Land use and management plan for the Duluth-Superior Harbor

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

M-E PLAN
M
1@c
E,-* LUTH
FOR TH',@-' DIU,,,---
Sul- udRJOR :HARBOR'..
..Nk'

K
9/7,
7; 1

,@A

HT
392.5
M54
L3
1978
1@
AL IF
t X t
N

PREPARED BY. THE METROPOLITAN
i 7EE.. A JOINT
A, INTERSTATE COMK "?
VENTURE OF THE ARROWHEAD REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, NORTHWEST
CONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
WIS(i
AND URBAN AREA COMMUNITIES.

LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR

7/19/78

prepared by the
Metropolitan.Interstate Committee
a joint venture of the Arrowhead Regional
Development Commission, Northwest Region
Planning Commission and urban area
communities.

Preparation of this document
was funded in part by grants from the
Office of Coastal Zone Management (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department
of Commerce) as administered by the Minnesota
and Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management
Programs and a grant from the
Department of Housing and
Urban Development.

US Depaxe.- --f Commerce
N0AACoa_-t--. .;CenterLibrary
22 Dzi Avenue
Charlestc@__, 29405-2413

Duluth@Superior Harbor: Location and Trade Connections

too

AOP

NOTE

Inventory of the Resources of the Duluth-Superior
Harbor Identifying the Issues (December 1977) is
a companion document to this plan. The inventory
report provides background information describing
the harbor and the issues which this plan seeks to
resolve. Copies of this report are available from
the MIC.

METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Leon Stilwell/Douglas County, Co-chairman; Tom
Micheletti/City of Duluth, Co-chai man; Helen Lind/
City of Duluth, Secretary; Douglas County: Doug
Finn, Anthony Col&tta, Harold Andresen, Ken Harvey;
St. Louis County: Lloyd Shannon; City of Superior:
Mayor Bruce Hagen, Marie Sladky, Eileen Mershart,
Bill Lehman; City of Duluth: Cliff Olson, Elnora
Johnson;.City of Hermantown: Mayor Helmer Ruth;
City of Proctor: Mayor Leon McDermott; St. Louis
County townships: Earl Elde, Len Golen.

'PARTICIPATING STAFF

Dick Ilse/Director of Metropolitan Planning; John Powers/
Principal planner on this project; Kris Liljeblad, Katie
Turnbull, Kay Jennings/ Planners; DeW6 Holman, Carole
Eikanger/typists; Brian Anderson/Base map graphics; Yvonne
Pi,nsonnault/Map graphi-cs- and charts; Mayme Opheim/Perspec-
tives and si''te plan graphi,cs; Bob Lundberg/Plan map graphics
and prfntilng-,' Kristie Johnson/Pri*nting; Katie Turnbull, John
Powers, Kris Liljeblad,/Photographs.

CONTENTS Page

Preface
Executive Summary
Harbor Issues 5
Description of Plan Organization 17
Goals of the Duluth-Superior Harbor 19
Overall Concepts for Future Use of the Harbor 21-
Harbor Systems 23
Natural Resources 23
Land Use 26
Recreation/Open Space 29'
Transportation 32
Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal 35
Harbor Design 4T
Harbor Services 43

Land and Water Use Areas 47

St. Louis River 48
St. Louis Bay 52
Eastern Rices-. Point 55
Superior's Eastern Waterfront 57
Duluth's Central Waterfront 60

Minnesota Point 62
Wisconsin Point and Allouez Bay 65
Harbor Management 67
Policy Guidelines 67
Harbor Coordinating Council 68
Evaluation of Proposed Management Arrangement 75
Management Operations 77
Implementat ion 79

Appendix
I Suggested Projects A-1

II. Mitigation of Environmental Losses A-27'

III. Selected Bibliography A-29

IV-.* Plan Adoption by Local Units of Government A-33

GRAPHICS Page

Cover

The cover shows a portion of the original 1861 chart

made by the Corps of Engineers of the Dul'uth@Superior harbor.

Harbor Location Map

1824 Harbor Map 5

1912 Harbor Map 6

Present Day Land Use Map

Land Use within Duluth-Superior Harbor (table) 9

Annual Total Cargo, 1950-2000 (g raph')_ 10

Direct Impact of Duluth-Superior Harbor Commercial

Shipping, 1976 (table) 11

Significant Environmental Areas Ma.p 11

Past Dredged Materials Disposal Sites Map 12

Impact of Recreational Boating (table) 13

Harbor Water Transportation System Map 14

Proposed extent of deepwater Channels Map 39

St. Louis River Land Use Map 49

St. Louis Bay Land Use Map 53

Eastern Rices Point Land Use Map 56

Superior's Eastern Waterfront Land Use Map 58

Duluth's Central Waterfront Land Use Map 61

Minnesota Point Land Use Map 63

Wisconsin Point and Allouez Bay Land Use Map 66

Harbor Coordinating Council (figure) 69

Harbor Coordinating Council: Functional. Relationshfos,(ftgure) 70

Natural Resources: Suggested Projects Map A,,3

Interstate Island Management Area- A-5
Land Use: Suggested Development Projects Map A-6

GRAPHICS (continued)

Barkers Island A-8

Recreation: Suggested Projects Map A-10

BN Dock: Proposed Development A-11

Connors Point Park A-11

Transportation: Suggested Projects A-14

Design: Major View Corridors Map A-16

Dredging: Suggested Disposal Sites A-18

Erie Pier: Possible Development A-20

Evaluation of Suggested disposal sites (table) A-23
Harbor Plan (in slee've of back cover)

PREFACE

When asked to define the Duluth-Superior harbor, most people would begin to
describe the places where lakers, tugboats, elevators and cranes dominate
the view. They would not consider the backwaters of the St. Louis River
the pine forest on Minnesota Point or the marsh in Allouez Bay. Yet, for the
purposes of this plan, all of these areas from Fond du Lac to Wisconsin Point
are part of the harbor.

By this definition the Duluth-Superior harbor is an incredibly large area
occupied by a highly diverse number of activities. It is the intent of this
plan to provide for the orderly and sound use of the land and water of the
harbor. The plan sets forth policies to guide future development and just
as importantly, it creates a management framework with which to coordinate
public action in the harbor.

It is has not been presumed that this plan will satisfactorily address all
of the issues within the harbor. Indeed, it may do so only for a few of them.
But, it does provide the first comprehensive look at harbor development and
for the problems it does not resolve, the.plan initiates the steps required
to correct them. This plan represents the end of one harbor planning process,
and the beginning of the next; it does not seek -to decide too much too soon.

Prior to this planning effort plans had been developed for the harbor, and
of course, forms of management are underway at the present time. This plan
should not be s-een as a criticism of these plans or management operations.
Instead, this plan is an attempt to weave together all of the concerns
expressed by these efforts into one comprehensive and comprehensible package.

In order to approach the harbor as a single entity without dissecting it with
state or municipal boundaries, this plan was developed by the Metropolitan
Interstate Committee (MIC) on behalf of the local communities. Funding came

Housing and Urban Development.

The MIC is comprised of local elected officials and concerned citizens selected
by localunits of government. Under the Committee's direction a technical
advisory committee was formed to review and comment upon the planning process.
Workshops were held to i4volve citizens and organizations concerned
with the harbor. Throughout the entire effort close contact was maintained
with all appropriate units and leve.ls of government.
The Coastal Zone Management program, under which the harbor plan was funded,
is a major national attempt to plan for the proper use of America's coasts.
Wisconsin has completed its plan for its coastal areas while Minnesota'. at the
time this report was b6ing printed, was still in the process of developing its
plan. This harbor plan is a local plan whith will be reviewed for consistency
with the States' plans.
While the MIC conducted the study, considerable amounts of assistance, informa-
tion and advice were given by a wide variety of people and organizations. With-
out this aid the harbor plan would not be the strong, realistic document that it
is. The MIC would like to acknowled ge the assistance and cooperation from:

Seaway Port Authority of Duluth
Superior Board. of Harbor Commissioners
Superior League of Women Voters
Duluth League of Women Voters
Lake Superior Basin Studies Center (UMD)
Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies (UWS)
Superior Planning Commission and Staff
Duluth Planning Commission and Staff
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Coast Guard
Federal Maritime Administration
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Wisconsin Sea Grant Program
Minnesota Marine Advisory Service
Park Point Community Club

In addition, there are individuals representing harbor interests, unions,
shippers and environmental organizations whose personal advice and assistance
were essential to creating this plan. They are: Kei th Yetter, Cl i ff Gri ndy, Loi S Kundel ,
Bi 11 Fayl i ng, Gi 1 Erickson, Arnie LaPl ante, Max Oi e, Betty Hetzel , Lynne
Campenhaut, Jim McCarville and especially, Paul Pella.

Prior to action on this plan.by the MIC,.several units of local go-vernment first
acted on the plan. Appendix IV contains the resolutions and changes that these
units made.

d V

v4
@3 1.

29
28
27
2C

MAL

5,
rwft
Executive Summary

..............

I'l-N T II,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A century has passed since man began to develop the Duluth-Superior harbor in
earnest. Those 100 years have witnessed incredible changes to the shores, waters,
ships and people of the harbor area. None of that change was planned, it just
happened either by the wisdom of one person's foresight or by the ill-fated whim
of another's fancy.

Today the harbor wears a patchwork coat of many colors. The white sails of
sailboats stand in reverse silhouette to the bla@k piles of coal and taconite.
Massive amounts of green, subtly shaded in trees and marshes, highlight the blues,
browns, whites and reds of the homes that line the shores. In all, the harbor is
a complex mixture of uses complete with the pleasing and displeasing features
accompanying them.

This plan seeks to redirect the historic process of change which has shaped the
waterfront, to give a more human and perhaps artificial order to the harbor.
The abundant and diverse resources contained by the harbor cannot be poorly
perceived or poorly developed. To obtain the greatest economic gain, to achieve
the highest sense of beauty and to retain the widest range-of variety will
require the cautious guidance of the harbor's future.

The harbor of this plan is actually the St. Louis River estuary. It encompasses
the river, St. Louis Bay, the port area, Allouez Bay, and Minnesota and Wisconsin
Points. Withfn this large and diverse expanse of land and water are numerous
problems whose resolution require a coordinated plan of action. Among the issues
necessitating the most urgent action are:

MARINE DEVELOPMENT: Both Duluth and Superior depend on the harbor
for much of their economic strength. There is
a need to protect the activity already found
there as well as to provide for future expansion.
Enough room must be reserved for these water-
dependent industries.

NATURAL RESOURCES: The harbor possesses an amazing array of both
common and unique habitats and landforms
important to the well-being of numerous wild-
life and fish species. The continued and
enhanced vitality of the undeveloped aspect of
the harbor means that natural resources must
be protected and properly managed.

HARBORACCESSIBILITY: Neither Superior nor Duluth has extensive or
easy contact with the waterfront; a positive
sense of harbor character has not been created.
The lack of physical and visual contact is a
wedge between the two communities and the harbor
which is so important to their existence.

DREDGE DISPOSAL:. Dredging is mandatory to the port's existence,
but the disposal of the dredged materials has
been a classic environment vs. development
struggle. If the harbor is to maintain its
function as a'port, there must be a plan for the
disposal of dredged materials which is acceptable
by environmentalists, dredgers and developers.

RECREATION: Recreational activity in all forms is popular
along the harbor, but the number of facilities
is limited. New and expanded operations are
required to supply needs for camping, boating,
parks, picnicking and trails.

MANAGEMENT: The problem is not that the harbor has been
poorly managed, rather, it is that taken as a
whole the harbor i@s not managed at all. Fragments
of it have been actively cared for, such as the
port, but at no time has the entirety of the
harbor been comprehensively managed to better use
the full extent of the harbor's resources.

THE PLAN

The Duluth-Superior harbor plan establishes the direction which the public is to
take in guiding the development and use of the harbor. To accomplish this task
the plan sets forth policies to govern public decisionmaking processes covering
recreation, dredge disposal, industrial development, natural resources and other
similar concerns. The pl an a.] so descri bes a preferred pattern for 1 and use by
delineating areas for general types of development and use.

Taken as a whole the plan's goals, policies and land use maps define an initial
course of action as well as provide the basis for the on-going process of decision-
making in the harbor.

Providing the foundation for the plan is a set of general goals regarding develop-
ment and use of the harbor. Although there are goals relating to specific types
of uses within the harbor, the primary, overall goal of the plan is

To max,@mize the vaiue and uze.o6 6r.U ha)tbot
,te,souAces thtough the mcLttipte and comptementaty
uze oJ the tand and watet atea6 o@ the hatbot.

