department of the army detroit district, corps of

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

477 MICHIGAN AVE. DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-2550

June 3, 2015 Derek D. Fredrickson, P.E. District 1 Project Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation 1123 Mesaba Avenue Duluth, Minnesota 55811 Dear Mr. Fredrickson, This is in response to your March 19, 2015, comments on the Environmental Assessment—Dredged Material Placement in Support of Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis River Area of Concern, Duluth, Minnesota. We have evaluated your comments and provided responses below. Comments Regarding the 21St Avenue West Site: “At the Proposed 21st Avenue West site MnDOT and the City of Duluth have Miller and Coffee creek outlets to the bay. Both are significant watersheds that bring a lot of water during events. The Miller Creek pipe has a manhole riser that we raised to prevent the flooding that occurred at I-35 during certain times. With the proposed filling of the outlet bay we are concerned about sedimentation at the mouth where the water is significantly shallower and may be above the pipe inverts.” “To the southwest of these creeks we have storm outlets at 27th Avenue West and a creek that outlets north of the CN Ore Docks. At the north end of the ore/limestone piles at the docks there is Merritt Creek and two storm sewer outlets.” Response: The USACE acknowledges the Minnesota Department of Transportation and City of Duluth outfall locations and creek outlets within the 21st Avenue West project area. Design objectives for all sites include maintaining outfall functionality and accessibility for maintenance to levels satisfactory to the MnDOT. The locations for dredged material placement at the 21st Avenue West project site were developed to avoid obstructing flow or backwater effects from existing outfalls and creeks. The project features are set back an appropriate distance to avoid impacting these drainages. Additionally, material will not be placed above the six foot contour within the de-authorized 21st Avenue West Channel in order to maintain flow conveyance between the outfalls of Miller and Coffee creeks and the St. Louis River.

2

Comments Regarding the 40th Avenue West Site: “At the Proposed 40th Avenue West site there is a stream that outlets to the 40th Avenue West site Subarea #4. Here there is concerns about sedimentation and the potential freezing of the shallower channel.” “South of the US 2 Bong Bridge ramps, Subarea 3, there is an apron outlet for I-35 storm sewer into the wet meadow. Subarea 2 has an unnamed stream that surfaces alongside the Menards entrance and goes into the Subarea 2 meadow. It looks as though the outer edge of the wet meadow would be filled. We have maintenance concerns in this area.” Response: The USACE acknowledges the Minnesota Department of Transportation and City of Duluth outfall locations within the 40th Avenue project area. The locations were provided to the USACE via email on April 21st, 2015. The design for 40th Avenue is currently in feasibility level of study, and a preferred design has not been finalized. Final design objectives for the site include maintaining outfall functionality and accessibility for maintenance to levels satisfactory to the MnDOT. The USACE and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are committed to working with local, state, and federal partners in creating solutions that delist the AOC while maintaining functionality of the waterway. If you wish to be more involved in the site designs, you (or a representative of MNDOT) are welcome to join any of the restoration site teams. Please contact the applicable MPCA site team leader to discuss team participation or other concerns:

21st Avenue West Site: Dan Breneman 40th Avenue West Site: John Lindgren Grassy Point Site: Diane Desotelle

3

We recommend you contact Dan Breneman immediately with any further considerations for the 21st Avenue West Site, because the design for that site is being finalized at this time and the State Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be provided for Public Review this summer. Sincerely, Original signed Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Copies furnished:

Mr. David Mohar, District Hydraulics Engineer, MNDOT, Duluth Mr. Dan Breneman, MPCA Duluth Mr. John Lindgren, MPCA Duluth Ms. Diane Desotelle, MPCA Duluth

-----Original Message-----From: Fredrickson, Derek (DOT) Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 To: Uhlarik, Charles A LRE Cc: Mohar, David J (DOT) Subject: [EXTERNAL] EA - Dredged Material Placement in Support of Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis River Area of Concern, Duluth, Minnesota

Mr. Uhlarik,

As per our phone conversation this morning, below are the concerns the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Distirct 1, has on the EA noted in the Subject line.

At the Proposed 21st Avenue West site Mn DOT and the City of Duluth have Miller and Coffee creek outlets to the bay. Both are significant watersheds that bring a lot of water during events. The Miller Creek pipe has a manhole riser that we raised to prevent the flood ing that occurred at 1-35 during certain times. With the proposed filling of the outlet bay we are concerned about sedimentation at the mouth where the water is significantly shallower and may be above the pipe inverts.

To the southwest of these creeks we have storm outlets at 27th Avenue West and a creek that outlets north of the CN Ore Docks. At the north end of the ore/ limestone piles at the docks there is Merritt Creek and two storm sewer outlets.

At the Proposed 40th Avenue West site there is a stream that outlets to the 40th Avenue West site Subarea #4. Here there is concerns about sedimentation and the potential freezing of the shallower channel.

South of the US 2 Bong Bridge ramps, Subarea 3, there is an apron outlet for 1-35 storm sewer into the wet meadow.

Subarea 2 has an unnamed stream that surfaces alongside the Menards entrance and goes into the Subarea 2 meadow.

It looks as though the outer edge of the wet meadow would be filled. We have maintenance concerns in this area.

For more information, please contact David Mohar, District Hydraulics Engineer, my email. Mr. Mohar is copied on th is correspondence.

Please let me know if you have any concerns.

