ea rwwl shoreline reclamation draft 050310

8/6/2019 EA RWWL Shoreline Reclamation Draft 050310

1/55


2/55

- - - D R A F T - - -

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

RED WING WILDLIFE LEAGUE

DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT SITE

SHORELINE RECLAMATION AND BANK STABILIZATION

Pool 4 of the Upper Mississippi River

Goodhue County, Minnesota

Department of the ArmyCorps of EngineersSt. Paul District190 Fifth Street EastSt, Paul, MN 55101-1638

DRAFT REPORT

MAY 2010


3/55

DRAFT


RED WING WILDLIFE LEAGUEDREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT SITE

SHORELINE RECLAMATION AND BANK STABILIZATION

Pool 4 of the Upper Mississippi River

Goodhue County, Minnesota

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS190 5TH STREET EAST

ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101

MAY 2010


4/55

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 12.0 NEED, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY FOR THE ACTION .................................... 23.0 ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Alternatives Eliminated During Planning ................................................................. 43.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 43.3 Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 4

4.0 AFFECTED AREA ...................................................................................................... 74.1 Socioeconomic and Recreational Resources ............................................................ 74.2 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 84.3 Natural Resources ..................................................................................................... 8

Terrestrial .................................................................................................................... 8Aquatic/Semi-Aquatic................................................................................................. 9

4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 11Federally-Listed Species ........................................................................................... 11

State-Listed Species .................................................................................................. 12

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................................ 125.1 Socioeconomic and Recreational Resources .......................................................... 125.2 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 145.3 Natural Resources ................................................................................................... 145.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................... 155.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 16

6.0 COORDINATION ...................................................................................................... 177.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................... 18

Figures

Figure 1. Location of the proposed RWWL site shoreline reclamation project. ................ 3Figure 2. Aerial and ground images of the RWWL site. .................................................... 3Figure 3. Proposed conditions as a part of shoreline reclamation and bank stabilization atthe RWWL site. .................................................................................................................. 6

Tables

Table 1. Summary information of activities associated with the proposed shorelinereclamation project. ............................................................................................................. 4Table 2. Mussel species collected and their abundance at the RWWL sites in 2009. ... 11Table 3. Environmental assessment matrix for the proposed action. ............................... 13


5/55


6/55

RWWLShorelineReclamation&BankStabilization

DraftEnvironmentalAssessment EA1


RED WING WILDLIFE LEAGUESHORELINE RECLAMATION AND BANK STABILIZATION SITE

UPPER POOL 4 OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

GOODHUE COUNTY, MINNESOTA

1.0 SUMMARY

The St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers (Corps), has prepared this Environmental Assessment(EA) in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of1969, Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and Corps ofEngineers regulations (ER-200-2-2). This EA describes the activities and environmental effectsfor a proposal to reclaim and stabilize the banks at the Red Wing Wildlife League (RWWL) sitewithin Pool 4 of the Upper Mississippi River near Red Wing, Minnesota. In all, about 5,000 feetof the rivers shoreline would be reconstructed along areas that have degraded as a result of pasterosion. To do so would require about 37,0000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment material (primarilysand and silt), which would be obtained from maintenance dredging activities conducted atnearby designated sites identified in the Corps Channel Maintenance Management Plan

(CMMP; Corps 1997a). The project would allow for the beneficial use of dredged material. Inaddition, 46 tree groins would be integrated into the newly-established shoreline as additionalerosion protection. The proposed work would benefit the associated terrestrial and aquatic biotaby improving and stabilizing habitat along the terrestrial-aquatic interface. Constructionmethods would involve mechanical placement using a combination of large equipment such asbarges, backhoes, cranes, dump trucks, and dozers. The work is expected to occur during thetraditional work season for dredging the Upper Mississippi River over the course of the next twoyears, depending on the hydrological conditions, dredging needs, available resources, andfunding.

The source of most of the materials for shoreline reclamation would be from identified cuts of

nearby designated sites maintained as part of the Corps Nine-Foot Navigation Channel; thesesites are identified in the CMMP (Corps 1997a). The effects of dredging are not addressed inthis EA because they have already been considered as a part of the Environmental ImpactStatement for the CMMP (EIS; Corps 1997b). However, a Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)evaluation will be conducted because dredged material (as fill) would be discharged into watersof the United States (WOUS; Attachment A).


7/55



Adverse impacts associated with the proposed work would be minor and temporary and wouldprimarily involve noise levels, aesthetic values, air and water quality, aquatic habitat, andassociated biota. Long-term benefits associated with improved habitat along shoreline areas areanticipated. No federally-listed threatened or endangered species or their habitats would beaffected, and the activity would have no adverse impacts on historic properties or cultural

resources.

Relationship to Environmental RequirementsThe proposed action would be in compliance with Federal environmental laws, Executive Ordersand policies, and State and local laws and policies including the Clean Air Act, as amended; theClean Water Act, as amended; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Fish andWildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended; the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965,as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended; Executive Order 11988 FloodplainManagement; and Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands. The proposed action is alsoin compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) and

Corps of Engineers regulations (ER-200-2-2).

2.0 NEED, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY FOR THE ACTION

The purpose of the proposed action is to rebuild and stabilize the riverbanks at the RWWL site inPool 4 of the Upper Mississippi River to enhance habitat quality and diversity, thus benefitingterrestrial and aquatic biota. The proposed action would also provide beneficial use of materialdredged for maintenance of the Corps Nine-Foot Navigation Channel. The RWWL site hasbeen targeted for this work because of concerns with past erosion caused by river currents, ice,and waves (Figures 1 and 2). Wave action caused by boat traffic has been particularly damaging(Johnson 1991). The proposed actionwould be conducted under the authority of the Rivers and

Harbors Act of July 3, 1930. This Act provides authorization for the Upper Mississippi RiverNine-Foot Channel Navigation Project.

The proposed work would also meet Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MinnesotaDNR) compensatory environmental mitigation requirements for the navigation improvements ofthe Lock and Dam 3 (L/D 3) Navigation Improvements Project, now under construction. Thisproject will involve the construction of an earthen berm connecting the upper end of theextended guide wall at L/D 3 to the Minnesota shore, which will fill main channel border aquatichabitat. Approximately 0.5 acre of the berm will emerge above the normal water surface and thefootprint of the berm on the river bottom will be larger. Under Minnesota DNR rules, this fillrequires compensatory environmental mitigation. The Minnesota DNR suggested shoreline

protection at the RWWL site would fulfill this condition. In this case, mitigation activitieswould involve rehabilitating 5,000 feet of shoreline that integrates 46 tree groin structuresdesigned, among other things, to provide enhanced channel border habitat conditions over arange of river discharge. The additional cost of this work over the cost of routine maintenancedredging and material placement would be $123,000 and would be covered from L/D 3 projectfunds.


8/55



Figure 1. Location of the proposed RWWL site

shoreline reclamation project.

Figure 2. Aerial and ground images of the RWWL site.

Red Wing, MN

RWWL Site


9/55



3.0 ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Alternatives Eliminated During Planning

Early in the planning process, there were several alternatives that were eliminated due to funding

constraints, construction issues, and anticipated environmental impacts. Placement of materialby hydraulic means was considered problematic because of the potential for greater water qualityimpacts due to a larger project footprint that requires construction of containment berms.Another alternative considered fewer or no tree groins along the shoreline, and anchoring treeswithout rock. These would have resulted in accelerated erosion of the newly-placed fill materialand groin structures over time. Shoreline reclamation was also considered along an upper sitelocated about one mile upstream of the RWWL site and also owned by the Red Wing WildlifeLeague (River Mile 794.0 to 794.6). However, the upper site was eliminated early in theplanning process due to funding constraints and stakeholder opinion that revealed it to be a lowerpriority.