This goal is achieved by the plan through p9lidies and a land use map which
clearly outlines the future use of the harbor. Four straightfoward concepts
synthesize the intent and impact of the policies and the map.

-Recognize, maintain and enhance the special qualities of the St.
Louis River as a semi-wild river flowing through an urbanized area.

The St. Louis River offers the potential of a direct and continuous
link between the wild and the developed. It affords residents and
visitors alike the opportunity both to find solitude close to the
city and to see the vast economic development supporting the head
of the lakes region.

-Concentrate geographically and provide for the expansion of the
commercial shipping fndustry.

The plan seeks to assure the vttality of existing operations as
well as to provide for the location of new facilities. Any new
development is to be located adjacent to or near the existing sites.

-Increase the amount, variety and quality of public contact with the
total wa terfront.

In.order to fully integrate the harbor into the metropolitan community
the plan promotes expanded public contact with the waterfront. Not
only is the amount of contact and access for adjacent neighborhood
residents and visitors to be increased, but also it is to be provided
through a variety of activities including,work, recreation, housing and
commercial development.

-Preserve and enhance specific natural resources.

'Throughout the harborthere are many natural resources which must be
protected, enhanced and managed. These resources are vital to the
harbor's roles as an important environmental area and as a recreation
resource.

MANAGEMENT

To simply describe how the harbor should develop and be used is not enough.
The plan becomes complete only when a nanagement componentJs fitted
to the goals, concepts, pqiicies-ana_map_.. under rnis harbor plan tnat
management process involves the formation of the Harbor Coordinating Council
under the legal jurisdiction of the Metrooolitan Interstate Committee.

Formally the Council will only have the limited powers of the MIC which are
to review and comment upon publicly funded project, review local governmental
programs and plans, and to conduct areawide planning. However, the Council
will be able to wield considerable influence because of its composition
which includes federal, state and local agencies involved in the harbor as
well as citizens representing harbor interests.

The Council's primary duty will be to seek the full implementation of the
harbor plan. To achieve that goal it will conduct harbor planning, initiate
research and development.projects, help coordinate governmental activities
and adopt an annual harbor improvement program.

IM
TL

'ZI
ZT

''I 7AM,

2L P";

t@v
"Pal ii "

Harbor Issues

HARBOR ISSUES

A casual observer of the docks, industries and neig -hborhoods that string out
along the waterfront might well feel a sense of permanence, that these structures
have always been here and will last far into the future. Yet, a closer inspection
reveals numerous pieces of evidence - weathered pilings, a hollowed out building,
an old beached boat - indicating that continual change and not permanence has
been the rule.

If a damera had been placed high upon Duluth's hills over a century ago and was
left to photograph the harbor's history unfolding before it, the resulting
pictures would astound the viewer. In the almost fifty'years between 1824 and
1871 the camera would have recorded the transformation of a marshy, island-filled
river estuary dotted with Chippewa.encampments and American trading posts. ,into a
fledging harbor with two entries, numerous shipping operations and two embryonic
cities on its shores.

LAKE SUPERIOR

ST LOUIS LEFT HAND RIVER
BEARS OLD NORTHWEST COMPANYS FACTORY
PASSAGE

W& I I, JUL
TERRITORY OF MICHIGAN

PEKAGUMEW BAY

ILI

BEARSISLAND

AMERICAN
FACTORY DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR
NOW IN
GRAND MINNESOTA aWISCONSIN
PORTAGE CONDITION IN 1824
10,922-- 20,000
NET=
SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: WALKER AND HALL

__7 Note: This section summarize Isthe companion report to thi's plan,'Inventdr_@ of@the
,AI Duluth-Superior Harbor: Identifying the Issues.
5

Pictures of the next fifty years would present a dizzying kaleidoscope of changes
generated by the railroads tying the harbor to the @gricultural West and to the
Iron Range. The harbor rapidly became an important shipping center handling
enormous quantities of lumber, grain, coal, iron ore, and general merchandise. In
1878 the harbor shipped 2.1 million tons of western grain; 35 million tons of
Minnesota iron ore left the harbor in 1917; and, in 1920 almost 13 million tons of
eastern coal entered the port. To handle these vast tonnages over fifty docks,
elevators, flour mills, and lumber mi'lls lined the harbor's crowded shores. Also ,
of the thousands of ships serving the port many had been built in the harbor, in-
cluding Alexander McDougall's unique whalebacks.

DOCKS & WHARVES IN 1912
m&nB@R &R[E& H&H&ffEN[EH7 FUH
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Source: Walker and Hall

0%,

During the most recent fifty years there occurred a series of surges and declines
in harbor activity. Shipping rose tonew heights but tapered off following World
War II. Harbor improvements not only created deeper channels, but the resulting
dredged materials were used to build new islands and land areas in the harbor.
The number of docks were -reduced and shipments, too, declined. Still, the harbor
remained a vital economic factor which was.bolstered with the opening of the
Seaway in 1959. In addition to the foreign shipments coming through the Seaway
system, new cargos such as western coal started the harbor on an upswing that is
just beginning now to gain its full Momentum.

While the camera could easily record the-harbor's -spectacular-physical changes,
it could not detect the subtler alterations of peoples' perceptions of the harbor
and how it should be developed. An increasing awareness of the finiteness of the
world's natural resources in general and the harbor's in specific gradually led
people to more closely evaluate what happened to the harbor. In the harbor's

LAND USE WITHIN DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR

(based on computer maps using 2.5 acre cells)

% minus
% minus water, vacant and
% minus wate@ a6d Superior Municipal
Land Use Acre@ % Water vacant Forest

Residential 493, 2.2 4.8 9.6 14.5

Commercial 135 0.6 1-.3 2.6 4.0

Waterfront
Industrial* 908 4.2. 8.6 17.6- 26.7

General 338 1.6 3.2 6.5 9.9
Industrial

Transportation 710 3.-2 6.8 13.8 20.9

Recreation/ 2,435 11.2 23.1 47.4 20.2
Open Space**
Public-utility, 130 0.6 1.2 2.5 3.8
education, etc.

Vacant 5,368 24.6 51.0

Water 11,288 51.8

TOTAL 21,804. (10,516 a.) (5,148 a.) (3,400 a.

*Includes shipping, repair yards, marine services.
"Totals 687 acres.without Superior Municipal Forest.

earlier days people were of one mind concerning harbor development and the
harbor's size seemed to allow for all uses. A plan then did not seem necessary.
Today, however, the minds of people are split and the harbor, while still
physically just as large, has assumed more definite and confirri-nq boundaries.
This changing concern is reflected ifi two prior plans for the Duluth side of the
harbor. In 1927 the entire harbor, including all of Minnesota Point, was seen as
fit for industrial development. By 1958 industrial uses still dominated, but
recreation and the natural environment gained recognition. Since the late 1960's
this trend accelerated to the point where concern for the natural environment
equaled that for further development.

ANNUAL TOTAL CARGO, 1950-2000
(millons of fons)

C;
70-

Go- S.
M.Lc.---55M
50- 5 M

/45 M'
40-
Crescp

30-

1950 55 60 65 70 75 so 85 90 5 2000

The arguments for both sides of the issue are valid and impressive. There is no
doubt that shipping is economically significant to-Duluth and, more especially,
to Superior where 65% of the work force directly and indirectly depends upon the
harbor. Although existing facilities can handle most anticipated cargo increases,
certain new or'expanding cargo tonnages will necessitate the development of more
operartions. And, the amount of useable l.and along the waterfront is limited,
particularly When environmental considerations are taken into account.

Within the harbor there are natural resources whose loss or diminution would be
highly detrimental to the area. Fish spawning beds, bird nesting grounds and
unique habitatsare important to the overall value of the harbor and to people's
enjoyment of it. Unlike the development side of the issue a monitary value
cannot be readily placed upon these natural resources, but their worth is still
indisputable.

No other issue has typified the struggle between development and environment as
has the question of where to dispose material dredged from the harbor. Dredging
itself is not questioned; without the'annual removal of 130,000 cubic yards of

Direct Impact of Duluth-Superior Harbor Commercial Shipping, 1976

Cargo Per Ton Impact Total Tonnage Total Impact

General $ 44.90 90,700 $ 4,072,430
Bulk Liquids 16.60 17,282 286,881
Grain
Canadian/Domestic 6.03. 2,401,091 14,478,579
Overseas 13.32 1,875,890 24,986,855
Grain By-products 14.85 398,951 .5,924,422
Miscellaneous bulk 13.11 682,192 9,516,578
Dry bulk (coal, ore,
stone) 1.96 27,176,818 $ 53,296,563

112,562,308

Source: The Economic Impact on Minnesota of the Seaway Port cf Duluth, March 1977,
by J.F.P. & Associates, Inc. for SPAD.

&R11% KLUZ421EWIEHU FUH
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE SIGNIFICANT* ENVIRONMENTAL
AREAS

"E_ 21"..

material the harbor will gradually silt in forcing shipping operations to cease.
In times past most of this dredged material had been dumped into the deep waters
of Lake Superior although some had been used to create land in the harbor, to
build a highway and as fill for construction projects.

The environmental problem with dredge disposal is twofold. First, certain amounts
of the material is polluted and its disposal into Lake Superior or harbor waters_
is deemed water pollution. Second, much of the creation of land along the water
front through*dfsposal has come at the expense of biologically valuable shallow
water areas. At one point the controversy halted most dredging for over fiveyears
creating shipping hazards within the harbor. For the immediate future the proposed
Erie Pier disposal site will handle disposal in an acceptable fashion. But once
Erie Pier is filled, then @@,@hat?

SELECTED PAST DREDGED
HARMOR ME& UMMIENIEHT PL&H MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

0i,

The impetus for a harbor plan is not limited to the environment versus develop-
ment matters alone although that issue in the form- of the dredge disposal
question is certainly a major force. Other conflicts and issues abound in the
harbor each adding to the need to develop,a coordinated plan.
The in@ent of any land use plan is to designate areas for specific types of
development so as to insure orderly, compatible use of that area. For the
Duluth-Superior harbor this means more than just finding room for new water-
related industrial development or setting aside natural resource sites.- Other
legitimate uses are also competing for the land along the waterfront.

First of all, one general issue must be faced in order to put the others into
the proper perspective. Duluth and Superior are two port communities whose

access to the waterfront itself is limited or difficult at best. High volume
streets, railroads and extensive industrial areas make much of the harbor in-
accessible to the general public. As a result, neither city has developed a
positive "atmosphere" associated with a harbor.
Among the measures that could be taken to strengthen the ties between water and
land are those that encourage a diversity of land uses along the waterfront. For
instance, residential neighborhoods along or near the water's edge can.be '
expanded or new ones developed. Well-de 'signed commercial retail sites can be used
to create a flow of people to the waterfront area. If developments of this -
nature are carefully conceived and implemented, the general community's-exposure
to and awareness of the harbor will be increased.

Impact of Recreational Boating, 1975

MARINA USERS Total Spending Total Spending
Ave. Spending/ No. of by in
Party Trip slips Marina Users Coastal City
Duluth $ 34.20 190 $ 289,161 S 246,365
Multiplier .(2'16) @624,588 532,148
$ 913,739 S 788,513

RAMP USERS No. of Total Spending Total Spending
Ave. Spending/ Boating by in
Party Trip Parties Ramp Users Coastal City
Superior $ 104.44 793 $ 32,821 $ 62,361
Duluth 104.44 793 83,821 62,361
--Multiplier (2.16) --- 357,787 269,402
1,586 523,429 393,126

Grand Total $1,437,168 $1,171,639

Source and Notes: All numbers based on information found in Economic Impact and
and Needs of Wisconsin's Great Lakes Boaters, 1975, Wisconsi .n
Coastal Zone Management, July 1976. Duluth was n specifically
mentioned in report, but information was assumed to be applicable.
Impact multiplier based on study for Door County.

Recreational activity holds, perhaps, the greatest potential for improving
contact with the harbor. Currently, a handful of heavily visited sites -
Canal Park, Park Point, Billings Park, Chambers Grove - bear the brunt of the
demand for recreation along the waterfront. Moreover-, access onto the water
itself is mdde difficult by the near total absence of developed boat landings.
Other shortcomings which contribute to the lack of good contact with the harbor
include too few camping facilities, a shortage of boat slips, minor development
of historical features and an insufficient trail system.

Simply to satisfy the needs of the present recreation demand will require
substantial action. But, as the water quality of the harbor improves because
of new sewage treatment facilities, even greater numbers of people will be
attracted to the waterfront. By meeting these demands in an appropriate fashion
the ties between water and land can be significantly strengthened.