Thank you,

Derek

Derek D. Fredrickson, P.E. District 1 Project Manager Minnesota Department of Transportation

or



June 3, 2015

Vanta E. Coda II Executive Director Duluth Seaway Port Authority 1200 Port Terminal Drive Duluth, Minnesota 55802-2609 Dear Mr. Coda, This is in response to your March 25, 2015, comments on the Environmental Assessment—Dredged Material Placement in Support of Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis River Area of Concern, Duluth, Minnesota. Your summary of the current operations and mission of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority (DSPA) is helpful, and the DSPA’s support of the goals of removing Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) and delisting the AOC is appreciated. The specific comments, which pertain to “protecting maritime waterfront operability and access into the future,” are addressed below. Comment: “In general, dredged material should not be placed to shallow the slip(s) associated with, or to soften the shoreline/dock edge of, any commercial marine dock features, including those that are not currently in active use, such that potential for the following activities at those docks is protected and not impeded:

Vessel access Vessel navigation Access for dredging activities to maintain vessel access and navigation.”

Response: Further evaluation under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 will be conducted to ensure no obstructions to navigation are created. Slips and docks that are inactive would require permission of the site owner if they are to be converted to another use. Specific sites denoted in your letter are addressed below.

21st Avenue West: Comment: “The currently inactive dock extending to the south-southwest off of the western side of Rice’s Point. Although currently inactive, a future owner may choose to operate this feature as a maritime dock.”

Response: The dock in question is excluded from the project area and no dredged material is proposed to be placed in the dock vicinity. The dock is close to the Federal

2

navigation channel (North Channel) and would not be obstructed by the proposed aquatic restoration activities.

40th Avenue West: Comment: “The DSPA appreciates that the EA does not propose to place fill in the slip to the west of Erie Pier, next to the dock face owned by the DSPA.”

Response: Noted. This area would not be filled and is also needed for operation and maintenance of the Erie Pier confined disposal facility.

Comment: “The EA proposes to place fill on the channel face of Erie Pier in order to soften the shoreline. The DSPA owns the property on the western corner of the channel face and plans to maintain it for possible future use as a marine terminal; at a minimum, the DSPA’s channel slip on Erie Pier should not be shallowed, nor the shoreline softened. The DSPA further recommends that the remainder of the channel slip (which abuts land owned by the City of Duluth) also be maintained for possible future use as a marine terminal, which means that the shoreline should not be softened, slip depth should not be shallowed, and navigational access should be maintained.”

Response: The final designs for this site will not shallow or soften the shoreline along the DSPA property on the western corner of the channel face or the referenced channel slip unless management of moderately contaminated sediment is required. DSPA is a member of the restoration site team and their concerns will be taken into account on the final design.

Comment: “Subarea #1 includes the Minnesota Power-owned Dock 28 (Verso). This slip should not be shallowed nor the shoreline softened.”

Response: No material would be placed near the Minnesota Power and Light Company dock that is on the south side of Subarea #1 of the 40th Avenue West Site.

Grassy Point:

Comment: “This area includes the C. Reiss Dock, which currently uses the west-facing slip. The restoration project boundary currently extends into the channel that provides access to the C. Reiss Dock – we recommend that this boundary be re-drawn such that the restoration area doesn’t extend into the slip channel-approach.”

Response: The intent of the project is to achieve habitat restoration and BUI removal while not interfering with the shipping channels. The final restoration site design will reflect this.

3

Comment: “The Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council (MIC) Harbor Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) has convened a Dredging Subcommittee for 15 years. The subcommittee membership is comprised of harbor stakeholders, including the USACE. The Dredging Subcommittee and the HTAC in general are the envy of the other AOCs due to the carefully cultivated collaborative working relationship between stakeholders representing various interests. The fact that the beneficial reuse of dredged materials is common practice in, and upland of, the Duluth Superior Harbor and the St. Louis River is greatly due to the work of the HTAC. We ask that the partnership between the MPCA and the USACE not replace the HTAC Dredging subcommittee. Should technical considerations and questions be encountered going forward, these should be brought to the HTAC Dredging Subcommittee and not simply resolved between the MPCA/MNDNR and the USACE.” Response: The USACE, MPCA, and MNDNR are voting members of the HTAC and regularly attend HTAC Dredging Subcommittee meetings when they occur. The MPCA is the lead agency responsible for overseeing the implementation of the St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan in Minnesota and the delisting of the St. Louis River Area of Concern, a responsibility they share with the WIDNR. The USACE St. Louis River Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Partnership Agreement with MPCA, developed jointly by USACE, MPCA and MNDNR, does not in any way replace the HTAC or its Dredging Subcommittee. Members of HTAC and HTAC Dredging Subcommittee have been invited and are participating on the restoration site teams.

Comment: “The MPCA and the MNDNR have proposed the work described in the EA as a means toward the end goal of removing BUIs with the intent of delisting the AOC by 2025. While we respect the desire to put a timeline on the AOC delisting effort, we and other harbor interests need to look well beyond the 10-year timeframe of the AOC delisting goal, from both the maritime industry - and the habitat improvement - perspectives.” Response: Noted. Comment: “For this reason, it is important that proposed restoration projects are designed such that they do not impede the future potential for all existing commercial maritime docks, including inactive docks, to be operated as maritime docks. HTAC and/or its Dredging Subcommittee is an appropriate venue to seek collaboration and feedback on this issue.”

