, MI; and White River, MI.

Michigan DNR owns and maintains the property at the existing MDNR sea lamprey barrier. No major infrastructure improvements are planned near the proposed project outside of those that are included as part of this proposed project. Activities outside of this project that are expected to occur may include minor maintenance and emergency access. No impact from these activities is expected to affect the proposed project, nor is the proposed project expected to impact any of the current activities occurring at the site. MDNR has provided input during the planning phase of this project.

CHAPTER 2 – *INVENTORY AND FORCASTING

2.1 – Overview of the Plan Formulation Process

During this study, the six planning steps that are set forth in the Water Resource Council’s Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines) are repeated to help focus the study toward recommendation of a single alternative (i.e. the recommended alternative) for implementation. The six planning steps are:

1) Specify problems and opportunities; 2) Inventory and forecast conditions; 3) Formulate alternative plans; 4) Evaluate effects of alternative plans; 5) Compare alternative plans; and 6) Select recommended plan.

2.2 – *Existing Conditions

The MDNR sea lamprey barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River acts as a barrier to upstream migration of sea lamprey; however, enough suitable sea lamprey spawning (gravel substrate) and larval (sandy or silty substrate) habitat exists in the East Branch Au Gres River for the 14 miles between the MDNR barrier and Lake Huron to support a significant population of larvae and transforming lamprey.

Larval assessments are conducted by the USFWS on the East Branch Au Gres River, and other streams throughout the Great Lakes, on a scheduled basis and data are used to prioritize lampricide treatments. The primary lampricide used to kill sea lamprey larvae is 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM). Although TFM has not been shown to have serious impacts on stream ecology, some species including various invertebrates, native lamprey, and sturgeon have been shown to be sensitive to the lampricide.

Several factors are involved in prioritizing treatment, but typically streams with high larval density estimates are prioritized over streams with lower density estimates. The largest larval population the USFWS has estimated to date on the East Branch Au Gres River is approximately 138,500 larvae, with the average annual population being approximately 33,000. Under current conditions it is estimated that the East Branch Au Gres River contributes approximately 4,500 parasitic phase sea lamprey to Lake Huron annually. Currently, a temporary, portable trap is placed seasonally in the same location where the permanent trap is proposed. Refer to Chapter 5 for additional details pertaining to the existing environment and resources.

2.3 – Habitat Assessment Methodology

As described below in Section 2.6 – Planning Goals and Objectives, the overall goal of this project is to improve control of the invasive sea lamprey, thus helping to restore the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. Many methods and models are available to measure ecosystem function and to predict their future conditions based on differing scenarios. However, in this study the problem and solution revolve around improving the efficiency of removing a mobile invasive species from the ecosystem, rather than physically restoring a single-area degraded environment or improving habitat to aid in success of a desirable species. This study considers percent effectiveness of temporary and permanent sea lamprey

traps based on the best available USFWS data. Benefits of the proposed action are discussed in Section 3.2 – Measure Benefits & Costs and Section 3.5 – Evaluating Ecosystem Benefits.

2.4 – *Future Without Project Conditions

The “Future Without Project Condition” reflects the expected outcome if no action is taken. Under the “Without Project Condition” it is expected that the GLFC, through the USFWS, would continue sea lamprey control on the East Branch Au Gres River through use of a temporary, portable trap at the existing MDNR barrier and TFM treatment of the river downstream of the barrier. Lampricide application is expected to continue at similar intervals, approximately every four years.

2.5 – Problems and Opportunities

2.5.1 – Problem Description

Sea lamprey continue to live, breed, and thrive in the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the MDNR barrier. The sea lamprey is a primitive, eel-like fish native to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 2). They existed naturally throughout the St. Lawrence Waterway and are thought to have gained access to the upper four Great Lakes after the Welland Canal and associated lock and canal system was constructed in the late 1800s (also refer to Section 1.3 – Study Purpose & Scope). The fish mortalities caused by the sea lamprey, combined with intense fishing pressure and spawning habitat destruction, resulted in the dramatic decline of many native fish species in the Great Lakes and significantly damaged other fish stocks. For example, commercial catches of lake trout in Lakes Superior and Huron dropped from a high of approximately 15 million pounds annually to approximately 300,000 pounds annually in the early 1960s. The Lake Huron catch dropped from approximately 5.5 million pounds in 1947 to essentially zero in 1953.

In response to a dramatic decline of many native fish species in the Great Lakes, the GLFC was formed in 1955 as a coalition between the United States and Canada to rehabilitate the fisheries in the Great Lakes and coordinate research and control efforts for sea lamprey. Since then, the GLFC has contracted the USFWS and the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to conduct the sea lamprey control program. Sea lamprey control is a critical fishery management action in support of objectives identified in the 1980 Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and its subsequent revisions.

Mature adult sea lamprey migrate into streams to spawn from late March through June (water temperature dependent) in various parts of the Great Lakes basin. Adults die almost immediately after spawning and the larvae (ammocoetes) that develop from the eggs take up residence in soft material on the stream bottom. The ammocoetes feed on organic debris and algae present in the stream until they transform to their adult parasitic form and return to the lakes after an average of approximately three to six years (Figure 2).

Upon returning to the lakes as parasites, adult lamprey attach to large fish such as salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to feed on body fluids. During their 12 to 20 months as parasites, a single sea lamprey kills an estimated 40 pounds of fish. The East Branch Au Gres River is capable of producing a large population of larvae, hence sea lamprey control at this location is a high priority to the GLFC and the USFWS.

2.5.2 – Opportunities

Opportunities exist to significantly reduce the destructive impact of sea lamprey on desirable gamefish in Lake Huron and the Great Lakes in general. Conversely, the opportunity also exists to increase the populations of the indigenous fish in Lake Huron. Through implementing laws aimed to prevent overfishing, encourage stocking desirable fish species, and control sea lamprey, the fishery has improved significantly since the 1950s. However, ongoing management is required to maintain or continue improving the ecosystem. Specific opportunities identified in relation to sea lamprey reduction in the East Branch Au Gres River are as follows:

. Reduce the reproduction of sea lamprey (via capture and removal) to minimize their adverse effects on Great Lakes fish stocks; . Increase collection of adult/spawning-phase sea lamprey for research and study purposes (i.e., research associated to pheromones that could potentially attract lamprey to traps and/or repel them from spawning areas), and to prevent them from spawning; . Improve the cost effectiveness of controlling sea lamprey reproduction in the East Branch Au Gres River system to make funds available for control efforts elsewhere; and . Reduce the reliance of the sea lamprey control program on lampricides to provide more integrated pest management that is less sensitive to the potential failure (or increased cost) of a single management technique.

2.6 – Planning Goals & Objectives

2.6.1 – National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Goal

The goal for this ecosystem restoration project is to improve sea lamprey control on the East Branch Au Gres River through an integrated approach and thus reduce the negative impacts caused by sea lamprey in Lake Huron and the Great Lakes. Restoration would be aided by increased removal of spawning-phase sea lamprey from the ecosystem, thus reducing reproduction and overall sea lamprey populations. The USFWS would like to reduce their future reliance on chemicals in the lamprey control program.

2.6.2 – Planning Objectives

Planning objectives are developed to help attain the goal(s) of the project. They are developed from the problems and opportunities and describe the intended purpose of the project, or what an alternative plan is trying to achieve. The planning objectives must be directly related to the problems and opportunities identified for the study and will be used for the formulation and evaluation of plans. Objectives must be clearly defined and provide information on the effect desired, the subject of the objective, the location where the expected result will occur, the timing of the effect and the duration of the effect.

The Planning Objectives of this study are:

. Capture and remove more adult sea lamprey from the East Branch Au Gres River than are currently being captured in temporary traps to further limit spawning over a 50-year period of analysis (See Efficiency and Benefits of Measures in Section 3.2); . Reduce the population of spawning-phase sea lampreys (prior to them spawning) in the East Branch Au Gres River to reduce subsequent damage to the Lake Huron (native) fishery; and . Improve integrated sea lamprey control to potentially reduce or eliminate use of lampricide treatments for the expected life of the permanent trap (approximately 50 years)

2.6.3 – NER Objectives

NER objectives are also developed to help attain the goal(s) of the project. They are similarly developed from the problems and opportunities and describe the intended purpose of the project, or what an alternative plan is trying to achieve.

The USACE objective in ecosystem restoration planning is to contribute to NER, whose outputs are increases in the net quantity and quality of desired ecosystem resources. In the case of this study, the Great Lakes fishery is the resource whose quality we are trying to improve via better sea lamprey control on the East Branch Au Gres River. Measurement of NER is based on changes in ecological resource quality as a function of improvement in habitat quality and quantity and is expressed quantitatively in physical units or indexes (but not monetary units). These net changes are measured in the project area and in the rest of the nation. Single purpose ecosystem restoration plans are formulated and evaluated in terms of their net contributions to increases in ecosystem value (NER outputs), expressed in nonmonetary units. The recommended alternative (plan) for implementation is selected based on NER outputs.

Restoration of the nation’s environment is achieved when damage to the environment is reversed and important cultural and natural aspects of our nation’s heritage are preserved. Various environmental statutes and executive orders assist in ensuring that water resource planning is consistent with restoration. The objectives and requirements of applicable laws and executive orders are considered throughout the planning process in order to meet the federal objective. Significant laws and executive orders that provide guidance for this study are listed in Appendix F.

The study is also consistent with protection of the Great Lakes through regional and international collaboration as set forth in GLFER, Section 506; Executive Order (EO) 13340, Establishment of Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and Promotion of a Regional Collaboration of National Significance for the Great Lakes (2004); and Public Law 111-88, Interior Department and Further Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2010 (2009, which authorized funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative [GLRI]) – these are discussed further under “Institutional Recognition of Significance” in Section 3.6.2 – Significance. The main focus areas of the GLRI under these statues are as follows, where bold pertains to this study:

1. Toxic Substances /Areas of Concern (AOC) 2. Invasive Species 3. Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution 4. Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration 5. Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships

The objective of this project directly supports the Invasive Species and Habitat focus areas by aiming to integrate permanent sea lamprey traps at a strategic location on the East Branch Au Gres River which would improve sea lamprey control by removing spawning-phase sea lamprey from the river. The currently used temporary, portable trap is not as efficient as a permanent trap and the proportion of the spawning population captured remains low (about 20%). Historically, permanent traps integrated with barriers and using attractant water techniques have performed more than three-times more effectively than temporary traps at a barrier. The execution of this objective would also improve recreational and commercial fishing opportunities (by protection of fish) in the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the barrier and into Lake Huron, which will have positive economic benefit for the region and nation.

2.6.4 – Study Objectives

The study cost-sharing partner, the GLFC, has general goals and accompanying objectives (i.e. “Strategies”) for Great Lakes ecosystem restoration through sea lamprey reduction. The GLFC’s Strategic Vision of the Commission (2011–2020) presents three overarching “Pillars” for success; the one in bold pertains most directly to this study:

Pillar 1 targets “Healthy Great Lakes Ecosystems and Sustainable Fisheries” Pillar 2 targets “Integrated Sea Lamprey Control” Pillar 3 targets “Strategic Alliances and Partnerships”

Although this study supports all 3 pillars, it is most relevant to Pillar 2 which states that “The Commission will suppress sea lamprey populations to levels that permit achievement of fish community objectives for each Great Lake.”

The implementation of a permanent sea lamprey trap system(s) on the East Branch Au Gres River under the GLFER program directly supports the following Strategies under the GLFC’s Goals, and will complement the other sea lamprey control strategies being implemented by the USFWS:

Goal 1, Strategies 4 and 6. Permanent traps are more efficient than temporary traps (Strategy 6). Increased trapping efficiency would help establish more accurate population estimates of spawning- phase sea lamprey (Strategy 4) and remove spawning-phase lamprey from the ecosystem (Strategy 6).

Goal 2, Strategies 1 and 4. Permanent traps are more efficient than temporary traps and can be used in conjunction with pheromones (Strategy 1). The ability to implement pheromone technology or other trapping methods with the permanent traps supports integrated control (Strategy 4).

Refer to Figure 5 of this report for an image of an example permanent sea lamprey trapping system the USFWS uses at the Tippy Dam on the Big Manistee River.

A B

Figure 5. Example of permanent sea lamprey trapping system designed for a single AWT trap; located at Tippy Dam on the Big Manistee River (5A). Proposed trap at the East Branch Au Gres site would likely be similar. 5B is an example trap. (Photo credits: USFWS)

2.7 – Planning Constraints

Planning constraints are items of consideration that limit the extent of the planning process and are used along with the objectives in the formulation and evaluation of solutions. The establishment of planning constraints is done in concert with the entire study team and in cooperation with stakeholders. Planning constraints for the project are:

. Avoid solutions and locations for the project that result in unacceptable changes to the water surface profiles both up and downstream of the project site; . Avoid solutions and locations for the project that result in additional obstacles to fish passage by native species; . Avoid solutions that would negatively impact the native fishery and the aquatic ecosystem of the East Branch Au Gres River; . Avoid any solutions that would introduce a potential safety risk to people, property or non- targeted flora and fauna. . Final design must be agreed upon by MDNR, owner of the barrier, and USFWS.

CHAPTER 3 – *PLAN FORMULATION, EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN

The formulation, evaluation, and comparison of alternative plans comprise the third, fourth, and fifth steps of the USACE planning process as outlined in Section 2.1 – Overview of the Plan Formulation Process. These steps are often referred to collectively as “plan formulation.” Plan formulation is an iterative process that involves cycling through these steps to develop a reasonable range of alternatives, and then narrow those plans down to a final alternative, which is feasible for implementation.

Plan formulation for ecosystem restoration presents a challenge because alternatives have nonmonetary benefits. In this case, the formulation process is further influenced by the special nature of the sea lamprey projects, as the USACE will be further guided in plan selection by the USFWS, based on their field experience and expertise in trapping lamprey. The evaluation of alternatives for sea lamprey trap configurations and locations is more determined on maximum effectiveness and feasibility of the location, and much less on the comparison of benefits afforded from traditional ecosystem restoration projects.

The USACE evaluated a very limited array of management measures identified as acceptable by the USFWS (acting on behalf of the GLFC). The USACE plan formulation and evaluation process was followed to create alternatives using the limited number of locations. The USFWS then recommended to the USACE which of the alternatives and configurations of installation would be most effective at trapping lamprey at the project location.

3.1 – *Measure Identification

For feasibility level investigations, a management measure is a feature or activity at a site, which addresses one or more planning objectives. Measures are considered the “building blocks of alternatives.” A wide variety of measures are considered, some of which will not be determined to be feasible due to technical, economic, or environmental constraints. Each measure is assessed and a determination made regarding whether it should be retained in the formulation of alternative plans. A general description of the limited measures/alternatives available for consideration in this feasibility study is presented below, and results of the evaluation of these measures are presented in subsequent sections of the report.

3.1.1 – Options No Longer Under Consideration

Preliminary measure / alternative development included several potential locations for permanent trapping systems at and near the existing lamprey barrier site. The following were initially considered but were determined not to be feasible by the USFWS, the GLFC and the State of Michigan and were dismissed from further consideration:

Location Reason(s) Location Deemed Not Feasible New Dam Downstream Access issues to operate trap; available lands, stage increase with new dam causing inundation of private property.

3.1.2 – Management Measures

The USFWS has tried a wide variety of sea lamprey control measures across the Great Lakes basin. They have identified the most effective as barriers, traps, and lampricide. Because of the small array of common measures generally available for feasible implementation in sea lamprey projects, alternatives may be comprised of just one measure. However, the most effective plans tend to be comprised of multiple measures. In the case of this study, the existing barrier is effective and the project purpose is to increase removal of adult lamprey below the existing barrier, thus additional barriers are not included in the array of management measures considered. The following measures have been identified for this Section 506 project:

. Use of TFM lampricide treatment; . Use of temporary, portable trap systems; and . Installation of a permanent attractant water trap (AWT) system near the existing barrier.

The above management measures are combined or kept separate to create an array of alternatives. The alternatives are then further evaluated based on a set of criteria including estimated cost, relative ecosystem benefit, constructability, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency.

3.2 – Measure Benefits & Costs

Research, field work by the USFWS, and the GLFC initiatives support the measures identified above as effective sea lamprey control measures. Below is a discussion on efficiency, associated benefits, and costs of the measures. Section 3.5 – Evaluating Ecosystem Benefits) and Section 3.6 – Comparing Final Array of Alternative Plans further discuss benefits of measures proposed in this study.

3.2.1 – Efficiency and Benefits of Measures

The GLFC, in coordination with the USFWS and Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has been performing integrated sea lamprey control using lampricides and traps since the late 1950s. The effectiveness and benefits of these control measures have been well documented through years of field- work, research and reporting.

Lampricide application remains a key sea lamprey control method due to its high effectiveness (~95%) at killing larval sea lamprey (Table 1). However, lampricides are not used on adult lamprey and thus do not directly reduce adult reproduction. The GLFC convened an expert panel in the late 1990s and they concluded that along with lampricides, the adult/spawning-phase assessment program was integral to the integrated pest management program. Integrated management, including increased capture of adults, continues to be a key goal of the GLFC and USFWS as outlined in the GLFC’s “Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2011-2020” (Section 2.6).

There is a desire to improve adult capture rates (for population assessment purposes, removal of individuals from the ecosystem, and research) and increase the use of non-chemical tactics (i.e., pheromones) because of the high cost of the lampricide program. There is also the added concern that continued use of chemicals could become socially unacceptable over time, while a broader spectrum of control methods ensures more comprehensive and adaptable long-term management.

Pheromone research continues and field testing of this method is also part of the GLFC’s Strategic Vision. It should be noted that pheromones are intended to be used in conjunction with traps. Research and simulation models suggest that non-chemical treatment alternatives, such as the use of pheromones to attract or repel lamprey, would be most effective if conducted prior to spawning. Less adult lamprey in the system would remove natural pheromone clutter in the system and make it easier for adults to detect the synthetic or USFWS applied pheromones. Hence, increased adult trapping efficiency would benefit implementation of integrated sea lamprey control methods (see “Study Objectives” in Section 2.6).

The sea lamprey trap has a mesh design to allow flow to pass through with either inverted cones or ‘v’ shaped entrances on the sides open to the river (Figure 5). The lamprey migrate upstream seeking suitable spawning habitat and when they encounter an obstacle, such as a dam, they seek to find an opening in the dam to continue upstream. They swim back and forth along the face of the dam and swim into the cone or ‘v’, then through the opening and into the trap. Once inside, they continue to swim upstream against the current and rarely find the opening through which they entered. USFWS personnel remove the lamprey daily.

