Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment Saint Louis River Interlake/Duluth Tar Site DRAFT | April 2017 Photo credit: 1854 Treaty Authority. PREPARED BY: 1854 Treaty Authority (governed by the Bois Forte and Grand Portage Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa) Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency United States Department of Commerce (represented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) United States Department of the Interior (represented by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs) WITH ASSISTANCE FROM: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Industrial Economics, Incorporated c-s3-17b This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS LIST OF ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1 1.2 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Designation of Natural Resource Trustees for the Saint Louis River Interlake/Duluth Tar Site 3 1.3 Purpose and Need 4 1.4 The National Environmental Policy Act 4 1.5 Compliance with Other Authorities 5 1.6 Public Participation 6 1.7 Administrative Record 7 CHAPTER 2 | SAINT LOUIS RIVER INTERLAKE/DULUTH TAR SITE REMEDY AND NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION 2.1 Summary of Site History and Remediation 9 2.2 Saint Louis River Area of Concern 11 2.3 Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 13 2.3.1 Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Activities at this Site 13 2.3.2 Relationship to Remedial Activities 14 2.3.3 Natural Resources Damages Settlement 16 CHAPTER 3 | AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Physical Environment 17 3.2 Natural Resources and Biological Environment 17 3.2.1 Habitat Types 18 3.2.2 Sediment Invertebrates 19 3.2.3 Aquatic Plants 19 3.2.4 Fish 20 3.2.5 Birds and Other Wildlife 20 3.3 Socio-Economic Resources 21 3.4 Cultural and Historic Resources 22 i 3.5 Landscape-Scale Ecological Stressors 23 3.5.1 Great Lakes Water Levels 23 3.5.2 Water Quality 24 3.5.3 Air Quality 24 3.5.4 Invasive Species 25 3.6 Summary 26 CHAPTER 4 | NATURAL RESOURCE INJURIES AND SERVICE LOSSES 4.1 Assessment Area 27 4.2 Pathway 27 4.3 Baseline 29 4.4 Ecological Injuries and Losses 30 4.4.1 Injury to Aquatic Resources 31 4.5 Human Use of Natural Resources and Services 38 4.5.1 Recreation 38 4.5.2 Tribal Uses 40 CHAPTER 5 | TRUSTEE VISION FOR RESTORATION AND PROPOSED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 5.1 Restoration Objectives 41 5.2 Screening of Restoration Approach Alternatives 42 5.3 Alternative A: No Action 47 5.4 Alternative B: Kingsbury Bay Restoration 47 5.4.1 Overview of Kingsbury Bay 47 5.4.2 Kingsbury Bay Project Design and Construction 50 5.5 Alternative C: Grassy Point Restoration 53 5.5.1 Overview of Grassy Point 53 5.5.2 Grassy Point Project Design and Construction 54 5.6 Alternative D: Kingsbury Creek Watershed Protection 58 5.7 Alternative E: Wild Rice Restoration with Cultural Education Opportunities 59 CHAPTER 6 | ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PREFERRED NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE 6.1 Assessment of Environmental Consequences 61 6.1.1 Scope of the National Environmental Policy Act Analysis 62 6.2 Evaluation of Alternative A: No Action 64 6.3 Evaluation of Alternative B: Kingsbury Bay Restoration 64 6.4 Evaluation of Alternative C: Grassy Point Restoration 70 6.5 Evaluation of Alternative D: Kingsbury Creek Watershed Protection 71 6.6 Evaluation of Alternative E: Wild Rice Restoration with Cultural Education Opportunities 73 ii 6.7 Preferred Alternative 75 CHAPTER 7 | MONITORING 7.1 Saint Louis River Interlake/Duluth Tar Natural Resource Damage Assessment Restoration Monitoring Framework 77 7.2 Adaptive Management 79 REFERENCES APPENDIX A | FISH STUDY DATA APPENDIX B | BIRD STUDY DATA APPENDIX C | KINGSBURY BAY CONCEPT DESIGN APPENDIX D | GRASSY POINT CONCEPT DESIGN APPENDIX E | WILD RICE RESTORATION IN THE ST. LOUIS RIVER ESTUARY iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit ES-1 Restoration Included Under the Preferred Alternative viii Exhibit 1-1 Map of Assessment Area and Response Actions 2 Exhibit 2-1 Phases of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Process 14 Exhibit 4-1 Acreage of Assessment Area 27 Exhibit 4-2 Overview of Aquatic Ecosystem Inhabitants and Possible Contaminant Transport Pathways 29 Exhibit 4-3 Summary of Representative Resources 30 Exhibit 4-4 TPAH Sediment Concentrations in Historical Surface Sediment Samples Collected at the Site 33 Exhibit 4-5 Benthic Invertebrate Site-Specific