Response: Under the USACE St. Louis River Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan Partnership Agreement, restoration site teams have been convened and HTAC members, including Dredging Subcommittee members, have been included on the membership of these teams to foster collaboration and feedback. Final design decisions will ensure compatibility between habitat restoration/BUI removal and navigation interests.

4

Comment: “The Project plan should include a statement that habitat improvement within the St. Louis River will continue to be an appropriate use of dredged material even after the AOC is delisted. Once again, HTAC and/or its Dredging Subcommittee is the correct venue to seek collaboration and feedback on this issue.”

Response: The MPCA and MNDNR believe that the continued use of navigational dredge material for habitat restoration purposes following guidance developed for such use is appropriate along with satisfaction of any permitting requirements. Nothing in the work being done at this time suggests that use of this material for said purposes is limited in time to the scope of the Remedial Action Plan. We have included in the Environmental Assessment the placement of approximately 500,000 cubic yards of dredged material within the de-authorized 21st Avenue West Channel “for restoration purposes other than BUI removal” (Table 1, page 10, in EA).

Comment: “In the July 31, 2014 letter from Mr. Pat Collins, then NE Regional Manager for MNDNR Ecological and Waters Resources, to Mr. Charles A. Uhlarik of the USACE, the MNDNR provides a description of Minnesota’s Public Trust Doctrine. We would like to point out that in some areas, the bottom lands of the harbor and river are platted, and private or public owners are identified for individual bottom land parcels. Furthermore, private bottom-land owners pay property taxes on those lands, and if they fail to pay taxes, these lands can be confiscated by the State. This factor should be considered in design of filling activities that affect platted bottom lands above the harbor line.” Response: Our Real Estate office is working with the State of Minnesota regarding bottomland ownership considerations and how they may affect the project design. We appreciate the detailed comments and hope that all issues are resolvable in design discussions between MPCA and the HTAC. The Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for these sites are being prepared and will include the latest site design revisions. The EAWs will be posted in the EQB Monitor (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board) for review and comment. Sincerely, Original signed Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch Copy furnished: HTAC Dredging Subcommittee

1

March 25, 2015

Charles A. Uhlarik

Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District

477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan, 48226-2550 Re: Duluth Seaway Port Authority Comments Regarding the Environmental Assessment for the

Dredged Material Placement in Support of St. Louis Area of Concern (AOC) Aquatic Habitat Restoration

Dear Mr. Uhlarik: The Duluth Seaway Port Authority (DSPA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) February 2015 Environmental Assessment: for the Dredged Material Placement in Support of St. Louis Area of Concern Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis River Area of Concern, Duluth, MN (EA). The DSPA operates the Clure Public Marine Terminal on the Superior Bay side of Rice’s Point. The DSPA is in the process of rehabilitating Dock C&D, a project that will expand the Clure Terminal capacity on Rice’s Point, and is negotiating the purchase of Dock 7, west of Grassy Point. Additionally, the DSPA acquired the properties that are now the Erie Pier Contained Disposal Facility, which is being operated as a Placement and Use Facility. Finally, the DSPA is an economic development agency with a goal of generating domestic and international trade, advancing regional industrial development, and representing the interests of the maritime industry in general, including the interests of twenty private bulk terminals that operate in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. Our comments are provided within the context of our operations and mission. In general, the EA proposes to place suitable dredged material from the Federal navigation project into the three “target areas” to shallow the depth in these areas and to encourage the natural colonization of aquatic vegetation in a manner consistent with the St. Louis River AOC Remedial Action Plan (RAP), as amended. The goal of the project is the removal of Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) #4 and significant progress toward removal of BUI #9, as further defined in the RAP, with an overarching goal of delisting the AOC by 2025. The DSPA doesn’t have any comments or opinions on how well the proposed project meets these objectives, and we support the goals of removing BUIs and delisting the AOC. Furthermore, we encourage the use of historic dredged materials currently stored in Erie Pier, as proposed within the EA. However, the DSPA provides the following comments in the interests of protecting maritime waterfront operability and access into the future:

In general, dredged material should not be placed to shallow the slip(s) associated with, or to soften

the shoreline/dock edge of, any commercial marine dock features, including those that are not

currently in active use, such that potential for the following activities at those docks is protected and

not impeded:

o Vessel access

o Vessel navigation

o Access for dredging activities to maintain vessel access and navigation.

1200 Port Terminal Drive

Duluth, Minnesota 55802-2609 U.S.A.

218-727-8525 ■ Fax 218-727-6888

E-Mail: [email protected] ■ www.duluthport.com

The above comment refers specifically to the docks identified in the Target Areas:

o 21st Avenue West:

The currently inactive dock extending to the south-southwest off of the western side

of Rice’s Point. Although currently inactive, a future owner may choose to operate

this feature as a maritime dock.

o 40th

Avenue West:

The DSPA appreciates that the EA does not propose to place fill in the slip to the

west of Erie Pier, next to the dock face owned by the DSPA.

The EA proposes to place fill on the channel face of Erie Pier in order to soften the

shoreline. The DSPA owns the property on the western corner of the channel face

and plans to maintain it for possible future use as a marine terminal; at a minimum,

the DSPA’s channel slip on Erie Pier should not be shallowed, nor the shoreline

softened. The DSPA further recommends that the remainder of the channel slip

(which abuts land owned by the City of Duluth) also be maintained for possible future

use as a marine terminal, which means that the shoreline should not be softened, slip

depth should not be shallowed, and navigational access should be maintained.