Years of field-work, research and reports demonstrate benefits of replacing temporary, portable traps with permanent, attractant water trapping systems. Capture rates at permanent attractant water traps (AWTs), as compared to temporary traps, is on average at least three-times higher (Table 1). Permanent AWTs use a consistent flow of water through funnels to attract lamprey into the trap whereas a traditional portable assessment trap offers no ability to adjust to fluctuate water flows. Sea lamprey are attracted to changes in water velocity thus when traveling upstream to spawn in tributaries they tend to move along the interface of the high and low velocity flow toward the edges of the river. Temporary traps are placed along the banks of rivers and not necessarily at this velocity interface, which would be the optimal location to maximize adult sea lamprey capture. As a result, capture of sea lamprey in temporary traps is largely due to chance rather than design of the trap system. Permanent AWTs allow for more control over velocity conditions so that sea lamprey are naturally drawn towards the trap openings as they travel upstream.

Permanent traps are most effective when placed immediately downstream of an obstruction or barrier (e.g. the face of a dam or the apron) that offers changes in water velocity and restricts the lamprey’s upstream travel, directing them to move laterally back and forth across the face of the obstruction. Placement of permanent traps at these types of locations takes advantage of their lateral movement to capture them. Temporary traps typically cannot be placed at these locations due to issues accessing and operating the traps. An AWT’s ability to take advantage of directed flow to attract an increased number of sea lamprey makes the AWT even more effective.

Compared to temporary traps, permanent AWTs provide more consistent and higher capture rates, which increases removal of spawning-phase lamprey and improves the ability to conduct adult population assessments. Adult and larval population assessments are important for monitoring effectiveness of the sea lamprey control program. Permanent traps also increase adult trapping capacity because they are larger in size than temporary traps and because flow can be manipulated.

Table 1 – Efficiency of Measures Larval Adult Lamprey Lamprey Average Approx. % Efficiency % Effective / Measure Description Efficiency1 Rating2 Rating Use of TFM only n/a no effect ~95%4 / high Use of temporary traps (in conjunction with scheduled TFM treatments) East Branch Au Gres River, Lake Huron 20 low n/a

Lake Superior tributaries 32 moderately low n/a Sault Ste. Marie, St. Mary's, Lake Huron3 9 low n/a Scoby Hill Dam, Cattaraugus Creek, Lake Erie 10 low n/a Average: 18 low n/a Installation of permanent AWT system (in conjunction with scheduled TFM treatments)

Lake Superior tributaries (and various 66 moderately high n/a published information) Sault Ste. Marie, St. Mary's, Lake Huron3 495 moderate n/a Scoby Hill Dam, Cattaraugus Creek, Lake Erie 59 moderate n/a Average: 58 moderate n/a 1 - % efficiency refers to % of estimated sea lamprey population that is captured. Numbers are based on trapping data found in the Sea Lamprey Control in the Great Lakes Annual Reports to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and data provided by the USFWS. Adult sea lamprey die almost immediately after spawning, thus lamprey caught are assumed to have not spawned. 2 - Efficiency Rating Definitions: 0-20% low 21-40% moderately low 41-60% moderate 61-80% moderately high 81-100% high 3 - Includes trapping locations at Clergue Generating Station in Canada, USACE lock property, Cloverland Electric plant (U.S.), and the U.S. Compensating Gates. 4 - Per the GLFC and the USFWS. 5 - Based on data from permanent traps located at Clergue Generating Station in Canada, USACE lock property, and Cloverland Electric plant (U.S.); but also includes data from a temporary trap used at the U.S. Compensating Gates.

Based on the available data, coordination with the USFWS, and the table above, a permanent AWT system constructed at the most desirable location (base of the dam apron) is expected to be approximately 58% efficient at trapping adult sea lamprey on average, while temporary trap efficiency is as low as 9% on the St. Marys River.

3.2.2 – Planning Level Cost Estimates Detailed discussion on planning level costs is presented in Section 3.7 – Selection of the Recommended Alternative and Section 4.4 – Cost Sharing and Sponsor Responsibilities. Conceptual planning level cost

estimates are prepared for alternatives that were identified by the study team and coordinated with the USFWS. Once the project alternatives have gone through the plan formulation process and additional design information is developed for the recommended alternative, a more detailed and precise cost estimate is developed (Appendix B). Estimates are developed using cost information from previous studies, lump sum and unit prices from actual local market rates for construction materials, quantities of excavation and placement, and for commonly-used equipment/plant, labor and material methods.

3.2.2.1 OMRR&R – Planning level Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Costs (OMRR&R) vary from project to project depending on the measures described within the recommended alternative. If no annual OMRR&R is recommended then the annual cost is zero. OMRR&R costs are projected to occur after the completion of the construction phase and continue for the period of analysis, typically 50 years. The USFWS anticipates that OMRR&R of permanent traps would be similar to that of temporary traps; approximately $5,000 annually. Estimated OMRR&R costs per alternative will not be cost-shared (it is solely non-Federal sponsor’s responsibility). OMRR&R costs are considered in the economic analysis in Section 3.6.3.3, but they are not included in the Summary of Implementation Costs per Alternative in Table 8.

3.2.2.2 Real Estate – An Informal Value Estimate (IVE) of the lands (as part of the Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations and Disposal areas [LERRDs]) necessary to implement measures for this ecosystem restoration project is included in the costs per measure, and is estimated to be $10,000 for the East Branch Au Gres River project. Real estate figures in report attachments and appendices are approximations and are provided only for determining estimated total project costs for planning purposes. Please reference Real Estate Plan (Appendix C).

3.2.2.3 Pre-Construction, Engineering & Design – Standards were used for this cost element to conservatively reflect further work to be completed on the recommended alternative. The percentage shown is that of the estimated total project cost – see Table 8 and Table 9. This estimated cost includes any required future sampling, testing and modeling, as well as more typical design analysis activities. The following standard percentages were used:

. Plans & Specifications – 8% . Construction Management – 10% . Engineering During Construction – 2.5% . Project Management – 2.5%

3.3 – *Alternative Plan Generation & Assumptions

On simpler projects, alternatives may be comprised of only one management measure. As is the case with this project, management measures essentially become the alternatives. The measures listed in Section 3.1.2 are analyzed alone and in tandem, in terms of costs and benefits. The USFWS has indicated they expect to continue to treat the river with TFM regardless of the alternative implemented, but the amounts and frequency may vary depending on the effectiveness of the implemented alternative from this project. Combined measures (such as permanent traps with TFM) generally show more benefits, but also have higher costs. Plan alternatives and assumptions related to permanent trap designs and future phases are noted below. The USFWS and the USACE collaborated on this task.

3.3.1 – Alternative 1 - No Action (temporary traps and TFM)

The no action alternative sets the baseline that all “Action” alternatives are measured against to determine a recommended alternative.

For the no action alternative, it is expected that the USFWS would continue use of the less-effective temporary, portable sea lamprey traps at the MDNR barrier and conduct TFM treatments, as needed, on the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the barrier to the mouth at Lake Huron.

The no action alternative does not preclude the USFWS, the GLFC, the State of Michigan or any other entity from developing their own project, but it is expected that no project would be developed by the these entities when forecasting future conditions under this alternative (Section 2.4 – Future Without Project Conditions).

3.3.2 – Alternative 2 – Control Sea Lamprey with TFM Only

Alternative 2 consists of treating the reach of the East Branch Au Gres River between the barrier and the river mouth at Lake Huron with TFM and discontinuing use of temporary, portable traps at the MDNR barrier. No permanent trapping system would be installed and no temporary traps would be used to control spawning-phase lamprey; thereby allowing adults to spawn freely each year. This alternative would eliminate installing and/or maintaining any traps (temporary/portable or permanent) at the barrier, but would shift the sole reliance on controlling lamprey in the East Branch Au Gres River to the USFWS’s use of TFM on larval phase lamprey. TFM is an effective tool for controlling larval phase lamprey; however, the USFWS and the GLFC would like to find an alternative that reduces their reliance on chemicals in the sea lamprey control program and this alternative is expected to involve higher levels of TFM usage as compared to the no action alternative or the permanent trap installation alternatives.

3.3.3 – Alternative 3 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System at the West Bank of the Barrier

This alternative would involve construction of a permanent AWT complex for sea lamprey on the west bank downstream of the barrier (Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8). The trap structure (trap, lift, and platform) would intersect with the existing MDNR barrier. The trap structure would utilize piles and galvanized steel plates and angles to direct flow and secure the trap. In addition, the platform and the manual, mechanical hoist, which is needed for personnel to access and operate the trap during operations, would be pile supported and connect to a proposed steel sheet pile wall. The proposed trap system would not rely on any existing structures for support and would not impact any existing scour stone. A new access ramp would be built from the road to the trap structure, using approximately 7.5 CYD of fill. Maintenance on the existing access road to the site would need to be conducted to allow large trucks associated with the lamprey trapping efforts to access the site safely, with approximately 235 CYD of fill being used to build up the road bed. The steel sheet pile (SSP) on the east bank would be rebuilt under this alternative to maintain existing flows. The AWT system would enable capture of spawning-phase sea lamprey during the spring migration (late March through June). The USFWS is expected to continue periodically treating the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the barrier with TFM lampricide, but construction and operation of permanent traps would likely lead to a sizeable reduction in recruitment of transformed sea lamprey from the East Branch Au Gres River barrier into Lake Huron and over time it is expected the use of TFM lampricide treatments would be less than Alternatives 1 or 2.

Figure 6. Overview of Alternative 3 with one permanent sea lamprey trap on the west bank of the stream, downstream of the MDNR barrier.

Existing East Wing Wall Barrier

Figure 7. Existing MDNR Sea Lamprey Barrier, looking east.

Staging Area West Wing Wall Proposed Permanent AWT System

Figure 8. Proposed Location of the permanent sea lamprey AWT system.

3.3.4 – Alternative 4 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System at the East Bank of the Barrier

Similar to Alternative 3, this alternative would involve construction of a permanent AWT system, but on the east side of the river (Figure 7). All proposed activities in Alternative 3 would occur under Alternative 4, except in regards to the access. There is currently no access to the east side of the barrier so a new walkway or a road from the east would be constructed to allow the trap to be emptied. The AWT system would enable capture of spawning-phase sea lamprey during the spring migration (late March through June). The improvements to the existing access road, the staging area, and steel sheet piling activities described in Alternative 3 would also occur under this alternative. The USFWS is expected to continue periodically treating the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the barrier with TFM lampricide, but construction and operation of permanent traps would likely lead to a sizeable reduction in recruitment from the East Branch Au Gres River and over time it is expected the use of TFM lampricide treatments would be less than Alternatives 1 or 2.

3.3.5 – Alternative 5 – Install Permanent AWT System at Both Wing Walls and Construct Walkway Across the Face of the Barrier

Similar to Alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative would involve construction of a permanent AWT system, but on both sides of the river. Similar to Alternative 4, a new access walkway would have to be constructed to reach the east bank of the river in order to allow personnel to access and empty each of the traps. The improvements to the existing access road, the staging area, and the steel sheet piling activities described in Alternative 3 and 4 would also occur under this alternative. The AWT system would enable capture of spawning-phase sea lamprey during the spring migration (late March through June). Multiple traps would be expected to be more efficient than a single trap, but at a diminishing rate. The USFWS is expected to continue periodically treating the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the barrier with TFM lampricide, but construction and operation of permanent traps would likely lead to a sizeable reduction in recruitment from the East Branch Au Gres River and over time it is expected the use of TFM lampricide treatments would be less than Alternatives 1 or 2.

3.4 – Acceptability, Completeness, Effectiveness and Efficiency

Acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency are four evaluation criteria specified by the USACE to use in the screening of alternative plans; with exception of the no action alternative which is always considered in the final array of alternative plans. Alternatives considered in any planning study, including ecosystem restoration studies, should meet minimum subjective standards of these criteria in order to qualify for further consideration and comparison with other plans. The alternatives are screened below based on the following explanation of the criteria (Table 2).

Acceptability: Acceptability is the extent to which the alternative plans are acceptable in terms of applicable laws, regulations and public policies. In addition, an ecosystem restoration plan should be acceptable to State and Federal resource agencies, local governments and stakeholders. There should be evidence of broad-based public consensus and support for the plan. The recommended alternative must be acceptable to the study cost-sharing partner (the GLFC). However, this does not mean that the recommended alternative must be the locally preferred plan.

The recommended alternative calls for a less-costly, more-effective method to trap and remove spawning-phase, adult sea lamprey from the system, with the least negative impact(s) to the East

Branch Au Gres River ecosystem and hydraulic function. This plan is most congruent with the desired future conditions of the East Branch Au Gres watershed, in which local, state and Federal agencies are working together to maintain existing riverine conditions. The implementation of the recommended alternative shall be acceptable to those local, state and Federal agencies, as well as non-government organizations, that have missions to restore and maintain ecosystem integrity to the East Branch Au Gres watershed.

Completeness: Completeness is the extent to which the alternative plans provide and account for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the realization of the planning objectives, including actions by other Federal and non-Federal entities.

A plan must provide and account for all necessary components or other actions needed to ensure the realization of the planned restoration outputs. This may require relating the plan to other types of public or private actions (i.e. TFM treatments) if these actions are crucial to the outcome of the restoration objective. Real estate, operations and maintenance, monitoring, and sponsorship factors must be considered. Where there is uncertainty concerning the functioning of certain restoration features and an adaptive management and/or operation plan has been proposed, it must be accounted for in the plan.

The recommended alternative is the most complete alternative that would effectively meet the objective of capturing and removing spawning-phase, adult sea lamprey from the East Branch Au Gres River.

Effectiveness: Effectiveness is the extent to which the alternative plans contribute to achieve the planning objectives. An ecosystem restoration plan must make a significant contribution to addressing the specified restoration problems or opportunities (i.e. restore important ecosystem structure or function to some meaningful degree). The problems identified that may be addressed under Section 506 authority are directly related to the presence and proliferation of sea lamprey in the East Branch Au Gres River and their negative impacts to the native fishery of Lake Huron.

Each of these opportunities also contributes to the overall objective of the GLFER program by reducing the sea lamprey population to restore fisheries in the Great Lakes, and minimize the ecological effects of the control program.

Efficiency: Efficiency is the extent to which a recommended alternative plan represents a cost-effective means of achieving the objectives. It is determined that the plan’s restoration outputs cannot be produced more cost effectively by another planning alternative, or by another agency or institution. More detailed cost estimates are produced for alternatives carried through for a more detailed analysis after screening based on the acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency evaluation criteria.

Alternatives undergo a preliminary screening based on acceptability, completeness and effectiveness as identified in Table 2. Efficiency of the remaining alternatives is evaluated through the economic analysis in Section 3.6.3.

Table 2 – Summary of Acceptability, Completeness and Effectiveness Evaluation Alternative1 Does Alternative meet the following criteria? Acceptability Completeness Effectiveness 1-No Action The no action alternative is always carried forward for consideration in the final array (Temporary Traps of alternative plans & TFM) 2-Control Sea Yes. The use of TFM is in No. Addresses larval Yes. This alternative does Lamprey with TFM accordance with Federal lamprey but does not provide benefits to the overall Only and State law. address removal of effectiveness of the sea adult, spawning-phase lamprey control program, by lamprey. reducing the number of sea lamprey larva. 3-Install Permanent Yes. Installation of an Yes. An AWT system Yes. Traps would capture adult, Attractant Water AWT system would be in would capture more sea spawning-phase lamprey and Trap (AWT) System accordance with Federal lampreys thereby contribute to the integrated on West Wing Wall and State laws and reducing the population control goal of the project. at Barrier supported by the NFS. in the East Au Gres River and reducing the need for TFM treatments. 4-Install Permanent Yes. Installation of an Yes. An AWT system Yes. Traps would capture adult, AWT System at AWT system would be in would capture more sea spawning-phase lamprey and East Wing Wall of accordance with Federal lampreys thereby contribute to the integrated the Barrier. and State laws and reducing the population control goal of the project. supported by the NFS. in the East Au Gres River and reducing the need for TFM treatments. 5-Install Permanent Yes. Installation of AWT Yes. An AWT system Yes. Traps would capture adult, AWT System at systems would be in would capture more sea spawning-phase lamprey and both wing walls accordance with Federal lampreys thereby contribute to the integrated and construct and State laws and reducing the population control goal of the project. walkway across supported by the NFS. in the East Au Gres River face of the Barrier and reducing the need for TFM treatments. 1 - As developed during plan formulation in Section 3.3 of this report.

3.5 – Evaluating Ecosystem Benefits

Analysis of the alternatives above using the acceptability, completeness and effectiveness criteria screens out Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would likely result in an increase in the sea lamprey population relative to the future without project and therefore does not meet the objectives of this project. Based on this evaluation, Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 are carried on for further analysis and comparison which includes evaluating benefits, trade-off-analysis, and cost (efficiency criteria).

A variety of benefits can be associated with the protection of the Great Lakes fishes such as: being a source of food for other fishes and mammals, providing recreational/commercial fishing, acting as a subsistence source for Native American Tribes, and being an essential part of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Because of the challenge of dealing with large-scale, complex ecosystems and non- monetized benefits, the concept of output significance plays an important role in ecosystem restoration

evaluation. Along with information regarding benefits and cost of the measures, information on the significance of ecosystem outputs help determine whether the proposed environmental investment is worth its cost and whether a particular alternative should be recommended. Statements of significance provide qualitative information to help decision makers evaluate whether the value of the resources of any given restoration alternative are worth the costs incurred to produce them.

In the Great Lakes basin, dams built for a variety of purposes have effectively blocked lamprey migrations in over 60 rivers, headwaters and streams. The success of these structures has led to plans for the construction of up to 90 trap/barrier complexes specifically for sea lamprey control on candidate streams. Since these complexes are designed to be as low as possible to avoid induced flooding, some escapement during extreme high water events may occur. Although TFM has not been shown to have serious impacts on stream ecology, some species including various invertebrates, native lamprey, and sturgeon have been shown to be sensitive to the lampricide. Reducing lampricide application could decrease any detrimental effects on non-target species that currently occur. In addition, TFM treatments are costly and time consuming.

Pillar 2 of the GLFC Strategic Vision (Section 2.6) targets integrated control. Goals that support this Pillar recognize that permanent traps are more efficient than temporary traps, and that increased trapping efficiency would help establish more accurate adult population estimates and would remove spawning- phase lamprey from the system. In addition, the GLFC and the USFWS have an objective to integrate pheromone technology and other trapping methods to support integrated control. Replacing temporary traps with permanent traps supports this objective. The success of the permanent traps would be measured by the USFWS during sea lamprey control activities such as larval assessments and adult trapping (see Appendix G – Monitoring Plan).