3.2 No Action Alternative

The No Action alternative assumes that no measures would be taken to stabilize banks along theRWWL site. Erosive forces would continue to degrade these areas, resulting in further shorelinelosses and degraded vegetation (shrubs, grasses, and trees) and terrestrial habitat. Thecontribution of materials to the river, primarily sand and silt, would continue, further reducingdepth diversity in localized areas and resulting in continued degradation of aquatic and shorelinehabitat. Shoreline erosion would also contribute to continued degradation of water qualityassociated with increased turbidity. Channel maintenance material from designated periodicdredge sites would be placed at the approved long-term channel maintenance sites as specified inthe CMMP.

3.3 Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action alternative would involve the placement of 37,000 cy of dredged materialfrom nearby designated periodic dredge sites identified in the Corps CMMP along 5,000 feet ofthe shoreline (Table 1; Attachment B). The objective of this work would be to rebuild erodedareas and add stabilizing structures (tree groins described below). Most material would be addedto the inflection point of the bank (i.e., where the change in slope is most pronounced;Attachment C) because the majority of erosion damage, primarily exposed tree roots and lostvegetation, has occurred at this location.

Table 1. Summary information of activities associated with the proposed shorelinereclamation project.

Shoreline length (feet): 5,000

Footprint area (acres): 4.8

Estimated amount of coarse/fine material (cy): 37,000

Number of tree groins: 46


10/55



The proposed project would allow for the beneficial use of dredged material. Sand obtainedfrom dredging the Cannon River or Trenton sites would be used as the base fill material.Available material from cuts would be selected to match placement needs in terms of grain size(e.g., sand versus silt). Dredged material that is not deemed suitable for any placement at thesesites would be placed at approved placement sites in accordance with the CMMP.

Newly formed banks would extend 25 to 50 feet horizontally from the existing bank at the treeroot elevation (between 669 and 679 feet msl NGVD29; Figure 3). Also, the average elevationof the newly placed material would be approximately 673.0 feet and the slope is expected tohave a maximum slope of 1 foot vertical for each 3 feet horizontal (1V:3H) along most of theaffected shoreline. However, some areas may have higher maximum slopes as dictated bylocalized constraints. At the request of resource agencies, the amount of fill in the river channel(at water surface elevation of 667.0 feet) would be minimized to maintain the existingbathymetry as much as practicable. Sand material would be primarily used as fill. A cap of finematerials approximately 8 to 12 inches thick with seeding may be also be added to promotevegetation growth. However, these components are not considered essential to the proposed

project because vegetation would likely establish on its own and the added cost would likelyexceed federal funding constraints. The Corps is aware of recent dredging activities by the RedWing Wildlife League along the old Cannon River channel that may provide a suitable source offines (Attachment D). It is anticipated that the Red Wing Wildlife League may elect to spreadthis fine dredge material with seeding on the placed sand maintenance dredged material.

Forty-six groins would be integrated into the shoreline as a protection feature. Groins would becomposed of dead trees approximately 40 feet long and 2 feet in trunk diameter breast height thatare anchored into the bank using riprap and then buried with sandfill (Attachment E). Each groinwould require approximately 25 cy (34 tons) of riprap rock for a total of 1,150 cy

(1,564 tons).

Riprap for the groins would be brought in from nearby quarries and would be conveyed to thesite via barge. These groins would be oriented perpendicular to the shoreline, but tree placementwould vary between roots that are anchored into the shoreline and the channel bed. Groins werechosen over vanes for this site because of better expected performance against wave-inducederosion.

As this site is on private land, the St. Paul District would obtain a construction easement from theRed Wing Wildlife League with conditions that the shoreline protection work would remainundeveloped and undisturbed.

Mechanical dredging is capable of moving approximately 2,000 cy of material per day. For theamount of material needed and for placement activities, it is anticipated that up to 30 workingdays would be needed, which would occur during the traditional work season for dredging in theUpper Mississippi River (June 1 to mid-November). For maximum efficiency, it is anticipatedthat the work would be completed in one year, beginning in 2010. However, available fundingor resources, hydrological conditions, and dredging needs may require flexibility in workschedule, possibly resulting in project construction that extends over two years.

Additional details on mechanical dredging associated with maintaining the Nine-Foot NavigationChannel can be obtained from the CMMP (Corps 1997a).


11/55



Figure 3. Proposed conditions as a part of shoreline reclamation and bank stabilization at

the RWWL site.


12/55



4.0 AFFECTED AREA

The RWWL site is located in upper portion of Pool 4 of the Upper Mississippi River, near Red

Wing. Pool 4 was created in 1935 by the completion of Lock and Dam 4 and is 44.2 miles long,extending from River Mile 752.7 to River Mile 796.9. The project pool elevation is 667.0 feetmsl. Lake Pepin, a large river lake, makes up most of Pool 4, extending more than 22 miles(from River Mile 763.5 to River Mile 786.0). This part of the river was identified by theMinnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(Wisconsin DNR) as having a turbidity/sediment impairment problem. In addition to the CMMP(Corps 1997a) and EIS for the Nine-Foot Navigation Channel (Corps 1997b), additionalinformation on the surrounding area can be found in EAs recently completed by the Corps forsimilar projects (e.g., Corps 2005; 2008).

The RWWL site is located between RM 791.9 and 793.0 on the Minnesota side, which is also

along the inside of a bend in the main river channel (Figures 1 and 2). The Red Wing WildlifeLeague owns this property; however, the Minnesota DNR manages a portion of this site,identified as the Espen Island Wildlife Management Area. Just upstream of this site, a sidechannel connects to backwater lakes and wetlands. At the downstream border of this site, HayCreek drains into the Mississippi River. A large backwater lake is found just to the west of thesite; it also has a hydrologic connection to the river. Riparian vegetation is well established onthe associated floodplain terrace, but evidence of lost vegetation and exposed roots from erosionat the river interface is present. The existing channel border aquatic habitat along the property isshallow sand substrate with little woody debris or other structure. The shoreline is largelycomposed of sand.

4.1 Socioeconomic and Recreational Resources

The city of Red Wing has a population of about 16,000 and is located just downstream of theRWWL site. State Highway 35 parallels the floodplain on the Wisconsin side of the river. Themajor highway on the Minnesota side (U.S. Highway 61) is set back from the river a few miles.Railroads are located along both sides of the valley. On the Wisconsin side, the railroad trackslie riverward of State Highway 35. On the Minnesota side, the railroad tracks are set back fromthe river and generally follow along U.S. Highway 61.

The Nine-Foot Navigation Channel provides significant economic benefits as a competitivealternative for long-haul movements of bulk commodities. The cost savings benefit associated

with barge transport has been studied and is described in the EIS (Corps 1997b).

Recreation activities in Pool 4 include fishing, recreational boating, hunting, trapping, camping,bird watching, canoeing, island beach use, and sightseeing. A number of boat accesses are in thepool, and dredged material placement sites along the main channel are popular with recreationalboaters.


13/55



Backwater areas and channel habitats within Pool 4 provide excellent waterfowl hunting and avariety of fishing opportunities. Wildlife observation, hiking, swimming, boating, camping,picnicking, fishing, and photography are possible activities (Riley and Riley 1993). Campingand picnicking are commonly available recreation opportunities followed by water-sportactivities.

4.2 Cultural Resources

A variety of cultural resources exist within the Pool 4 locality, including precontactarchaeological sites, historic structures and historic shipwrecks. Collectively, these culturalassets represent approximately 12,000 years of continual human occupation in the region.Interest in the archaeological record of the Upper Mississippi River valley has been ongoingsince the end of the 19th century (e.g., Winchell 1911). Early research in the area centered onthe contents of burial mounds and who built them. By the early 20th century most practitionersrejected the popular notion that a race of non-American Indians constructed the mounds andnonscientific investigations gave way to systematic mapping and excavation (e.g., Theler and

Boszhardt 2003).