Subarea #1 includes the Minnesota Power-owned Dock 28 (Verso). This slip should

not be shallowed nor the shoreline softened.

o Grassy Point:

This area includes the C. Reiss Dock, which currently uses the west-facing slip. The

restoration project boundary currently extends into the channel that provides access to

the C. Reiss Dock – we recommend that this boundary be re-drawn such that the

restoration area doesn’t extend into the slip channel-approach.

The Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council (MIC) Harbor Technical Advisory Committee

(HTAC) has convened a Dredging Subcommittee for 15 years. The subcommittee membership is

comprised of harbor stakeholders, including the USACE. The Dredging Subcommittee and the

HTAC in general are the envy of the other AOCs due to the carefully cultivated collaborative

working relationship between stakeholders representing various interests. The fact that the

beneficial reuse of dredged materials is common practice in, and upland of, the Duluth Superior

Harbor and the St. Louis River is greatly due to the work of the HTAC. We ask that the partnership

between the MPCA and the USACE not replace the HTAC Dredging subcommittee. Should

technical considerations and questions be encountered going forward, these should be brought to the

HTAC Dredging Subcommittee and not simply resolved between the MPCA/MnDNR and the

USACE.

The MPCA and the MnDNR have proposed the work described in the EA as a means toward the end

goal of removing BUIs with the intent of delisting the AOC by 2025. While we respect the desire to

put a timeline on the AOC delisting effort, we and other harbor interests need to look well beyond

the 10-year timeframe of the AOC delisting goal, from both the maritime industry - and the habitat

improvement - perspectives.

o For this reason, it is important that proposed restoration projects are designed such that they

do not impede the future potential for all existing commercial maritime docks, including

inactive docks, to be operated as maritime docks. HTAC and/or its Dredging Subcommittee

is an appropriate venue to seek collaboration and feedback on this issue.

o The Project plan should include a statement that habitat improvement within the St. Louis

River will continue to be an appropriate use of dredged material even after the AOC is

delisted. Once again, HTAC and/or its Dredging Subcommittee is the correct venue to seek

collaboration and feedback on this issue.

In the July 31, 2014 letter from Mr. Pat Collins, then NE Regional Manager for MnDNR Ecological

and Waters Resources, to Mr. Charles A. Uhlarik of the USACE, the MnDNR provides a description

of Minnesota’s Public Trust Doctrine. We would like to point out that in some areas, the bottom

lands of the harbor and river are platted, and private or public owners are identified for individual

bottom land parcels. Furthermore, private bottom-land owners pay property taxes on those lands,

and if they fail to pay taxes, these lands can be confiscated by the State. This factor should be

considered in design of filling activities that affect platted bottom lands above the harbor line. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Deborah DeLuca or Jim Sharrow of our staff

Sincerely,

Vanta E. Coda II Executive Director VEC/bmc



August 13, 2015

Ms. Amy Cronk Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources 810 W. Maple Street Spooner, Wisconsin 54801 Dear Ms. Cronk, This is in response to your March 30, 2015, comments on the Environmental Assessment—Dredged Material Placement in Support of Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis River Area of Concern, Duluth, Minnesota. Your comments regarding the scope, clarity and accuracy of the EA are discussed below. Comment: Suspended Particulates and Turbidity (Pilot Dredge Material Placement Project, page 5-3; Effects on Water Quality, page 27 -28; Attachment 1, page 8, Section c. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations) - Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and is bioaccumulative through the food chain. The St. Louis River is on the Wisconsin 303(d) list for toxic impairments and has a fish consumption advisory for mercury. The WDNR performed low-level mercury sampling in 2013 at the 21st Avenue pilot project site and found concentrations of mercury that were at least three to four times higher than background levels inside the dredge material placement area during placement operations. Mercury levels were well correlated to levels of suspended particulates. Our data indicate the importance of installing and maintaining turbidity barrier or silt curtain during open water placement of dredge material for habitat projects in the harbor. The use of additional turbidity barrier or silt curtains around smaller individual placement units should also be employed to keep material within targeted placement areas. Response: Please provide us a copy of the low-level mercury sampling results from the 2013 WDNR study. We will review and consider your data as we make decisions on Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the future placement activities at the ecosystem restoration sites. BMPs will be developed in coordination with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on a yearly basis. Comment: Scientists from the University of Minnesota Duluth have also conducted monitoring associated with the 21st Avenue pilot site to better understand mercury and PAH bioavailability. Results of this work indicate an increase in sediment methyl mercury concentrations at the 21st Avenue pilot site following dredge material