The net result of the desire to increase,contact with the waterfront is to
encourage more and different land uses along selected portions of the harbor.
In achieving this goal one is also satisfying the general demands for new
13

housing, more recreation opportunities and expanded commercial retail operations.
The problem then, is to locate these uses on property which-is not valuable
for water-related industry nor is a significant and sensitive natural resource.
It is obvious that the demand for waterfront land is large and the amount of
land is.sm@ll, or at least limited.

Yet another item for consideration on development and use of the harbor involves
the transportation systems which are central to the harbor's existence. The
harbor's economic purpose is to transfer goods from one form of transportation
to another form. Problems and issues related to transportation primarily involve
making the transfer more efficient and in improving the conditions of the various
systems.

Most of the harbor's difficult transportation problems relate to conflicts
between the various modes of travel with bridges being the key problem areas.
Duluth's Aerial Lift Bridge is probably the best known conflict between boats
and autos, but the Burlington Northern's bridge in St. Louis Bay and the
Arrowhead Bridge pose similar problems of their own. Railroad crossings along
Superior's Northern waterfront and Duluth's Railroad Street are also particular
troublesome conflict sites.

Generally, improvements required for the systems can be viewed less as problems
and more as steps to increase performance and efficiency. In this regard, the
water transportation system is hindered by the existence of the twenty-three
foot depths in most.portions of the Minnesota, Upper, North and South channels.
Being less than the Seaway depth of twenty-seven feet, this stretch of channel
prevents efficient use of vessels serving docks along its length. On the other
hand, increased use of 1,000 foot long boats may pose definite navigation and
safety problems at certain points in the harbor, especially where turning or
maneuvering room is currently restricted. Two likely areas for this type of
problem are the Cross channel and BN (old NP) Railroad-Bridge.

METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE WATER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
2'@ CHANNEL
2S CHANNEL AND LESS

Thus, since the harbor was first developed, the need for a coordinatdd plan has
varied, gaining intensity as time passed until where, today, the urgency seems
paramount. Logically, one might ask what agencies or authorities already exist
to develop and implement a plan, or, why have not they acted before now?
The answer is both simple and complex.
It is complex because so many different agencies exist which play a major or
minor role involving harbor management. On the other hand, the answer is
simple because no one has the mandate to view and manage the harbor, which is
split both by state and city boundaries, as a single entity. No one has acted
because no one is in a solid position to act. Instead, they have concerned
themselves with their own areas of interest and there some of them are doing
rather well.

However, the present planning effort is not the first to seek an unified ap-
proach to harbor management. In 1896 when Congress first made a single appro-
priation to maintain the Duluth-Superior harbor there was also a confident
feeling that Duluth and SUperior had resolved their differences to coopera-
tively run the harbor. Unfortunately, such was not the case.

Two more recent studies continued the earlier efforts to increase cooperation
if not attain outright merger. In 1974 the consulting firm Cresap, McCormick
and Paget released their reports on the organization and development of the
Duluth and Superior ports. They found that the Superior -Board of Harbbr
Commissioners and the Seaway Port Authori-ty of Duluth should eventually be
consolidated into one unified body which would handle all Twin Ports pubic port
and industrial development operations.

In 1976 the Minnesota and Wisconsin legislatures created the Minnesota-Wisconsin
Interstate Port'Authority iCommi.-ssion to "develop a plan for-the merger of the
port authorities" of Duluth and Superior. While the IPAC mandate and viewpoint
leaned towards merging the two port authorities, the unresolved issues of
industrial.development and finances precluded the making of a recommendation for
merger. Instead, the commission recommended that the two cities adopt a time-
table for improving cooperation.

But harbor management is more than port management. Land Use-ahd natural re-
source activities are also a part of it. In either instance existing programs
are meager in their approach to harbor-wide management. Neither city has a land
use plan for its own waterfront let alone a joint one for the entire harbor.
Likewise, the natural resource agencies are without a common program for managing
the harbor's fish, wildlife and habitat resources.

Up until ten or twenty years ago the Duluth-Superior harbor did not require a
plan because the majority of people were of a common mind as to how the harbor
should be used and managed. But during the last two decades serious disagree-
ments over the development and use of the-harbor have surfaced. No longer can
problems be approached from-a single perspective. The issues that face the
harbor today must be viewed from many angles and their resolution must be a
balance of several differing arguments. Only a common plan with an on-going
process of cooperative and uniform review and management can successfully under-
take this challenge.

m t
44

51 1
Orr-

-
L
Ht JM

Description of Plan
Organization

919

6 i

.... ......

DESCRIPTION OF PLAN ORGANIZATION

The Duluth-Superior Harbor Plan is composed of several elements which flow
together to form a cohesive statement about future development and use of the
harbor. The following diagram is offered so'that the reader can better under-
stand the relationships between these elements. Subsequent chapters present
each element in detail.

GOALS:

These stateme nts describe in gefiera'l terms
the aims of harbor development and use.
T
OVERALL CONCEPTS:

This section generalizes the harbor plan by
describing the pla-n's four key concepts.

HARBOR SYSTEMS: LAND AND WATER USE AREAS:

For each Harbor System (ex.: dredging; The Ednd and Water Use Areas interpret
recreation) specific policies are the Goals, Overall Comce-pts and Harbor
stated to guide future development, Systems Policies into a map which
use, decisions, and action. geographically depicts the type and
location of future harbor development.

HARBOR MANAGEMENT:

The management structure is the institutional
arrangement to be used in implementing the
harbor plan through coordination, regulation,
research and promotion.

IMPLEMENTATION:

This section describes the steps necessary to
implement the Harbor Plan.

M
ME,
ae

0 Li

r q

4@1

Goals

GOALS FOR THE DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR

The sound use and development of the Duluth-Super'ior harbor area must rest upon
a foundation of commonly accepted goals. Emerging from these goals is a
picture of the desired end result of the harbor's development. The harbor plan
contained in this document begins the transformation of the goals into reality.

OVERALL GOAL To maximize the value and use of all harbbr resources
through the multiple and complementary use of the land and
water areas of the harbbr.

TRANSPORTATION To develop an intermodel system for the easy, safe and
efficient movement of goods and people based upon the needs
of harbor area activities and through traffic, and upon the
transportation needs of the-metropolitan area.

NATURAL RESOURCES To maintain and enhance existing significant wildlife habi-
tat, fisheries, hydrologic areas and scenic views and to
develop new such areas in a fashion which expands the harbor's
wildlife and fish productivity and which ac cents the beauty
of the harbor.

To maintain and improve the quality of the water air and
land of the Duluth-Superior harbor area, including all
streams which flow into it.

RESIDENCE To strengthen existing residential areas and plan new housing
areas in a manner that preserves the beauty of the harbor's
terrain and utilizes to the utmost advantage the waterfront
location.

RECREATION To strengthen and expand the recreational character of the
harbor, and to develop a system of public open spaces and
recreation areas that realizes the recreational potential
of the harbor, that provides unity and identity to the urban
area, and that reinforces the overall harbor relationships of
water, land and sky.

INDUSTRY To promote maritime industrial activities in those portions of
the harbor whi.6h are served by active deepwater channels. .
COMMERCE To develop cbmm6r@ial activities' along the waterfront that will
satisfy the needs of the metropolitan area and will signifi-
cantly benefit from a waterfront location.

GENERAL To develop the full potential of the waterfront in accord with
the unusual opportunities presented by the relationships
between the harbor, Lake Superior, the operating port, the
maritime character, and the aesthetic qualities offered by
water, topography, and views of the surrounding area.

To increase the benefits the harbor gives to land not directly
in contact with the waterfront.

To maximize the amount of waterfront accessible to and useable
by the general public.

To minimize the cost of development within the harbor.

4@1

Overall Concepts

.... .. ..........

OVERALL CONCEPTS FOR FUTURE USE OF THE HARBOR

The Duluth-Superior Harbor plan can be quidkly described and understood through
four basic concepts. These statements embody the intent and impact of the goals,
policies and recommendations noted in the plan. Underlying these concepts is a
fifth, that being that a fair, consistent and effective management structure
exists to assure thei@ realization.

RECOGNIZE, MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE SPECIAL Q UALITIES OF THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AS
A SEMI-WILD RIVER FLOWING THROUGH AN URBANIZED AREA.

To a region of the country which ext6lls the beauty of wilderness and which
possesses so much of it, the St. Louis River offers-the potential of a direct
and continuing link between the wild and the developed.. The river's abundant
fish and wildlife and its quiet bays and backwaters provide a sharp contrast to
the hustle of the port and the cities further downstream. Yet the contrast it
a pleasing one; it affords residents and visitors alike the opoortunity both to
find solitude close-to the city and to see the vast economic development support-
ing the head of the lakes region.

Yet, for the most part it is an unrealized resource. It has been polluted and
neglected. But, as the waters are cleansed, the river will be rediscovered.
The plan's features strive to prevent future misuse by carefully restricting what
is to occur along the river. Emphasis will be placed on recreation and natural
resource management.

CONCENTRATE GEOGRAPHICALLY AND PROVIDE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE COMMERCIAL
SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

For Superior and Douglas County commercial shipping is their economic backbone; for
Duluth and St. Louis County, it represents a.substantiAl. element in a more
divers-ified economy. Assurances of this industry's on-going vitality are a
definite feature of the plan. The plan seeks to provide reasonable room for
further development, especially regarding the shipment of western coal. However,
this.new,development is encouraged at sites along the deepwater channels near
the existing-,facilities which line St. Louis Bay, Rices'Point and Superior's
Eastern waterfront.

INCREASE THE AMOUNT, VARIETY AND QUALITY OF PUBLIC CONTACT WITH THE TOTAL
t
WATERFRONT.

To reap the full benefit of the harbor's total body of resources demands that the
harbor be completely integrated into the metropolitan community. Public contact
with'the waterfront is to be readily available and near total. Exclusive private
use of any stretch of the harbor is to be m'in'imized to that which is absolutely
essential., such as for shipping.

Yet, simply providing access is not enough. The harbor plan intends to lend
meaning to that access by insuring a variety of experiences along the waterfront.
People will work, play, shop, live and simply be along the harbor's edge or on
its waters. Harbor developments are to be designed to take full advantage of the
views, sounds and activities which are found only in the harbor. The connections
between the harbor and the rest of the community are to be strengthened, restoring
the historic ties which originally united the water with the people.

PRESERVE AND ENHANCE SPECIFIC NATURAL RESOURCES.

Scattered throughout the entire harbor can be found many natural resources
islands, wildlife habitat, scenic views - whose retention is paramount to the
harbor's uniqueness and future vitality. Many of these resources are of
critical importance to the well-being of game fish populations or various
species of birds. Others attain their value by offering unparalleled scenic
vistas or relaxing settings.

The plan identifies the types of areas to be protected and, where necessary,
recommends programs required to maintain or improve them. Some of these areas
are extremely large such as most of the St. Louis River while others, like
Hearding Island are relatively small. Nonetheless, all contribute to making
the harbor a special place for Duluth, Superior and the Midwest.

ORk

Ow
"A

-1- L U--

...........

ME
. ... .. SEEP' 4

8-
"Ri
MR!
q 2@

0, -

V)u Lj-a@

0 fog

P= Harbor Systems

............... . .... ...... . ... ... . .. .............. ...

HARBOR SYSTEMS

A geopgraphic description of a plan would reveal the harbor as if it were a
folded map being opened panel by panel. Each segment is seen separate and
distinct from its neighbors. Yet the harbor is a single entity bound together
by many forces not the least of which is the flow of the water itself. One
way to understand this view of the harbor is to examifie the proposed systems
which will operate throughout its length and breadth. The following section
details the policies which are to regulate these systems within the harbor.
Each,section also offers an initial description of how those policies should
be appli6d.

NATURAL RESOURCES

From the vast wealth of natural resources found in the harbor has sprung the
wide variety of uses now located there. Shipping, fishing, tourism and
recreation all rely on specific and often different aspects of the harbor's
resource base. To maintain each of these uses requires that the natural
resources upon which they rest be protected and maintained. No one form of
development can be permitted to undermine the foundation for the others. In
this regard, management of land and water areas as fish and wildlife habitat
is considered an integral and essential ha'rbor activity.