Capturing and removing adult spawning-phase sea lamprey before they are able to spawn is expected to reduce the number of larvae produced each year, which in turn should reduce the number of recruits in out-years. Fewer recruits entering Lake Huron would result in fewer desirable Great Lakes fish being killed annually by sea lamprey. In the table below, the number of adults removed is calcuated based on estimated trapping efficiency for that alternative. For example, the estimated trapping efficiency of Alternative 3 is 58% based on the average efficiency of permanent traps shown in Table 1. Of the USFWS estimated adult sea lamprey population of 4,560, it is expected that 58% (2,645 lamprey) would not reproduce under this alternative, hence producing notably fewer larvae when compared to Alternative 1, no action (Table 3; USFWS data).

Table 3 – Annual Alternative Effectiveness – Effects on Spawning-Phase Adults

Estimated % Estimated Estimated Efficiency of Average Average # of Alternative to Number of Adult Sea Remove Adult Adult Lamprey Net Estimated Lamprey in East Lamprey in East Removed in Number Sea Branch Au Gres Branch Au Gres East Branch Au Lamprey Alternative1 River 2 River3 Gres River Removed 1- No Action (Current Condition; Use of 4,560 20% 912 - Temporary Traps & TFM) 3- Install Permanent AWT System on West 4,560 58% 2,645 1,733 Bank at Barrier & TFM 4- Install Permanent AWT System on East Bank at Barrier with 4,560 58% 2,645 1,733 elevated walkway & TFM 5- Install Permanent AWT System on East and West Bank at 4,560 70% 3,192 2,280 Barrier with elevated walkway & TFM 1 - The no action alternative (current condition) and the action alternatives assume that the USFWS will continue TFM treatments as needed / scheduled. 2 - Approx. average based on USFWS population estimates of spawning-phase lamprey in E. Branch Au Gres River using mark/re-capture between the years 2010 - 2014. 3 - See Table 1 – Efficiency of Measures, Section 3.2-Measure Benefits & Costs. Adult lamprey die almost immediately after spawning, thus lamprey caught are assumed to have not spawned.

The infestation of the sea lamprey into the Great Lakes was a major factor in the collapse of the fishery and led to control efforts that have resulted in the partial recovery of many fish species. Lamprey control is a key component to maintaining this fishery as evidenced by the continuing bi-national effort supported by the GLFC. Assuming a permanent AWT on the East Branch Au Gres River has 58% capture efficiency compared to 20% for the temporary trap, installing one permanent trap on either the west or east bank downstream of the barrier would capture an estimated 1,733 more sea lamprey at current population levels compared to the no action alternative (Table 3).

Given the complex life history of sea lamprey and the natural variability in the environment, there is no method to project the long-term quantitative impact of an AWT system on the sea lamprey population at this time. Unlike salmonids, sea lamprey do not have a homing capability to return to their natal river, but instead are attracted by pheromones released from the larvae, meaning that some adults coming to the East Branch Au Gres River to spawn originated in a different tributary. Therefore, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the larval and adult populations in the East Branch Au Gres River, making it difficult to measure the impacts of the traps in one tributary on the overall population.

Also, there is some evidence of compensatory population growth in sea lamprey meaning that as larval populations decline individual growth rates increase and the sex ratio skews towards more females in a given year class (Jones et al. 2003; Zerrenner & Marsden 2005). Environmental factors, such as temperature and flow, can also influence spawning success and larval survival. These characteristics, as well as larvae remaining in the sediments for 3-6 years and the uncertainty of how lamprey may be managed in the future (ex: more time between TFM treatments), make it difficult to predict the population size into the future for the East Branch Au Gres River.

The Sea Lamprey Barrier Taskforce considers properly designed permanent trap/barrier complexes to be highly effective as compared to the use of temporary traps. It is unlikely that the Great Lakes will ever be sea lamprey free again, thus constant and long-term management is essential to reduce the sea lamprey population to a lower, more acceptable level to ensure protection of native Great Lakes fish. The permanent trapping system in the East Branch Au Gres River is expected to capture an additional 38% of the sea lamprey population than the current temporary traps (58% vs.20%) and that additional 38% of the adult lamprey population (1,733) will no longer be spawning in the river. Therefore, we are confident the larval and transformer population will be reduced, but the level of reduction cannot be predicted given the many factors that influence population growth. For more information on how this project will be monitored please refer to Appendix G – Monitoring Plan.

Removing adult sea lamprey before they spawn ultimately reduces the number of larvae produced in the river, and thus the number of transformers that enter the Great Lakes. Assuming the average Great Lakes lamprey kills approximately 40 pounds of fish in its lifetime, and that the average Great Lakes fish preyed upon by a lamprey weighs 6 pounds, over 6 fish are saved for every lamprey that doesn’t transform into an adult.

As more sea lamprey barriers and permanent trap complexes are constructed around the Great Lakes, additional information will be gained about the magnitude of impacts traps have on the overall sea lamprey population. Additional trap complexes throughout the Great Lakes will lead to more effective sea lamprey management and an overall reduction in the population as the probability of capturing adults will increase with each trap complex that is built. The action alternatives assessed in Table 3 would contribute to the basin-wide sea lamprey management plan developed by the GLFC and lead to benefits to the Great Lakes fishery through less wounded and killed fish by adult sea lamprey.

3.6 – Comparing Final Array of Alternative Plans

The alternatives listed below will undergo a final trade-off analysis, to aid in the selection of the recommended alternative. The selected action alternative will have a detailed cost estimate and design drawings prepared.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Temporary Traps and TFM) Alternative 3 – Install Permanent AWT System on West Bank Downstream of Barrier Alternative 4 – Install Permanent AWT System on East Bank Downstream of Barrier with pile supported walkway Alternative 5 – Install Permanent AWT System on East and West Bank Downstream of Barrier with pile supported walkway

3.6.1 – Alternative Plan Trade-Off Analysis

A comparison of the final array of alternatives must be made and trade-offs among the positive and negative aspects of each alternative are presented in order to identify the recommended alternative. The evaluation includes a measure of how well the plans meet planning objectives, including NER benefits, the effectiveness of the alternative, and its efficiency.

As part of this evaluation process, the effectiveness of each of the most likely alternatives is considered individually and compared to the No-Action (baseline) condition. In this step, the most likely / effective alternatives are compared against “advantages” and “disadvantages” based on the specific project location. This step commonly reduces the number of options available to implement down to one or two remaining alternatives, typically with location for maximum efficiency the remaining decision, along with consideration of the least costly method to achieve the desired outcome. The environmental impacts of placing pilings into the river are considered minimal and similar for Action Alternatives 3, 4 and 5.

Alternative 1 – No Action (Temporary Traps and TFM)

Advantages - This alternative would be the lowest cost to implement because there would be no action on the part of the USACE.

Disadvantages - In this alternative, the capture of spawning-phase adult lamprey would continue to be more by chance than by design. Capture rates would continue to be lower as compared to those expected from a permanent trap, thus the GLFC and USFWS goal of increasing trapping efficiency of adults would not be advanced.

Conclusion – Under the No Action alternative, the USFWS would continue to operate as it has by using temporary traps and TFM as scheduled, in coordination with the GLFC. This alternative is not as effective as those alternatives that implement AWT systems. In addition, TFM is an effective tool for controlling larval phase lamprey; however, the USFWS and the GLFC would like to reduce their reliance on chemicals in the sea lamprey control program and this alternative is expected to involve higher levels of TFM usage as compared to installing a permanent trapping system. Since this alternative does not meet the goals of this study or the GLFC and the USFWS (the project sponsors/stakeholders and proponents), this alternative is not recommended for implementation.

Alternative 3 – Install Permanent AWT System at West Wing Wall Downstream of Barrier

Advantages - This alternative is the most complete, effective, acceptable and efficient alternative based on the latest, most cost-effective lamprey control measures, and what is deemed as the most effective lamprey trapping location to the sponsor. An AWT at the west bank downstream of the MDNR sea lamprey barrier would provide an effective and preferable single trapping location, based on expert opinion.

Disadvantages - There is a project cost, compared to Alternative 1 – No Action. Alternative 3 will not capture as many lamprey as putting multiple traps across the river.

Conclusion - This alternative would provide greater ecological benefits than the No Action

alternative, as well as meet the goals outlined by the sponsor. No new construction would have to occur from the east bank. Since this alternative meets the goals of this study, demonstrates the ecosystem benefits, is the preferred course of action by the GLFC and the USFWS (both in measure and location), and is considered a key part of integrated sea lamprey control plan, (when combined with TFM or other measures such as emerging pheromone technology) which combines measures that effectively address both larvae and spawning-phase adults.

Alternative 4 – Install Permanent AWT System at East Wing Wall Downstream of Barrier

Advantages - This alternative is complete and effective, and shows greater acceptability and efficiency than the No Action alternative.

Disadvantages - There is a project cost, compared to Alternative 1 – No Action. Alternative 4 will not capture as many lamprey as putting multiple traps across the river, or as the single trap location in Alternative 3. Acceptability is limited with Alternative 4 by the logistics associated with building and maintaining a trap on the east side of the river. Further, a pile-supported walkway would be required in order to build and maintain a sea lamprey trap on the east bank of the river. Wetlands would need to be assessed as potential impacts from creating new access to the east bank could occur.

Conclusion - This alternative would provide greater ecological benefits than the No Action alternative, as well as meet the goals outlined by the sponsor. However, it has limited acceptability due to the potential to impact wetlands in order to permanently access the east bank of the river and the higher construction cost associated with gaining access to the east bank, than for that of Alternative 3.

Alternative 5 – Install Permanent AWT System at West and East Wing Walls Downstream of Barrier

Advantages - This alternative is complete, effective, and efficient since this alternative would meet the objectives of the project resulting in a reduction to the sea lamprey population in the East Au Gres River.

Disadvantages - There is a project cost, compared to Alternative 1 – No Action. Similar to Alternative 4, acceptability is limited with Alternative 5 by the logistics associated with building and maintaining a trap on the east side of the river. A pile-supported walkway would be required in order to build and maintain a sea lamprey trap on the east bank of the river. Wetlands would need to be assessed as potential impacts from creating new access to the east bank could occur.

Conclusion - This alternative would provide greater ecological benefits than all other alternatives, as well as meet the goals outlined by the sponsor. However, this alternative would require new construction on the east bank of the river that could negatively impact a wetland.

The environmental impacts associated with all the Action Alternatives (3, 4 and 5) are considered minimal if access to the trap on the eastern bank is with a pile supported walkway. If access to the east bank is by new road, then significant environmental impacts occur with road construction through a wetland complex for Alternatives 4 and 5. New roadway access from the east was deemed to be not acceptable when other less damaging measures exist.

3.6.2 – Significance

3.6.2.1 Institutional Recognition of Significance

Significance based on institutional recognition means that the importance of an environmental resource is acknowledged in the laws, adopted plans, and other policy statements of public agencies, tribes, or private groups. Sources of institutional recognition include public laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, treaties, and other policy statements of the Federal Government; plans, laws, resolutions, and other policy statements of states with jurisdiction in the planning area; laws, plans, codes, ordinances, and other policy statements of regional and local public entities with jurisdiction in the planning area; and charters, bylaws, and other policy statements of private groups. The institutional recognition pertaining to this sea lamprey project includes:

GLFER, Section 506 of the WRDA 2000 – a USACE program for implementing projects for restoration of aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes watershed. The program is implemented in partnership with the GLFC. A GLFER Project Review Committee helps solicit, review and evaluate GLFER proposals for potential projects.

EO 13340, Establishment of Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and Promotion of a Regional Collaboration of National Significance for the Great Lakes (2004) – This EO identified the Great Lakes as a national treasure and defined a Federal policy to support local and regional efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem through the establishment of regional collaboration. A number of activities have been accomplished by Federal agencies working in partnership with state, tribal and local governments in response to the EO. The USACE has been a major participant in these activities. The EO established the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. The Task Force worked with the governors, mayors, and tribal leaders from the eight Great Lakes states to establish the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. The initial goal of the Collaboration was to develop a “strategy for the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes” within 1 year. The Collaboration developed the strategy by using teams consisting of 1,500 stakeholders. The teams identified eight priority issues, of which “habitat/species” restoration and protection and “invasive species” are addressed by this study. EO 13340 is further discussed in Section 2.6.

P.L. 111-88 - Interior Department and Further Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2010 (2009) – This P.L. authorized funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative [GLRI]. Invasive species control is one of the main focus areas for the GLRI.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 – All Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species. The purpose of the act is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species. Although no Federally endangered species have been identified within the immediate study area, actions to support a healthy Great Lakes ecosystem would benefit endangered species.

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 – All Federal departments and agencies to the extent practicable and consistent with the agencies’ authorities should conserve and promote conservation of non-game fish and wildlife and their habitats. Actions to control the invasive sea lamprey directly benefit the Great Lakes fish and indirectly benefits wildlife dependent on Great Lakes fish.

EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (1970), as amended by EO 11991 (1977) – The Federal Government shall provide leadership in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation’s environment to sustain and enrich human life. Actions to control the invasive sea lamprey directly benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States of America and Canada (1954) – International agreement authorizing the creation of the GLFC. Article I included “eradicate or minimize the populations of the sea lamprey” in the Great Lakes.

3.6.2.2 Public Recognition of Significance

Public recognition means that some segment of the general public recognizes the importance of an environmental resource, as evidenced by people engaged in activities that reflect an interest or concern for that particular resource. Such activities may involve membership in an organization, financial contributions to resource-related efforts, and providing volunteer labor and correspondence regarding the importance of the resource.

The devastating effect sea lamprey had on Great Lakes fisheries is commonly known. As evident by the length of time the sea lamprey control program has been in existence, support of lamprey control is generally well accepted by the public due to the great importance of commercial and recreational fisheries within the Great Lakes. In addition, there are several local conservation groups in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The Huron Pines watershed conservation group, based in Grayling, Michigan, has been working to support several restoration projects on the East Branch Au Gres River. They have been working with Iosco County to create an inventory of all stream crossings and identify priority projects to improve water quality and fish passage.

3.6.2.3 Technical Recognition of Significance

Technical recognition means that the resource qualifies as significant based on its “technical” merits, which are based on scientific knowledge or judgment of critical resource characteristics. Whether a resource is determined to be significant may of course vary based on differences across geographical areas and spatial scales. While technical significance of a resource may depend on whether a local, regional, or national perspective is undertaken, typically a watershed or larger (e.g., ecosystem, landscape, or eco-region) context should be considered. Typical considerations include resource scarcity, biodiversity, status and trends over time, connectivity, limiting habitat, and representativeness.

Technical recognition of the Great Lakes fisheries and ecosystem as a significant resource is evident by the vast amounts of past and ongoing scientific research. World-wide, the Great Lakes are recognized as a unique ecosystem, being the largest surface freshwater system on earth.

3.6.3 – Economic Analysis of Alternatives

3.6.3.1 – Introduction

The Principles and Guidelines (March 10, 1983) state that the Federal objective of water and land related resource planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's environment. This guidance directs Federal agencies to formulate plans that are economically

and environmentally sound. Generally, the economic effectiveness of plans or alternatives developed for Federal water resource projects are evaluated through the use of a benefit-cost analysis. However, this analysis is impractical when evaluating environmental benefits.

The USACE Institute for Water Resources (IWR) provides step-by-step guidance on how to conduct cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses (CE/ICA) in their Evaluation of Environmental Investment Procedures Manual (IWR Report # 95-R-1). CE/ICA is recommended when evaluating the effectiveness of environmental restoration projects. When utilizing these tools, the costs and non-monetary outputs of each plan are weighed against each other to aid in the identification of the National Environmental Restoration (NER) plan. Cost effectiveness (CE) is used to screen out those inefficient alternatives that produce fewer environmental benefits at a higher per dollar cost. Once these inefficient alternatives have been eliminated, incremental cost analysis (ICA) is applied to reveal changes in costs as levels of environmental outputs increase. For these two analyses to be useful in decision-making, the nonmonetary outputs produced by each plan must be quantified in the same unit of output or measurement (i.e. sea lamprey removed) to ensure that all plans are comparable. Further, the alternatives must be incremental in nature, either by feature or benefits achieved.

3.6.3.2 – Ecosystem Restoration Outputs Currently it is estimated by the USFWS that there are 4,560 adult sea lamprey spawning in the East Branch Au Gres River annually. Utilization of the permanent traps and TFM would result in a reduction in this number to an estimated 1,915 annually for Alternative 3 and 4 and 1,368 annually for Alternative 5.

Table 4 summarizes the number of sea lamprey removed associated with each of the alternatives. Under the no action plan or Alternative 1, which involves the use of temporary traps, an estimated 912 sea lamprey would be removed per year. Since Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar in design and operation, they are expected to yield the same number lamprey removed (2,645). In contrast, Alternative 5 calls for installing permanent AWT traps on both sides of the river and, thus, it is anticipated that more lamprey would be trapped on a given year. Of the action-oriented alternatives, Alternative 5 produces the highest number of lamprey removed (3,192).

Table 4 – East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Removed Estimated Number Net Sea of Sea Lamprey Lamprey Alternative Removed Annually Removed by Trapping* Annually 1 - No Action / Without Project - Continued Use of Temporary Traps & Application of 912 0 TFM 3 - Install Permanent AWT System at the 2,645 1,733 West Bank Downstream of Existing Barrier 4 - Install Permanent AWT System at the East Bank with Pile Supported Walkway 2,645 1,733 Downstream of Existing Barrier 5 - Install Permanent AWT System at the West and East Bank with Pile Supported 3,192 2,280 Walkway Downstream of Existing Barrier * Refer to Table 3 for additional details.

3.6.3.3 – Project Costs

Parametric costs for the examined alternatives are presented in Table 5 – Economic Costs of Alternatives. In addition to the parametric costs, Table 5 includes the economic costs associated with implementing each of the alternatives. Economic costs are the costs of the resources required or displaced to achieve each of the plans (including opportunity costs). The costs presented in Table 5 were estimated in FY2015 dollars.

Table 5 – Cost of Alternatives Including Interest During Construction, and Present Values 2015 dollars, FY15 Interest Rate of 3.375% Item Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Construction Cost Install Permanent Install Permanent Install Permanent AWT AWT System at the AWT System on East System on East and West West Bank Bank Downstream of Bank Downstream of Downstream of Barrier with Pile Barrier with Pile Barrier Supported Walkway Supported Walkway

Construction $592,433 $888,604 $ 1,464,303

Non Construction Costs LERRDs1 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Planning, Engineering & Design(PED) Project Management $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Planning & Environmental Compliance $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Engineering & Design $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 Engineering Tech Review ITR $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Contracting $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 Total PED $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 Construction Management Construction Management $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 Engineering During Construction $15,455 $23,181 $38,199 Project Management $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Construction Management $73,455 $81,181 $96,199

TOTAL PROJECT COST $744,000 $1,048,000 $1,639,000

PV Monitoring Costs2 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Interest During Construction3 $3,000 $5,000 $9,000 TOTAL PV OF PROJECT COST – FY154 $765,000 $1,071,000 $1,666,000

AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS5 $32,000 $45,000 $69,000

1 – Preliminary estimates for Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations and Disposal Areas 2 - Monitoring costs are estimated at $4,000 per year for the first 5 years. Present Value determined utilizing FY15 rate of 3.375% for 5 months then extended over 50 year life of the project to be additive. 3 - Interest During Construction calculated based on a 4 month construction period and FY15 rate of 3.375% 4 - Total Project Cost plus PV Monitoring plus IDC. 5- Utilizing 50 years and FY 15 rate of 3.375%

Alternative 3 is the least expensive of the action-oriented plans whereas Alternative 5 is the most expensive to implement. While Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar in design, Alternative 4 is more costly to construct since this alternative requires the construction of a footbridge due to access issues on the east side of the river bank. Alternative 5 would construct traps on both sides of the river which results in a higher construction cost in comparison to Alternative 3 and 4.