-2-

placement activities. Additional time for study should be considered to allow for a better understanding of mercury transformations and flux during and after material placement at the pilot project site. Consideration should be given for conducting comprehensive independent studies of bioaccumulation and cumulative effects of open water placement of dredge material during the pilot project. Results could be compiled in a single site assessment report for informed stakeholder engagement prior to broad scale implementation. Response: Dr. Nathan Johnson, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota—Duluth, has been the lead investigator on the referenced study (which is USACE-funded) to understand mercury and PAH bioavailability in relation to the 21st Avenue West pilot site. We have discussed the monitoring results with Dr. Johnson and understand that total mercury concentrations decreased following the placement of dredged materials (average of 226 ng/g before, 118 ng/g after) and that methylmercury concentrations in the sediment at the 21st Avenue Pilot site were not significantly different before and after dredged material placement (average of 0.91 and 0.89 ng/g, respectively). We are awaiting his completion of the formal report and can provide you with a copy at that time. The pilot study monitoring data (which, in addition to mercury, also includes turbidity, sediment stability, vegetation, and benthos monitoring) is incorporated in design decisions to develop management plans that ensure there is no significant risk to the aquatic ecosystem. These results are available to the AOC partners and stakeholders. Comment: Flood Plains (Flood Plain and Coast Zone Consistency, page 35; Conclusions and Determinations, page 41, Section 5.03) - In regards to the 21st Avenue West aquatic habitat restoration area, we have comments specific to the north and west areas of Interstate Island. The restoration area appears to be adjacent to the mapped special flood hazard areas in WI. Has there been an evaluation of channel velocities during various stages of Lake Superior water levels and St. Louis River flood flows? Is it possible for the dredge spoils to be transported to and deposited in the Superior Bay area? Historical observations and recordings or hydraulic modeling may be useful in determining potential transport of materials under varying lake elevations and river flows. Response: Our Hydraulics and Hydrology Branch has evaluated your concerns regarding sediment stability and the presence of a special flood hazard area adjacent to the 21st Avenue West site and provides the following information:

-3-

a. Interstate Island and the 21st Avenue West design features near the island are located in an area of the St. Louis River Estuary that is mapped as a Zone A1 in the City of Duluth, MN St. Louis County study (FEMA FIRM Community-Panel Number 270421-0040-D Revised November 1992). The Zone A1 area means that the 100-year flood, base flood elevations, and flood hazard factors have been determined. The proposed project would not encourage floodplain development or induce flooding. b. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Detroit District Hydraulics and Hydrology Office is working with the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to perform a numerical modeling study to determine if dredged material used to create both shoals and islands would stay within the area of placement at the 21st Avenue West project area. The modeling simulates the hydrodynamics, sediment transport and waves in the St. Louis River – Duluth Harbor estuarine system during selected storm events. c. Model simulations of the transport of both native sediment and placed dredged material over the selected four-month period (27 March – 26 July 2008) were performed for both the shoals and islands features designed for the 21st Avenue West project area using the Geophysical Scale Transport Modeling System (GSMB) hydrodynamic and mixed sediment transport model. This period was chosen because it included a couple of large storms and two high flow events in the St. Louis River. The chosen simulation period from 2008 represented the waves and currents at the 21st Ave West site corresponding to a 10-year event, with the wind speeds equal to 28-knots as determined using an annual maximum statistical approach. To account for the seasonal lake level variation on Lake Superior and the estuary, a modeled input of a 1.5 ft increase in the lake level (from 600.5 to 602.0 feet International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD, 1985)) over the four-month simulation period was used. The main conclusion from the modeling for both designs (shoals and islands) is that minimal net erosion occurred over the simulated four-month period. In general, the model outputs show predicted net erosion in the shallow waters above the shoals and around portions of the islands. The maximum net erosion depth for the designs of both the shoals and islands was less than 15cm relative to the elevation of the placed dredged material. This relatively small amount of net erosion indicates that after allowing for a few months of consolidation, placed dredged material will be resistant to wave and current induced erosion for the events simulated in the modeling study. d. The 21st Avenue West embayment is off the main channel/river, so flows in this area are low except during large storm events. Flows in the embayment are the result of wind generated circulation as well as circulation resulting from flow separation from the main flow in the navigation channel of the St. Louis River. These low flows also contribute to the relatively small amount of net erosion that occurs in this embayment.

-4-

An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is being drafted for the 21st Avenue West Site, pursuant to State of Minnesota regulations. The EAW will provide more detail on the proposed project and will be made available for your review later this year. Sincerely,

Original signed

Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch

State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 810 W. Maple Street Spooner WI 54801

March 30, 2015

Charles A. Uhlarik Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Detroit District 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Ml 48226-2550

Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary

Telephone 608-266-2621 Toll Free 1-888-936-7463

TTY Access via relay - 711

Subject: Environmental Analysis for Dredged Material Placement in Suppo1t of Aquatic Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40111 Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis R iver Area of Concern, Duluth, MN

Dear Mr. Uhlarik:

We have completed our review of the Environmental Assessment (EA) document referred above. Below are specific comments regarding scope, clarity and accuracy that we recommend addressing in the final EA:

Suspended Particulates and Turbidity (Pilot Dredge Matel'ir1/ Placement Project, page 5-3; Effects on Water Quality, page 27 -28; Attachment 1, page 8, Section c. Suspe11tled Pal'ticulate/Turbidity Determinations) -Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and is bioaccumulative through the food chain. The St. Louis River is on the Wisconsin 303(d) list for toxic impairments and has a fish consumption advis01y for mercury. The WDNR performed low-level mercu1y sampling in 2013 at the 2151 Avenue pilot project site and found concentrations of mercury that were at least three to four times higher than background levels inside the dredge material placement area during placement operations. Mercmy levels were well correlated to levels of suspended patticulates. Our data indicate the impo1tance of installing and maintaining turbidity ban-ier or silt cu1tain during open water placement of dredge material for habitat projects in the harbor. The use of additional turbidity barrier or silt cmtains around smaller individual placement units should also be employed to keep material within targeted placement areas.