POLICIES:

(l -Habitat areas required for vigorous game and nongame fish and wildlife
populations are to be preserved, managed and, if necessary, newly created..

a. Fish-food-production, resting and spawning areas, such as shallow
submerged lands, wetlands and marshes are to be preserved. The
use of adjacent shorelands should be controlled to protect these
vital links in fish life cycles.

b. Fish stocking and habi-t at enhancement programs are strongly
supported.

c. Where feasible, hatchery production in the harbor or its tributary
streams is to be increased and damaged habitat is to be restored.

d. To avoid disruption of wildlife habitat appropriate areas should
be designated for the use of off-road vehicles. Their use in
other areas should be strictly regulated.

e. Significant fish and wildlife habitat areas are to be designated
and protected accordingly.

f. Upland, shore, marsh and open-water areas essential for migratory
wildfowl are to be preserved and managed in an appropriate fashion.

.23

(2) There is to be no net loss of the biological potential found within
the harbor.
a. The adverse impacts of harbor development involving destruction of
marsh or shallow-water areas by dredging or filling must be mitigated
by creation or restoration of habitat with a biological potential
similar to that destroyed.

b. Wherever possible, land that is already under public control is to be
used as-the site for the mitigating action so as to reduce costs.
(3) Restoration of marginal and unused low-lying areas to wetlands is
encouraged.

(4) Natural vegetation in shoreland areas shall be preserved insofar as
practical and reasonable i-n order to retard surface runoff and soil
erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. The removal of natural
vegetation is to be in accordance with the following criteria:

A. Clearcutting is to be prohibited, except as necessary for
placing public roads, utilities, structures, and parking areas.

B. Natural vegetation is to be restored insofar as feasible after
any construction project.

C. Selective cutting of trees and underbrush is to be allowed as
long as sufficient cover is left to screen motor vehicles and
structures when viewed from the water.

D. Sufficiently wide natural vegetative buffer strips are to be
maintained to serve as bank stabilization and a natural filter
for runoff.

(5). Grading and filling in shoreland areas or any other substantial
alteration of the natural topography is to be in accordance with
the following criteria:

A. The smallest amount of bare ground is to be exposed for as
short a time as feasible.

B. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is to be used and
permanent vegetative cover, such as sod, shall be provided.

C. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are to be employed.

D. Fill is to be stabilized to accepted engineering standards.

(6) The mouths of streams flowing into the harbor are to be retained in
an undeveloped state, except where they are used as parks.

(7) Existing aesthetic resources including scenic views, unique vegetative
areas, special natural resources and scientific areas.are to be
preserved and managed. New such features are to be promoted.

(8) Disposal or discharge of wastes, garbage and debris within the harbor
area is-to be according to appropriate Federal, State and local
standards.

A. Facilities or services for the dumping of oil and emptying of
holding tanks by commercial and recreational vessels are to be
provided in convenient places.

B. Wastes from such non-point sources as road runoff, agricultural
lands, and urban runoff are to be identified and diminished or eliminated.
24

C.@ Public collection and treatment facilities are.to be used where
availa ble and feasible for wastes from land developments.

D. All private sewage and other sanitary waste disposal systems
are to conform to applicable Federal, State and local standards,
criteria, rules and regulations.
(9) All applicable air and water quality standards are.to be satisfied.

00) Leachate pollution from open storage areas is to be eliminated.

POLICY APPLICATION:

The natural resources policies should be used to establish programs and
activities which strengthen the harbor's resource base. The following
concerns are the primary areas for initial action.

HABITAT:
Preserving, maintaining and expanding fish and wildlife
habitat should account for most harbor natural resources
activities. Stress should be given to-public acquisition
or dedication of habitat sites in all sections of the
harbor. Marshes, spawning and breeding sites, and feeding
areas are to be protected and, if necessary, improved.
Individual habitat areas should be as large as possible
with significant levels of isolation and protection from
adverse development and human disturbance.

SCENIC VIEWS:
Another element concerns the retention and enhancement of
the natural environment as a scenic resource. Uncluttered
and clear views along beaches and shores should be maintained.
Unique, rare or,otherwise special topographic or vegetative
features should be preserved throughout the harbor. Develop-
ment along the shores is not to involve loss or degradation
of the natural vegetative cover.

POLLUTION-
Facilities and management tools should be used to reduce the
level of air and water pollution to accepted standards. This
concern extends to such pollution items as litter where
standards as such do not exist-. Facilities for the collection
and treatment of sewage, garbage, dunnage and vessel wastes
should be constructed or implemented. In addition, regulations
requiring the use of these facilities should be enacted.
Finally, on-going programs for monitoring harbor pollution need
to be implemented.

EROSION:
Erosion is seen as a natural process not to be tampered with
unless it threatens developed property., In that instance the
preferred course of action would be to use land management
measures to resolve the problem; structural solutions, which
normally are more expensive, should be seen as a last resort

MITIGATION:
Wherever development causes the loss of a sid ificant environ-
In
mental resource, that loss is to be mitigated by the creation of
new or the enhancement of existing habitat. The required
mitigative action for a given project is to be applied to a
harbor-wide mitigation plan. Thus,the harbor's diversity of
natural resources will be maintained. The harbor mitigation plan
is to be incorporated into a harbor environment management program
so that all phases@of the harbor's natural resources base are
managed in a coordinated fashion. (See Appendix II).

LAND USE

Use of the land and water of the harbor has evolved over the years according more
to the quirks of land ownership, land availability and personal whim than to the
rigors,of commonly agreed upon public policy. The net result of this process has
not been necessarily negative, but it has caused conflict and waste and it has
for the most part disregarded much of the wide potential of uses in the harbor.
As a direct by-product of this development pattern, large stretches of shoreline
have been effectively isolated from general public access. The harbor is a
complex body of resources whose fullest use by public and private interests alike
needs the direction, cohesiveness and scope that an established plan for develop-
ment can offer.

POLICIES:

(1) Development and improvement of existing port sites is encouraged prior to
development of new port sites:

(2) Dredging and/or filling for port improvement, expansion and modernization
is to be encouraged only in development areas designated by the approved
harbor plan.

(3) Shorelands with the.combined characteristics of adjacent deep-water access,
adequate rail and road access and sufficient backup land are to be design-
ated for water-dependent development and reserved for future port develop-
ment after giving due consideration to existing facilities and demand for
port development;

(4) Port development needs are to be evaluated and plans developed in light of
possible long-term national and Seaway needs.

(5) Where non-water-dependent resi-dential, commercial or industrial development
exists in areas designated for water-dependent development, local governments
shall encourage gradual transition of shorelines to water-dependent uses
through land use controls., favorable tax rates or other incentivi.-es-for property
owners;

(6) In areas designated for non-water-dependent or related development,
clustering of residential, commercial and industrial uses is preferred over
scattered development in order to preserve the natural values of riparian
vegetation and wildlife, to promote visual attractiveness and to provide
for maximum open space;

(7) Major water-dependent and water-related residential, commercial and
industrial shoreland developments shall be designed and constructed
to minimize adverse environmental impacts, promote visual attractive-
ness and provide appropriate visitor facilities and public access to
the water;

(8) Mitigation shall be provided for any damage to marsh areas occuring
as part of any shoreland development.

(9) The economic vitality.of the harbor is to be promoted.

(10) Those maritime industri.al activities which render the greatest local
economic impact are to be given priority for development.

(11) Orientation to and contact with the waterfront by existing residential
neighborhoods are to be increased and enhanced.

(12) Opportunities for new housing units along the waterfront are to be
provided.

a. Each development is to be evaluated to ensure that other more
desirable water-dependent uses are not preempted.

b. Residential development is not to occur in areas reserved for
water-dependent uses or for wildlife or natural resource management.

(13) Residential neig hborhoods, existing and proposed, are to offer a variety
in the type and cost of-housing units.

(14) Retail commercial development will be permitted on the waterfront following
a case-by-case evaluation and findings that it:

a. Serves waterfront users; or

b. Requires a waterfront location for the operation of the development; or

c. Improves the general public's access to the waterfront; or

d. Complements and coordinates with nearby recreational residential or
industrial development.

(15) Non-maritime dependent industrial.uses are to be sited on appropriate land
not within the harbor area. Exceptions to this policy will be allowed:

a. If the site to be used is not adjacent to the shipping channels and is
not reserved for natural resource management.or for other water-depender
uses; or

b. If the site is a@djacent to the shipping channels., then determinations
must show that the site is unsuitable for use by present or forecasted
shipping operations or other water-dependent industrial uses.
(16) Proliferation of individual, single-purpose piers and mooring facilities
are to be discouraged in favor of clustered public or privatelcommunity
facilities.

(17) Development in areas subject to flooding, excessive erosion and ot 'her
similar hazards is generally discouraged and when proposed, shall be
accompanied by an engineering report and site plan which shows how the
proposed development will be protected from the hazard and how negative
impacts (particularly off-site effects) will be prevented.

a. Shoreland, wetland, and in-water development not in hazard areas
shall be evaluated prior to construction, to ensure that it does
not create or worsen hazards elsewhere; and

b. Measures will be taken to discourage reconstruction of structures
in hazard areas, which have been damaged or destroyed.

(18) Federal, State, and local actions in the harbor area are to provide for
the maintenance and improvement of public access to water for all people,
consistent with legitimate shoreland uses and the need for protection of
the harbor from overuse.

(19) Where major shoreland developments are allowed, priority shall be given
to those that make provision for public access to the shoreland. The
new major development, in combination with other developments in the
area, shall not exclude the public from shoreline access to areas tradi-
tionally used for fishing, hunting, or other shoreline activities.
Exceptions may be made if, after a public hearing, it is determined that
the greater public good would be served by the change in land use..

(20) The exclusive use of shore areas by private interests is to be minimized.

(21) Public lands within the harbor area are to be managed in accordance with
the approved harbor plan.

a. Public agencies shall exc hange lands when it would result in more
efficient and effective management of these lands.

b. No public land may be sold or,traded without first a determination
being made as to the best use and ownership of the land.

(22) Future construction on shorelands owned by federal, state, and local
governments shall be carried out to maximize public-access to shorelines
and to avoid closing these lands to public use. Public access to shore-
1&nds-in present federal, state, and local government properties shall
be improved whenever possible, consistent with authorized use.
(23) Public access to scenic views shall be provided in a manner consistent
with the nature of the area.

(24) Access to shoreline via public street ends should be provided.

(25) Special consideration should be given to making areas of the harbor
available to the elderly, handicapped and physically disabled, so that
they too may enjoy the natural and cultural features of the harbor.

C26) Prior to a slip being filled there must be a determination that there is
no other feasible use whi,ch could utilize the slip.

(27) A statement of need citing evidence that existing operations are inadequate
or cannot meet the anticipated demand is to accompany proposals for new
development.

POLICY APPLICATION:

The possible application of the land use policies is broad and far reaching.
Noted below is a sample of their initial impact.
SHIPPING: Existing commercial shipping operations are to continue
although any given site may undergo alterations to expand
capacity or to accomodate different cargos. New operations
should be located on unused or vacated shipping docks or
on newly developed land adjacent to existing docks. While
increases most cargos can be handled with existing operations
or additions to them, two or three new co@l docks may be
nec-ess.ary for ex'Pected,futurecoal shipments.
INDUSTRY:
General, non-maritime dependent industrial development should
be limited to those sites where shipping cannot be undertaken
and where other water-related use is not feasible. More
appropriate sites are located in the upland areas away from
direct contact with the harbor.
RESIDENCE: Expansion of existing waterfront resident'ial neighborhoods
could occur at several sites. All sites should encourage
maximum amounts of dire@t visual contact with the water-
front, natural shoreline and accessibility to.various in-
come- levels and household types.
COMMERCE: Since the availabil Iity of potential sites is limited, all
attempts should be made to-develop commercial retail or service
modes on the waterfront on those sites where the potential
exists. These areas are to enhande the waterfront, require
location there, utilize existing but underused property and to
help draw people to the harbor. Such developments can assist
in reinforcing the ties between the cities and the water. They
can also represent major public or private investments designed
at revitalizing the whole of the cities.

RECREATION/OPEN SPACE

Each year several million visitor s make the harbor the single most important
recreational resource in the head of the lakes region. Yet, even then the full
potential of the harbor has not been grasped let alone attained. As the contact
point for river, lake and land, the-harbor brings together into one place the
distinct recreational opportunities of each of the three resources. But more
importantly, within the confines of the harbor these resources intermix and
create within and between themselves new and more varied possibilities. The end
product is an extremely dynamic and multidimensional recreational resource
which is virtually unparalleled in the Upper Midwest. To obtain the highest
value from this enormous harbor resource will require more public awareness of
the opportunities available, a far greater ease of access than now exists and
a commitment to sensitively develop appropriate facilities so that the greatest
number of uses can be accomodated without abusing the resource.
29

POLICIES:

(1) Only those recreational pursuits which actually requi *re or are signifi-
cantly enhanced by a waterfront location are to be developed or
retained.

a. Boating and canoeing in particular are recognized as major harbbr
recreational pastimes to be developed and promoted.
(2) Within the Ifmts noted in Poli-cy (1) the variety of recreational
acti vities is to be. expanded.