Modern archaeological research within the pool area began during the 1970s. Many of theseinvestigations were associated with highway projects and have focused on terraces and uplandlandforms, including a site predictive model study (e.g., Hudak et al. 2002; Hurley 1978;Penman 1981; Perkl 2002; Peterson et al. 1988). The Corps has sponsored several surveyswithin Pool 4, including shoreline surveys and several literature-based overviews (i.e., siteinventories, geomorphic mapping, shipwreck locations, navigation structures) (Dobbs andMooers 1991; Jalbert et al. 1996; Jensen 1992; Johnson and Hudak 1975; Madigan and Shermer2001; Overstreet et al. 1983; Pearson 2003). The most recent such survey occurred at theRWWL site in the fall of 2009 and no cultural resources were identified. Also, no submergedcultural resources have been identified in the area. The nearest identified archaeological sitesexist on the opposite bank of the Mississippi River. The majority of those sites consist of lithicand faunal finds. The RWWL site is an active floodplain with low vertical accretion deposits atdistal margins of the Cannon River fan/delta; this formation is relatively new, which suggeststhat it is highly unlikely that cultural resources are present along these reaches. Furthermore, theCorps is unaware of any historic properties at the RWWL site that is listed on or eligible forlisting on the National Register of Historic Places.

4.3 Natural Resources

Upper Pool 4 has highly diverse habitat for both fish and wildlife. Habitat types present includemost of the classifications as identified by Wilcox (1993).

TerrestrialVegetation in Upper Pool 4 shows an overlapping of eastern and western species. Several high"sand prairie" areas are scattered along the river valley forests, offering habitat conditionsnormally found much farther west. The climate moderation also allows more southern plantspecies to extend their ranges up the river valley.


14/55



Forested areas in the region are of two types: upland xeric southern forests and lowland forest ofthe floodplain. Forested areas are primarily wetland forests found on river islands and riparianshorelines that are typically seasonally flooded. The soil is without standing water during mostof the growing season but is waterlogged within at least 4 inches of the surface. Dominant treespecies in the floodplain forest type are river birch (Betula nigra), cottonwood (Populus spp),

silver maple (Acer saccharinum), and black willow (Salix nigra). American elm (Ulmusamericana) was once a dominant species in the floodplain forest; however, the occurrence of thisspecies has been greatly reduced by Dutch elm disease. Species that dominate in the better-drained areas are American elm, silver maple, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), basswood(Tilia spp), and black ash (F. nigra).

Inland fresh meadows are similar to wetland forests in that their soils are waterlogged.Vegetation found on fresh meadows includes sedges, rushes, redtop (Agrostis gigantea), reedgrasses, cattails (Typha spp), manna grasses (Glyceria spp), prairie cordgrass (Spartinapectinata) and mints.

Forested islands interspersed with backwaters provide good habitat for a variety of wildlifespecies. Relatively abundant species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox(Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), beaver (Castorspp), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Neovison vison), and cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagusspp). Less abundant species include the river otter (Lontra canadensis) and coyote (Canislatrans). Backwater areas and lake-type habitats provide important habitats for bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and significant numbers of waterfowl each year.

Aquatic/Semi-AquaticThe most prevalent aquatic habitats in Pool 4 include river lakes, secondary channels, mainchannel, and channel borders (Wilcox 1993). The RWWL site encompass a combination ofmain channel and main channel border. Main channels are areas that convey the majority ofriver discharge, always have a current, vary in velocity with water stages, and usually have sandbottoms that change to silt over sand in the lower sections. Main channel borders are areasbetween the navigation channel and the riverbank that have a diversity of depths, substrates, andvelocities with the bottom being sand in the upper section of the pool and silt in the lower.

Fresh marsh wetlands can be found in Pool 4. They mostly occur along major tributaries, onislands, or on peninsulas located throughout the river segment and within the channel of theMississippi River. Fresh marsh soils are usually waterlogged during the growing season. Waterdepths vary from 6 inches to 3 feet. Since inundation, however, the amount of vegetation hasfluctuated and gradually declined, reducing many backwater marshes to open, windswept,riverine lakes. Emergent vegetation in these wetlands includes grasses, bulrushes, spikerushes(Eleocharis spp), cattails (Typha spp), arrowheads (Saggitaria spp), smartweeds (Polygonumspp), water lilies and spatterdocks (Nuphar lutea). Phragmites also is present and providesimportant cover for wildlife. Submergent vegetation includes American wild celery (Vallisneriaamericana), coontail (Ceratophyllum spp), milfoil (Myriophyllum spp), water stargrass(Heteranthera dubia), and sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus).


15/55


16/55



by the Wisconsin DNR (2003) and MPCA (Crane and Hennes 2007) guidance (Attachment G)1.The Cannon River site had sediment sizes dominated by medium-to fine-grained particles withmanganese being the only constituent that exceeded the lowest threshold effects concentration.

Table 2. Mussel species collected and their abundance at the RWWL sites in 2009.

Species

a

Common Name No. %

Amblema plicata Threeridge 2 40Fusconaia ebena

SE ebonyshellSE D

Fusconaia flava Wabash pigtoe D

Lampsilis cardium plain pocketbook D

Lampsilis siliquoidea Fatmucket D

Lampsilis teresSE

yellow sandshellSE D

Lasmigona complanata white heelsplitter 1 20

Leptodea fragilis fragile papershell DObliquaria reflexa threehorn wartyback 1 20

Obovaria olivaria Hickorynut DPotamilus alatus pink heelsplitter DPotamilus ohiensis pink papershell 1 20

Pyganodon grandisST

giant floater DQuadrula metanevra

ST monkeyfaceST D

Total 5

No. live species 4

Total species 14

No. transects 4

No. timed searchesD = Dead.a Zebra mussels are not reported in this table, but were observed as a part of surveys.SE

Fusconaia ebena andLampsilis teres are listed as endangered by the states of Minnesota and WisconsinST

Pyganodon grandis and Quadrula metanevra are listed as threatened by the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin.

4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

A list of federally- and State-listed species for Pool 4 is found in Attachment H. There is nodesignated critical habitat.

Federally-Listed SpeciesThe Higgins eye pearlymussel is a federally-listed endangered mussel that occurs in the UpperMississippi River. Higgins eye was once extant throughout the entire Upper Mississippi Riverproper below St. Anthony Falls, and, until recently, was thought to be extirpated from Pools 1through 6. Since 2003, the Corps and its partners have reintroduced populations of Higgins eyein selected areas of pools 2, 3, and 4 and have evidence of survivorship, but no new recruits have

1 Comparisons can also be made to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME) sediment quality guidelineswhich can be more restrictive for some constituents.


17/55


18/55



Table 3. Environmental assessment matrix for the proposed action.

Magnitude of Probable Effectsa

Alternative: No Action Proposed Action

BENEFICIAL ADVERSE BENEFICIAL ADVERSE

PARAMETER

Significant

Substantial

Minor

NoEffect

Minor

Substantial

Significant

Significant

Substantial

Minor

NoEffect

Minor

Substantial

Significant

A. Social/Economic/Recreation Effects

1. Noise Levels X ST

2. Aesthetic Values LT LT ST

3. Recreational Opportunities LT LT ST

4. Transportation X X

5. Public Health and Safety X X

6. Community Cohesion (Sense of Unity) X X

7. Community Growth and Development X X

8. Business and Home Relocations X X

9. Existing/Potential Land Use X X

10. Controversy X ST

11. Property Values X X

12. Tax Revenue X X

13. Public Facilities and Services X X

14. Regional Growth X X

15. Employment X X

16. Business Activity X X

17. Farmland/Food Supply X X

18. Commercial Navigation X X

19. Flooding Effects X LT

20. Energy Needs and Resources X X

B. Cultural Resource Effects

1. Historic Architectural Values X X

2. Prehistoric and Historic Archeological Values X X

C. NATURAL RESOURCE EFFECTS

1. Air Quality X ST

2. Terrestrial Habitat LT LT

3. Wetlands X X

4. Aquatic Habitat LT LT ST

5. Habitat Diversity and Interspersion LT LT6. Biological Productivity LT LT ST

7. Surface Water Quality LT LT ST

8. Water Supply X X

9. Groundwater X X

10. Soils X X

11. Threatened or Endangered Species X Xa ST=Short term effects; LT= Long term effects.


19/55



As to environmental justice, which addresses whether a project has disproportionately high andadverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, theproposed action would not have a disproportionate adverse impact on any population.