Scientists from the University of Minnesota Duluth have also conducted monitoring associated with the 21st Avenue pilot site to better understand mercury and PAH bioavailability. Results of this work indicate an increase in sediment methyl mercury concentrations at the 21st Avenue pilot s ite following dredge material placement activities. Additional time for study should be considered to allow for a better understanding of mercmy transformations and flux during and after material placement at the pilot project site. Consideration should be given for conducting comprehensive independent studies of bioaccumulation and cumulative effects of open water placement of dredge material during the pilot project. Results could be compiled in a single site assessment repott for informed stakeholder engagement prior to broad scale implementation.

Flood Plains (Flood Plain and Coast Zone Co11siste11cy, page 35; Co11clusio11s tmd Determhwtions, page 41, Section 5.03) - In regards to the 21st Avenue West aquatic habitat restoration area, we have comments specific to the n01th and west areas of Interstate Island. The restoration area appears to be adjacent to the mapped special flood hazard areas in Wl. Has there been an evaluation of channel velocities during various stages of Lake Superior water levels and St. Louis River flood flows? Is it possible for the dredge spoils to be transpo1ted to and deposited in the Superior Bay area? Historical observations and recordings or hydraulic modeling may be useful in determining potential transpo1t of materials under varying lake elevations and river flows.

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov Naturally WISCONSIN {!JPRAVTEO

0.VRECYCl.EO PAPER

Thank you for the opportunity to review the EA and provide comments. If you have any questions about our comments please contact me here in our Spooner office at

Sincerely,

Amy Cronk Environmental Analysis & Review Specialist

cc: Joe Graham - Ashland Nancy Larson - Ashland Fred Strand - Superior Steve La Valley - Superior Paul Piszczek - Superior Steven Galarneau - Madison James Killian - Madison



June 16, 2015

Mr. Kenneth A. Westlake, Chief (E-19J) NEPA Implementation Section Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 Dear Mr. Westlake, Thank you for your letter dated April 15, 2015, regarding the Environmental Assessment: Dredged Material Placement in Support of Aquatic Habitat Restoration, 21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point, St. Louis River Area of Concern, Duluth, Minnesota. The detailed comments provided with your letter are addressed below. ALTERNATIVES Comment: “Page 9 of the Draft EA mentions the No-Action Alternative and three action alternatives (finding new upland dredged material placement sites; open lake placement in Lake Superior; placement of dredged material at Grassy Point, 40th Ave. West, and 21st Ave. West). However, the Draft EA does not dismiss any of the alternatives. There is no discussion on how each alternative does, or does not, meet the purpose and need of the project. There is no discussion on whether or not an alternative was dismissed, and if an alternative was dismissed, what the criteria for dismissal were. EPA reminds USACE that the phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. The Draft EA failed to either 1) dismiss alternatives and provide criteria and a discussion of reasons for elimination or 2) rigorously explore and objectively evaluate the other alternatives. EPA assumes that the Preferred Alternative was selected because it meets purpose and need, although this was not clearly stated in the Draft EA. Additionally, EPA assumes that the No Action Alternative, open lake placement alternative, and upland disposal alternative were not further studied because they did not meet purpose and need, although this was not clearly stated in the Draft EA.”

2

Recommendation: “USACE should clarify which alternatives did, and did not meet, purpose and need. This should be clearly stated in USACE's response to comments on the Draft EA and in the Final EA, and also be clarified in the FONSI.” Response: A clarifying statement on alternative selection will be added to the NEPA documentation (FONSI or other as appropriate). While all of the action alternatives meet the purpose and need for dredged material placement, the proposed action also provides the added benefit of habitat restoration towards BUI removal. The Preferred Alternative was selected as the most cost-effective. Upland placement involves considerable additional costs for loading and transporting by truck, real estate, and site preparation such as building berms to retain the dredged material. Because the material is suitable for open water placement, added costs of upland placement must be borne by a non-Federal sponsor. For this reason, upland sites considered in the past, were not viable (reference the Environmental Assessment prepared and circulated for public review in 1999 for a Dredged Material Management Plan). Open lake placement has greater transportation costs because the barges would have to exit the harbor, whereas the RAP restoration sites are adjacent to much of the dredging area. For these reasons, upland and open lake placement were not pursued at this time. WATER QUALITY Comment: “In addition to inputs from Miller Creek and Coffee Creek, the 21st Avenue Embayment also receives direct effluent from the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) Treatment Plant. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has previously noted that potential issues associated with the effluent from WLSSD include increased temperatures, which result in year-around open water near the plant, as well as potential loading of nutrients and chemicals of emerging concern, such as personal care products and pharmaceuticals. In our scoping comments dated Jul 23, 2014, EPA requested that this input, and the potential for these issues to affect restoration efforts and the success of the proposed project, be discussed in the Draft EA. The Draft EA was silent on this matter.” Recommendation: “The Final EA should discuss the WLSSD inputs and the potential for these issues to affect restoration efforts and the success of the proposed project.” Response: The MPCA, in a letter to the WLSSD (December 8, 2014), notes that “the mixing zone at WLSSD, which is used to calculate select limits, is consistent with the requirements in Minnesota Rule 7052.0210. This regulation allows for the mixing zone to be 25% of the 7q10 flow in the St. Louis River-St. Louis River Bay (receiving water). Based on the proposed [21st Avenue West Restoration] project, it is not anticipated that any phase of the project, will either increase or decrease the flow rate

3

in the receiving water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed restoration would cause the 7q10 flow statistic to change.” As a result, the proposed project will not impact the ability of the WLSSD to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, and the potential impacts from temperature and nutrient loading will not change from the current conditions. As we previously noted in response to USEPA comments on the Pilot Study EA (March 21, 2013) “Chemicals of emerging concern (CECs) are beyond the project scope until an unacceptable risk is identified and such risk, if present, is found to outweigh current objectives of improving aquatic habitat conditions.”