(3) The natural resources on which harbor recreational activities are
based shall be conserved and enhanced;

(4) Local, state and federal Agencies are encouraged to use.their
authority and resources to provide recreational facilities.and
maximum opportunity for public access to the harbor consistent
with demand, natural resource values, private property rights and
the need for other, more intensive development;

(5) Expansion and new development of motels, restaurants, shopping
facilities, campgrounds, marinas and other facilities to support
the recreation/tourism industry shall be encouraged, consistent
with demand;

(6) Diversification of recreation and tourism that is not based on
consumption of natural resources is to be encouraged when consistent
with preservation of natural resources and overall community develop-
ment.

(7) Areas should be reserved that will provide for adequate dock and
moorage space for present and anticipated future recreational.
vessels;

(8) A network of boat.accesses is to provide access to all portions of
the harbor;

(9). Known,-significant archaeological sites in areas where construction
is intended shall be formally excavated or preserved intact in
accordance. with state aM federal laws;

(10) The potential for restoration and re-creation of historical
waterfront areas should be investigated;

a. Historical buildings and cultural landmarks under threat of
demolition are to be examined to see if they can be moved or
restored to useful life, or preserved in some way, either by
public or private means;

(11) Physical and visual connections between the harbor and areas away from
it are to be developed.

(12) Whe re feasible, recreational facilities are to be integrated with other
developments such as housing, habitat and commercial areas.

(13) Wherever possible, recreation and open space areas are to be inter-
connected, especially along the shoreline.

(14) Recreational facilities are to be used to increase public access to the
harbor.
30

POLICY APPLICATION:

The recreation/open space policies should be used to establish the following
operations within the harbor.

ACCESSES:
A network of boat accesses should be developed to grant
greater ease to people getting onto and enjoying the
harbor's waters. In each major section of the harbor there
should be an a.11-purpose landing capable of handling nearly
all sizes of trailered boats. Also within each section there
should be one or more additional accesses to handle light
boats and canoes with their smaller ranges than the larger
craft. Roads serving accesses-are not to cause traffic
disruption in residential neighborhoods. T.he major accesses
are to possess facilities including toilets and trash
receptacles. When possible, accesses should be developed
in conjunction with other recreational facilities. Finally,
boat moorings should be constructed to facilitate and
encourage use of recreational sites accessible by water.

CAMPING:
Intimate use of the waterfront, particularly.the St. Louis
River, is to be promotedby expanding camping opportunities.
Existing campgrounds could be expanded in size and level of
operation while several new sites should be created. Use of
points and islands as campsites will greatly enhance the
appeal of the operations. Provisions should be made for all
levels of camping from primitive tenting to trailers.
PARKS: Two types of parks can be developed to attract large numbers
of people to all phases of the harbor: Lake Superior, the
port, the river. First, the three existing ftlti-purpose
parks - Chambers Grove, Billings Park, Park Point - offer ideal
picnicking, hiking and fiel.d game sites. One or two more such
parks can be developed within the harbor. The second type of
park, such as Canal Park, stresses the shipping aspect of the
harbor. Other parks of this nature can be located along the
waterfront at convenient sites for viewing the ships and
harbor operations.

TRAILS:
.Nearly every recreational facility should possess a trail system
of some sort to allow people a closer, more direct contact with
the harbor. Trails for hiking, bicycling, skiing and snowmobil-
ing should be built. Rather than being secondary features some
trails can be major attractions in and of themselves. Many
trails will be simple paths along the shore, through forests
or up tributory creeks. On the other hand, the most special
trail is the St. Louis River itself which can be used by
canoeists, boaters and even commercial excursions.

MARINAS:
Although marinas are commercial operations, they are directly
tied to recreation. There is currently a need for over 600
slips which can be met by expanding existing marinas or
building new ones. At least one new marina could be primarily

for power boats and should be located on the St. Louis River.
Superior's eastern waterfront should be considered for a
major new sailboat marina so as to encourage more use of the
Superior Entry and thus help minimize conflicts at the Aerial
Bridge. Also, boat mooring areas should be designated where
they would receive maximum use and where land access to them
is, convenient.

CREEK
CORRIDORS:
Streams flowing into the harbor should be developed as
continuous open space connectors between the waterfront and the
upland areas. These corridors will aid storm drainage, provide
wildlife habitat, act as recreation trails, aid people in
fishing along the streams, and help physically tie the harbor to
the rest of the community.

HISTORIC
FEATURES: Points of historic interest should be identified, marked and
connected by a self-guided trail system. These sites can be
used to educate visitors about the harbor as it once was and
how it came to be as it is today. The historic trail network
should be coordinated with other trails and other recreational
sites.

GENERAL:
Views of the harbor can be enhanced, indeed made possible, by
providing viewing stands at appropriate sites throughout the
harbor. Especially in the shipping sections, these stands'can
permit safe, inobtrusive viewing and increase understanding of
the primary activities of the harbor.

Also scattered along the waterfront can be small fishing docks
or piers.. Old bridge abutments can provide some sites while
others will need to be built. These piers will help grant
anglers land access to fishing spots and aid in promoting what
is becoming a, major sport fishery in both states.

TRANSPORTATION

Shipping iron ore, grain and coal to the rest of the nation and the world is
the prime element in the harbor's existence. Transfering forty mill-ion tons
of cargo each year ties the harbor to a vast rail and road network and the
immense Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway water transportation system. This
movement of goods up and down the Great Lakes is the historic cornerstone of
Duluth ana Superior's economic foundation. Thus, it is imperative that steps
be taken to continue the flow of goods through the port. Similarly, the local
transportation system which serves all aspects of the harbor must be improved
and maintained to promote better and more extensive use of the harbor's many-
faceted resource base.

(1) The transfer of goods from one mode of transportation to another is to
be made as efficient as possible.

(2) The condition of each transportation system is to be maint ained in the
best possible condition.

(3) Conflicts between types of transportation are to be eliminated or
minimized

(4) The most energy efficient movement of goods and people is to be promoted.

(5) Greater use of the port is to be promoted.
(6) No development is to occur without the provision of sufficient amounts of
off-street parking

a. Adequate parking for grain trucks i's to be provided on or near the
dock facility served.

In addition, the following policies which apply to the water transportation
system are to be included.1
(7) The system should provide the-best transportation service possible within
the 1imits of available financing.

a. The system should permit all maritime-related sites to fully
utilize their resources within the limits set by the entire
Seaway network.
(8) The system should provide for the efficient movement of people and
goods, taking care to reduce conflicts between them.

a. The system should encourage full use of existing facilities
and services (including public utilities) before creating a
demand for new ones to be built or implemented.

b.. The system should not cause vessels to take unreasonably long
routes within the harbor.

c., The system should not create unnecessary conflicts, with land
transportation systems.

(9) The system should provide for the safe movement of people and goods,
while protecting non-traveling 'persons and property from damage
caused by transportation facilities or activities.

a. The system should minimize personal injury and property damage.

b. The system should minimize fataliti es caused by travel.
(10) The system should curb adverse and promote positive environmental
impacts.

a. The system should minimize its contribution to air pollution.

b. The system should minimize its contribution to water pollution,
Pspecially in this harbor which has a wide diversity of water
related uses.

c. The system should minimize noise@bear areas of human habitation.

lRefer to Po .licy Guidelines for the Water Transportation System of the Duluth-
Superior Harbor, May 1977, MIC.
33

d., The system should seek to eliminate adverse impacts upon
significant plant and animal communities in the harbor area.

(11) The system should emphasize the most economical modes of travel commensurate
with reasonable standards of service.

a. The system should minimize the need for and cost of construction.

b. The system should minimize on-going operational costs.

C. The system should minimize direct costs to the users of the
harbor.

(12 The system should minimize and compensate adequately for any' displacement
of residences and businesses caused by transportation improvements and
reinforce local development plans.

a.* The system should minimize acquisition of houses for new facilities.

b. The system should maximize potential for maintaining and increasing
water transportation related jobs.

C. The system should encourage maximum utilization of waterfront
property and increase opportunities for waterfront development.

d. The system should minimize harm caused to irreplaceable open space
areas and should maximize development of or access to harbor open
space, recreation and natural resource areas.
e. The system should*operate within the overall objectives of the
harbor as stated in appropriate community development plans@ and
programs.

(13) The system should be designed to meet peak demands where they occur at
different times of the day, week, month, or year to the extent possible.

a. The system should be able to accomodate peak demands and minimize
congestion.

(l 4) The system should emph asize the most energy conserving modes of trans-
portation commensurate with reasonable standards of service.

a. To the extent possible for the water transportation mode, the
system should minimize energy useage. (This may include attracting
cargo now being carried on less energy efficient modes).

POLICY APPLICATION:

Initially, the following transportation programs are to be operating within
the harbor.

CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS: To facilitate more efficient shipment of cargos all shipping
channels within the harbor should be at the Seaway depth of
twenty-seven feet. Also, on-going review and analysis should
be undertaken concerning creation of new anchorage basins,
widening of channels, dredging of new channels and general
safety measures. 34

BRIDGES: Three bridges - Aerial Lift, Burlington Northern and
Arrowhead - epitomize the conflicts between varying trans-
protation forms. Measures should be taken to eliminate or
minimize the disruption to land and water transportation
caused by the bridges. These measures may be structural in
the form of new or modified bridges, or in the form of
institutional changes such as bridge hours, land use shifts
or route changes.

ROAD
ACCESS:
Access to the harbor for commercial, residential and
recreational traffic is to be improved. Rail@oad crossings
are to be improved with better signing, more lighting and
increased lines of sight. Through traffic is to be rerouted
around residential neighborhoods or, at least, the impact of
the traffic is to be reduced or abated. Attempts should be
made to separate commercial trutks from regular traffic in
those areas where truck traffic is concentrated.

AIR
TRANSPORTATION:
The use of harbor land and water for air transportation needs
further study concerning the need for the facilities, their
impact upon the harbor environment and the availability of
alternate sites.

PARKING:
Expanded grain truck parking lots are needed at the Continental
and General Mills elevat6rs. Currently, many trucks at these
sites park on public streets or seriously hamper traffic flow
on them.
Other areas with parking problems which need correction include
Cabal Park. At this site there is a need for more public and
private spaces and, perhaps, better street alignments to ease
the flow of traffic.

DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIALS DISPOSAL

Prior to the advent of the modern shipping industry at the head of the lakes the
harbor was a marsh filled estuary with water depths seldom exceeding ten.to fif-
teen feet. Today, dredgil ng is mandatory to accommodate the salties and lake
carriers which visit the port. Although the need for dredging is understood and
seldom questioned, the matter of disposing the resulting spoils is heavily con-
tested. On one side are those interests favoring the method and sites which are
least costly and easiest to undertake. Opposing them are those who insist that
perhaps more expensive, less environmentally destructive methods and sites be
chosen. Between these two stances lies a compromise which would satisfy most
people and which will best serve the total body of harbor resources.

POLICIES:

DREDGING
(1) Dredging shall be conducted to ensure that:
a. Access to port and marina facilities is preserved and improved at
authorized channel depths;
b. Efficient and safe navigation is permitted;
c. Adverse short-term effects such as pollutant release, dissolved oxygen
d6pletion and disturbance of importance localized biological communities

d. Adverse long-term effects such as a loss of fish habitat, de-
stabilization of bottom sediments, overchannelization, and
biologically harmful changes in circulation patterns are
avoided.

(2) Dredging in designated natural areas is to be prohibited;

(3) Unfavorable impacts on fish habitat, shoreline vegetation and
wetlands should be minimized.

(4) Dredging is appropriate in support of water-dependent uses. The
site design should serve to minimize unfavorable impacts on fish
habitat, wetlands, and circulation of 'estuary water.
(5) 'Dredging to improve the harbor must be justified on the basis of
economic, social and environmental needs.

a. Abandonment or downgrading of existing dredging operations must
be similarly justified.

(6) Dredging is to be done in the least costly manner which satisfies
the preceding policies.

DREDGED MATERIALS DISPOSAL

(7) Polluted dredged material or fill may not be deposited in the harbor,
except behind an approved facility.

