Area of Potential Effect Attachment 1 N c:::J Area of Potential Effect 175 87.5 0 175 Feet c:::J Proposed Bridge Location Date: 7/22/2014 A Image produced under license from ESRI Attachment 2 Photo Locations N C:J Area of Potential Effect Date: 7/22/2014 A 141o• c :::J70•r==o••••••140 Feet C:J Proposed Bridge Location lmag• produced under bnse lrom ESRI Attachment 2 Figure 1: View from top of New Power Plant looking southwest Figure 2: View from southeast side of bridge looking north Attachment 2 Figure 3: View from southwest side of bridge looking north Figure 4: View of deteriorated deck and railing looking south. Railing is severely bent in several locations. Attachment 2 Figure 5: Typical condition of gusset plates showing advanced corrosion and minor section loss Figure 6: East column at Pier 4 showing bent angle at bottom cord connection Attachment 2 Figure 7: Pier 3 east column showing distortion Figure 8: Typical hand rail connection showing advanced corrosion and section loss. Attachment 2 Figure 9: ACROW Modular Bridge Figure 10: ACROW Modular Bridge. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 477 Michigan Avenue DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550 July 16, 2014 IN REPLY REFER TO: Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District (USACE) is proposing to construct a truss bridge over the Unit 10 tailrace at the Saint Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks), which is a National Historic Landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places. With this notice, the USACE is providing notification of the proposed project as required by 36 CFR 800.2 d (2)- Protection of Historic Properties and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). A document has been prepared describing the proposed project, which can be obtained for review online at: http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/EnvironmentalServices/EnvironmentalPublicN otices.aspx or a paper copy can be provided upon request The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a bridge to ensure safe access to the New Power Plant in order to keep the plant maintained and operational. The New Power Plant is an essential part of the Soo Locks as it provides electrical power to a portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The existing bridge was designed to be a temporary structure and it does not meet current design and safety requirements. The existing footbridge is in poor condition with advanced corrosion throughout the entire structure including the base connections of the hand railings; and there is buckling of members in a few areas while most of the hand railing is bent or distorted. Continued use of the bridge poses a safety risk to Soo Locks personnel. Alternatives being considered for the proposed project include: 1) Repairing the current bridge, 2) Construction of a berm and truss bridge, 3) Construction of a bridge similar to the existing bridge, and 4) No Action. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 as it will meet the project’s purpose and need. Upon completion of the proposed project, the existing footbridge would be removed to ensure it does impact future Soo Locks operations. While the USACE has determined that the removal of the existing footbridge would not threaten the historic integrity of the Soo Locks as a whole, the removal of the existing footbridge has been determined to be an “adverse effect” to a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA. Given the finding of an “adverse effect” the USACE is in consultation with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, the National Park Service National Register Program, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to determine the appropriate mitigation necessary to protect the historic integrity of the Soo Locks to the extent possible. Comments on the proposed bridge construction project must be made before the 30-day public review period which closes August 16, 2014; otherwise it will be assumed you have no comment. Please direct your comments to: U.S. Army Engineer Corps of Engineers, Detroit District ATTN: CELRE-PL-E (Curtis Sedlack) 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan, 48226-2550 Comments received will be considered by the USACE as it makes a decision on which alternative to pursue per Section 106 of the NHPA. Sincerely, Charles A. Uhlarik Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Application for Section 106 Review SHPO Use Only IN Received Date / / Log In Date / / OUT Response Date / / Log Out Date / / Sent Date / / Submit one copy for each project for which review is requested. This application is required. Please type. Applications must be complete for review to begin. Incomplete applications will be sent back to the applicant without comment. Send only the information and attachments requested on this application. Materials submitted for review cannot be returned. Due to limited resources we are unable to accept this application electronically. I. GENERAL INFORMATION THIS IS A NEW SUBMITTAL THIS IS MORE INFORMATION RELATING TO ER# Funding Notice Survey MOA or PA Other: a. Project Name: St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks) Bridge Installation b. Project Address (if available): St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks), 3123 W. Portage Avenue, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 c. Municipal Unit: Sault Ste. Marie County: Chippewa d. Federal Agency and Contact (If you do not know the federal agency involved in your project please contact the party requiring you to apply for Section 106 review, not the SHPO, for this information.): United States Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District, Curtis Sedlacek, District Archeologist 313-226-3510 e. State Agency and Contact (if applicable): f. Consultant or Applicant Contact Information (if applicable): II. GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY (INCLUDING EXCAVATION, GRADING, TREE REMOVALS, UTILITY INSTALLATION, ETC.) DOES THIS PROJECT INVOLVE GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY? YES NO (If no, proceed to section III.) Exact project location must be submitted on a USGS Quad map (portions, photocopies of portions, and electronic USGS maps are acceptable as long as the location is clearly marked). a. USGS Quad Map Name: Sault Ste. Marie South OE N (Attachment 2) b. Township: 47 Range: 01 Section: 6 c. Description of width, length and depth of proposed ground disturbing activity: d. Previous land use and disturbances: The property was open space. e. Current land use and conditions: The property is currently open space. f. Does the landowner know of any archaeological resources found on the property? YES Please describe: The Soo Locks are a National Historic Landmark and are on the National Register of Historic Places. III. PROJECT WORK DESCRIPTION AND AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) Note: Every project has an APE. a. Provide a detailed written description of the project (plans, specifications, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Environmental Assessments (EA), etc. cannot be substituted for the written description): See Attachment 1, Section 3 Part d b. Provide a localized map indicating the location of the project; road names must be included and legible. c. On the above-mentioned map, identify the APE. d. Provide a written description of the APE (physical, visual, auditory, and sociocultural), the steps taken to identify the APE, and the justification for the boundaries chosen. The APE was identified by the physical boundary of the project area. However the effects the St. Mars Falls Canal as whole will be taken into account as well. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES a. List and date all properties 50 years of age or older located in the APE. If the property is located within a National Register eligible, listed or local district it is only necessary to identify the district: The St. Marys Falls Canal is a National Historic Landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The current footbridge is a contributing structure to the historic nature of St. Marys Falls Canal b. Describe the steps taken to identify whether or not any historic properties exist in the APE and include the level of effort made to carry out such steps: The Cultural Resource Management Plan For the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District St. Marys Falls Canal (Soo Locks) Property (2005) was referenced for information regarding historic properties within and near the APE as was the 2012 NRHP Form for St. Marys Falls Canal. c. Based on the information contained in “b”, please choose one: Historic Properties Present in the APE No Historic Properties Present in the APE d. Describe the condition, previous disturbance to, and history of any historic properties located in the APE: The exisiting footbridge is the only land connection between the navigation locks and the New Power Plant and is in poor condition. Advanced corrosion is evident throughout the entire structure. Buckling of members is evident in a few areas. The base connections of the hand railings are showing advanced corrosion and most of the hand railing is bent or distorted. V. PHOTOGRAPHS Note: All photographs must be keyed to a localized map. a. Provide photographs of the site itself. b. Provide photographs of all properties 50 years of age or older located in the APE (faxed or photocopied photographs are not acceptable). VI. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT No historic properties affected based on [36 CFR § 800.4(d)(1)], please provide the basis for this determination. No Adverse Effect [36 CFR § 800.5(b)] on historic properties, explain why the criteria of adverse effect, 36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1), were found not applicable. Adverse Effect [36 CFR § 800.5(d)(2)] on historic properties, explain why the criteria of adverse effect, [36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1)], were found applicable. Please print and mail completed form and required information to: State Historic Preservation Office, Environmental Review Office, Michigan Historical Center, 702 W.