Toxicity Test Results 35 Exhibit 4-6 Summary of Literature-Derived Adverse Effects Thresholds for Fish 37 Exhibit 4-7 Warning Sign Posted for Site 39 Exhibit 5-1 Current Conditions at Kingsbury Bay 49 Exhibit 5-2 Pre- and Post-Project Comparisons 49 Exhibit 5-3 Removal Summary 51 Exhibit 5-4 Preliminary Kingsbury Bay Cost Estimate 53 Exhibit 5-5 Conceptual Design Grassy Point Restoration Site Units 55 Exhibit 5-6 Preliminary Cost Estimate by RSU 57 Exhibit 5-7 Preliminary Kingsbury Creek Costs 58 Exhibit 7-1 General Monitoring Framework 79 iv LIST OF ACRONYMS AOC Area of Concern BUIs Beneficial Use Impairments CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CM Centimeters COCs Contaminants of Concern DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid DOI United States Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAC Fluorescent Aromatic Compound FDL Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative IJC International Joint Commission LOEC Lowest Observed Effects Concentration MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRDAR Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PEC Probable Effects Concentration PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCDD/F TEQ Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxin/Dibenzofuran Toxic Equivalent v PPM Parts per Million PRPs Potentially Responsible Parties RAP Remedial Action Plan ROD Record of Decision RP/EA Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment RSU Restoration Site Unit SLRIDT St. Louis River/Interlake/Duluth Tar SQT Sediment Quality Target TPAH Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons USC United States Code VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this draft Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment (RP/EA) is to describe how the Trustees for the St. Louis River Interlake/Duluth Tar (SLRIDT) Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) – the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the 1854 Treaty Authority, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – will utilize funds obtained through resolution of claims for natural resource damages for the restoration of natural resources and services injured by the release of hazardous substances at the SLRIDT Site. Injuries to natural resources in the 93.6-acre Response Action Area (which is the Assessment Area for the purposes of this NRDAR), including surface water, sediment, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic vegetation, fish, birds, and other wildlife, were caused by exposure of those resources primarily to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These injuries resulted in a loss of the ecological and recreational services that Assessment Area resources would otherwise have provided. The Trustees have lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota a proposed Consent Decree memorializing a proposed settlement of the Trustees’ natural resource damage claims relating to hazardous substances historically released by the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the St. Louis River. Under the proposed settlement, the Trustees would have a total of $6.5 million available for the restoration, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the natural resources injured, destroyed, or lost. Consistent with the United States Department of the Interior NRDAR regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act, the Trustees evaluated a suite of alternatives for conducting the type and scale of restoration sufficient to compensate the public for natural resource injuries and service losses. This restoration would be implemented with the funds from the proposed settlement. Based on selection factors including location, technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, provision of natural resource services similar to those lost due to contamination, and net environmental consequences, the Trustees have identified Alternatives B, D, and E as the preferred alternative (Exhibit ES-1). Under the preferred alternative, the Trustees would conduct shallow sheltered embayment enhancement/restoration at Kingsbury Bay, which includes recreational access and cultural education opportunities; implement watershed protection at Kingsbury Creek; and restore wild rice in the St. Louis River estuary. Kingsbury Bay is a 70-acre shallow sheltered embayment adjacent to, but separate from, the SLRIDT Site. It is a focus area for ecological, cultural, and recreational restoration vii under the Trustees’ preferred alternative. This area