(8) Dredged material. disposal, filling, and pile driving in wetlands and
productive shallow submerged lands are generally discouraged. They
may be allowed if the project:

a. Cannot feasibly be constructed elsewhere, is a water-dependent
or water-related project in a designated development area, or is
a part of a Dredged Material Disposal Plan;

b. Has a@sitedesigned to minimize unfavorable imoact on fish
habitat, wetlands and circulation of harbor water;

c. Mitigating action is taken elsewhere in the harbor to create or
restore habitat with a biological potential similar to that
destroyed;

d. Has a justifiable need for the resulting land.

(9) Dredged material disposal, filling and pile driving are: forbidden
in natural areas designated in the approved harbor plan and are
permitted in development areas in support of water-dependent and
water-related uses, subject to the restrictions elsewhere in these
policies . I
(10) Dredging and/or filling for port improvement, expansion and moderhiza-
tion is to be encouraged only in development areas designated in the
approved harbor plan -

(11) To the degree possible dredged materials are to be used for constructive
and beneficial purposes;

(12) Disposal into Lake Superior shall be done according to the following
criteria:

a. polluted material may not be disposed into Lake Superior;

b. material is used for a constructive purpose such as rebuilding
beaches.*

(13) The cost of disposing dredged materials from public projects is to be
shared by the local, state and federal governments and their respective
agencies.

(14) Disposal sites must meet the following criteria:

a. Be available to all public and private dredging operations within
the harbor;

b. Appropriate rail, road and water access is available to serve
disposal and the eventual uses of the disposal site;

c. Appropriate Utilities and services are available;

d. The disposal site and programmed uses are compatible with the
approved harbor plan.

(15) Except where the use of the property requires otherwise, the shoreline
resulting from disposal is to be given a "natural" appearance through
a non-linear configuration and appropriate landscaping;

(16) Disposal of dredged materials on up-land sites is generally encouraged
provided that:

a. The material is put to a beneficial use;

b. The site is environmentally acceptable;

c. The use of the site for disposal does not pre-empt a more
valuable use of the property.

(17) Ma terial used to fill designated disposal sites is:

a. T6'be obtained from maintenance or harbor improvement dredging
operations;

b. To be obtained from approved up-land sources.including construction
debris;

c. Not to be obtained from dredging operations undertaken only to
provide fill material.

*It sh6-ul-d -be--noted that the policies concerning disposal are contrary to
existing state law and policy in both Minnesota and Wisconsin.

(18) Disposal of dredged material is to be done in a cost effective manner.

a. Disposal is-to be done in the least costly manner which
satisfies the other policies of this plan;

b. Disposal is to involve a minimum amount of rehandling of the
material.

POLICY APPLICATION:

DREDGING:
Where and to what extent dredging is to occur, at least
as far as the public channels are concerned, is governed
by federal authorizations. Dredging of these channels
is conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Corps work has been excellent in this regard.

This plan recommends, however, that the public channels
be maintained only to Mile 7.3 (just upstream of Hallet
Dock #6). Dredging beyond that point may be undertaken
only to insure safe passage of recreational or commercial
excursion craft, or for individual docks or boat landings.

This limitation will in no way harm the current or fore-
casted standing of the commercial shipping industry.
According to other elements of the plan, the needs of
shipping can be easily and adequately,met through the care-
ful use of existing and created land along St. Louis Bay and
the outer harbor area. There is to be a similar restriction
of dredging in Allouez Bay.

If the future needs of water-related industries alter substan-
tially, the prohibition on channel extension on the St. Louis
River will be re-evaluated. At the time the entire harbor
plan will be reworked to insure that, as was the case this
time, all facets of the harbor are entered into account.

Within the maintained portion of the harbor all channels are
to be at least twenty-seven feet deep. Thus, all shipping
facilities will be capable of operating at the maximum
efficiency allowed by the Seaway system.

Careful evaluation needs to be undertaken concerning other
harbor improvements which will require dredging. Channels,
especially those at bends, should be reviewed for possible
widening. Several large shallow areas in St. Louis Bay should
be considered for removal so as,to increase maneuvering room
and mooring space.

Dredging which is not associated with the public channels or
commercial shipping is to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis according to the applicable policies of this plan. In
most situations dredging will be allowed if it is confined to
to the immediate area of a dock or landing.

UNBOR &HIE& W&H&WENIEW FUH EXTENT OF* DEEP
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

-4@ I

DREDGED
MATERIALS
DISPOSAL:

Disposal of dredged materials is to consider use of several
methods and operations. Exclusive use of any one method may
not satisfactorily respond to the variety of needs of harbor
interests. Therefore, the following system is to be used for
disposal of dredged-materials. It is not site specific as
ted individually within the context
each site must be evalua
overall harbor plan f
of the or acceptability.-
Because hydraulic dredges an operate at lower costs per cubic
yard than mechanical dredges, they shoul d be utilized If the,
disposal sites can be designed to adequately handle the
effluent and if the scale of the dredging is sufficient
render the cost reductions through their use. Disposal sites
for these Projects are to be non-environmentally significant
shallow water areas,within the.'harbor or up-land sites near:
the harbor The resulting land is to be used for shipping or
other waterffont related Uses as established by the plan.

Operational and maintenance dredging will probably continue to
be done with a mechanical dredge. The material would be bottom,
dumped from scowS into a designated slip equipped with all re-
quired environmental protection devices such as turbidity
screens. From this site a permanently installed, hydraulic
device would pump the spoils to an on-land disposal site. At
this site the material, Would be graded (the pumping and settling
process does most of this grading), and sold for construction or
other uses. Materials which cannot be hydraulically pumped will
be transported by truck.

Other uses of Unpolluted material will include the possible
creation of islands in the harbor for use as habitat orrecrea-
tion. Expansion of exiSting islands for the same purposes could
also be undertaken.. Some dredged materials are to be used to
fill obsolete slips, increaserthe height-of certain docks and to
fill in incomplete or irregularly shaped docks.

The marketing and Sale of dredged materials would be markedly bene-
fitted by public agency commitments to use these materials before
purchasing similar materials elsewhere. In this fashion
initial public cost, of dredging and disposal can be balanced by
the public use of the spoils. This latter public use could be
free (which results in direct cost savings) or at reduced rates
(which will help cover disposal costs and still insure reduced
costs for the user).

The funding of the dredged materials program should be shared by
all three levels of government. The Federal government via the
Corps of Engineers should assume the cost of dredging and a por-
tion of the cost for disposal. Because they economically benefit
from the harbor, the state governments should assume a share of
the resulting higher disposal costs. Finally, the local govern-
ments, because they benefit from new taxable land and jobs, should
bear a small but significant portion of the disposal costs.

When an in-water disposal site has been selected, an'evaluation
.of the site's existing biological conditions is to be conducted
with the information gained to be used to determine if the environ-
mental loss will be significant. If it is, the site should be
rejected. If it is not significant or if no other site can be
found, then the lost resource will have to be gained elsewhere in
the harbor at the time the site is*filled. Costs of developing the
new habitdt will be borne by'the owners of the filled in �ite.
(Refer to the discussion on mitigation in the Natural Resources
section@.

HARBOR DESIGN

The harbor endows Duluth and Superior with uncommon opportunities for exciting
.developments whi& add character and vigor to the cities. Within the harbor is
a dazzling, moving collage of form and color repeated and strengthened by the
vast expanses of water. Spectacular views of the harbor from overlooks high
upon the bluffs are reflected by equally spectacula-r views of both cities from
the harbor.

Lake Superior and the harbor influence Duluth and Superior's past and future.
Water borne commerce was the area's original economic ratibn@T'e for existence;
this trade plus an expanding tourist trade framed around the water will shape the
area's economic future. In the more physical sense of the word, the harbor has
shaped the form and pattern of the area's development as, for better and worse
the cities have mimicked the contours and indentations of the shores. The water
has bound the area together, but it has also separated and isolated.

Design of harbor development is important because it reflects and influences how
people relate to the harbor. Physical separation reinforced by a lack of visual
contact, as is the case in most of Superior and much of Duluth, isolates the
harbor from the everyday flow of the area's activit@. On the other hand, full and
free physical access supported by complete and varied contact dramatically
strengthens the ties between the cities and the water.

Proper design can enhance the panoramic views made possible by the water and hills;
it-@can emphasize the harbor's connections to the world via the armada of ocean
going vessels; it can aid in the populace's education about the area's history,
stress the functions of the port or increase sensitivity to the serenity of the
natural areas. Design is the integrating force which can add to or detract from
the developments and the water they lie besfde.

POLICIES:

(1) Wfthin the active port area, development is to enhance the rich diversity of
machines, ships and people and reinf6rce the atmosphere of an international
port.

(2) For the natural sections of the harbor, development is to quietly blend into
the textures, colors and rhythms of the plants, animals, earth, and water.
(3) Visual and physical contact with the harbor is to be increased so as to
integrate the harbor and inland areas.

(4) Shorelines resulting from, fill are, where the resulting uses allow,
to be given a "natural appearance" through non-linear shorelines and
appropriate landscaping.
Commercial development is to utilize the design motif of the water-
front location, enhance pedestrian, access to the shore and promote.
views of the harbor.

POLICY. APPLICATION:

The harbor design policies should be applied in the following manner.

VIEWS:
Views of the harbor are the most constant connection
between the water and the cities. With its hills, Duluth
has superb vistas with- the best being from Skyline Park-
way. Low-lying Superior has few; its best are along the
northern waterfront where moored ships loom above-buildings
and streets. To preserve these views tall structures along
the waterfront should be prevented wherever possible.
Overlooks, especially in Superior,. are necessary to obtain
good views, particularly of the port operations. Also to
be stressed are the night views of and from the harbor.

NODES:.
A node is a centralized concentration of activity which-
identifies a particular, segment of the harbor. Each node,
should be visually and physically connected with a certain
element in the harbor. Canal Park is an excellent example
as is the proposed Barkers Island Development. Billings
Park is an example of a node-along the-less developed shore-
line. Other such concentrations should be situated at other
points in the harbor such as Connor's Point and Bayfront Park.

PATHS:
Paths are important tools in achieving continuity within the-
harbor and penetration from it into the upland areas. A path
is a channel along which people move including transit routes,
streets, alleys,trails, train tracks and the river. -A path
must be clearly defined, continuous, in visual contact with
the harbor and distinct from other paths. New paths are
desired along most stretches of the waterfront. Other types
of paths which need to be developed are those that facilitate
movement between the harbor and inland areas. The river, too,
is an ideal path which is to be more fully utilized under
this harbor plan.

EDGES:
Edges are linear-elements which can either separate or sew
together differing areas and activities. Clean, clear cut
edges should be designed to define districts; these edges
should be relatively impenetrable such as the road and rail-
road tracks which isolate Grassy Point. Edges which connect
areas should be easily crossed. To be effective, edges must
be continuous and visible. They should serve to orient
people in the harbor area. The most noticeable and notable
edge is the separation of land and water.

LANDSCAPING:
Effective landscaping can aid in the development of
harmonious views and in making people comfortable along
the waterfront. Trees and plantings can soften the
impact of residential areas upon views from the water;
trees and earth berms can visually soften industrial
uses. Coal piles can be masked in this fashion with the
trees serving another purpose, that being to control
wind blown. dust.
LIGHTING: Appropriate lighting can highlight selected features or
open up areas for safer use. The Aerial Bridge is already
highlighted, as are, in their own ways, the docks. Portions.
of the waterfront are extremely dark at night. A feeling
of safety and accessibility can be accomplished through a
good lighting program.

SIGNS:
Signs and other forms of street furniture play an important
role in lending continuity to the harbor. A unified system.
of signs and graphics can integrate the harbor's disparate
elements. They can also inform and educate visitors and
offer concise guidance through the harbor area.

SITE
DESIGN: Individual developments should use appropriate waterfront
motifs as. a means to enhance a positive harbor character.
Considerations need also to be made on how the development
can improve access to the shore and coordinate with nearby
recreation facilities. Further, all aspects of the design
concerns must be brought to bear on all harbor development,
especially commercial, residential and recreational projects.

HARBOR SERVICES

A vital series of services lends the support necessary to maintain a healthy
and viable harbor. Without adequate levels of police and fire protection, water
and sewer service or waste disposal the harbor area would be a less pleasant
place in which to work, play or live. Although the public sector does not and
should not supply all of services required within the harbor, the public none-
@heless must be concerned with all services operating there. The public's role
in seeking a soundly developed harbor leads the public to provide or encourage.
the provision of adequate levels of necessary services.