Lampricide will continue to be an integral part of lamprey control on the East Au Gres River with or without the Federal project. It is anticipated that the permanent traps will reduce the frequency of lampricide treatments; however, at this time it is not clear by how much the treatments will be reduced. Consequently, this analysis assumes that lampricide treatments remain constant and the costs and benefits associated with these treatments use have not been included. Costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the traps are expected to remain the same with or without a Federal project. Thus, these costs were also not included in the costs presented in Table 5.

3.6.3.4 – Cost Effectiveness & Incremental Cost Analyses

Cost effectiveness analysis is designed to compare costs and outcomes (or effects) of two or more courses of action. The Corps of Engineers utilizes cost effectiveness analysis in environmental restoration projects since benefits (i.e., lamprey removed) are not measured in monetary terms. More specifically, the analysis is used to evaluate the cost of implementing an alternative to how effective the plan is at producing environmental benefits.

In order to select a cost effective plan, it is necessary to quantify the habitat or output produced by each alternative. The benefits estimated for each alternative is expressed as unitary measure and is based on a yearly average (sea lamprey removed). Benefits that are expected to exist in the future without- project conditions are estimated and then compared to each action-oriented alternative so that the “lift” or net production of each alternative can be identified. The benefits that would exist for the No Action Plan, or for Alternative 1, is estimated to be 912 sea lamprey removed. For Alternative 3 and Alternative 4, the proposed plans would lead to an estimated 2,645 sea lamprey being removed and would yield a “lift” or net production of 1,733 sea lamprey removed in comparison to the No Action Plan. Alternative 5 proposes the construction of traps on both sides of the river and, as a result, yields the highest number of sea lamprey removed. Specifically, Alternative 5 leads to an estimated 3,192 and a lift/net production of 2,280 sea lamprey being removed.

Average Annual Cost per sea lamprey removed facilitates the comparison of production efficiencies across alternatives by placing each alternative plan in the common metric of dollars per unit of output. Table 6 presents the average annual cost per sea lamprey removed for each alternative considered in this study. Alternative 3 has the lowest average annual cost per sea lamprey removed ($18) while Alternative 5 has the highest average annual cost per sea lamprey removed ($30). Alternative 4 has a higher average annual cost per sea lamprey removed (lift) in comparison to Alternative 3 ($26 vs. $18, respectively) but produces the same amount of benefit (1,733 sea lamprey removed (lift)). As a result, this alternative is not cost effective and is not carried forward into the incremental costs analysis.

Table 6 – Cost Effectiveness Analysis in 2015 Dollars

Table 6 - Cost Effectiveness Analysis in 2015 Dollars Net Sea Average Annual Average Number of Lamprey Cost per Sea Cost Effective Annual Sea Lamprey Removed Lamprey Alternative Costs Removed (Lift) Removed (Lift) 1 $0 912 - - Y 3 $32,000 2,645 1,733 $18 Y 4 $45,000 2,645 1,733 $26 N 5 $69,000 3,192 2,280 $30 Y

$80,000 A v $70,000 Alternative 5 e r $60,000 a $50,000 g C Alternative 4 e o $40,000 s A t $30,000 n Alternative 3 n $20,000 u a $10,000 l $0 Alternative 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Net Number of Adult Sea Lamprey Removed

Figure 9 - Cost Effectiveness Frontier

Figure 9, above, presents the cost effectiveness frontier for all of the alternatives. The cost effectiveness frontier is indicated by a line passing through all cost effective plans. Any plans above and to the left of plans on the “frontier” line are not cost effective. Alternative 5 is located in the northeast quadrant of the graph since this alternative is the most expensive plan to implement and creates the greatest amount of habitat. It should be noted that the point of origin for the cost effectiveness frontier line represents the location of Alternative 1. The cost frontier runs through Alternatives 1, 3 and 5 since these alternatives are cost effective. In contrast, Alternative 4 is located to the left of the cost effective frontier because this alternative is not cost effective.

Once cost effective plans are identified, the incremental cost analysis (ICA) is used to determine which alternative provides the greatest increase in output (i.e., sea lamprey removed) for the lowest increase in costs. In other words, ICA is used to identify the plan or alternative that is the most efficient at producing environmental benefits. Notably, this alternative typically has the lowest average annual incremental cost. In addition, IWR Planning Suite’s Analyze Tool can be used to facilitate ICA analysis and will identify the “Best Buy” or the NER plan. Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 were identified as cost effective and were carried forward into the ICA. Table 7, below, presents each alternative’s incremental cost, incremental output, and incremental cost per incremental sea lamprey removed. In addition, Figure 10 illustrates a graphical representation of each alternative’s incremental output and cost. Alternative 3’s plan proposes the construction of one trap whereas Alternative 5 is a two-trap alternative. While the incremental costs for both of these alternatives are nearly the same, the incremental output produced by Alternative 5 is lower in comparison to Alternative 3 (1,733 vs. 547, respectively). As a result, the incremental cost per incremental sea lamprey removed is lower for Alternative 3 and identified as the recommended (or NER) plan.

Table 7 - Incremental Cost Analysis in 2015 Dollars Incremental Cost Per Net Sea Incremental Average Lamprey Sea Annual Incremental Removed Incremental Lamprey Alternative Costs Cost (Lift) Output Removed 1 - - - - 3 $32,000 $32,000 1,733 1,733 $18 5 $69,000 $37,000 2,280 547 $68

Figure 10 – Incremental Cost Analysis Graph

3.6.4 – Risk and Uncertainty

When the costs and outputs of alternative restoration plans are uncertain, it is essential to document the assumptions made and uncertainties encountered during the course of planning analyses. Restoration of some types of ecosystems may have relatively low risk, or remove existing risk. For example, removal of a dam to restore hydrologic function and fish passage to a river removes the existing risk of flooding from a dam failure as opposed to adding risk. When identifying the recommended alternative, the associated risk and uncertainty of achieving the proposed level of outputs must be considered.

There is minimal uncertainty of anticipated success or failure using both permanent and temporary sea lamprey traps due to the USFWS’s experience designing and using them in the field. However, risks or factors can impact a successful catch using either permanent or temporary traps; some including seasonal water flows, water temperatures, duration of winter, chemical cues and other potentially unknown lamprey specific factors that are being studied. Temporary traps have the added risk factor of not being adjustable. Sea lampreys encounter temporary traps mostly by chance as opposed to being attracted to permanent traps that can be manipulated to create an attractive flow.

3.7 – Selection of the Recommended Alternative

Selection of the recommended alternative is the sixth step in the USACE planning process. When selecting a single alternative plan for recommendation from those that have been considered, the criteria used includes all of the evaluation criteria discussed above. Selecting the plan requires careful consideration of the plan that meets planning objectives and constraints, and reasonably maximizes

environmental benefits while passing tests of cost effectiveness, significance of benefits, acceptability, completeness, effectiveness, and efficiency.

3.7.2 – The NER / Recommended Alternative

The plan/alternative that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the study, reasonably maximizes ecosystem benefits, is cost effective, acceptable and complete, and has acceptable risk and uncertainty is considered the recommended alternative as established in Chapter 3. Of the action oriented alternatives evaluated in this study, Alternative 3 is the most cost effective and has the lowest incremental cost per incremental sea lamprey removed. Alternative 3 produces the greatest amount of habitat (1,733 sea lamprey removed) at the lowest cost ($18 per sea lamprey removed). Table 8 below, presents the risk-adjusted cost for implementing the proposed project’s plan. More specifically, these costs include: construction costs, non-construction costs, the operations and maintenance costs of the proposed plan over its 50-year life span, and the cost of interest during construction. Noteworthy, these costs are presented in terms of fiscal year 2015 dollars at the Federal Discount rate of 3.3750%. The total estimated cost to implement Alternative 3, inclusive of all its explicit (e.g. construction) and implicit (e.g. interest during construction) costs, is $1,027,000. Therefore, the recommended alternative for this study is Alternative 3 – Install Permanent AWT System on the West Bank Downstream of the MDNR Barrier.

The potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects for the no action alternative and Alternative 3 are evaluated under NEPA in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 (EA)

Table 8 - Economic Summary of Alternative 3 in 2015 Dollars Construction Costs $830,000 Non-Construction Costs $166,000 Interest During Construction1 $3,000 LERRDS $10,000 Present Value of Monitoring2 $18,000 Total Project Costs3 $1,027,000 Average Annual Cost $43,000

Average Annual Habitat Units 1,733 Average Annual Cost per Habitat Unit $25 1 Calculation assumes end of month payments with the last payment made when the project goes on-line. Mob & Demob is assumed paid as a lump sum in the first payment 2 Monitoring are provided in the Monitoring & Adaptive Management Plan. 3 Less sunk feasibility study costs per 1993-RPT-NED-12 4 Annualized costs are based on a 50-year time horizon and the FY15 discount rate of 3.375% 1 Calculation assumes end of month payments with the last payment made when the project goes on-line. Mob & Demob is assumed paid as a lump sum in the first payment 2 Monitoring costs are estimated at $5,000 per year for the first 5 years. Present Value determined utilizing FY15 rate of 3.375% for 5 months then extended over 50 year life of the project to be additive. 3 Less sunk feasibility study costs per 1993-RPT-NED-12. This cost is $21,000 higher than the cost presented in Appendix B (cost engineering report) due to the addition of Interest During Construction ($3,000) and present value of monitoring ($18,000). 4 Annualized costs are based on a 50-year time horizon and the FY15 discount rate of 3.375%

CHAPTER 4 – *DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

4.1 – *Plan Components & Construction Considerations

The recommended alternative, Alternative 3 – Install Permanent AWT System at West Bank Downstream of the MDNR Barrier (Figure 6), would involve construction of a permanent AWT system on the west side of the river, adjacent to the west bank downstream of the existing barrier (Figure 6 and Figure 8).

The trap structure would utilize steel piles in conjunction with steel plates and angles as trap guides to secure a lamprey trap. Access to the trap would be provided through the construction of a new, pile supported, steel grated platform. It is anticipated that nine steel piles would be driven for the structure. An estimated 7.2 CYD of gravel would be used to create an access ramp above ordinary high water (OHW) from the existing road to the platform.

Access to the platform would be provided via a steel grated walkway. The existing wing wall on the west bank of the East Au Gres River would be increased to match the height of the bank embedment, from the bank to the westernmost edge of the sea lamprey trap. This would require about 5 feet of the wall to be replaced. To accommodate this additional height on the west side, the east side wall would be expanded as well; the existing wall would be removed and a new wall would be constructed about 5 feet eastward, which would maintain flows at the current levels.

The 0.30 mile two-track road that accesses the site is in need of some maintenance to allow large vehicles to enter the site and be able to construct, operate, and maintain the permanent AWT. It is estimated that about 235 CYD of gravel would be needed to build up the road so it is drivable for all vehicles that need to access the site (Additional information can be found in Appendix D – Clean Water Act 404 b(1) Evaluation).

The sea lamprey trap would be approximately 4 feet wide x 4 feet deep and 5 feet high to allow trapping within a significant portion of the water column and would be constructed of galvanized steel mesh, plates and angles. Trap mesh would be of sufficient size to allow water flow through them (Figure 5). A 51 square foot concrete slab (approximately 8 feet by 6 feet) would be constructed beneath the traps. Per the USFWS, a lift system consisting of a manual hoist designed to lift 500 pounds of lamprey plus the trap insert from the riverbed to the platform complex would be included. Traps would be placed seasonally – installed once in March and removed in June/July. Final trap design would be completed in the design phase during implementation, in coordination with the USFWS. Refer to Appendix A – Engineering – Civil Design and Geotech Analysis for additional design details.

The installation of this permanent trapping complex is expected to greatly enhance control of spawning- phase lamprey on the East Branch Au Gres River. The reduction in future TFM usage is an additional benefit that could be derived from long-term usage of the AWT systems. The AWT systems would enable the USFWS to capture spawning-phase sea lamprey during the spring (late-March to June) migration. The overall size of the trap is expected to be 4 feet by 5 feet by 4 feet. The trap system would be a permanent structure installed near the west wall immediately downstream of the MDNR barrier. Construction and operation of permanent traps would likely lead to a sizeable reduction in recruitment of sea lamprey in the Great Lakes from the East Branch Au Gres River.

Over six fish are saved for every lamprey that doesn’t make it to adulthood. More efficient trapping of adults could lead to fewer Great Lakes fish being wounded or killed and to opportunities to decrease the frequency of lampricide treatment of larvae, which would reduce detrimental effects on non-target species that currently occur. Although TFM has not been shown to have serious impacts on stream ecology, some species including various invertebrates, native lamprey, and sturgeon have been shown to be sensitive to the lampricide. The success of the permanent traps would be measured by the capture rate during sea lamprey larval assessments carried out periodically by the USFWS to determine if TFM treatment is needed and during the annual adult trapping to determine if the percentage of pre- spawning lamprey caught increases significantly after the installation of the AWT system.

4.1.1 – Miscellaneous Project Details

Minimal site preparation would be required for this project. An appropriate amount of real estate would be provided by the non-federal sponsor to accommodate the project footprint as well as access and storage during construction. Temporary structures and work, storage, and staging areas would be located on MDNR property (Figure 6). The contractor would develop an equipment staging area in the grassy upland area just north of the access road (Figure 6 and Figure 8). It is anticipated that the primary access to the project site would be from the west bank of the river, as construction on the east bank to replace the wing wall would be done using a crane. Access to the area would be via an approximately 10 foot wide gravel maintenance access road from the west off of Greenwood Road.

Supplementary temporary structures and staging sites would be located outside of any wetlands, areas containing federally protected species and their critical habitat, and properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although the specific type and location of temporary structures and staging sites cannot be determined at this time and since they would be incidental to the work being performed, it is anticipated that the temporary access roads and work and storage areas described above would be utilized. These construction aids would be within project boundaries or right-of-ways and removed when no longer needed. Temporary activities would include appropriate precautionary measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation or other undesirable environmental impacts; refer to Chapter 5 - Existing Environment & Environmental Assessment (EA), for further details related to Best Management Practices (BMPs) and potential impacts of implementing the recommended alternative.

Some variation from the project as described may occur with respect to the sequence of activities, method of construction, disposal of materials, or design details as a result of unanticipated design improvements, site conditions, or cost-saving measures. Such variations would not result in significant changes to either the overall project design or environmental impact, without the need for further evaluation under the NEPA.

4.2 – *Real Estate Considerations

The Real Estate Plan for the project site was developed by the USACE, Detroit District’s Real Estate Division. The Real Estate Plan is included as Appendix C. The cost-sharing partner, or its designee, will be able to readily obtain any real estate and work and storage areas for implementation of the recommended alternative, such as non-Federal lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations and Disposal Areas (LERRDs).

A total of .44 acres will be required for this project which includes temporary work and storage space, a permanent road easement, and acreage for the sea lamprey trap. All of the land required for the project is located on State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land, who is an active partner in the project. No major utility infrastructure improvements are planned near the proposed project. Activities that are expected to occur may include landscaping, minor maintenance, and emergency access. No impact from these activities is expected to affect the proposed project, nor is the proposed project expected to impact and of the DNR’s other projects.

4.3 – Views of Project Partner(s)

The GLFC is seeking assistance (under Section 506 of WRDA of 2000, as amended) from the USACE to improve the environmental quality and restore fisheries in the East Branch Au Gres River and the Great Lakes. The USFWS is acting as an agent for the GLFC in implementing sea lamprey control in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. The GLFC and USFWS support this project as it helps to fulfill one of their main missions to control sea lamprey in the Great Lakes and their tributaries. The proposed project was also coordinated with and received support from the DNR-Fisheries Division. Refer to Section 6.1 – Agency Coordination and Public Review for additional information related to views of other agencies and stakeholders.

4.4 – Cost Sharing and Sponsor Responsibilities

For this project the GLFC has expressed willingness to act as the cost-share partner for the East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Traps, Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration project. In addition to financial capability, a cost-share partner for implementation must also be able to purchase and hold real estate. The anticipated real estate requirements for this project include holding title to permanent channel improvement easements and/or permanent access easements. GLFC is expected to meet the real estate requirements for the implementation phase.

Prior to initiation of the implementation phase, the USACE and the cost-share partner will execute a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA). This PPA would bind the USACE and cost-sharing partner or sponsor to meet their Federal and non-Federal responsibilities for designing, implementing, operating and maintaining the project. In this agreement, the cost-share partner will agree to pay 35 percent of the total project costs, to purchase and supply project lands (LERRDs) associated with the project, if applicable, and be responsible for the costs associated with general project operations and maintenance (or lifecycle costs).

USACE activities after the feasibility phase include additional design studies, plans and specifications, contract for construction, overall supervision during construction, and preparation of an operation and maintenance manual.

Based on the cost-sharing requirements, the total project cost and pertinent cost-sharing information for the sea lamprey trap project are summarized in the table below. The fully funded cost estimate assumes a single construction season to be completed in fiscal year 2016. Feasibility costs include those costs spent to date on the study.

4.5 – Schedule

Once the PPA is executed, the USACE would begin preparing plans and specifications for the proposed project. Upon completion of plans and specifications, the construction contract would be advertised. The USACE would award, supervise, and administer the construction contract. Duration of construction would be approximately four months. After construction, the USACE would transfer the project to the project partner(s) for operation and maintenance, and would provide an operation and maintenance manual. The estimated schedule for implementing major project phases is provided in Table 9 and would be documented in a Project Management Plan for the Design and Implementation Phase.