Comment: “As was noted in the Draft EA, the St. Louis Bay section of the St. Louis River is listed as an impaired (i.e., not meeting water quality standards) waterbody on the Minnesota's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies and is also within an AOC. While information on the current impairments and BUls was included in the Draft EA, the Draft EA was silent on how project implementation could potentially affect the waterbody (with regard to specific listed impairments and aquatic life use standards).” Recommendation: “The Final EA should, in Section 3.18, further discuss the current impairments, and describe how implementation of the proposed project could potentially affect the waterbody (with regard to specific listed impairments and aquatic life use standards).” Response: No adverse effects on the waterbody are expected. Placement of the dredged material will be conducted in a manner consistent with Section 401 Water Quality Certification BMP requirements and the USEPA approved St. Louis River Area of Concern Quality Assurance Program Plan and associated appendices to ensure applicable water quality standards are met. The dredged material will provide a more-preferred benthic substrate in the restoration areas, which will contribute to improved benthic habitat. Vegetated shallows would help filter waters flowing into St. Louis Bay. These benefits are addressed in discussions of BUI removal in the EA.

OTHER ISSUES Comment: “Page 30 of the Draft EA states, ‘Dredging and placement operations will be conducted outside of the critical time period when walleye eggs and fry (and other important fish species as determined through the State permitting process) are present so that these critical stages would not be impacted by project generated turbidity.’” Recommendation: “In-water working date restrictions, once finalized by Minnesota, should be committed to in the FONSI.”

4

Response: Committing the in-water working date restrictions to the FONSI is not practicable since dredging windows are coordinated annually with the regulatory agencies and vary depending on which part of the harbor is being dredged, and are subject to change over time. The EAWs for each of the restoration sites (21st Avenue West, 40th Avenue West, and Grassy Point) will be provided for your further review and comment before decisions are made regarding FONSIs for any of the sites. Sincerely, Original signed Charles A. Uhlarik, Chief Environmental Analysis Branch

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590

'A'PR 1 5 2015

nL:PlY TO THE ATTENTICN OF

Charles Uhlarik U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Detroit District 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, Michigan 48226

E-19.T

RE: Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact: Dredged Material Placement for Aquatic Habitat Improvements in St. Louis Bay at the 2ist Ave. West, 401h Ave West, and Grassy Point sites -City of Duluth, St. Louis County, Minnesota

Dear Mr. Uhlarik:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSJ) authored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the proposed placement of dredged materials from the Federal navigation channel at Duluth-Superior Harbor into the embayment of the 21st A venue West Channel, the 40lh Avenue West Embayment, and the Grassy Point Embayment in the St. Louis Bay in Duluth, Minnesota This letter provides our comments on the Draft EA and Draft FONSI pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementing Regulations ( 40 CFR 1500-1508), and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

The St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC), designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, is located on the western end of Lake Superior, and includes the port cities of Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. lt was listed in 1987 as an AOC due to large amounts of suspended solids, nutrients, and biological oxygen demand discharged to the river from various industries and communities. There are nine beneficial use impairments (BUis) listed for the St. Louis River AOC, the majority of which are related to historical habitat loss from extensive wetland filling, dredging of shallow aquatic habitat, and inputs of harmful chemicals that have contaminated the sediments and water in the river and its estuaries.

USACE undertakes annual maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation project, which includes l 7 miles of channels, anchorage areas, and maneuvering areas. Maintenance dredging operations remove approximately 100,000 cubic yards of sediment per year, on average. The

Recycled/Recyclable • Pru1led w11h Vegetable Oil Based liiks on 100% Recyclod PnpN (GO In Po<,1consurncr)

purpose of the proposal is to place dredged materials from the Federal navigation project at three identified ecosystem restoration sites in an environmentally acceptable, cost-effective manner with the added benefit of supporting environmental improvement efforts/removal of BUis. Specifically, the dredged material placement selected as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EA will support habitat restoration activities identified to address primarily BUI #4 (Degradation of Benthos) and BUI #9 (Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat.) These activities are consistent with achieving the restoration goals set forth in the St. Louis River Area of Concern Implementation Framework: Roadmap to De/isling (Remedial Action Plan Update/ dated July 15, 2013 (hereafter: Roadmap to Delisting). The need for habitat restoration in the AOC stems from the habitat degradation that resulted from historic industrial-era impacts.