5.2 Cultural Resources

The effects of the no action alternative to cultural resources have been addressed as part of theCMMP EIS.

The proposed action alternative would have no effect on cultural resources because no evidencehas been found that properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of HistoricPlaces are within the RWWL site.

5.3 Natural Resources

The no action alternative would have detrimental effects on natural resources over the long-term. Continued bank erosion would result in lost vegetation, which would be harmful toterrestrial habitat and associated biota. Erosion would also contribute sediments to the river,resulting in increased turbidity and degradation of aquatic habitat in localized areas. The loss ofdepth diversity and sedimentation would be particularly harmful to benthic organisms. Theoverall biological productivity of the system over the long-term would be diminished.

The proposed action alternative would result in short-term adverse effects on air and waterquality during construction activities. Air quality would be affected primarily by combustionassociated with gas- or diesel-powered heavy equipment. Water quality would be affected by theincrease in turbidity as a result of re-suspending fine sediments associated with placement ofdredged material. The construction of tree groins is also likely to result in additional erosionuntil a stable shoreline is established. The potential exists for spills primarily from petroleumproducts associated with heavy equipment use. However, air and water quality should return tonormal levels after cessation of work activities. Moreover, the implementation of avoidancemeasures such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) should minimize the extent of short-termadverse effects.

Water quality may also be affected by in-water placement of dredged material, which has thepotential to release contaminants to the aquatic ecosystem. However, the sources of dredgedmaterial would be from nearby designated periodic dredge sites located in the main channelwhere the potential for contamination is lower than in backwater areas. These compounds have ahigh affinity for fine sediment particles common to backwater areas instead of the main channel.

Sediment analyses of dredge sites as the source of reclamation material show that mostconstituents are present at low levels (i.e., below minimum guidance levels). If contaminantswere released, it would be for a short period until they are reabsorbed to sediment particles ortaken up by some biological form. Acute or chronic toxic releases would be unlikely. Insummary, none of the material proposed for placement would be contaminated beyond guidancelevels as indicated by sediment analysis. Therefore, harmful effects to benthic invertebrates (andby extension, fish) are unlikely to be observed (Crane and Hennes 2007).


20/55



The material placement would have short-term adverse effects on biological productivity andaquatic habitat, primarily for benthic (i.e., bottom-dwelling) organisms. Increases in turbidityand suspended material would suppress light penetration in the areas immediate to the RWWLsite and would temporarily have adverse effects on filter-feeding benthic and planktonicorganisms. This effect would likely extend in areas of the river adjacent to, and downstream of,

the proposed construction site until materials settle out. As materials are lost to the river, thedownstream gradient of effects would be less severe but extend over a greater area. It isanticipated that these effects would be largely restricted to a swath of the river with a maximumwidth of 50 feet and length of 1,000 feet. Animals that are unable to move quickly (e.g.,mussels) would be covered by the placement of dredged materials and would be sacrificed.However, fish and other free-swimming aquatic organisms should not be sacrificed because theywould relocate in response to mechanical disturbance.

The short- and long-term effects to aquatic habitat would be mixed. Disturbance fromconstruction activities would temporarily affect water quality by increasing turbidity. However,water quality should improve over the long-term because of decreased shoreline erosion from

shoreline reclamation and stabilization. Rock and wood used for groins would provide structurealong channel border habitat that can be colonized by highly productive macroinvertebrate taxa,which are important food sources for game fish. Such structures would also contribute to habitatstructure, cover, and complexity, thus benefiting fish directly. Groins, for example, mayencourage scour on the downstream side to create a more heterogeneous substrate and depthprofile. Many fish species and life stages make use of channel border aquatic habitat with rockand woody debris structure (Anderson et al. 1982). Fishes most likely to be affected are thoseadapted to such conditions (i.e., swift current, deep water, and coarse sand, gravel, or rockbottom) such as freshwater drum, channel catfish, walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass, and whitebass (Corps 1997b). Benthic organisms would also benefit.

The long-term effects to terrestrial habitat would be positive. The project would stabilize banksin support of riparian vegetation. The shoreline stabilization project would prevent continuederosion of the shoreline and loss of riparian floodplain forest habitat. Much of the dredgedmaterial placed along the shoreline should become vegetated naturally with willows, cottonwoodand silver maple trees, providing enhanced riparian floodplain forest habitat. Associatedwildlife, especially tree-dwelling species (e.g., birds), would benefit the most.

Material placement would have no effects on the bald eagle and other nesting migratory birdsbecause activities would be timed to avoid the spring-time nesting season (i.e., from mid-February to mid-June; USFWS 2010). Additional measures as identified by USFWS bald eagleguidelines would also be implemented to avoid any impacts (Attachment K). Moreover, theRWWL site is part of the main channel, which experiences high recreational boat traffic andsuggests that bald eagle and other riparian wildlife in proximity to the work would be highlytolerant of human activity.

5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Of the threatened and endangered species, aquatic benthos-oriented species with limited mobilityhave the potential to be directly affected by the proposed project (i.e., mussels).


21/55



The no action alternative would not affect federally- or State-listed species because none arefound at the site.

The proposed action alternative would not affect federally- or State-listed mussel speciesbecause none are found at the site. The Higgins eye pearlymussel has not occurred naturally inrecent years in Pool 4 or adjacent pools (Wilcox et. al. 2004). Mussel surveys by the Corps ofEngineers at the RWWL site in 2009 revealed no Higgins eye were present (Table 2). However,a small population of Higgins eye located over 6 miles downstream of the site has beenestablished as a part of reintroduction efforts by the Corps and its partners. This is well outsidethe anticipated area of potential effects, therefore, the Corps has determined there will be noimmediate effects to Higgins eye pearlymussel. Should this or other listed mussel speciesbecome established in the project area in the future, it is likely they would benefit from theproposed project via improvements to aquatic habitat.

Construction of the proposed project may displace state-listed fishes that prefer main channelhabitat. However, fish would be able to return to these areas immediately after constructionactivities. Other State-listed species would not be affected.

5.5 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts of dredging and placement of identified sites in the Corps CMMP wereaddressed in the accompanying EIS (Corps 1997b).

The reclamation and stabilization of the banks at the RWWL site should have an overall positiveimpact on the surrounding area, primarily by improving the aquatic habitat and by reclaimingand protecting the floodplain terrestrial habitat. Decreasing erosion of the sites would minimizesediment loading downstream. The aquatic habitat around the site should improve by decreasingerosion and adding structures. Project-related activities would result in short-term decreases inair quality, water quality and recreational activities. However, habitat creation and decreasederosion should result in positive long-term impacts to water quality, recreational activity,socioeconomic benefits and habitat quality. Benthic organisms within the sediment plume fromconstruction activities would be affected. However, the negative impact of these activities is notexpected to substantially affect benthic assemblages in the area. The project would result inincreased habitat diversity for many taxa of benthic organisms and could lead to overall increasesin secondary production.

In accordance with Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management, the placement of dredgedmaterial along the RWWL site would not encourage additional development in the floodplain.

The Corps is currently pursuing an agreement with the Red Wing Wildlife League to avoiddevelopment at this site.

The following is a potential Federal project in the vicinity of the proposed action that the Corpsis pursuing and is at different stages of implementation. The negative effects from shorelinereclamation and bank stabilization at the RWWL sites are temporary and would not contribute toa cumulative negative impact.