POLICIES:

(1) The public is to provide a level of police protection in the harbor area
according to standards for such protection established within the
respective jurisdictions.

a. Law enforcement agencies are to cooperate fully on harbor security
matters and to share information pertinent to each other's
operations.
(2) The private provision of additional security protection is to occur with
the full knowledge and cooperation of the appropriate law enforcement
agency. 43

adequate to success-
(3) The public is to provide a level of fire protection
fully. fight or, contain all fires, involving structures or vessels..
a. Plans for fighting fires at specific locations or under specific-
circumstance within the harbor are to be prepared and such pre-
be cooperatively accomplished
paration is to between the fire
departments, Coast Guard and the affected property owner.,..
(4) The private provision of fire prevention facilities, or additional fire
fighting capacity is to be done according to approved public standards
and procedUres and in cooperation with the appropriate fire deparment.

(5) Development along the harbor is to receive a quantity and quality of
water supply sufficient to fulfill the needs of that development including
drinking and firefighting.

(6) The public is to provide a system for the collection and treatment of
sewage generated within the harbor area.

a. In situations where existing or proposed public collection systems
or treatment facilities cannot accommodate certain types or amounts.
of sewage or cannot do so in a cost effective manner,the public is
to cooperate with private operators who can provide the necessary
service.

b. Systems for the collection and treatment of bilge water and ballast
wastes are to be designed and implemented.

c. Private systems for the collection and/or treatment of sewage are-
to meet applicable public standards.

(7) Water and sanitAry sewer services are to be provided according to the-
harbor land use p1an.

a. Waterand sanitary Sewer services are not to be. extended into areas..
designated for non-development.

b. Water and sanitary sewer services. are to.be extended to those areas.
where development is encouraged.
(8) Garbage, dunnage and other solid wastes from all harbor uses, including.--
commercial vessels, are to-be promptly collected and treated according
to appropriate federal, state and local regulations.

(9) The public is to assist private providers of harbor services under the
following circumstances:

a. the aid is essential to the provision of the service;''
b. the type of assistance --funding, expertise, etc.- cannot be
feasibly supplied by the private operator;

c. the aid will not give-the recipient-an unfair advantage over other
private operations-supplying the-same service.

(10) Programs stressing commercial vessel and recreational boating safety and
safe harbor operations are to be promoted.

01) The public is to be responsible for maintaining harbor waters free
of dangerous ot- unsightly debris.

(12) The publi:c is responsible for maintaining healthful, litter-free
conditions in the harbor.

a. Private land owners are to coop erate with the public in maintaining
safe and healthy conditions on their property.

(13) Appropriate types and levels of social services are to be provided to
sailors of commercial vessels.
(1 4) To the extent possible new utility systems are to utilize existing
utility and transportation corridors, especially in the area upstream
of Arrowhead Bridge.

POLICY APPLICATION:

Harbor services should be provided in the following manner:

POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION:
For both of these services the public will provide the basic
level of protection just as7they do tdday. In most cases the
levels for the harbor area will be the same as the community
standard for similar uses (industry, residence, etc.) found
elsewhere in the communities. Private security protection will
probably continue as a major service for waterfront industries.
Wherever this service is used, the appropriate police depart-
ment should be knowledgeable of the amount-of service and full
cooperation between the public and private services should be
attained.
The major fi're protection consideration concerns cooperation
between the various public firefighting crews. Joint use of
equipment, especially fireboats, is a must. Also, joint -
training of firefighters should give an uniform quality to
each side's waterfront firefighting capability; it may also
reduce training costs.

Finally, it is essential that plans be prepared to fight fires
at each waterfront site and under a variety of probable
conditions. The Coast Guard should be involved in all of these
plans as well as the police and private landowners. It may be
helpful to have a representative from the other community's fire
department in on these sessions so that information, ideas and
techniques are shared.

WATER AND SANITARY SEWER:
The primary level of concern is that the developed portions of
the harbor have adequate water supplies and sanitary sewer
service. In some sections of the harbor, notably Fond du Lac
and Oliver, these services will remain strictly a private matter
with wells and on-site sewage systems provided that health
standards are satisfied.

Water and sewer service is to be provided by the public (or in
Superior's instance, the water is provided by a private utility)
in step with the land use plan. Accordingly, service is to be
withheld from non-development areas, but is to be provided to
those areas where hew development is to be permitted and promoted.
aS

Certain services, especially sewage collection from ships,
are being provided by private operators. The public sector
..should continue its policy of cooperating with these operations
-as-longas the.operations:.satisfactorily provide the servfce:in
a cost:effective,manner.

probably still be,necessary
Sewage-collection from vessels will
even if ships@shift to use of onboard-sanitation devices. In
all, liklihood holding tanks will be used@in harbors and, thus,
collection will be requi.red-

A service which.!ihould be-provided-by both the-public and.
private.sector is pumping, out sewage from recreational. boats.
-ATI marinas should have-such a facility-designed and located for
convenient use.

SOLID WASTE:
The collection of'solid waste@, particularly from foreign
commercial ships,:has been a problem in the harbor. It is
suspected that there is considerable illega.1 dumping. of these
wastes in Lake Superior. Local ordinances shou'l4be adopted and
enforced.requi-ring the@prompt removal of these wastes from all
vessels in the harbor. Private operators can supply the service
although publ'ic facilities may be@necessary for treatmentbecause
of existing-regu.lations and facility costs..

HEALTH AND SAFETY.:..
The.-public: sector-in,cooperation with private landowners@ should
institutea thorough campaign to clean up thewater-and land
areas: of the [email protected] -Floating:debris, litter and illegal dumps
should,be promptly collected.and properly.disposed. Programs to
control.vegetation near developed areas, especially around grai-n
elevators,.should be carried out. These efforts s-hould help
reduce the harbor's.rat problem,, improve-line-df-sight at rail-
road crossi,ngs.and i-n.general beautify the area.

On a more posltive@note the public sector can work with private
owners to accomplish the tasks above through better landscaping,
site design and operating procedures. It is true that the working
areas of the,"harbor,wi-11-Adt become,parks but, on .the other hand,
they do not have to be unnecessarily unsightly or unhealthy.@'

In close cooperation with the private sector the.public should
continue to expand training programs and monitoring efforts@
concerning commercial vessel and recreational boating safety.
These efforts should also include safety at harbor operations.

SOCIAL SERVICES:
The-existi,ng.-soc1a-1 service-efforts,for-domestic and-foreign
sailors is, to be continued and expanded in the fUture-(this
statement does not mean new suctr oporations are not encourage@d).
Once again, the public can cooperdte.with the private provision
of these services by:assisti'ng with funding if necessary,
passes to-area recreational facilities, passes on public transit
and the-like. The idea of social services to sailors, especially
foreign ones,, is to make them welcome in the area, encourage
them to visit throughout the-area, offer them help with their
various Problems - legal, medical, language, family, and to
expose in a.positive fashion more of the local community to the
different cultures which visit the head ofthe lakes.
46

66,

C71

Land and Water
Use Areas

"Ink"

LAND AND WATER USE AREAS

The plan for the future use and development of the harbor extends beyond the
statement of goals, concepts and policies to the actual application of those
statements to the geographic areas of the harbor. By themselves the goals,
concepts and policies guide future use of the harbor and in doing so they
provide continuity and consistency to the detisionmaking processes involved
in the harbor. But, to give.the statements form and substance they must be
interpreted into a map depicting use areas. This process attaches the goals..'
concepts and policies to the specific situations found in each portion.

The mapping of the goals, concepts and policies multiplies the impact and
significance of those statements. Now, the plan provides parcel-specific
guidance for reworking zoning or subdivision ordinances or establishing local
policies on utility extensions. More importantly, the map helps protect exist-
ing uses and investments, encourages actions to preserve resources and offers
incentives for the development of new operations.

It must be noted that the plan, either as a whole or divided into its component
parts, is flexible and available for change. Yet, it is equally important to
state that the plan is not to be lightly regarded, to be discarded whenever it
suits one to do so. Flexibility to alter the plan is essential, but a fair and
open reexploration of the harbor's basic issues must precede any such change.
This plan is neither etched in stone nor is it wr.itten in the sand.

Enclosed in this report is a map describing the plan's land and water use
pattern forthe Duluth-Superior harbor. To better understand the map the dis-
cussion of it will be broken down into the seven major subareas of the harbor.

ST. LOUIS RIVER (Fond du Lac to Grassy Point)

,C'onservati-on-and.recreation should dominate the lower,St. Louis,Rfver-as:thei
rlver@ begins-to.. fulfill its potential as one of'- the. area'sl outstahding@ natural-
resources, Once-the-new,-Western Lake-Superior Sanitary.-District and the.Superior.
treatment-plants begin@operatlons, the water quality of the river@011-drastically
improve, and@-as- it does-, more. and' more peoplel will want to utilize, the opportuni-tiesi
along the@river_ The plan seeks to protect most,of the river in its undeveloped-
[email protected] use@of it-.- Existing,development should ber
allowed to-continue-and expand in an appropriate.fashion. In addition, new develop-,
ment, discretely-designed-and constructed, should be encouraged at a few, selected
sites.

CONSERVATION- The bul'k of the-conservation activities.along the St. Louis River-is@
aimed.at--preserving and-enhancing existing natural resources.. Perhaps the major-
effort should be-to protect the valuable spawning grounds for walleyes and suckers-
along the river-upstreawof the Fond du Lac bridge. At the minimum, the site must
b'e left unharmed.. Positive action might include egg stripping stations, stHdter
regulations on fishing, and.regulations on motorboat activity during spawning.'

Another major concern is the preservation of the shores and marshes. In their cur-
,rent undeveloped state, the shores are not only a scenic resource., but.they also
provide-tremendous habitat for birds and mammals. The marshes on the other hand,
provide:spawning and nesting.,areas . for fish and birds. The marshes also are valuable
to the hydrol6gic-functions-of the:river,. Clearing of vegetation or alteration of
the@terrainof the shores should-not be-allowed except under-strict controls at the
few-sites-selected fo.r.development-. Similarly,. no-filling or other forms of degrada-
tion of the mars-hes. 'should be al 1'owed@..

While the,above-concerns arethe:primary ones, they are by no-means.the only ones.
The-total.environmental value of this porti.6n of the harbor is of prime interest and
all aspects of itareto be properly managed'.. For instance, colonial bird nesting
areas should be protected as- should backwaters, shallow water-feeding areas and up--
land forested sites.

RECREATION Up.until now the'river-has not been fully utilized as a recreational
resource. The lack of good acces-s.-and--the polluted state of the water have
discouraged many would-be visitors. However, as the water quality improves,
more and more people will see the river as the fantastic resource that it is
.Increased access to the water for boating should be made
possible by developing
upwards 'of seven landings. At.least'two major accesses are necessary, potential
sites exist at Fond.du Lac or New Duluth and in the Billings Park vicinity. Along
the shore between these sites. four or five light boat and canoe accesses should
be built. These sites should:enable boaters to use the waters of Pokegema Bay,
-11 require ramps, docks, paved parking areas and toilets.
-Mud Lake, Spirit Lake and the rest of the river with relative ease of access.
The larger accesses-. wt
The smaller ones need only have-.well defined parking spaces and good boat unloading
facilities..

The possibility of building one or two power boat marinas exists a-s wi-thin
this section of.th.e harbor. These marinas would encourage greater use of the
river.

The shores of the river offer the potential for a wide variety of trails which
should be developed to increase contact-with the waterfront. First and
foremost the St. Louis River itself 'is to be seen as a water trail carrying
travelers throughout the entire area and leasing them to the various points of
interest along* the way.

ST LOUIS RIVER: PROPOSED LAND USE
RECREATION(INC. MARINAS)
RESIDENTIAL
MARINE INDUSTRY
GENERAL INDUSTRY
EM COMMERCIAL
CONSERVATION
PLANNING BOUNDARY

Ci
fee
0

41 0
of 0
*sos ?
0
WESTERN
WATERFRONT
TRAIL

ap
PROTECT WALLEYE
SPAWNING AREA

LL-

ote *0 6
K a

.0p go

Hiking, skiing, horse rid'ing and snowmobiling trails in combination with or
separate from one another could be located at any one of several sites. SUp'erior's
Municipal Forest is a prime site as is the abandoned railroad between New Duluth
and Riverside in Duluth.

A trail system of a different sort should lead people to and from-the river. Each
of the dozen or so creeks and rivers flowing into the St. Louis River can be
developed as corridors connecting the river to the interior areas. The creek
valleys should be set aside and protected from development. In their natural
state these creeks will serve as stormwater drainageways, habitat for-wildlife,
fishing access points, and visual and physical links with the river. Over time,
selected creek corridors can be developed with paths to increase their value as
connectors.