A No-Action Alternative (no Federal action) and three action alternatives (finding new upland dredged material placement sites; open lake placement in Lake Superior; placement of dredged material at Grassy Point, 40th Ave. West, and 2pt Ave. West) are mentioned in the Draft EA. The Preferred Alternative, placement of dredged materials within the embayments at Grassy Point, 40th Ave. West, and 21st Ave. West, encompasses aquatic restoration sites approximately 890 acres in size in a near-continuous length of shoreline of approximately 3.5 miles. Design is proposed to create open water flats and shallow sheltered bays through appropriate placement of Federal navigation project dredged materials. Site design will take into consideration the contaminant character of the existing sediments, which is generally moderate with some isolated spots of higher contamination. The USA CE-dredged material will provide a base of shallower areas of varying depths (and possibly habitat islands) for State of Minnesota-proposed habitat features such as softened shorelines and aquatic habitats interspersed with open water areas. Additionally, the State of Minnesota intends to provide growth medium at each restoration site by placing organic sediments (excavated from the Killgsbury Bay and/or Perch Lake Remedial Action Plan [RAP] sites or from Erie Pier) over USACE's dredged material to promote growth of submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation.

The Draft EA spoke in generalities to many issues associated with project design. Under Minnesota Rules, this project requires a State-mandated Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the proposed actions. The Draft EA leaves many design refinements and potential project options or modifications to information to be provided in forthcoming EA Ws for each project site. The Draft EA notes that, "some variation.from the proposed action as described may occur with respect to sequence of activities, method of operation, or design details as a result of unanticipated design improvements or adaptations, site conditions, cost-saving measures, or availability of funds. Such variations, insofar as they are addressed in the State EAWs, would not necessitate further evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act."

EPA recommends that the Final EA and FONSI address the following comments, which generally relate to project alternatives, water quality, and commitments in the FONSI.

ALTERNATIVES • Page 9 of the Draft EA mentions the No-Action Alternative and three action alternatives

(finding new upland dredged material placement sites; open lake placement in Lake Superior; placement of dredged material at Grassy Point, 40th Ave. West, and 21st Ave. West).

1 Available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.htm!Ogid~l 9677

2

However, the Draft EA does not dismiss any of the alternatives. There is no discussion on how each alternative does, or does not, meet the purpose and need of the project. There is no discussion on whether or not an alternative was dismissed, and if an alternative was dismissed, what the criteria for dismissal were. EPA reminds USA CE that the phrase "range of alternatives" refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated, as well as those other alternatives which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for elinunating them. The Draft EA failed to either 1) dismiss alternatives and provide criteria and a discussion of reasons for elimination or 2) rigorously explore and objectively evaluate the other alternatives. EPA assumes that the Preferred Alternative was selected because it meets purpose and need, a.I though this was not clearly stated in the Draft EA. Additionally, EPA assumes that the No Action Alternative, open lake placement alternative, and upland disposal alternative were not fu1ther studied because they did not meet purpose and need, although this was not clearly stated in the Draft EA.

Recommendation: USACE should clarify which alternatives did, and did not meet, purpose and need. This should be clearly stated in USACE's response to comments on the Dr~ft EA and in the Final EA, and also be clarified in the FONSI.

WATER QUALITY • In addition to inputs from Miller Creek and Coffee Creek, the 2 1st Avenue Embayment also

receives direct effluent from the Western Lake Superior Sanjtary District (WLSSD) Treatment Plant The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has previously noted that potential issues associated with the effiuent from WLSSD include increased temperatures, which result in year-around open water near the plant, as well as potential loading of nutrients and chemicals of emerging concern, such as personal care products and pharmaceuticals. In our scoping comments dated Jul 23, 2014, EPA requested that this input, and the potential for these issues to affect restoration efforts and the success of the proposed project, be discussed in the Draft EA. The Draft EA was silent on this matter.

Recommendation: The Final EA should discuss the WLSSD inputs and the potential for these issues to affect restoration efforts and the success of the proposed project

• As was noted in the Draft EA, the St. Louis Bay section of the St. Louis River is listed as an impaired (i.e., not meeting water quality standards) waterbody on the Minnesota's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies and is also within an AOC. While information on the current impairments and BUls was included in the Draft EA, the Draft EA was silent on how project implementation could potentially affect the waterbody (with regard to specific listed impairments and aquatic life use standards).

Recommendation: The Final EA should, in Sectiou 3.18, further discuss the current impainnents, and describe liow implementation of the proposed project could potentially affect the waterbody (with regard to specific listed impainnents and aquatic life use standards).

3

OTHER ISSUES • Page 30 of the Draft EA states, "Dredging and placement operations will be conducted

outside of the critical time period when walleye eggs and fry (and other important fish species as determined through the State permitting process) are present so that these critical stages would not be impacted by project generated turbidity. "

Recommendation: In-water working date restrictions, once finalized by Minnesota, should be connnitted to in the FONSI.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon this Draft EA. We are available to discuss our comments with you in further detail if requested. \Ve Jook forward to reviewing future NEPA documents prepared for this project. Please send a copy of the Final EA and FONS I to our office. If you have any que~iions about this letter, please contact Ms. Liz Pelloso, PWS, of my staff at or via email at

Sincerel~y, / /

. A~ ~::~·~/ ~.,,-; 4!K#'F-; J?##'?. /

/ ,./

Kenneth A. Westlake;thief NEPA Implementation Section Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

cc (via emailt Zach Jorgenson, USFWS-Twin Cities Field Office Josh Fitzpatrick, USACE-St Paul Kevin Molloy, MPCA Diane Desotelle, MPCA Cliff Bentley, MnDNR Rian Reed, MnDNR Patricia Fowler, MnDNR Pat Collins, MnDNR Cherie Hagen, WDNR Rick Gitar, Fond du Lac Reservation

4

department of the army detroit district, corps of

Documents