22/55



Cut 5 Shoreline Reclamation. Much like the activities of the proposed RWWL project, theCorps proposes to implement shoreline reclamation at the Cut 5 site (River Mile 786.5 to 786.8).This is approximately 6 miles downstream of the RWWL, but is in the Wisconsin portion of thechannel. This project would involve reclamation of approximately 3,400 feet of an islandpeninsula using 35,000 cubic yards of placement material obtained from the Head of Lake Pepin

dredge site. In addition, up to 11 rock vane structures would be integrated into a portion of theshoreline as added protection features. This project is likely to be built over a 30-day period inthe next one to four years. An EA analyzing environmental effects is anticipated in spring of2010.

Lock and Dam 3 Navigation Safety and Embankments Improvements. The Corps will beextending a guide wall and conducting channel modifications on the upstream side of the lock byapproximately 860 feet. A pile-supported concrete wall would be constructed with a continuousconcrete rubbing surface extending 3 feet below normal pool level, and a concrete panel wouldhang 8 feet below that to control crosscurrents along the wall. In addition, this project willconstruct several embankments along spot dikes consisting of rock riprap and sheet piles. A

final integrated General Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement providesadditional details on the project (Corps 2006).

6.0 COORDINATION

As required under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, this project has been coordinated withthe Minnesota DNR, MPCA, Wisconsin DNR, and USFWS. The Corps has also coordinatedthis project with the Red Wing Wildlife League as the property owner. Several e-mails weresent to representatives of these agencies describing the project, and an on-site meeting was heldon September 16, 2009 (Attachment I). Several issues were raised during that process, resultingin some modifications to the project design.

This draft EA is being sent to the USFWS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Stateand local agencies for review and comment. A public notice describing the project will be sentto the local media, marinas, campgrounds, etc., and the general public.

The Corps has coordinated with the Minnesota Historical Society on the effects of the proposedproject. On the basis of a literature review followed by an informal pedestrian survey conductedon November 23, 2009, the Corps has determined that no historic properties listed on or eligiblefor listing on the National Register of Historic Places are present on or along this site. TheMinnesota Historical Society concurred with this determination (Attachment L).


23/55


24/55



Madigan, T. and R. Shermer. 2001. Geomorphological Mapping and Archaeological Sites ofthe Upper Mississippi River Valley, Navigation Pools 1-10, Minneapolis, Minnesota to

Guttenberg, Iowa. Reports of Investigations No. 522, Hemisphere Field Services, Inc.,Minneapolis.

Overstreet, D., R. Fay, C. Mason and R. Boszhardt. 1983. Literature Search and RecordsReview of the Upper Mississippi Basin: St. Anthony Falls to Lock and Dam 10. Reportsof Investigations No. 116, Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center, Inc, Milwaukee.

Penman, J. T. 1981. Archaeology of the Great River Road: Survey and Testing in Buffalo,Pepin, and Pierce Counties. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, ArchaeologicalReport No. 5. Madison.

Pearson, M. 2003. National Register Evaluation of the Channel Structures of the UpperMississippi River, Pools 1-10 (From Saint Paul, Minnesota to Guttenberg, Iowa). Hess,Roise and Company, Minneapolis.

Perkl, B. E. 2002. King Coulee (21WB56): A Multicomponent Habitation Site on Lake Pepin,Wabasha County, Minnesota. The Minnesota Archaeologist 61:62-116.

Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the Protection andManagement of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment. Toronto.

Peterson, L., W. Yourd and L. Gonsior. 1988. Minnesota Trunk Highway ArchaeologicalReconnaissance Survey Annual Report-1987. Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.

Pitlo, J. Jr., A. Van Vooren, and J. Rasmussen. 1995. Distribution and Relative Abundance ofUpper Mississippi River Fishes. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, RockIsland, Illinois.

Riley, L. and W. Riley. 1993. Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges.MacMillanPublishing Company. New York, New York.

Theler, J. L., and R. F. Boszhardt. 2003. Twelve Millennia: Archaeology of the UpperMississippi River Valley. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997a. 9-Foot Navigation Channel Project ChannelMaintenance Management Plan. St. Paul District, Minnesota.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997b. 9-Foot Navigation Channel Project ChannelMaintenance Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2 volumes. St.Paul District, Minnesota.


25/55



U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2003. Upper Mississippi River 2002 SedimentChemistry Survey of USACE Dredge Cuts. St. Paul District, Minnesota. 24 p. +appendixes.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2006. Final Integrated General Reevaluation Report

and Environmental Impact Statement Lock and Dam 3 Mississippi River NavigationSafety and Embankments. St. Paul District, Minnesota.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2009. Upper Mississippi River 2007-2008 SedimentSurvey of USACE Dredge Cuts. St. Paul District, Minnesota. Draft. 24 p. + appendixes.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Bald eagle management guidelines and conservationmeasures. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/guidelines/baea_nhstry_snstvty.html.Accessed February 26.

Wilcox, D. B. 1993. An aquatic habitat classification system for the upper Mississippi River

system. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Management Technical Center,Onalaska, Wisconsin.

Wilcox, D. B., E. L. Stefanik, D. E. Kelner, M. A. Cornish, D. J. Johnson, I.. J. Hodgins, and S.J. Zigler. 2004. Improving fish passage through navigation dams on the UpperMississippi River System. Interim Report for the Upper Mississippi River IllinoisWaterway Navigation Study Technical Report (in press). Rock Island District, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, Illinois.

Winchell, N. H. 1911. The Aborigines of Minnesota. The Minnesota Historical Society,St. Paul.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Consensus-based sediment qualityguidelines, recommendations for Use and Application. Interim Guidance. WT-7322003. http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/rr/technical/cbsqg_interim_final.pdf.


26/55

Attachment A. Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation for the Proposed Project.

SECTION 404(b)(1) EVALUATION

RWWL Dredge Material Placement SiteShoreline Reclamation and Bank Stabilization

Pool 4 of the Upper Mississippi RiverGoodhue County, Minnesota

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Location: The Red Wing Wildlife League (RWWL) site is along the right descending bankof the main channel, between River Miles 791.9 and 793.0. This site is within Pool 4 near RedWing, Minnesota.

B. General Description: This project will involve placement of dredged material at this site,which has degraded due to bank erosion. In all, about 5,000 feet of the rivers shoreline will bereconstructed. In addition, as many as 46 tree groins will be integrated into the newly-established shoreline as added protection against erosion. The proposed work will benefit theassociated terrestrial and aquatic biota by improving and stabilizing habitat along the terrestrial-aquatic interface. The source of dredged material will be from nearby designated periodicdredge sites identified in the Corps Channel Maintenance Management Plan.

Other alternatives were considered during the planning process, but were eliminated due toconcerns over funding, constructability, and environmental impacts. Material placement byhydraulic means was considered problematic because of limited space at the RWWL site and thepotential for greater water quality impacts. Another alternative considered fewer or no treegroins along the shoreline, and anchoring trees without rock. These would have resulted inaccelerated erosion of the newly-placed fill material and possibly the groin structures over time.Shoreline reclamation was also considered along an upper site located about one mile upstreamof the RWWL site and also owned by the Red Wing Wildlife League (River Mile 794.0 to794.6). However, the upper site was eliminated early in the planning process due to fundingconstraints and stakeholder opinion that revealed it to be a lower priority.

C. Authority and Purpose: The Rivers and Harbors Act of July 3, 1930 provides the basicauthority for the Upper Mississippi River Nine-Foot Channel Navigation Project. The purposeof the proposed work is to reclaim portions of the shoreline that have degraded over time.

D. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material: The material used for shorelinereclamation will be from nearby designated periodic dredge sites. Sediment analysis indicatesthat the material would be primarily fine sand and silts/clays. Approximately 37,000 cubic yards(cy) of material would be required.

E. Description of the Proposed Discharge Sites:


27/55

The RWWL site is on the main channel of the Mississippi River, on the Minnesota side. Theproposed reclamation for this site will be along approximately 5,000 feet of the shoreline andcover an area of 4.8 acres below the Ordinary High Water Mark. The proposed expansion areawould also extend horizontally approximately 25 to 50 feet at the tree-root elevation, but therewill be little or no encroachment at the pool elevation to preserve existing bathymetry. The

terrestrial portion of the affected area is dominated by sand shoreline and hardwood bottomlandtrees.