Table 9 – Project Cost for Recommended Alternative, Cost Sharing Breakout and Schedule Estimated Funding Needs ($000) Estimated Date Non- Completed or Duration Totals Federal Federal Design Phase (Plans & Specifications)1 $116 $76 $40 Feb 2016 – July 2016 Construction Phase2 $924 $600 $323 Sep 2016 – Mar 2017 Monitoring $23 $15 $8 Spring of 2017-2021 Totals $1,064 $691 $372 1 - Design Phase includes plans, specifications, real estate/LERRDs, contract advertisement, award and notice to proceed. Estimate is based on Total Project Cost (Fully Funded) and includes contingency. Also see Appendix B – Cost Engineering. 2 - Construction Phase includes all construction activities, construction management and project management through project turnover to sponsor/partner. Estimate is based on Total Project Cost (Fully Funded) and includes contingency. Also see economic analysis in Section 3.6.3 and Appendix B – Cost Engineering.

4.6 – Plans & Specifications

During the design phase, a detailed set of plans and specifications will be prepared to solicit and award a construction contract. Additional design phase documents include a schedule, quality control plan, and labor estimate. The USFWS and MDNR would be involved in review of documents produced during this phase.

4.7 – *Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Considerations

Future operations and maintenance costs (O&M) are estimated to be approximately $5,000 per year. These costs would be funded by the GLFC and O&M activities would be conducted by the USFWS or contractors. Operation costs would include removing lamprey from the lamprey traps and periodic inspection. Maintenance costs would include upkeep, replacing equipment and periodic additions of riprap.

4.8 – *Post-Construction Monitoring

Section 2039 of WRDA 2007 directs the Secretary to ensure that when conducting a feasibility study for a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration that the recommended project includes a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. For a period of up to ten years from completion of construction of an ecosystem restoration project, monitoring is cost-shared between the USACE and the non-Federal sponsor. In this case, it is assumed that monitoring for success of this project will be for 5 years and that the USFWS will conduct the monitoring in coordination with

their annual operation of the proposed permanent traps. The USFWS would provide data to the USACE and GLFC to illustrate the effects of the project annually. Refer to Appendix G for a Monitoring Plan.

Section 5011 (GLFER Program) of WRDA 2007 amends Section 506 of WRDA 2000, P.L. 106-541. Per Implementation Guidance for Section 5011 of WRDA 2007 issued by the USACE-Headquarters June 10, 2011, projects implemented under this authority generally should be low risk, thus adaptive management will not be proposed or performed as a cost shared activity for Section 506 projects.

CHAPTER 5 – *EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)

5.1 – *EA Organization and Preliminary Impact Scoping

Chapter 5 describes the existing environment in the study area, and the potential direct and indirect environmental consequences of implementing the no action alternative and the recommended alternative to water resources, air quality, natural and biological resources, cultural resources, noise, visual resources, transportation and traffic, hazardous materials, and environmental justice. As applicable, potential mitigation actions, key measures and BMP’s that would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the environment are also presented. Information gathered from various sources such as site visits, interviews, existing documentation, and correspondence with federal, state, and local agencies and property owners was used to characterize the existing environment.

Chapter 6 contains additional details related to agency coordination and describes the potential cumulative effects of the project alternatives on the environment when combined with recent, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. A summary table of potential effects and EA conclusions is also presented.

Relevant NEPA appendices are as follows: Appendix D – Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Evaluation and Appendix E – Agency Coordination

As described previously, several alternatives were developed during the plan formulation process; however, only the the no action and NER Alternative (Section 3.7.3) are evaluated for potential impacts on resources in this EA. Table 10 below outlines the alternatives and which are evaluated in the EA.

Table 10 – Summary of Alternatives and Plan Formulation Is Alternative analyzed in Alternative1 Comment2 EA? 1 No Action Provides a baseline for NEPA analysis of Yes (Temporary Traps & the action alternatives. Consists of TFM) temporary trapping and TFM treatment. 2 Control Sea Lamprey Similar to no action alternative, except the No, does not meet the with TFM Only temporary trapping would not occur. criteria set by the Would not involve any construction stakeholder as it does not activities. Does not meet criteria in Table 2. address adult lamprey and Expected to provide fewer benefits than populations are predicted to any other alternative. increase under this alternative and therefore is not an integrated approach to lamprey control 3 Install Permanent Meets criteria Yes. Refer to Figures 6-8 for Attractant Water Trap visual representation of this (AWT) System on alternative. West Bank Downstream of Barrier

Is Alternative analyzed in Alternative1 Comment2 EA? 4 Install Permanent Permanent access to the east bank would No, cost of providing new AWT System on East need to be constructed to be able to permanent walkway access Bank Downstream of operate and maintain trap. to the east side of the river Barrier is not cost effective 5 5-Install Permanent Permanent access to the east bank would No, incremental costs are AWT System at both need to be constructed to be able to more than 3.5 times greater Wing Walls and access operate and maintain traps. than Alternative 3, which walkway Across Face of eliminates from being the the Barrier recommened alternative 1 - As developed during the plan formulation process in Section 3.3 of this report. 2 - Description and relative comments related to the alternative.

Based on Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and 40 CFR Part 1508, the following elaborates on the nature of the effects that might be experienced by the environmental resources analyzed:

. "Effects" include:

(a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous and the definition includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.

. "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity:

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity:

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or their habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Relative terms to characterize the intensity of an impact:

. Negligible. An inconsequential adverse or beneficial effect. Might be perceptible but would be at the lowest levels of detection. . Minor. A minor effect would be noticeable. It would be slight and detectable, but of minimal consequence. It would not affect the function or integrity of the resource. . Moderate. A moderate effect is readily apparent and has some consequence, but is not drastic. It would influence the function or integrity of the resource. . Major. A major effect is one that would be substantial. It would result in severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial changes to a resource. . Short-term or long-term are related to the duration of an impact. They are determined on a case- by-case basis and do not refer to any rigid time-period. In general, short-term effects would occur only with respect to a particular activity, or for a finite period, or only during the time required for construction activities. Long-term effects are those that are more likely to persist.

Preliminary Impact Scoping

In compliance with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-2-2, Policy and Procedures for Implementing NEPA, the evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resources and conditions potentially subject to effects and on potentially significant environmental issues deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some environmental resources and conditions that are often analyzed in an EA have been omitted from detailed analysis because of their inapplicability to this proposed action. The following provides the basis for such exclusions.

Sustainability and Greening. The proposed sea lamprey trap does not require significant resources for construction or operation, nor produce significant emissions once constructed. Methods to

implement green building technologies (i.e., utilizing recycled material or recycling waste such as concrete or steel) would be implemented where feasible and are not discussed in detail within this EA.

5.2 – *Physical Setting and Land Use

5.2.1 – Existing Environment

5.2.1.1 Climate

The East Branch Au Gres River Watershed is characterized by a continental climate, which is heavily influenced by Lake Huron, particularly during northeasterly winds. This modification or “lake effect” can manifest itself by a moderation of temperature (both warm and cold) and increased precipitation during certain times of the year. This is due to winds blowing over the lake and being influenced by the water temperature and evaporation from the lake. This can have a cooling effect in the watershed in the summer compared to other parts of the Midwest, and can result in warmer temperatures in the winter months.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data indicate that the average daily maximum temperature for nearby Standish, Michigan (15 miles southwest of site) in July is approximately 81.2°F, and the average daily minimum in January is approximately 11.0°F. Using climate data from Standish, Michigan, the average temperature in winter between 1981 and 2010 was approximately 22.8°F, with the average daily minimum being approximately 14.1°F. In summer, the average temperature is approximately 66°F with an average daily maximum temperature of about 79°F. Humidity and wind data were not available for Standish, but should be similar to those recorded by the National Weather Service office in Houghton Lake, Michigan, approximately 43 miles northwest. Average mid-afternoon relative humidity is approximately 63%. Humidity is higher in the mornings, averaging 84%. Winds are most often westerly. Average velocities range from 7 mph in August to 10 mph in April.

Precipitation in Standish, Michigan is generally well distributed throughout the year but is slightly lower in December through March. Precipitation is moderate and averages 31.2 inches annually. Average annual snowfall is 41.4 inches. Precipitation within the watershed is well distributed throughout the year and is adequate for most vegetation.

5.2.1.2 Topography and Geology

The topography near the lamprey barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River is flat (0 – 3% slope) and remains flat as you move out of the floodplain (0 – 6% slope). The underlying geology of the area is shale. The river drains deposits of coarse-textured sands and gravels (sands, loamy-sands, wet-sandy- organics, and gravel).

5.2.1.3 Land Use

The East Branch Au Gres River Watershed was very heavily forested and inhabited by Native Americans until European traders began exploring, trading and logging in the early to mid 1800s. As Europeans began to settle in the region and build towns, logging became the primary industry and billions of board feet of timber were harvested across Michigan during the late 1800s and early 1900s. As the lumber supply was depleted, farming became more prevalent. Recreational fisheries became popular in the late

1800s as logging decreased and remain so today as the East Branch Au Gres River is designated a Michigan Department of Natural Resources Blue Ribbon Trout Stream. Currently, 65% of the East Branch Au Gres watershed is forested, mostly with 2nd growth woodlands, 8% is agriculture lands, and 2% is developed (Figure 11). The remainder is shrublands and wetlands.

Figure 11. Map of the land use within the East Branch Au Gres River Watershed. Data from Michigan Department of Natural Resources: Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division.

The project area is at the East Branch MDNR Au Gres sea lamprey barrier, which is located approximately seven miles northwest of Alabaster, Michigan and about a mile and a half southeast from National City. Public parking and access to the river for fishing is present at the Singing Bridge near the mouth of the river approximately 14 river miles downstream from the project area. The area near the project site is primarily forested with some agricultural lands about a mile downstream.

5.2.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.2.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, no anticipated changes to existing conditions are expected, and therefore, no impacts to the climate, topography, geology or land use would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on the physical setting or land uses.

5.2.2.2 Recommended Alternative

The proposed action is to construct a permanent sea lamprey trap in the East Branch Au Gres River, immediately downstream of an existing MDNR barrier. The size of the trap and support structure is relatively small scale and would be constructed in the river as to not impact river flows, thus having no significant effect on the environment, climate, geology or land use at the site or in the region. Potential impacts to recreation are discussed below in the “Recreation” section. If constructed, a structure would be located in the water along the west bank of the river; however, it would not significantly affect existing topography at the site or in the region.

5.3 – *Coastal Zone Management, Floodplains and Hydrology

5.3.1 – Existing Environment

Coastal Zone. The East Branch Au Gres barrier and the study site are located approximately eight miles west of the Coastal Zone Management Boundary as indicated by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Coastal Zone Boundary Map for Baldwin, East Tawas, Tawas and Alabaster Townships, in Iosco County. Michigan’s coastal zone boundary generally extends approximately 1,000 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes shoreline.

Floodplains & Hydrology. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) does not have a printed panel covering the East Branch Au Gres barrier project site. The FEMA 100-year floodplain is mapped on the panel covering land east of the barrier; however, FEMA floodplain mapping ends on the adjoining map approximately 3.75 miles due east of the project site.

The East Branch Au Gres River was historically a major tributary to the Au Gres River, but in the 1920s it was diverted to Lake Huron through the Whitney Drain due to flood concerns. The total Au Gres River watershed, including both the Au Gres and the East Branch Au Gres Rivers has a drainage basin of 392 square miles, with the East Branch Au Gres River draining approximately 147 square miles of that area, mainly from Iosco County. The East Branch Au Gres River has an estimated average flow of 2.66 feet per second (cfs) during a 2 year event and an average flow of 3.44 feet per second (cfs) during a 100 year event. Upstream of the project site the river has steeper banks of bedrock with the river dropping about

30 feet in elevation over the 5 miles upstream of the project site. Beginning about one mile upstream of the project the land is flat (0-6% slope) and remains flat until it reaches Lake Huron. The East Branch Au Gres River MDNR barrier was constructed in 1983 as a low head concrete dam with two stop-log bays. In 1986 a coffer dam was constructed downstream (refer to Section 1.4 – Study Location for additional details related to the dam). U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge station #0413800 is located on the East Branch Au Gres River near McIvor, Michigan and collected flow data from 1950 until 1973. Hydraulic modeling is not anticipated for this study because sea lamprey traps do not cause a large enough obstruction to affect the hydraulic regime.

5.3.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.3.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, no anticipated changes to existing conditions are expected. The no action alternative would not result in impacts to the coastal zone management zone, floodplain resources, or hydrology at the site. Also, the no action alternative would not contribute to any cumulative or secondary impacts to coastal zone management, floodplain or hydrology resources.

5.3.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Coastal Zone. The proposed sea lamprey trap would be constructed west (outside) of the MDEQ identified Coastal Zone, thus the proposed action would be “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” (as defined in 16 USC 1456, Coastal Zone Management Act, approved 1978) with the Michigan Coastal Zone Management Plan and not significantly impact the coastal zone. No secondary impacts to the coastal zone are anticipated due to the small scale of the project and because applicable local/state sediment control measures would be implemented.

Floodplains & Hydrology. The conceptual design for a sea lamprey trapping complex on the East Branch Au Gres River is intended to have water flow through the trap. The structure would be supported by piles and a small (approximately 50 square feet) concrete slab in conjunction with steel plates and angles to direct flow and secure the trap. In order to prevent an increase in upstream water levels, the cross sectional area of the river channel at the sea lamprey trap structure was maintained. The required increase in the height of the sheet pile apron at the lamprey trap was compensated for by moving the existing wing wall on the west side of the river further westward. No upstream water level impacts are expected. Even in higher flow conditions, water would flow through/around the structure with minimal restriction. The USFWS may use vertical plates to help direct flows within the trapping structure with the intent to attract sea lamprey based on flows, but the effects to the overall flow and hydrology in the East Branch Au Gres River at this site would be negligible.

Although the project site is located within the floodplain, the proposed action complies with the Federal Executive Order on Floodplain Management (EO 11988) because there is no practicable alternative to construction in the floodplain, nor would the project encourage floodplain development.

5.4 – *Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Analysis

5.4.1 – Existing Environment

The purpose of a HTRW investigation is to ascertain the environmental history and current conditions of a site as it relates to HTRW, within practical measures and using reasonably available resources. By conducting such an investigation, the uncertainty regarding the potential for HTRW in connection with the project is reduced, though not eliminated. There is always some risk of encountering unknown HTRW elements during project construction, thus contract clauses incorporate wording on how to address such conditions should they be discovered.

The East Branch Au Gres sea lamprey barrier was completed in 1983 with the addition of a coffer dam in 1986 and has remained since that date (Figure 4). Properties adjoining the site are undeveloped. The work areas in this study include the river bottom at the location of the proposed trap, the riverbank where the structure would be anchored and provide access, the wing wall on the east side of the river, and work and storage areas. Work and storage would be in existing open upland areas north of the existing access road. Access to the river would be via a temporary access road that would be regarded and improved as part of this project by adding a geotech layer and approximately 235 CYD fill. Work on the east bank of the river to replace the wing wall would be completed via a crane from the west bank.

A review of the following were conducted: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Envirofacts (including several sub-searches such as Superfund / National Priorities List sites, toxic releases, water dischargers/permits, air emissions, and hazardous wastes), Enforcement and Compliance History Online, and Cleanups in My Community; MDEQ’s Part 201 (contaminated) Site List and Storage Tank Information Center. Historic Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were not available for the subject property; available coverage did not extend beyond downtown East Tawas. The details from the database and resource reviews are included below.

A search of USEPA’s Envirofacts site lists indicates that no impacted properties are located at the project site or in the immediate vicinity.

A search for contaminated sites (as defined under the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 of 1994, as amended) on the MDEQ’s Part 201 and Part 213 site lists indicates that no impacted properties are located at the project site or in the immediate vicinity.

Based on review of available data, no known HTRW sites are located at or expected to be encountered within the work areas for the proposed project – including the river bottom downstream of the apron; near the access road; and the upland area north of the existing access road.

5.4.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.4.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be no changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to HTRW resources in the area would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to HTRW resources.

5.4.2.2 Recommended Alternative

No HTRW sites or superfund cleanup sites are known to be present at the project site, thus none are expected to be impacted by the proposed construction or operation. Based on available information regarding site conditions and the general area, it is not anticipated that construction of the proposed sea lamprey trap project would encounter contaminated materials or cause a release of any contaminated materials. The proposed sea lamprey trap structure would be supported on steel piles that will be driven. Some excavation (approximately 3 feet) is expected in the river where the trap would sit. There would also be some excavation needed in construction of the access ramp and wing walls and in improving the existing access road. As a precaution, the construction contract would contain standard language on procedures to follow to ensure that there are no releases and that the materials are properly remediated where applicable, in the event that contaminated materials are encountered.

5.5 – *Water and Sediment Quality

5.5.1 – Existing Environment

The East Branch Au Gres River drains mostly forests and shrublands and has sandy-gravelly soils. Based on available reports and water quality data, the overall water and sediment quality are considered to be excellent and because of this the river supports very healthy macroinvertebrate communities and wild trout stocks. The “Rifle-Au Gres-Tawas Rivers Rapid Watershed Assessment” (2008) indicates that the East Branch Au Gres River is a healthy system and is not considered impaired for sedimentation, channelization, habitat modification, fish consumption, or pathogens. The Whitney Drain, which is located approximately ten miles downstream of the project site and connects the East Branch Au Gres River to Saginaw Bay, does have a 303(d) listing for pathogens and E. coli from U.S. 23 at Singing Bridge to Saginaw Bay (about 0.1 miles).

Various natural activities create disturbances to rivers and land adjacent to rivers, generating turbidity (suspension of fine grained sediments into the water column). The most common natural disturbance in the project area is a rain event, which can cause sediment to run into rivers and cause re-suspension of riverbed sediments. Turbidity can also be increased by nonpoint source sedimentation. Sediment coming off roads and off agricultural lands that have had riparian vegetation cleared are the most abundant sources of nonpoint source sedimentation. In the East Branch Au Gres River, sedimentation is not a concern upstream of the Whitney Drain which is located approximately ten miles downstream of the project site. Bedloads in this area are well above those found in any other river emptying into Saginaw Bay due to bank erosion and a loss of floodplain. Restoration efforts were made in late 2000’s to stabilize the area and improve water quality.

With the exception of statewide advisories for mercury, there are no fish consumption advisories in the East Branch Au Gres River. Various fish eating advisories are in effect for Saginaw Bay, mainly due to elevated polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxin concentrations in the fish.

5.5.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.5.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, current conditions would remain the same, and therefore no further impacts to water and sediment quality would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to water and sediment quality.

5.5.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Potential threats to water quality of the river at the project site include sediment from runoff and leaks from equipment used for construction. Since no contaminated sediments are anticipated to be encountered, the proposed construction would not exacerbate any contamination.

Erosion Control: There would be minimal site disturbances and appropriate erosion control measures would be implemented to prevent sediment runoff from entering the East Branch Au Gres River during construction. The contractor shall prepare and / or obtain any required erosion and sediment control plans and permits. Soil erosion control methods would be put in place prior to beginning construction activities and maintained during construction. Other erosion control measures such as the use of silt fencing, straw bales, geo-fabrics, hydroseeding, or various other immediate re-vegetation tactics would be developed and implemented prior to, during, and after construction, as needed. Disturbed surface areas or temporary construction sites would be re-vegetated (grass only) to similar conditions for long- term erosion control, or restored as applicable, upon project completion.