The project for would likely be constructed over a period of approximately 30 days during thesummer/fall in the next one to two years, depending on available funds, resources, andhydrologic conditions.

F. Description of Disposal Method: Dredged material would be placed with mechanicalequipment such as barge-mounted excavator, transport barges, backhoes, cranes, and dozers.

II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS

A. Physical Substrate Determinations: For the RWWL site, the slope of the bottom isapproximately 6 percent. The existing substrates are best described as fine-grained sands andsandy muck. The proposed project would convert the substrate to all sand as base material.Minor movement of the fill material is anticipated. No special actions would be taken tominimize impacts.

B. Water Circulation and Fluctuation Determination

1. Water: The proposed action would not have a measurable long-term effect on watersalinity, chemistry, clarity, color, odor, taste, dissolved oxygen levels, nutrients,eutrophication, or temperature. Water clarity would experience a minor temporarydecrease during the placement of the material.

2. Current Patterns and Circulation: The proposed action would not have a sizeableeffect on current velocity and patterns, stratification, the hydrologic regime, or normalwater level fluctuations on a regional level. However, stabilizing structures (treegroins) will affect nearshore velocities such that erosive forces are reduced.

3. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts: No special actions would be taken to minimizethe effects of the proposed project on current patterns or flow.

C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determination: There would be temporary effects to

Suspended particulate turbidity levels in the river would experience temporary effects within theimmediate areas downstream. It is anticipated that any noticeable plumes would be limited to1,000 feet downstream of the treatment site. No effects are anticipated on the chemical orphysical properties of the water column. Animals found within the 5-acre footprint that areunable to move quickly would be sacrificed. Increases in turbidity and suspended materialwould suppress light penetration in the immediate areas and would temporarily have adverseeffects on filter-feeding benthic and planktonic organisms. The negative impact of this activityis not expected to substantially affect benthic assemblages in the area because rapid


28/55

recolonization of sites from upstream or downstream sources should occur. This recolonizationshould happen quickly after bottom substrates stabilize. Fish and other free-swimming aquaticorganisms should not be sacrificed because they would relocate in response to mechanicaldisturbance. They could, however, be displaced from preferred habitat to avoid poor waterquality or as a fright response. Fishes most likely to be affected are those adapted to the main

channel (i.e., swift current, deep water, and coarse sand, gravel, or rock bottom) such asfreshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), walleye (Sandervitreus), sauger (S. canadensis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), and white bass(Morone chrysops).

D. Contaminant Determinations: Sediment analyses of dredge sites as the source ofreclamation material show that most constituents are low enough levels for safe placement (i.e.,below minimum guidance levels). If contaminants were released, it would be for a short perioduntil they are reabsorbed to sediment particles or taken up by some biological form. Acute orchronic toxic releases would be unlikely.

E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determination: The proposed project would have aminor negative effect on the aquatic ecosystem of Upper Mississippi River because of the smallimpact area relative to the size of the river channel. It would likely have minimal effects onwildlife. Nekton would experience a minor negative impact due to a loss of habitat andcontinual human disturbance. Benthic aquatic organisms and aquatic plants within the footprintof the expansion areas would be destroyed, however. Material placement would have short-termadverse effects on biological productivity and aquatic habitat, primarily for benthic (i.e., bottom-dwelling) and planktonic (i.e., drifting pelagic) organisms.

The proposed project would have no effects on any federally-listed threatened or endangeredspecies or their critical habitat. None are found within the area of potential effects. The Corpshas coordinated this determination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

F. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations

1. Mixing Zone: The proposed activity would have a minimal mixing zone. The particlesize of the washed sand would be large enough to remain where it is placed.

2. Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards: Mechanical placement ofthe sand and its relatively coarse particle size would suggest that State water qualitystandards would not be violated. The implementation of BMPs should also minimizethis risk. Short-term increases in turbidity would occur during construction. No long-term water quality impacts would occur.

3. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics: Because of the present andprojected human use characteristics, the existing physical conditions, and the proposedconstruction methods, this proposed action would have mixed effects on human usecharacteristics. Over the short-term, the project will result in disturbed shorelines andincreased turbidities to the river. Human use of the site will be restricted duringconstruction and the time it takes for the site to stabilize. However, during the long-


29/55

term, the resulting project will improve the quality of available habitat by stabilizingshorelines and creating conditions favorable for terrestrial vegetation. This will benefithuman use of the area through, among other things, improved angling and wildlifeviewing opportunities. The proposed action would have no adverse effects onmunicipal or private water supplies, recreational or commercial fisheries, navigation, or

national historic monuments or similar preserves. The Minnesota Historical Societyhas concurred with this determination.

4. Special Aquatic Sites: There are no special aquatic sites (including wetlands) withinthe RWWL site, therefore, there are no anticipated effects from the proposed project.

G. Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem: After the locks and dams were constructedin the Upper Mississippi River, shoreline erosion increased due to exposure to erosive forcesfrom wind-driven wave action, river currents, ice action, and boat traffic. Shoreline erosion isrecognized as a major problem leading to declining levels of water quality, aquatic habitat, andaesthetic appeal. The proposed project would improve these conditions.

H. Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem: No secondary adverse effects on the aquaticecosystem would be expected from the proposed action. Over the long-term, the project isexpected to have substantial beneficial effects on the aquatic ecosystem.


30/55

III. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE

1. No significant adaptations of the guidelines were made relative to this evaluation.

2. The proposed fill activity would comply with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean

Water Act. The placement of fill is required to provide the desired benefits.

3. Several design and construction alternatives were considered during the planning process butwere eliminated due to concerns over funding, constructability, and environmental impacts. Nopractical and feasible alternatives to the mechanical placement of fill at the proposed site wouldmeet the ecosystem restoration objectives and goals of this project.

4. The proposed fill activity would comply with State water quality standards. The disposaloperation would not violate the Toxic Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.

5. The proposed project would not harm any endangered species or their critical habitat.

6. The proposed fill activity would not result in significant adverse effects on human health andwelfare, including municipal and private water supplies, recreation and commercial fishing. Theproposed activities would not adversely affect plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and specialaquatic sites over the long term. The life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife would not beadversely affected. Significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, andstability and on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values would not occur.

7. On the basis of this evaluation, I have determined that the proposed project complies with therequirements of the guidelines for discharge of fill material.

_________________________ _____________________________Date Jon L. Christensen

Colonel, Corps of EngineersDistrict Engineer


31/55

Attachment B. Summary Data for Selected Dredge Sites in Upper Pool 4.

Site Name Location (RM) Ave. Volume/ yr (yds3)

Ave Vol. / job Freq of Dredging Last YrDredged

% Once every # ofyrs

Trenton 794.0-794.6 2,958 57,690 5% 20 1975Cannon River 792.1-793.5 9,641 34,182 28% 4 2006

Red Wing Hwy Br. 789.5-791.2 3,740 72,940 5% 20 1972

Head of Lake Pepin 785.2-785.4 1,166 22,739 5% 20 2000

Source: Tab 4-1 of the CMMP (http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/nav/channel/Plan/Tab_4_1.pdf)


32/55

Attachment C. Example of Cross Sectional Fill Associated with Shoreline Reclamation at

the RWWL Site.


33/55

Attachment D. Description of Proposed Dredging Activities for the Old Cannon

River Channel by the Red Wing Wildlife League.


34/55


35/55


36/55


37/55


38/55

Attachment E. Proposed Configuration of Tree Groins used in Bank Stabilization.


39/55

Attachment F. Map of Area Surveyed for Mussels by the Corps in 2009 Pertaining to the

Proposed Project.

Date of survey: 4 August 2009.


40/55

Attachment G. Sediment Analysis Results for the Trenton, Cannon River, and Head of Lake Pepin

of the Mississippi River.Source: Appendix B of Corps 2009. Highlighted in blue are constituents above threshold guidelines.

Site Trenton#1

Trenton#2

Cannon HOLP#3

HOLP#2

HOLP#1

Lab CT Labs Pace Pace Pace

River Mile 794.5 794.1 792.5 784.3 784.7 785.3 TEC

/SQT

Date collected 1981 1981 10/23/2008 8/11/2009 8/11/2009 8/11/2009

PARTICLESIZE%F

INER

SANDC

M

F

4 100 100 100 100 100 100

10

20

40

99.68 99.8 99.8 99.9

99.13

60.0 50.0 56.29 98.8 97.8 88.1

60

80

100

140

13.92

4.75

11.0 2.0 3.43 95.5 20.3 10.6

Silt

Cl

200

230

5.0 1.0 2.92 85.2 4.4 3.1

SoilClassification

Organic Clay, black(OL)

Sand, finegrained, someorganic fines,

very darkgrayishbrown(SP)

Sand, fine tomediumgrained,

someorganicfines,black (SP)

METALs

(mg/kg)

Antimony 2

Arsenic


41/55


42/55

SiteTrenton

#1Trenton

#2 CannonHOLP

#3HOLP

#2HOLP

#1

Lab CT Labs Pace Pace

River Mile 794.5 794.1 792.5 792.5 784.3 785.3

TEC

/SQT I

Date Collected 1981 1981 10/23/2008 8/11/2009 8/11/2009 8/11/2009

Chlordane


43/55


44/55

Attachment H. Federal and State-Listed Species Found in Pool 4 of the Mississippi River.Source: Corps 2008

Federal Wisconsin Minnesota

Species Status Status Status

Peregrine Falcon --- endangered Endangered

Bald Eagle --- threatened ThreatenedLoggerhead Shrike --- --- Threatened

Blanding's Turtle --- threatened Threatened

Wood Turtle --- endangered Threatened

Massasauga Rattlesnake --- endangered ---

Black Buffalo --- threatened special concern

Blue Sucker --- threatened special concern

Crystal Darter --- endangered special concern

Goldeye --- endangered ---

Greater Redhorse --- threatened ---

River Redhorse --- threatened ---

Pallid Shiner --- endangered special concern

Speckled Chub --- threatened ---Paddlefish --- threatened Threatened

Skipjack Herring --- --- special concern

Lake Sturgeon --- --- special concern

Yellow Bass --- --- special concern

Higgins eye pearly mussel endangered endangered Endangered

Rockshell --- threatened Endangered

Round pigtoe --- special concern Threatened

Wartyback --- threatened Endangered

Washboard --- special concern Threatened

Yellow sandshell --- endangered Endangered

Butterfly --- endangered ThreatenedPurple wartyback --- endangered Threatened

Mucket --- threatened ---

Pistolgrip --- threatened Threatened

Spike --- threatened special concern

Black Sandshell --- --- special concern

Hickorynut --- --- special concern

Ottoe Skipper Butterfly --- --- Threatened

Clustered Broomrape --- threatened ---

Prairie Thistle --- threatened ---

Tubercled Orchid --- threatened ---

White Lady's Slipper --- threatened ---

Rough-seeded Flameflower --- --- Endangered


45/55

Attachment I. Coordination with Resource Agencies for the Proposed Project.

Note: Attachment not included

-----Original Message-----

From: Potter, David F MVP

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:25 PM

To: 'Delphey, Phil'; 'Fischer, James R - DNR'; Johnson, Scott MVR;'[email protected]'; 'Sullivan, John F - DNR'

Cc: Machajewski, Paul R MVP; Anderson, Dennis D MVP; 'Nick Rouse

([email protected])'

Subject: Cut 5 and RWWL bank reclamation project description

Hi All:

In the spirit of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, I am providing

you a description of the subject project as well as of affected resources.

I see this as your opportunity to voice any concerns/red flags. I am

especially interested if you feel there is more information needed. This

will help me plan for this upcoming spring field season. I also recognize

the additional work needed for the sediment issue-- I am proposing to

avoid those problem areas for now.

Feel free to distribute this to folks within your agency/organization.

With the holidays upon us, I don't expect to get much feedback until

January. If possible, please provide this input by Friday, January 8.

Email would be best, but I would be happy to discuss this over the phone

as well.

This input will be valuable for the draft EA (which will regurgitate much

of the information contained herein). I hope to get this out for comment

at the end of January.

Thank you in advance,

David Potter, Fishery Biologist

Environmental & Economic Analysis Branch (PM-E) St. Paul District, Corps

of Engineers

651.290.5713

To: Fischer, James R - DNR; Delphey, Phil; [email protected]; Sullivan, John F

- DNR; Johnson, Scot B (DNR); Mader, Judy (MPCA)

Cc: Machajewski, Paul R MVP; Anderson, Dennis D MVP; [email protected];

Janvrin, Jeff A - DNR; Belling, Kristin M - DNR; Heath, David J - DNR;

Andersen, Mark L - DNR; Brecka, Brian J - DNR; Marron, Michelle M - DNR;

Petersen, Jonathan W MVP

Subject: Response to WDNR Comments on Cut 5 and RWWL bank reclamation

project description


46/55

Attachments: Attachment 1.pdf; Attachments 2 to 4.pdf

Hi Jim:

This email is in response to your January 14, 2010 comments on the Cut 5/RWWL

project. Sorry it has taken me so long. To maintain brevity, I have

paraphrased WI DNRs comments. I hope this addresses all your concerns.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Comment #1: If hydraulic conditions permit, the design should be optimized to

the extent possible to encourage aquatic vegetation growth along the margins

of the island.

Response: WI DNR has indicated a strong desire for the proposed project to

promote the growth of aquatic vegetation around the Cut 5 site. The WI side

of the Cut 5 site has the greatest potential for this due to low projected

velocities and wind fetch. The Corps has revised its project design to

accommodate this request (see attachment 1). This change will increase the

area between elevations 667 and 669 by about 35%, but will not have sizeableeffects on the results of hydraulic analysis (attachments 2 to 4).

This objective differs from the MN side of the Cut 5 site where higher

velocities and wind fetch create conditions difficult for establishing

aquatic vegetation. At the RWWL sites, resource agencies and the Red Wing

Wildlife League (landowner) emphasized shaping bank shorelines to benefit

terrestrial vegetation. At these sites, lateral extension of the shoreline

(10-15 ft) is proposed at the elevation of existing tree roots while largely

preserving the existing bathymetry.

Comment #2: . . . if hydraulic analyses indicate that the material would be

unstable then we would not support placement of material on the Wisconsin

channel side of the island, but would consider other means of protection.

Response: The Corps' HEC-RAS model of the proposed project at a 1% flow event

(100-year) indicates velocities on WI Channel side are


47/55

Response: See response for Comment #2 above. The Corps is also willing to

provide HEC-RAS output data upon request. No rock vanes are proposed for

the WI side of Cut 5 at this time because of low velocities.

Comment #4 (Floodway Analysis): A floodway analysis will be required to

demonstrate project affects on flood elevations.

Response: The Corps conducted a floodway analysis of the proposed project

along 40 cross-channel transects. Results indicated that the proposed

project would result in no more than a 0.004 ft difference in water surface

elevation for the 1% (100 year) flow event.

Comment #5 (Cut 5 Island Peninsula Design): . . . it is important that the

Cut 5 Island portion of the project be developed in a manner that will not

increase human use or encourage beaching activity.

Response: The Cut 5 site proposes to use a cap of available fine material

with seeding over the sand base to promote the growth of terrestrial

vegetation. As this is largely isolated from human use, the emphasis of the

proposed project is on shoreline reclamation for wildlife benefits rather

than beach construction. Moreover, shoreline features are proposed to befield-fitted to more closely resemble a natural state.