Construction Equipment: The proposed construction may occur from within the water or from the west bank using land-based construction equipment, but activities are not anticipated to significantly impact the water quality. It is anticipated that work to replace the wing wall on the east bank can be completed using a crane from the west bank. If equipment is used from within the water vegetable oil would be required in place of hydraulic fluid. Equipment to be used for construction would come to the site with new or sound hydraulic hoses and connections to minimize risk of leaks. Hoses and connections would be inspected daily at a minimum, and equipment would be removed from service if a leak is detected. Equipment would be stored over-night and fueled in a designated area away from the river to minimize any potential leaks or spills from entering the river. Minor petroleum / chemical seepage from the land- based equipment may occur during construction activities, but it is not expected to result in any significant effects on water quality. The duration of construction occurring in-stream would be minimized as much as possible. In addition, related materials and waste from the construction would be removed from the project site.

Materials Placed: No extensive riverbed excavation is anticipated; excavation would only occur in the immediate location of the trap and in the construction of the access ramp to the trap and in reconstruction of the wing walls. Existing scour stone adjacent to the bank may be temporary relocated or rearranged during construction, but would remain in a pre-construction condition post construction. Materials placed in the river as part of the proposed project may include wood forms, concrete, steel, and stone. It is not anticipated that the proposed steel piles would require concrete encasement. A 50 square foot concrete slab would be constructed beneath the trap. Very fine sediments, such as from silt, are not associated with these sorts of materials. Construction induced increases in suspended solids and turbidity, if they occurred, would be minor and short-term.

Improvements to the access road and constructing the new access ramp to the trap would require adding gravel to regrade the road bed. Approximately 235 cubic yards of gravel would be needed along the 0.30 mile access road and approximately 7 cubic yards would be required for construction of the access ramp. Improving road conditions would improve safety for those accessing the site and would decrease the sedimentation occurring on the portions of the road that are currently in poor shape.

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), a Section 404 (b)(1) evaluation of the environmental effects of the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States has been prepared (Appendix D). The Section 404(b)(1) evaluation concludes with the determination that “the proposed action is in compliance with Section 404 of the CWA.” A Section 401 (of the CWA) water quality certification (WQC), or waiver thereof, would be obtained from the State prior to construction activities.

5.6 – *Prime Farmland and Wetlands

5.6.1 – Existing Environment

Farmland. Based on review of available information such as aerial photographs, current land-use and a summer 2014 site visit, there is no prime or unique farmland located at the project site or in the immediate vicinity.

Wetlands. Available information, including aerial photographs, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), MDEQ wetlands map viewer, current land-use and a summer 2014 site visit, was reviewed. The USFWS NWI indicates that there are no potential wetlands at the project site, but there is potential just north of the river beyond where any work would occur for this proposed study. The MDEQ wetlands viewer indicates that there are wetlands at the project site. A wetland delineation performed by the USACE in June 2015 identified the upland areas where staging equipment would have no impact (Figure 12). All equipment staging would occur in those upland areas identified through this survey.

Figure 12. Upland area (based on USACE wetland delineation in June 2015) where all equipment staging would occur during construction. Note: The trap and ramp will be constructed on the riverbank and in the wetlands.

5.6.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.6.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be no human-induced changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to farmland or wetlands would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to farmland or wetlands.

5.6.2.2 Recommended Alternative

No farmland is present at the site. The proposed project is compliant with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549, of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981; Public Law 97-98) and the proposed action would not impact prime or unique farmland.

Wetlands are present at the site and in the surrounding area. Project activities are not expected to have adverse impacts to wetlands because all activities would occur in existing disturbed areas, in the river, or in areas that were not delineated as wetlands. The access to the site would be along an existing two track road and project activities would include excavating and regrading with the addition of gravel to build up the road bed to create safer and better access to the traps. Excess material from the road maintenance would either be place in upland areas or removed from the site. The lamprey traps would be built in the water just downstream of an existing Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) barrier along the west wing wall. Standard best management practices would be implemented to control potential runoff from the site. The staging area would be located on an upland piece of ground outside of any wetlands.

The recommended alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to farmland and wetland resources.

5.7 – *Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply

5.7.1 – Existing Environment

Due to sandy soils in the area and the site located at the East Branch Au Gres River, shallow groundwater is expected in the vicinity.

5.7.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.7.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be no human-induced changes to current conditions, and therefore, no impacts to the groundwater or drinking water supply would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to the groundwater or drinking water supply.

5.7.2.2 Recommended Alternative

The recommended alternative is a small scale project and no impacts to groundwater or drinking water supply are anticipated. The recommended alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to groundwater or drinking water supply.

5.8 – *Vegetation, Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife

5.8.1 – Existing Environment

Land surrounding the project area is primarily forested; however, there is some agricultural land to the south of the project. Given, the large percentage of forest in the watershed and very few developed areas around the project site, we assume a variety of birds, small mammals, deer, and other woodland favoring wildlife are present at the site.

5.8.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.8.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be no human-induced changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat or wildlife in the area would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources.

5.8.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Based on the small scale and short duration of this project, there would be minimal impacts from implementing the recommended alternative. Existing disturbed areas would be used for access to the site and the lamprey trap would be built in the water and bisect current infrastructure. Therefore, we do not anticipate having any new long-term impacts on the vegetation or wildlife habitat. The staging area may impact some habitat temporarily, but would be returned to pre-constructions condition after construction.

Wildlife that uses the site and the surrounding area may temporarily avoid the area during construction but would be expected to return upon completion of the project.

5.9 – *Aquatic Resources

5.9.1 – Existing Environment

Steelhead and trout, as well as the aquatic organisms to support these fish, are common to the East Branch Au Gres River; but no significant or unique fish, aquatic organisms or habitat are known to exist at the proposed trap site near the MDNR barrier where this project is being proposed. A 12 mile stretch of river upstream of the barrier has a special MDNR designation as a Blue Ribbon Trout Stream (Figure 13).

Due to a combination rip-rap / scour stone for bank stabilization and high velocity water over the barrier during the last thirty years, there is no significant amount of vegetation or habitat located at the study site just downstream of the barrier.

Figure 13. Map showing the location of the Blue Ribbon Trout Stream in relation to the project location.

5.9.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.9.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be no human-induced changes to current conditions, and therefore no significant impacts to aquatic resources in the area would occur. Lamprey would continue to persist under the protocol of TFM and temporary traps and adults would continue to prey on fish in the Great Lakes at levels that are higher than those predicted in the recommended alternative.

5.9.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Based on the expected footprint of the project and lack of habitat, negligible effects would be expected at the site of the proposed sea lamprey trap. There could be some minor, short-term effects on aquatic

resources in the vicinity during construction, but these effects would mainly be on fish that could leave the area during construction and return post-construction.

No long-term or significant cumulative effects are expected to result by implementing the recommended alternative. There exists a potential long-term benefit if successful sea lamprey management at this location on the East Branch Au Gres River results in a reduced need for lampricide application and in reduced numbers of lamprey that would otherwise prey on fish.

5.10 – *Threatened and Endangered Species

5.10.1 – Existing Environment

The USACE reviewed the USFWS “County Distribution of Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species” for Iosco County, Michigan, revised April 2015. The distribution list indicates that several threatened, endangered or proposed species are present in Iosco County (Table 11).

Table 11 – Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Species1 Status1 Habitat Type1 Present At Site? Piping plover Endangered Beaches along shorelines of the Great Lakes No (Charadrius melodus) Piping plover Critical Habitat No (Charadrius melodus) Designated Kirtland's warbler Endangered Nests in young stands of jack pine No (Setophaga kirtlandii) Pitcher's thistle Threatened Stabilized dunes and blowout areas No (Cirsium pitcheri) Hibernates in caves and mines - swarming in Northern long-eared surrounding wooded areas in autumn. bat (Myotis Threatened No Roosts and forages in upland forests during septentrionalis) spring and summer. Only actions that occur along coastal areas Rufa Red knot Threatened during the Red Knot migratory window of No (Calidris canutus rufa) MAY 1 - SEPTEMBER 30 Eastern massasauga Candidate Shallow wetlands and adjacent uplands2 No (Sistrurus catenatus) 1 - “County Distribution of Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species” for Iosco County, Michigan, Revised April 2015. 2 - http://www.USFWS.gov/midwest/endangered/reptiles/eama/index.html

The East Branch Au Gres River watershed provides habitat and nesting ground for the rare Kirtland’s warbler. However, based on habitat characteristics at the project site, no preferred habitat for the Kirtland’s warbler (young jack pine stands) or for any of the other listed, proposed or candidate species is present at the site or in the immediate vicinity.

At this time, we do not anticipate needing to remove any trees for construction. However, if once on site it is determined that some trees do need to be removed, the trees that are large enough to support summer colonies of the northern long-eared bat would be inventoried to determine if they may provide suitable habitat. If applicable, all tree clearing would be conducted between October 15 and March 31 to avoid impacting any potential bat habitat.

The bald eagle was recently (circa 2007) removed from protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act and Section 7 consultation with the USFWS is no longer necessary. However, the bald eagle remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The closest known bald eagle nest is approximately two miles from the project site. Noise generated during construction of the lamprey trap would have minimal impacts on the nest at this distance. Individuals may be temporarily impacted during construction activities, but adverse effects are not anticipated.

A review of the Michigan Natural Features Inventory was also conducted. The following state listed plant and animal species were listed for East Branch Au Gres River sub-basin: state special concern wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta), state special concern secretive locust (Appalachia arcane), state special concern Hill’s Thistle (Cirsium hillii), endangered Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), state special concern eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus), threatened red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), threatened cisco or lake herring (Coregonus artedi), threatened common loon (Gavia immer), state special concern northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), and state special concern Alleghany or sloe plum (Prunus alleghaniensis var. davisii). Of these species, those that prefer wetland habitat (wood turtle, Blanding’s turtle) may be in the general vicinity of the project activities, but are not likely to occur on the actual project site. If there are individuals in close proximity to project activities they may temporarily move out of the area until completion of the project at which point it is expected they would return.

5.10.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.10.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be no human-induced changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to federally listed species in the area would occur. The no action alternative would have no effect on federally listed species, and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to federally-listed species.

5.10.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Habitat for federally listed endangered, threatened or candidate species is not present in the area where the project is to take place. Therefore, the USACE determined the proposed action would have no effect on federally-listed species and / or critical habitat. This determination was coordinated with the USFWS (also refer to Chapter 6, Agency Coordination and Appendix E, Agency Coordination). In addition, due to lack of habitat and the small scale nature of the proposed action, no effects are anticipated on migratory birds or bald eagles.

Table 12 – Determination of Effect on Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Species1 Determination Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) No Effect. Lack of suitable habitat. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Designated No Effect. No designated critical habitat at or near Critical Habitat project site Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) No Effect. Lack of suitable habitat. Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) No Effect. Lack of suitable habitat. Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) No Effect. Lack of suitable habitat. Rufa Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) No Effect. Lack of suitable habitat. Eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus No Effect. Lack of suitable habitat. catenatus) 1 - “County Distribution of Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species” for Iosco County, Michigan, Revised April 2015

All appropriate statutes and executive orders including the NEPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) criteria would be met if this project proceeds. The proposed project is being coordinated with the USFWS and Michigan DNR. No additional field data collection for threatened or endangered species was conducted during development of this DPR and EA.

State species with the greatest need for conservation have historically been identified in the East Branch Au Gres River sub-basin, but are not known to occur at the project site. If there are individuals in close proximity to project activities they may temporarily move out of the area until completion of the project at which point it is expected they would return.

5.11 – *Exotic and Invasive Species

5.11.1 – Existing Environment

Sea lamprey are present at and below the barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River and sea lamprey control is the focus of this study and proposed action. The USFWS currently performs trapping using temporary, portable traps at the project site during the spawning season which typically runs March through June. Periodic (every 3-5 years) TFM treatments are conducted in the reach of the East Branch Au Gres River between the MDNR barrier and the mouth.

Since the proposed project is at an existing barrier upstream of the East Branch Au Gres River mouth, any aquatic nuisance species found in the Great Lakes that moves solely through the aquatic pathway must possess either: 1) self-propelled mobility or 2) the ability to “hitchhike” on other organisms to travel upstream. This eliminates most organisms that rely on current for dispersal such as algae and other plants. However, downstream drift is a mechanism that some invasive species established upstream in the river system can use to move to the study area.

Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus) are invasive fish species that are found in the Great Lakes. The ruffe, three spine stickleback, round goby and tubenose goby are associated with river mouths and estuaries of large river systems. Literature from Europe and Russia indicate the ruffe and tubenose goby do inhabit upper river systems but no ruffe or tubenose goby have

been collected locally in any upper Great Lakes (Huron, Michigan and Superior) river tributaries to date. Three spine stickleback have been collected in a very few upper river locations. The round goby has been found in small numbers in upper river systems across Michigan but this species is not anticipated to be a significant problem in the East Branch Au Gres River due to the existing barrier.

Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), and grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) are also invasive species in or very close to the Great Lakes. According to the USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/StateSearch.aspx), bighead carp are known to have established throughout the Chicago area, but have not been found throughout most of the Great Lakes with the exception of three individuals that were caught near Sandusky, Ohio in Lake Erie. Silver carp have not been documented in the Great Lakes; the closest individual was collected in the Illinois River near Chicago. Grass carp have been found in relatively small numbers in all of the Great Lakes, except Lake Superior. Catches in the Lake Huron Basin were near Mackinac Island and Sarnia, Ontario. No invasive carp species have been documented in the East Branch Au Gres River.

Although not observed at the proposed trap location or in work and storage areas, other aquatic pest species in the watershed include whirling disease (which can transport downstream via fish, mainly associated with salmonids), viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHS), zebra mussels (can drift downstream as larvae), rusty crayfish, spiny water flea, purple loosestrife, and Eurasian milfoil.

5.11.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.11.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be minimal changes to current conditions and no significant impacts to exotic and invasive species would be expected; however, the sea lamprey would continue to be present in the river downstream of the existing barrier and spawn, and reproduce at current numbers. The no action alternative would not likely contribute significantly to cumulative impacts to exotic and invasive species if the USFWS continues to perform temporary trapping and chemically treat for sea lamprey larvae.

5.11.2.2 Recommended Alternative

The existing sea lamprey barrier is anticipated to remain in-place for the foreseeable future, continuing to act as a barrier to movement of both native and non-native aquatic species. Implementation of the recommended alternative is anticipated to only impact the target invasive species, sea lamprey. No other invasive species are expected to be impacted. Placement of the permanent traps and structural steel support pilings would not provide increased suitable habitat for invasive species. The proposed trap is expected to result in increased trapping efficiency and thus a decline of spawning-phase sea lamprey present in the East Branch Au Gres River, and the eventual corresponding decrease in the larval sea lamprey population in the river.

The use of the lampricide has been shown to have reasonably low to no impact to the other aquatic communities; however it is costly to implement. The USFWS anticipates that they would continue treating the East Branch Au Gres River, but hope the permanent traps would lead to a decrease in the frequency of TFM treatments and increase overall treatment efficiency by reducing the overall number of sea lamprey in the river. The impacts from the proposed action would negatively affect the sea

lamprey, and thereby would benefit Lake Huron and the Great Lakes’ aquatic resources. Reducing sea lamprey numbers in the Great Lakes is a multi-agency and State of Michigan goal to help protect the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem.

National and State laws regulate control, management and transport of non-indigenous and invasive species. Federal laws include the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) created in 1996 to reauthorize and amend a previous measure, the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (NANPCA). Nonnative organisms are discussed in Part 413 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (Act 451 of 1994). BMPs and special equipment handling may include, but not be limited to:

. Clean boats, equipment and trailers that are being introduced into the water at the site before and after launch. This may include physically removing animals or plant pieces, disinfecting (i.e., bleach solution), or off-site power-washing. . Drain water from bilges and livewells at the ramp before leaving a body of water. . Dry boats, equipment and storage areas (i.e. bilges) thoroughly before using in a different body of water. . Re-vegetate disturbed areas with native or regionally appropriate species to help prevent establishment of non-native and invasive plant species.

5.12 – *Cultural Resources

5.12.1 – Existing Environment

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1996, as amended, and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 1971), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was reviewed and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted in May 2015. The project site, including the barrier, has been reviewed for the presence of historic and cultural resources. The USACE has made a preliminary determination, and the SHPO concurred in a letter dated July 14, 2015, that no known historic properties are listed on or are eligible for listing on the National Register and no archeological sites are known to be located in the area of the proposed project site. The USACE will continue to accept comments from federally recognized Tribes and the public through the 30 day public review period of the draft IDPR/EA. Any substantial comments will be reviewed by the USACE and the USACE may change its effect determination based on comments received. Any changes to the effects determination would be documented in the final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

5.12.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.12.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be minimal changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to cultural resources in the area would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources.

5.12.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Via letter in July 14, 2015, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with the preliminary USACE determination that the proposed action would have no adverse effect on the barrier. The site was previously disturbed by original construction of the barrier, bank stabilization, and the road to access the site. Construction contracts would include clauses protective of any discovered cultural resources. If any unusual sites or items that may have historical value are encountered during the course of proposed construction, work would stop and the sites or items would be protected while the appropriate authorities, including the USACE Detroit District Archeologist, are contacted. It is not anticipated that the proposed construction of a sea lamprey trap would affect cultural resources. Refer to Section 6.1 – Agency Coordination and Public Review for additional details related to coordination with the SHPO and federally recognized Tribes.

5.13 – *Air Quality, Noise, Traffic and Aesthetics

5.13.1 – Existing Environment

5.13.1.1 Air Quality

The USEPA and MDEQ monitor air quality across the State of Michigan. Data specific for National City, Michigan were not available at the time of this assessment. The two closest MDEQ and USEPA air monitoring stations are located in Houghton Lake, Michigan (approximately 45 miles west of National City) and Bay City, Michigan (approximately 45 miles south of National City); both were considered in this analysis. MDEQ Action Day data from 1994 through 2014 were reviewed for Houghton Lake and Saginaw. No air quality Action Days were noted for Houghton during this period. One air quality Action Day was noted in 2007 and 2 in 2005 for Saginaw. Iosco County is not designated as a “nonattainment” or “maintenance” area by the USEPA, thus a conformity determination is not required (40 CFR Ch. 1, § 93.153). The historic air quality profile (2004-2013) and monthly averages do not list any unhealthy or very unhealthy days. A few days (7 in Bay County and 13 Missaukee County over the 10 year period) are listed as unhealthy for sensitive groups including older adults and children. Overall, air quality in Iosco County is considered good.

5.13.1.2 Noise and Traffic

Noise and Traffic in the vicinity of the study area is typical of that found in a relatively undeveloped, rural area near a small sized downtown. National City is located about a mile and a half to the northwest, at Whittemore and S National City Roads, and Alabaster is located approximately 7.5 miles southeast of the site via Alabaster Road. Immediately surrounding the site is undeveloped woods.

Vehicle access to the site is present from the west side of the river via Greenwood Road. Traffic is light in the area, with traffic at the site primarily consisting of MDNR and USFWS employees and recreational users of the barrier (viewing the barrier and fishing). There is regular noise at the site in association with water rushing over the barrier and visitor vehicles. An anticipated noise range that would be considered typical during the day at the site would be 45-65 decibels (dB), depending on proximity to the barrier. Table 13 below presents noise levels in relative terms for interpretation.

Table 13 – Approximate Sound Levels and Human Response Overall Noise Common Sounds Effect Level (dBA) 0 Threshold of hearing 10-30 Just audible to soft whisper at 15 feet Negligible to very quiet 40 Bird calls Very quiet Light auto traffic at 100 feet; Quite 50 suburban residential environment (i.e., 630 Quiet people /square mile) Air conditioning unit at 100 feet; 60 Intrusive dishwasher (rinse); conversation Noisy restaurant; vacuum cleaner; Moderately loud, telephone use 70 passenger car at 65 mph; freeway traffic at difficult 50 feet; very noisy urban residential

Overall Noise Common Sounds Effect Level (dBA) environment (i.e., 63,000 people/square mile) Alarm clock at 2 feet; food blender or 80 Annoying garbage disposal Power mower; heavy truck at 50 feet or Very annoying 90 motorcycle at 25 feet; city traffic Riveting machine; rock band; jet flyover at Very loud, very annoying, difficult 100-110 1,000 feet to hear talking On construction site during pile-driving; Jet Uncomfortably loud, maximum 110-130 takeoff at 200 feet; auto horn at 3 feet vocal effort necessary Data from: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 1992, USEPA 1971, 1974, 1978

5.13.1.3 Aesthetics

The only developed public area of the project is a gravel access road down to the river. The land is state- owned and some recreational anglers access the river from this location. The access road would be improved as part of this project to allow for safe access by USFWS personnel to operate and maintain the trap.

5.13.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.13.2.1 No Action

By taking no action, there would be negligible changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to air quality, noise, traffic or aesthetics would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on these resources.

5.13.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Air Quality – Impacts to air quality would arise from emissions of motorized construction equipment and minor fugitive dust associated with the proposed construction activities. Emissions and exposed soil conditions associated with the proposed construction would be short-term and temporary. The proposed project is relatively small scale and would likely involve the use of only a few pieces of equipment at a time (i.e., a crane, pile driver, an excavator, and trucks delivering supplies / removing minimal waste, etc.). Fugitive dust control methods such as spraying down dust with water and re- vegetating exposed soils with native seed as soon as possible would be implemented throughout the project.

In addition, the proposed work area is a relatively remote section of the river and woods indicating few potential sensitive receptors would be present at the site during construction for any extended period of time. Trees in the vicinity would aid in reducing transport of dust particles. Any impacts would be short- term and minor. All equipment would be required to meet emission standards.

Air impacts during operations at the sea lamprey trap would be negligible. Once construction activities are complete, the project would not produce air emissions. During peak sea lamprey trapping season

(approximately eight to nine weeks each year from March through June) negligible emissions would be associated with one to two pick-up trucks visiting the site each day to check the traps, and potentially a 1-1/2 ton fish truck to pick up trapped lamprey three to four times per week. A small generator may be used to operate electric winches that provide access to the sea lamprey trap.

Noise and Traffic – Temporary and minor noise and traffic disturbances would occur from the presence and operation of heavy machinery during the proposed construction activities, but would not be significant or long-term. Effects beyond the site are not expected to exceed levels necessary for the protection of public health and welfare, which is typically identified as 70 db for NEPA assessments based on USEPA publications. Intensity of noise decreases with increased distance from the source due to the spreading of the sound energy over an increased area. As distance doubles, the noise level decreases by approximately 6 dB. Table 14 below represents approximate noise levels that would be expected during construction activities.

Table 14 – Predicted Noise Associated with Construction Activities Noise Levels 50 feet From Source Noise Levels 100 feet From Construction Equipment (dBA) Source (dBA) Typical Range Typical Backhoe 80 75-95 74 Bulldozer 85 81-96 79 Crane (mobile) 83 75-87 77 Front Loaders 85 72-84 79 Generators 81 71-81 75 Grader 85 79-93 79 Pile Driver (diesel, sonic) 96 94-105 90 Truck 88 81-95 82 Data from: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 1992, USEPA 1974, 1978

Predicted noise levels would continue to decrease at distances further from the noise source. Levels would fluctuate throughout the day during construction and could be impacted by intervening buildings, vegetation, wind direction, and atmospheric conditions. The proposed project is relatively small scale in the sense that it would involve the use of only a few pieces of equipment at a time (i.e., a crane, pile driver, an excavator, and truck(s) delivering supplies / removing minimal waste, etc.). Based on this analysis, excessive noise above what might be considered typical in the project vicinity is not anticipated. Potential effects from noise would be minimized by ensuring that construction activities would only occur during times of the day designated by local ordinances. Construction activities, such as initial mobilization for the project, transport of materials to the construction site, and transport of waste materials off-site (expected to be minimal) would cause general traffic in the area to be heavier than normal, but impacts would be short-term, minimal and not have significant effects. All equipment and / or materials hauled to and from the project site would use approved hauling routes and abide by local, state, and federal hauling requirements. The contractor would be required to coordinate with the local authorities regarding use of access routes and obtain the appropriate permit(s) as necessary. Access to the project site for trap construction is expected to be from the west bank.

Post construction, there would be negligible noise and traffic associated with operation of the proposed sea lamprey trap. The USFWS would likely drive a truck down to the trap once in March to install traps for the trapping season and once in June to remove traps – this activity currently occurs seasonally with

temporary traps. Traffic in between that time may include one to two pick-up trucks daily to check traps during peak trapping season (lasting approximately 8-9 weeks each year). A 1-1/2 ton fish truck may visit the site three to four times a week during peak trapping season to transport lamprey off site that have been removed from the traps. Trucks associated with trapping would access the project site via an access road off of Greenwood Road. Minor noise may be associated with operating the generators / hoists to empty the sea lamprey traps during peak trapping season from March through June; however it would not be significant in comparison to the existing noise at the site. Generator noise is anticipated to be in the range of 50-70 db for approximately one-hour run time per day when used.

Aesthetics – Minimal impacts to aesthetics at the site are expected. There would be short-term, minor effects during construction activities, and negligible long-term effects. The sea lamprey trap and associated structure would be located in the river downstream of the barrier. A new access ramp would provide access to the trapping structure. Fishing would not be permitted in the immediate area around the existing sea lamprey barrier and the trap.

5.14 – *Social Setting and Environmental Justice

5.14.1 – Existing Environment

The 2010 U.S. census lists the population of Sherman Township as approximately 450 people (Table 15). National City, MI is an unincorporated community located within Sherman Township.

Table 15 – Summary of Census Data Sherman Iosco County1 State of Michigan1 Township1 Total Population Estimate 448 25,887 9,883,640 White 439 98% 24,965 96% 7,803,120 79% African American 1 0.2% 122 0.5% 1,400,362 14% Asian 1 0.2% 126 0.5% 238,199 2.4% American Indian/ Alaska 2 0.4% 170 0.7% 62,007 0.6% Population by Native Race Native Hawaiian/ Pacific 0 0% 15 0.1% 2,604 0.03% Islander Other 1 0.2% 106 0.4% 147,029 1.5% Identified as 2 or more 4 0.9% 383 1.5% 230,319 2.3% Sensitive Under 18 71 15.8% 4,554 18% 2,344,068 24% Sectors of 65 & over 104 23.2% 6,755 26% 1,361,530 14% Population High school graduate or higher2 99% 86.4% 88.7% Median household income 2008-2012 $32,216 $35,396 $48,471 Persons below poverty level last twelve 11.4%5 19.6% 16.3% months (%)3 Building Permits (2012) N/A 31 11,6924 Persons per square mile N/A 47.1 174.8 1 - From 2010 Census data unless otherwise noted. 2 - Percent of persons age 25+, 2008-2012. 3 - As identified by the U.S. Census as approximate income of $11,888 per year for a single person and approximate income of $23,834 for a family of four. 4 - Includes data not distributed by county. 5 - +/- 5.4% margin of error. N/A - Data not available.

In general, the population is rural, with a slightly heavier concentration in National City, and much of the surrounding land is undeveloped and occupied by forests. Historic uses of the East Branch Au Gres River and harbor include fishing and lumber distribution. Much of the area was heavily logged in the 19th century, but has re-grown into forests. The majority of employment in National City is in the sales / administrative support and the production / transportation occupations.

Several principles were considered while evaluating the proposed action to determine if the recommended alternative would cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income, minority and/or tribal populations. These included considerations such as the human composition of the affected area (e.g., low-income and minority groups), recognizing the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed action, and coordination with local Tribes. In addition, the public will be encouraged to participate in the decision making process via pubic review and comment on this EA.

5.14.2 – Environmental Consequences

5.14.2.1 No Action

By choosing the no action alternative, there would be negligible changes to current conditions, and therefore no significant impacts to community cohesion, desirable community growth, tax revenues, property values, public facilities, public services, regional growth, employment or the labor force, business and industrial activity, or human-made resources; nor would there be a displacement of people or a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-income, minority, tribal or child populations.

5.14.2.2 Recommended Alternative

Neither the presence and operation of construction equipment, nor the permanent trap, would significantly affect the social setting of the area at the barrier or the immediate vicinity. The site is occupied by MDNR and the surrounding area is forest. Public access and use of the site would not change after construction of the trap. Recreation is discussed in further detail in the next section.

There could be some short-term, negligible effects during construction related to construction activity. Annoyance resulting from construction activities involves the subjective responses of individuals. Construction activities would only occur during times of the day designated by MDNR and local ordinances. Coordination of the proposed action was conducted with tribal governments early in the planning process, as well as receipt of this EA for review and comment. The proposed trap could reduce the frequency of chemical sea lamprey treatments downstream of the barrier and provide a long-term beneficial impact to users of aquatic resources in this area since non-chemical treatments are typically preferred by the public.

The proposed project would not have a significant impact on community cohesion, desirable community growth, tax revenues, property values, public facilities, public services, regional growth, employment or the labor force, business and industrial activity, or human-made resources; nor would the project cause displacement of people. The action would not cause disproportionately major adverse effects on low- income, minority, tribal or child populations.

5.15 – *Recreation

5.15.1 – Existing Environment

Recreational fishing, wildlife viewing, camping and other leisure activities are popular along the East Branch Au Gres River, both upstream and downstream of the barrier.

The East Branch Au Gres River fishing has attracted anglers since the late 1800's. Today, even with the existing barrier, the river is rated as one of the most productive trout streams in the United States and twelve miles of the river upstream of the project site is designated by the State of Michigan to be a Blue Ribbon Trout Stream (Figure 12). Trout fishing begins in the early spring and extends throughout the summer.

5.15.2 – Environmental Consequences

No Action

By taking no action, there would be negligible changes to current conditions, and therefore no impacts to recreational resources and opportunities in the area would occur. The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.

Recommended Alternative

Recreational use (e.g., fishing, wildlife viewing) of the river immediately downstream of the barrier at the apron could be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Disturbances would be short- term and minor, likely involving restricted access during construction activities. However, most fishing pressure is at the mouth of the river or above the barrier so it is anticipated impacts related to these activities are minimal.

Construction and presence of the sea lamprey trap would not significantly impact recreation or tourism in the vicinity of the MDNR barrier. Conditions and restrictions would not vary significantly from those already in place at the existing barrier. It is anticipated that recreation would not be permitted on the trap structure – which is not a significant impact because fishing is currently not allowed within 100 feet of the existing barrier, which includes the area where the traps would be located and it is expected this restriction would remain in place after installation of the trap. The property is owned by MDNR and recreational use on their property would need to be coordinated by them.

The USFWS would likely drive a truck down to the trap once in March to install traps for the trapping season and once in June to remove traps. USFWS personnel would check and empty traps up to once a day during peak trapping. This may be by foot or via truck, but would not result in restricted access to the riverbank. No other recreational activities on the East Branch Au Gres River would be significantly impacted.

CHAPTER 6 – *AGENCY COORDINATION AND EA CONCLUSIONS

6.1 – *Agency Coordination and Public Review

6.1.1 Public Review

The Integrated DPR and EA Report and preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action of constructing sea lamprey traps at the barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River in Iosco County, Michigan, will be available to the public for comment for a period of 30 days at: the Whittemore Public Library located at 483 Bullock Street, Whittemore, MI 48770; the U.S. Post Office located at 4770 Whittemore Road, National City, MI 48748; and on the internet at the USACE Detroit District, USACE website at http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Home.aspx (lower left of page under “Other Public Notices”).

At the end of the 30-day period, the USACE will consider all comments submitted by individuals, agencies, and organizations. A summary of participation will be added to this report after the review period. As appropriate, the USACE may then finalize and execute the FONSI and proceed with the implementation phase of the project. If it is determined that implementing the recommended alternative would result in potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures could be proposed to reduce the impact below a level of significance, or the USACE will either publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS or choose not proceed with the proposed action.

6.1.2 Agency Coordination

The NEPA process is designed to inform the public of the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and involve them in the federal decision-making process. The USACE recognizes that public involvement and intergovernmental coordination and consultation are essential elements in developing an EA. Formal notification and opportunities for public participation, as well as informal coordination with government agencies and planners are incorporated into the EA process. This chapter provides a summary of early agency coordination.

Agencies, organizations, and members of the public having a potential interest in the Proposed Action are invited to participate in the decision-making process. Coordination was conducted with the SHPO, the USEPA, the USFWS, MDEQ, MDNR, and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to request information regarding the resources on and near the project site. This chapter provides a summary of this coordination. The responses received are included in Appendix E – Agency Coordination.

6.1.2.1 Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 1971) the NRHP has been reviewed and the proposed action was coordinated with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer in May 2015. A response letter was received from the SHPO dated 14 July 2015. In their letter, the SHPO concurred with the USACE determination that “no historic properties are affected within the area of potential effects of this undertaking.” This fulfills the USACE compliance with 36 CFR 800.4 “Identification of historic properties,” and 36 CFR 500.5 “Assessment of adverse effects,” and the fulfillment of the USACE’s responsibility to notify the SHPO, as a consulting party in the Section 106 process, under 36 CFR 800.4(c) Consulting party review.” If the scope of the work changes or if any artifacts are encountered during construction, the SHPO would be notified.

6.1.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

The proposed action was coordinated with the USEPA in April 2014 and a response via email was received 15 May 2014. The USEPA responded that “At this time, USEPA will not be providing formal scoping comments; however, we do look forward to receiving the Draft Environmental Assessment for this project.” The Integrated EA and DPR will be provided for their review and comment during the public review period.

6.1.2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The USFWS Marquette Office Sea Lamprey Program members have been project partners during planning of this project. Trap alternatives (e.g., locations, trap sizes, structure shape) and needed functionality for use (e.g., lifting traps, work space, access, etc.) have been coordinated with members of the sea lamprey program. The USFWS has been provided draft reports of all pertinent USACE decision documents regarding the sea lamprey program in order to review and comment on the content, accuracy and presentation of the information and data.

In addition, the USACE coordinated the proposed project with the East Lansing Field Office under the NEPA, the ESA, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in April 2014. A response letter from the East Lansing Field Office was received dated 5 May 2014. The USFWS agreed with our list of federally listed species for Iosco County including, endangered piping plover and Kirtland’s warbler, piping plover designated critical habitat, threatened Pitcher’s thistle, northern long-eared bat and rufa red knot, and candidate-for-listing eastern massasauga rattlesnake. They responded, “Once you have determined work, storage and river access locations, you should assess potential effects to listed species. No effect determinations do not require concurrence from this office.”

6.1.2.4 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

The proposed action was coordinated with the MDEQ in April 2014 and a response letter was received dated 13 May 2014. The MDEQ responded that this project will be reviewed through the State’s permitting process. The Integrated EA and DPR will be provided for MDEQ’s review and comment during the public review period. The USACE will not be applying for a state permit during the feasibility phase of this project. Coordination for any necessary permit would occur later during the design phase.

An evaluation according to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR, Part 230) has been prepared because there will be a discharge of fill material in waters of the U.S. associated with the proposed action. The Section 404(b)(1) evaluation concludes with the determination that “the proposed action is in compliance with Section 404 of the CWA.” Therefore, a Section 401 (of the CWA) Water Quality Certification (WQC) shall be requested from the State of Michigan. A 401 WQC, or waiver thereof, would be obtained prior to construction.

6.1.2.5 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

The USACE coordinated the proposed action with the MDNR-Fisheries Division in April 2014 and a response letter was received 28 April 2014. The MDNR’s letter noted that they have “no objection to the proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a permanent sea lamprey trap …”

The MDNR – Fisheries Division indicated that the land managing division is the MDNR’s Forestry Division. This division is responsible for granting access needed to move forward with construction. The Integrated EA and DPR will be provided to both DNR – Fisheries Division and DNR – Forestry Division for their review and comment during the public review period.

6.1.2.7 United States Forest Service The U.S. Forest Service did not provide any comments regarding the proposed project.

6.1.2.7 Native American Tribes

Pursuant to the NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, all federally recognized tribes with historic and/or cultural affiliation within the project boundaries will be contacted, provided an opportunity to comment, and invited to consult on the project. Tribes will receive a copy of this report and EA for review and comment. No federally recognized Tribes have commented on the proposed project to date. The USACE has made a preliminary determination that the proposed action would not impact any Native American or other cultural resources. The USACE will continue to accept comments from federally recognized Tribes through the 30 day public review period of the draft IDPR/EA. Any substantial comments will be reviewed by the USACE and the USACE may change its effect determination based on comments received. Any changes to the effects determination would be documented in the final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Tribes would be coordinated with in the event that any archeological or cultural artifacts are encountered during the project’s implementation phase.

6.2 – *Cumulative Effects and Climate Change

6.2.1 – Evaluation of Cumulative Effects on Resources

This section considers the recent, present and foreseeable future projects that were noted in Chapter 5 during the assessment of cumulative effects of each alternative. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Per 40 CFR Part 1508, cumulative impact is “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”

The potential for cumulative effects on the environment from the project alternatives were evaluated by reviewing available data such as historical aerial photographs and reports to identify recent projects, reviewing ongoing and planned projects within the vicinity, communicating with DNR regarding ongoing or planned projects at the site that could affect the same environmental resources as each alternative. Actions that were considered include other sea lamprey control projects that were recently completed, are currently underway, or are programmed to occur within the near future. Cumulative effects are described in each resource area section above and summarized below.