Comment #6 (Cut 5 Island Peninsula Design): . . . if hydraulic conditions

preclude some of the desired habitat features, we would still support designs

that protect the peninsula from further erosion and ultimately exposure of

other areas to main channel forces. In this event, we believe it is even

more critical to pursue these and other types of habitat restoration measures

for the Pierce County Islands area during the Channel Management Study for

upper Pool 4, which is scheduled to begin in FY 2010.

Response: The Corps hydraulic assessment does not indicate that most of the

desired habitat features as described in the proposed project would be

precluded. However, past experience with the sand hump features (to promote

turtle nesting) have shown that these may not be stable where islands are

overtopped frequently. As a result, we will consider eliminating the sand

hump features from the project. The Corps also recognizes the value of this

project to the Channel Management Study.

Comment #7 (Cut 5 Island Peninsula Design): If hydraulic analysis indicates

that the area can be stabilized sufficiently, we recommend that the Wisconsin

side elevation be between the average water elevation of 667 and 669 to

encourage aquatic vegetation growth. A terraced design that covers the range

of desired elevations may provide a compromise approach to improve success.

Response: See response to Comment #1. The revised design shows an increase

in area of 35% at this elevation band.

Comment #8 (Cut 5 Island Peninsula Design) : The fine material should be

placed on this [main channel side] and the Wisconsin side as soon as possible

after the sand base is established, so that re-vegetation is achieved

quickly.

Response: Comment noted. Assuming materials are available, the fine

material cap will be in place as soon as possible to promote the

establishment of vegetation and avoid erosion.


48/55

Comment #9 (Mussels): Its not clear from the report where, and to what

depth the mussel surveys were completed. We need additional information to

evaluate potential impacts to mussels in the deep water area.

Response: Attachment G in the project description dated 8 December 2009

shows a general map where mussel surveys were conducted. Additional details

on the sampling are provided in the attached file (Attachment 4). We can

also provide GIS coverages viewable in ArcGIS upon request.

Comment #10 (Sediment Quality): The Corps had initially planned to dredge a

cut further downstream, but questions arose concerning the presence of

toxaphene in these sediments, which will require more sampling and testing to

confirm their presence at levels of concern. The lower dredge cut also

contained fine sediment with high trace metal concentrations and detectable

pesticides. Since dredging of these sediments has been deferred, no

additional sediment management actions need to be provided at this time.

Response: Comment noted. The Corps plans to avoid use of materials where

there are concerns with contaminants. Additional sampling is planned for

spring of 2010 to help in this endeavor.

Comment #11 (Approvals): Placements of material and rock structures at the

Cut 5 location will be an exempted activity under the Wisconsin Memorandum of

Understanding with the Corps of Engineers, but will require an update to

appropriate exhibits in the MOU. Water quality certification will also be

required.

Response: Comment noted. The Corps will initiate proceedings to update the

appropriate exhibits in the MOU and pursue water quality certification by the

state of Wisconsin.

Comment #12 (RWWL Sites): We recommend that trees for vanes on the RWWL

areas not be removed from in-water locations where they are already providing

good habitat. We recommend that they be obtained from areas out of the water

(at normal river elevations) and not already providing good aquatic habitat.

Response: Comment noted. Salvaged trees from the river that are used for

vanes will still have value as in-stream habitat. However, an alternative

may be salvage trees from upland sources provided that landowners are

cooperative and it doesnt add significant costs to the project.

Comment #13 (Need, Purpose, and Authority for Action): It should be

mentioned that the intent is also beneficial use of material dredged for

maintenance of the navigation channel.

Comment noted. The EA will incorporate this change.

Comment #14 (Camping): Although camping does take place in some areas ofupper Pool 4, this section [Project Description] should clearly indicate that

camping is not currently allowed in the Pierce County WMA (i.e., Cut 5

Island) and will not be allowed after island construction.


Comment #15 (Turbidity): It should be noted in an appropriate section of the

document that the dredge cut is within a reach of river that MPCA and WDNR

has identified as having a turbidity/sediment impairment problem.


49/55


Comment #16 (Aquatic/Semi-Aquatic): This section indicates presence of

Vallisneria in this reach of river. To our knowledge, Vallisneria has not

been found in the area of the dredge material placement areas.

Comment noted.

Thank you for your input -- we look forward to further coordination with all

stakeholders.

David Potter, Fishery Biologist

Environmental & Economic Analysis Branch (PM-E)

St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers

651.290.5713

Note: Attachment 1 doesn't show vanes on the MN side, however, these arestill part of design.


50/55


51/55


52/55


53/55

Attachment K. Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/guidelines/disturbnestingbaea1.html.

Determining Whether Construction or Development Activities may Disturb Nesting Bald Eagles: Step 5Step 5. DocumentationYou may document that you are following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recommendations for avoidingdisturbance of nesting bald eagles by printing this page, then signing and dating it for your records.

Your activity is: (Check your selection to document your choice)

Building construction, 1 or 2 story, with a project footprint of 1/2 acre or less.

Construction of roads, trails, canals, power lines, and other linear utilities.

Agriculture or aquaculture operations - new or expanded.

Alteration of shoreline or wetlands.

Installation of docks or moorings.

Water impoundment.

The bald eagle nest (active or alternate) cannot be seen from your activity or project site.

You will adopt the following recommendations to avoid disturbing nesting eagles and their young.

(1) Maintain a buffer of at least 330 feet (100 meters) between your activities and the nest (including active andalternate nests), unless a similar activity is closer than 330 feet, then you may maintain a distance buffer as close tothe nest as the existing tolerated activity.

(2) Restrict all clearing, external construction, and landscaping activities within 660 feet of the nest to outside the

nesting season (i.e., outside the nesting season is from August through mid-January since the nesting season in theMidwest is generally from late January through late July.)

(3) Maintain established landscape buffers that screen the activity from the nest.

Therefore, disturbance of nesting bald eagles is unlikely to occur.

Signature:___________________________________________________

Date: _____________________________________

These recommendations are valid only for the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Ohio, and Wisconsin.


54/55

Attachment L. State Historical Society Concurrence Letter.


55/55

Attachment M. Draft FONSI.

DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the St. Paul District, Corpsof Engineers, has assessed the environmental impacts of the following proposed project:

Red Wing Wildlife League Dredged Material Placement SiteShoreline Reclamation and Bank Stabilization

Pool 4 of the Upper Mississippi RiverGoodhue County, Minnesota

This project will involve placement of dredged material along 5,000 feet of shoreline at the RedWing Wildlife League site (River Mile 791.9 to 793.0) within the Upper Reach of Pool 4 of theUpper Mississippi River near Red Wing, Minnesota. The primary objective of the proposed

project is to use dredged material to reclaim, stabilize, and enhance ecosystem conditions of thisarea, which has extensive erosion damage. About 37,000 cubic yards of dredged material will beobtained from nearby designated periodic dredge sites identified in the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Channel Maintenance Management Plan. This material would be offloaded andtransported mechanically. Reclamation activities will also involve the placement of structuresalong the shoreline as protection against erosion. This work will involve the operation of heavyequipment including transport barges, backhoes, cranes, dump trucks, and dozers. The work isanticipated to require about 30 working days and will occur during the typical dredging workseason for the Upper Mississippi River in the next two years, depending on hydrologicalconditions, dredging needs, and available funds and resources.

This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the following factors: the proposed projectwould have only minor and short-term adverse impacts on air and water quality, noise levels,aesthetic values, and habitat quality for aquatic biota. The associated level of controversy isexpected to be nominal. The project would have long-term benefits to terrestrial and aquatic habitatassociated with reclaimed shorelines. The project would have no impact on cultural resources orfederally-listed threatened or endangered species.

Based on information presented in the Environmental Assessment, Red Wing Wildlife LeagueDredged Material Placement Site Shoreline Reclamation and Bank Stabilization, Pool 4 of theUpper Mississippi River, I have determined that the proposed action would not be a majorFederal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an

environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

ea rwwl shoreline reclamation draft 050310

Documents