6.2.1.1 No Action Alternative

The no action alternative would not have an impact on cumulative effects from recent, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. In lieu of a permanent, more efficient trap system being installed in the East Branch Au Gres River, the USFWS would continue to use temporary, portable traps

to capture adult sea lamprey for research and to remove them from the population with varying success, along with TFM treatments on larval populations.

6.2.1.2 Recommended Alternative

Though chemical treatments are successful in reducing sea lamprey numbers, they are known to be expensive, complex to implement, and to have some negative impacts to the ecosystem. Removing increased numbers of spawning-phase sea lamprey using a permanent trap prevents those lamprey from spawning, and hence results in fewer larvae to target for treatment. Over time the permanent traps are expected to lead to a smaller sea lamprey population in the East Branch Au Gres River, potentially reducing the frequency of chemical sea lamprey treatments needed downstream of the barrier. This would be beneficial to the aquatic habitat and users of aquatic resources in this area and it would reduce the overall cost of lamprey control in the East Branch Au Gres River.

The recommended alternative of constructing a permanent trap in addition to the TFM treatments that currently take place would have negligible to minor impacts to the majority of resources, and long-term, moderate negative impacts to invasive species (Table 14). Based on evaluation of these potential impacts, and consideration of recent, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed action would not cause significant, long-term cumulative effects on the resources analyzed in Chapter 5, except sea lamprey. The purpose of the project is to reduce sea lamprey populations and a negative cumulative effect to sea lamprey is a desired outcome of the project and therefore is acceptable.

6.2.2 – Climate Change Impacts

Executive Order 13653 Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change of November 1, 2013, requires the Federal Government to build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the Nation’s preparedness and resilience to climate change by modernizing Federal programs, planning for climate change related risk, managing lands and waters for climate change risk, and providing and sharing information, data, and tools for climate change preparedness and resilience.

To this end, the USACE has directed that all water resource planning decision documents include considerations regarding possible climate change impacts to the project being studied for development. The following paragraphs meet this requirement in detailing any expected impacts of climate change on the East Branch Au Gres Sea Lamprey Trap Project.

Current science-based predictions indicate that climatic changes in this region will likely include higher mean air temperatures in summer and winter, with measurably less average annual rainfall, but more intensive rainfall and snowfall events when they do occur. Of all the anticipated climate change impacts, heavy precipitation and resultant flooding is the greatest concern regarding sea-lamprey projects.

Larger flood events would allow sea lamprey, if coincident with a lamprey spawning run, to be able to bypass some low-head barrier systems and continue migrating upstream into otherwise blocked spawning grounds. Historically, flooding is fairly common on the East Branch Au Gres River downstream of the barrier in Whitney Township. The Whitney Drain helps mitigate some of the flood potential and improvements are made fairly often to continue to improve the risk. The barrier on the river is a low head concrete dam that serves as the only barrier between lamprey and the upstream Blue Ribbon Trout area of the river. If lamprey were able to bypass the barrier during a large flood over 12 miles of

prime trout habitat could be invaded. It is possible that climate change could lead to this condition, but the proposed project would continually reduce numbers of adults in the system which reduces the chance of lamprey progressing upstream. Another potential outcome of climate change is the decline in river stage caused by more frequent drought and the subsequent increase in river water temperatures, which would not have a near-term impact on lamprey spawning or any other portion of their life-cycle aside from a potentially earlier spawning run. Seasons and water temperatures directly affect when spawning-phase sea lamprey enter streams in the spring to spawn. Use of permanent traps would not be affected by fluctuating water temperatures because the USFWS would be able to install traps into the trapping complex earlier or later to account for variability in the timing of spawning runs.

6.3 – * Summary of Potential Effects

The table below summarizes potential impacts of the no action and recommended alternative, Alternative 3 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System on West Bank Downstream of Barrier, as well as Cumulative Effects of the recommended alternative.

Table 16 – Summary of Potential Effects and Cumulative Effects. POTENTIAL EFFECTS Cumulative Effects of RESOURCE No Action Recommended Alternative Recommended Alternative Physical Setting– No effects No effects; Negligible No cumulative effects Climate, localized effects on Topography, topography at immediate Geology, & Land Use construction site Coastal Zone No effects No effects No cumulative effects Management Floodplains & No effects Negligible effects on No cumulative effects Hydrology hydrology at immediate project site; No effects on floodplains Hazardous, Toxic No effects No effects No cumulative effects and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Water and Sediment No effects Potential short-term, minor No cumulative effects Quality negative effects Prime Farmland No effects No effects No cumulative effects Wetlands No effects Negligible effects at No cumulative effects immediate project site Groundwater and No effects No effects No cumulative effects Drinking Water Supply Vegetation, Wildlife No effects Potential localized short- No cumulative effects Habitat, and Wildlife term, minor negative effects during construction. No effects post construction.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS Cumulative Effects of RESOURCE No Action Recommended Alternative Recommended Alternative Aquatic Resources No effects Potential negligible to No significant cumulative effects minor, short-term effects in expected. Potential long-term the immediate beneficial effects if successful sea construction site during lamprey management at this construction. location on the East Branch Au Gres No effects post River results in a reduced need for construction. lampricide application. Threatened and No effects No effects No cumulative effects Endangered Species Exotic and Invasive No effects Long-term, moderate Minor, negative cumulative effects Species negative effects (on the sea on sea lamprey - trapping efficiency lamprey- goal of the would improve, reducing spawning- project). phase sea lamprey numbers. No effect (other species). BMPs would be implemented to reduce transport of other invasive species to or from the site. Cultural Resources No effects No effects No cumulative effects Air Quality No effects Short-term, minor negative No cumulative effects effects Noise and Traffic No effects Short-term, minor negative No cumulative effects effects Aesthetics No effects Short-term, minor effects No cumulative effects during construction; long- term negligible effects at immediate project site Social Setting and No effects Short-term, negligible Minor, positive cumulative effects- Environmental effects (i.e., construction potentially reducing frequency of Justice equipment, minor dust, chemical sea lamprey treatments traffic congestion) during downstream of barrier is beneficial construction. to users of aquatic resources in this No effects post area and is typically preferred by construction. the public. Recreation No effects Short-term, minor negative No cumulative effects effects during construction. No effects post construction.

6.4 – *Compliance with Environmental Statutes and EA Conclusions

The proposed action would increase sea lamprey trapping efficiency, capture and remove spawning- phase sea lamprey from the East Branch Au Gres River system downstream of the MDNR sea lamprey

barrier and help reduce sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, thus providing benefit to the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem.

This integrated EA has been prepared in accordance with the NEPA, the CEQ, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508), and the Corps of Engineers, Policy and Procedure for Implementing NEPA (33 CFR Part 230).

This EA contains an evaluation of the existing conditions and potential environmental impacts associated with implementing the proposed action as compared to taking no action, as required by the NEPA. Resources and environmental elements that could be impacted by the no action and recommended alternative include, but are not limited to: land use, geology and topography, water resources, air quality, natural and biological resources, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazardous materials, and socioeconomic and environmental justice. Adverse effects on these resources are not expected to be significant as described in Section 6.3 – Summary of Potential Effects.

The proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to the following Acts and Executive Orders, as amended: NEPA of 1969, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, NHPA of 1966, CAA of 1970, EO 11593-Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment of May 1971, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, ESA of 1973, WRDA of 1976, CWA of 1977, EO 11990- Wetland Protection of May 1977, EO 11988-Floodplain Management, the Farmland Protection Policy Act (Subtitle I of Title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981), and EO 12898-Environmental Justice. Environmental analysis has found the proposed project to be in compliance with the above Acts and EOs including:

. ESA of 1973; there would be no effect on federally listed species. . Section 106 of the NHPA of 1996 and EO 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 1971), the NRHP and the SHPO have been consulted and has concurred with USACE’s determination “that no historic properties are affected within the area of potential effects.” . The proposed action would be exempt as de minimis and meet the Conformity Requirements under Section 176 of the CAA of 1970, as amended, and 40 CFR 93.153. . The proposed action would be “consistent to the maximum extent practicable” (as defined in 16 USC 1456, Coastal Zone Management Act, approved 1978) with the Michigan Coastal Zone Management Program and not significantly impact the coastal zone. . E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management. The project is located beyond mapped floodplains. The proposed action complies with the Federal EO on Flood Plain Management (EO 11988) because there is no practicable alternative to construction in the floodplain, nor would the project encourage floodplain development. . The recommended alternative would not have adverse effects on any low-income or minority populations. Any change in area use resulting from the project would not disproportionately affect one group of the local population more than another. Therefore, the residents of nearby National City, Michigan would not be adversely affected (with regard to health, income, recreational opportunities, or overall quality of life) by the proposed project

Refer to Appendix F – Significant Laws and Executive Orders for more information on compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Based on the findings of this EA, implementation of the recommended alternative (Alternative 3 – Install Permanent Attractant Water Trap (AWT) System on West Bank Downstream of Barrier) would not have significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the

quality of the human or natural environment. The recommended alternative would meet the project’s purpose and need. The no action alternative was considered but it does not meet the project’s purpose and need. This EA concludes that: 1) there are no significant cumulative or long-term environmental effects associated with the proposed action, 2) the benefits outweigh the minor, temporary effects that may result, and 3) it does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

An evaluation according to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material, of the CWA (40 CFR, Part 230) has been prepared because the proposed action would involve a discharge of fill material (permanent sea lamprey trap structure including a concrete slab base) in waters of the U.S. associated with the proposed action. The Section 404(b)(1) evaluation found that there would be no adverse effects from the proposed action and concludes with the determination that “the proposed action is in compliance with Section 404 of the CWA.” Therefore, a Section 401 (of the CWA) WQC shall be requested from the State of Michigan. A 401 WQC, or waiver thereof, would be obtained prior to construction.

A preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared to accompany this EA in Appendix G. The preliminary FONSI indicates that the recommended alternative does not constitute a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. At this time, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the next level of environmental impact investigation under NEPA, is not being pursued for this project action. This EA and preliminary FONSI will be made available to the public for a 30-day review period. If after the public review the potential project impacts are found to be insignificant, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document would be finalized and executed by the USACE District Engineer, and implementation of the recommended alternative could proceed. If the potential environmental impacts identified are found to be significant according to criteria established in 40 CFR 1508.27, then a FONSI could not be signed. If impacts are determined to be significant, the USACE can: produce mitigation measures to reduce impact below a level of significance; prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS; or choose not to proceed with the proposed action.

CHAPTER 7 – DPR RECOMMENDATION AND SIGNATURE

I have considered all significant aspects of the problems and opportunities as they relate to the project that is recommended to be constructed near National City, Michigan, to reduce sea lamprey in the East Au Gres River. Those aspects include environmental, social, and economic effects, as well as engineering feasibility.

I recommend that Alternative 3 – Install a Permanent AWT at West Wing Wall Downstream of Barrier be constructed, with a permanent AWT system located below the existing barrier. The recommended alternative, with the installation of a specialized permanent sea lamprey trap, has a total project cost of approximately $1,064,000. The USFWS anticipates that OMRR&R of permanent traps would be similar to that of temporary traps; approximately $5,000 annually. This plan would provide benefits to desirable fish species in Lake Huron and the Great Lakes system.

Anticipated costs (as shown in Table 5) are as follows:

Fully Funded Cost Estimate To Implement Recommended Alternative ($000)1 Non- Totals Federal Federal Plans and Specifications $117 $76 $41 Construction, and Monitoring $947 $615 $331 Totals $1,064 $691 $372

The installation of permanent traps at the existing sea lamprey barrier on the East Au Gres River is also part of a Great Lakes-wide plan to improve integrated sea lamprey control developed by a bi-national team of sea lamprey control specialists. Installation of permanent trap systems may eventually reduce the amount of TFM needed for lamprey control on the river, resulting in additional cost-savings to the Federal government.

______Michael L. Sellers Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer

1 Numbers in table are rounded to the nearest 1,000. For more details on the cost estimate refer to Appendix B.

CHAPTER 8 – PRELIMINARY FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (FONSI)

PRELIMINARY FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS (FONSI)

EAST BRANCH AU GRES RIVER SEA LAMPREY TRAPS, IOSCO COUNTY, MICHIGAN

Proposed Action: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Detroit District, has assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with providing environmental restoration at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources sea lamprey barrier on the East Branch Au Gres River through the placement of a permanent sea lamprey trap targeting adult lamprey near National City, Michigan.

Project Authority: Section 506: Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000, as amended.

Project Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed project is improving control of spawning phase adult sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and reducing recruitment of juveniles. The proposed action would increase sea lamprey trapping efficiency, capture and remove spawning-phase sea lamprey from the East Branch Au Gres River system downstream of an existing barrier, and help reduce sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes, thus providing benefit to the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem.

Environmental Effects: An Integrated Detailed Project Report (DPR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) – East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Traps Iosco County, Michigan dated April 2016 and an evaluation pursuant to Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was completed for the proposed action.

The EA concludes that: 1) there are no significant short-term, long-term, or cumulative adverse environmental effects associated with implementing the proposed action; 2) the project benefits outweigh minor, temporary impacts, primarily from short-term noise and air emissions from construction activities; and 3) the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Section 404(b)(1) evaluation of the environmental effects of the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. concludes with the determination that the proposed action is in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Finding and Conclusion: Based on the findings of the EA and Section 404(b)(1) evaluation, the proposed action has been found to be in compliance with the applicable acts and executive orders identified in the DPR and EA. The preliminary determination is that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.

Date Michael L. Sellers Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army District Engineer

CHAPTER 9 – *ACRONYMS

AOC Area of Concern AWT Attractant Water Trap BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CE/ICA Cost Effectiveness & Incremental Cost Analysis CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act DPR Detailed Project Report EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order ER Engineer Regulation ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FNC Federal Navigation Channel FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act GL Great Lakes GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission GLFER Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste

ICA Incremental Cost Analysis IVE Initial Value Estimate LERRDs Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocations & Disposal Areas MI Michigan MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources NED National Economic Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NER National Ecosystem Restoration NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places OMRR&R Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation & Replacement PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PFC Perfluorinated Chemicals PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonate P.L. Public Law SHPO Michigan State Historic Preservation Office SSP Steel Sheet Pile TFM 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District USC U.S. Code USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WQC Water Quality Certification WQI Water Quality Index WRDA Water Resources Development Act

CHAPTER 10 – *REFERENCES

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) website, fall 2014 and January 2015. https://ceq.doe.gov/ and https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm.

FEMA Map Service Center, accessed 29 Apr 2014. https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogI d=10001&langId=-1

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) - Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992. Accessed 22 May 2014. http://www.fican.org/pdf/nai-8-92.pdf

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Report of the Evaluation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Program of Sea Lamprey Barriers. January 1988.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2011–2020. December 2011.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Accessed summer 2014. http://www.glfc.org/ various reports / data.

Huron Pines and NRCS. Rifle-Au Gres-Tawas River Rapid Watershed Assessment. March 2008.

Michigan Department of Community Health, 2011-2012 Michigan Fish Advisory, accessed 12 May 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FishAdvisory03_67354_7.pdf and http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,4612,7-132-54783_54784_54785_58671-296074--,00.html

Michigan Department of Community Health website. Former Wurtsmith AFB, Iosco County, Advisory and letter report, accessed 12 May 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,1607,7-132- 2945_5105-285528--,00.html

Michigan DEQ, Air Quality Action Days, accessed 21 May 2014. http://www.deqmiair.org/actionday.cfm

Michigan DEQ, Aquatic Invasive Species, accessed 21 May 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_8314---,00.html

Michigan DEQ, Coastal Zone Boundary Map for Iosco County, Oscoda and Au Sable Townships, accessed 29 Apr 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3677_3696-90802--,00.html

Michigan DEQ, Invasive Species, accessed 21 May 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153- 10370_59996---,00.html

Michigan DEQ, Water Resources Division, Water Well Record Retrieval System, accessed 29 Apr 2014. http://www.deq.state.mi.us/well-logs/

Michigan DEQ, Water Well Viewer, accessed 29 Apr 2014. http://wellviewer.rsgis.msu.edu/viewer.htm

Michigan DEQ, Wetlands Map Viewer, accessed 12 May 2014. http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/wetlands/mapBasic.aspx

Michigan DNR, Jack Pine Ecosystem website, accessed 5 Aug 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_31442-95630--,00.html

Michigan DNR, Michigan Natural Rivers, accessed 19 May 2014. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_52259_31442-95630--,00.html

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, accessed 20 May 2014. http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/

Michigan Surface Water Information Management System, Accessed 12 May 2014. http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/miswims/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office website, accessed 1 Aug 2014. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/apx/climate/records.php.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers website, accessed 19 May 2014. http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/ausable.php

Riley, S.C. [ED.]. 2013. The state of Lake Huron in 2010. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 13-01.

USACE, Detroit. Preliminary Restoration Plan East Branch Au Gres River Sea Lamprey Traps, Section 506 (GLFER) Project, Iosco County, Michigan. February 2014.

USACE, Detroit. Section 905(b) Reconnaissance Study, Western Lake Huron Basin Watershed Study, Michigan. May 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census website, accessed 22 May 2014. www.census.gov and http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26069.html

USEPA, AirNow, accessed 21 May 2014. http://www.airnow.gov/

USEPA, Cleanups in My Community, accessed 9 May 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/cleanups/cleanups- my-community

USEPA, Consumers Energy NPDES permit, accessed 9 May 2014. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports_v2.pcs_tst?npdesid=MIG250389&npvalue=1&n pvalue=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&n pvalue=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12

USEPA, ECHO website, accessed 9 May 2014. http://echo.epa.gov/detailed_facility_report?fid=110008450764&redirect=echo

USEPA, Greenbook, accessed 21 May 2014 (last site update 5 Dec 2013). http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/map/mapnmpoll.pdf

USEPA, “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,” EPA Report No. 550/9-74-004, Office of Noise Abatement Control. March 1974.

USEPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 31 December 1971.

USEPA, “Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document,” EPA 550/9-79-100. November 1978.

USEPA, Superfund Sites webpage, accessed 9 May 2014. Wurtsmith AFB: http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0503675. Hedblum Industries: http://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0503014

USFWS, County Distribution of Federally-Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species for Michigan, accessed 20 May 2014. http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/section7/sppranges/michigan-cty.html

USFWS, Barber, Jessica, Sea Lamprey Control-Barriers and Trapping, Marquette, MI. Personal communication during 2013-2015.

USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, accessed 10 Mar 2014. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

USGS, Non-indigenous Aquatic Species webpage, accessed 21 May 2014. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/