One particular connector that should be developed would run between the Duluth Zoo
and Indian Point along Kingsbury Creek. This corridor will provide an important
link in a continuous path from Spirit Mountain to the Zoo along the waterfront to
Jay Cooke State Park.

Along this particular portion of the harbor lay the greatest opportunities for
establishing well-designed campgrounds. Superior especially has numerous sites on
the points and bays which line the shore of the municipal forest. Duluth's Indian
Point campground could be expanded to help meet part of the expected increase in
campers. By providing sites for all styles of camping and by promoting the scenic
and boating resources of the river both cities can attract large numbers of campers
who currently drive through but cannot find enough adequate sites within the area.

Billings Park and Chambers Grove Park combine-to serve well the need for parks
along the river. A new facility of this sort is not needed, but promotion of the
existing ones will bring more people to the water. Improvements to each may be
required to expand the level of service.

Recreation and education can be nice-ly combined through the development of nature
learning centers built in conjunction with the trails or parks along the river.
These centers could be self-teaching efforts with displays, brochures and markers,
or they could involve programs given by the schools, volunteers and environmental
groups.

.Hunting, in particular duck hunting, should be permitted to continue as before;
that is, hunting would be permitted in Superior, but not in Duluth. However, as
other forms of recreation increase in popularity along the river, conflicts may arise.
In that event, all types of recreationists should participate in the process of
resolving the problems.

RESIDENCE Beginning with the first Indian and white settlements at Fond du Lac
there has been a long history of residential neighborhoods lying beside the river.
At present Fond du Lac, Oliver, Riverside and Norton Park (Indian Point) Are the
closest to the water. These areas should be encouraged to continue and expand.
In Addition, the potential for new housing exists on the Duluth side near the
site of the old Coolerator plant at Commonwealth Avenue near Indian Point.
If built, these developments should contain varied housing types at varying
prices. They represent natural expansions of existing neighborhoods and will
aid in drawing the flow of human activity closer to the water's edge.

While the goal is to increase contact with and awareness of the river through
housing, these developments are not be presume private control of the shore in
the vicinity of the developments-. Instead, access to the.shore is to remain
undeveloped and open to the general public. This pattern should be adhered to
in the existing residential areas as 'Well. This means, then, that home owners
would not be able to claim and privately use the shore by their homes (this rule
would not apply to existing homes).

Access to the water from existing and new housing sites is to be permitted, but
only with the minimal amount of disruption to the shoreline. New developments
should seek to build a single access for the entire site. Coupled with the
attempt to maintain public access to the shore wil-1 be prohibitions on the
clearing of vegetation and alterations of the terrain except as strictly required
for the development. As much as possible, the shore is to remain in its natural
condition.

SHIPPING The existing docks of Hallet #6, Duluth-Dock and Transport and C. Reiss
Coal will remain in one form or another. If the channel is deepened to twenty-
s,even feet up to these docks, these operations may cease as they.exist today,
their slips may be filled and be replaced by a large scale coal transshipment
facility. This-action would give the harbor the capability of possessing three
such operations assuming that the natt6n"s energy and environmental outlooks will
demand the expanded use of western coal.

The design of this or any similar facil ity, however, must be carefully devised.
Plantings of trees and construction of earth berms should be used to act as
windbreaks to reduce wind blown dust. Also, they will help soften the visual
impact of the facility upon adjacent residential areas.

INDUSTRY The former steel plant in Morgan Park should be redeveloped as an indust-
rial park. Since no shipping channels are to be extended beyond Hallett Dock #6,
the industries locating here need not be dependent on water transportation.
Appropriate landscaping techniques should be utilized to minimize views of the
negative features of industrial development from the river.

ST. LOUIS BAY

Commercial shipping will assume the major role in St. Louis Bay. Ample room for
expansion is provided, but without destroying vital natural resources which are
found in the bay. Much of the land needed for the new shipping operations will
be created through the disposal of dredged materials.

SHIPPING Enough acreage is being reserved in St. Louis Bay to nearly double the
amount of shipping activity currently found there. While room is being set aside
for at least one new mixed bulk handling operation, most of the reserved land,
much of which will have to be created, is envisioned for use by coal transshipment
facilities. At least two such docks, operating at around four million tons annually,
could locate along the bay.

In addition, the plan provides space for waterfront related development such as
harbor services or ancillary industries.

CONSERVATION Research to date has pinpointed several sites within St. Louis Bay
which require.preservation and possible management. Grassy Point in Duluth possesses
a Ydriety of habitats not found elsewhere in such concentration in the harbor. It is
a popular nesting and feeding area for numerous wildfowl species.

Another site is Interstate Island adjacent to the BN Bridge, Currently the site is
a nesting area for songbirds. It has been identified as a potential site for future
gull and tern nesting. It could also be expanded for replacing habitat resources
lost elsewhere in the bay.

A third important site is a series of small island l6cated between MP&L's-Hibbard
Plant and its Grassy Point dock. These islands are heavily used by gulls and terns
for nesting.

St. Louis Bay is important as a feeding area for walleyes. The shallow waters near
shore are heavily used by these and other fish. Complete loss of these shal.low
areas cannot be tolerated, but if some amount is lost, enhancement of the remainder
is essential to maintaining the harbor's large and.soon-to-be-important sport
fishery. Because at'. this time it is.not known how much loss can be sustained, any
fill operations in this area must be carefully analyzed.

RECREATION Recreational opportunities. are limited in St. Louis Bay and therefore
few new recreational facilities are being proposed. One major boat access needs
to be located in the bay as well as at least one smaller one. Each access is to
have the appropriate level of facilities. Rices Point and the approach areas of
the Arrowhead Bridge are the most likely sites for these accesses.

Contact between the West Duluth and West End (Duluth) neighborhoods and the water-
front should be developed. Use of creek corridors is the most probable and benefi-
cial manner to accompli@h this aim. Opportunities for developing these connections
exist on Miller and West Duluth creeks. Other possibilities include using street
rights-o-f-way which run into or adjacent to the shore.

A passive recreation area could be developed at the mouth of-Miller Creek in the
old 21st Avenue West slip. This low level facility could be matched by a similar
one on the tip of Rices Point. A boat access should be located at this latter park.

If and when the Arrowhead Bridge is replaced, the approach pi@rs to the old bridge
should be retained for fishing and viewing. This would represent a continuation of
the current recreational use of 'he bridge.

ST LOUIS BAY: PROPOSED LAND USE.
M RECREATION !,jkQdlo all'
RESIDENTIAL WG
MARINE INDUSTRY
GENERALINDUSTRY
CONSERVATION
-dolebbeeR PLANNING BOUNDARY
POTENTIAL FIL
SITE
1.6TRANSPORT
TION (OR, IF
Ooq MOVED, GEN-
ERAL INDUSI

LAND SCHEDULED
TO BE CREATEWERIE PIER)
MP EkL
M.L. HIBBARD PLANT
INTERSTATE ISLAND
0100
CONSERVATION
CONSERVA- NEW
TION
ARROWHEAD
BRIDGE

GRASSY POINT
ONSERVATION
AREA

Irk

lup

Protection or creation of views is another essential concern along the bay. The
DM&IR overlook, which provides a view of those iron ore docks should be reopened.
New ones, especially at ORTRAN or Fraser, could expand visitors' understanding
of the harbor. Along Superior's northern waterfront vies of the harbor are not
readily available. However, when viewed from the city the moored ships at Fraser
and the elevat6rs loom high above the trees and buildings offering picturesque
scenes. All appropriate measures should be taken so that views are not obstructed.
Superior needs to retain every opportunity for v-isual contact with the harbor.

TRANSPORTATION Three bridges play or will play prominent roles in the St. Louis
Bay. The Burlington Northern Bridge - the oldest in the harbor - poses a particular
problem for shipping. Its two draw spans'may be too narrow for safe navigation.
To compound'the matter, the South or Wisconsin Draw is not perfectly aligned with
the shipping channel. This plan proposes that a detailed analysis be undertaken
to determine the extent of the navigation problem if the probl&m requires remedial
action,. and' 1*f so, how the'bridge should be modified or replaced so as to
alleviate the problems cited.

The current Arrowhead Bridge.should be replaced and removed (except for the approach
piers). n@ replacement should be a high profil:e structure which will carry large
traffic loads without conflicting with shipping. The proposed bridge should be
designed and located so*as to relieve the over capacity traffic conditions on the
Blatnik Bridge. On both sides of the bay the approaches to the new bridge must be
designed,so they will not interfere with nearby-industrial sites.

Rail/vehicle conflicts on Superior's waterfront along North lst Street should be
.reduced, If not eliminated, through'better signing, improved lighting and mainten-
ance of a proper line-of-sight by cutting all tall grass, clearing away debris and
removing other obstacles.

To accommodate all classes of lake carriers all active channels within the harbor should
be ma'inta'fneb to a depth.of 27 feet. In addition, channels'should be analyzed for
widening, development of new anchorage basins and elimination of hazards.

RESIDENCE A significant amount of land should be provided for housing by extending
the Billing Park neighborhood downstream along-the river. Although'this housing is
not to be directly on.the water, it will possess views of the harbor and can develop
ready access to it. As with all other proposed housing areas, there is to be a
variety of housing types and costs so thAt as wide a range of people as possible can
live near the water.

INDUSTRY Non-water transportation related industry should be highly restricted
along the bay. On western Rices Point, room for general industry is reserved
because shipping cannot easily utilize this land. Also, the Minnesota Power and
Light plant is to continue at its current �ite.

The-portion of Rices Point.noted as transportation is contingent upon the further
use of the railyards by the BN. If, however, these yards are transferred, then the
land should be readied for general' industrial development through platting, the
development of collector streets, the provision of utilities and the like. Under
these circumstances a new road should be built connecting Garfield Avenue and 27th
Avenue West. This �treet could be an extension of.either Courtland or Railroad
Streets.

Fraser Shipyard should be encouraged to maintain and expand its operations. Partic-
ularly, a new dry dock facility which can accommodate the 1,000 foot vessels should
be built. Both cities should work for this added capability for the shipyard.

EASTERN RICES POINT

Since the late 1800's Rices Point has steadily shed the vestiges of its residen-
tial neighborhood and has rapidly become a commercial shipping center. Today.
Duluth's "Elevator Row" proudly stands along the slips-and the Seaway Port
Authority of Duluth's Clure Terminal lies at the tip. This plan seeks to con-
tinue and expand the role of shipping operations o@ Rices Point..

SHIPPING All land currently used for shipping shoDld remain dedicated for
shipping although changes in individual operations may occur. For example, the
Hallett Dock may shift from dry bulk to liquid bulk or one of the elevators
might be modernized or expanded.

CONSERVATION The major natural resource issue in this area is an oddly unique.
problem. Clure terminal was created twenty years ago with sand dredged from
the harbor. While the entire site was earmarked for shipping related develop-
ment, nearly one half still remains vacant. In-the"meantime gulls, terns and
plovers have found the sand dunes to be an ideal nesting site. So as to use the
land as it was originally intended and to preserve the bird colonies, the colonies
should be gradually moved from Clure to managed sites el'sewhere in the harbor.

TRANSPORTATION One of the particular transportation problems found along this
portion of the waterfront involve@ rail/vehicle accidents-on Railroad Street.
The plan recommends the elimination of all obstructions near railroad crossings
in this area - the most notable being the concrete supports for a long since
demolished bridge, improvements to all crossing signs and improved lighting.

Curb cuts along Garfield Avenue should be minimized. The amount of traffic
handled by this road req6ires a clean flow uninterrupted by unnecessary turning
motions. One means of reducing the demand for such cuts is to prevent the
development of more commercial enterprises along the avenue. The land west of
Garfield Avenue should be developed in one or two large dev@lopments of an indus-
trial nature. Another way to reduce turning movements would be to construct a
truck route paralleling a portion of Garfield Avenue.

Grain truck parking problems should be approa ched on an elevator by elevator basis.
Only two elevators have problems and these can be alleviated easily. New land
made by filling'in an unused portion of a slip can handle General Mills' problem
while continued use of unused land on Hallett dock can accommodate Capitol'�-over-
flow.

INDUSTRY The properties from Superwood to the Seventh Avenue West flip should be
developed for industrial purposes. The remaining shipping operations, which still
can Ot ilize the short but nearly obsolete slips, should remain, but no new ones
are to be encouraged. The unused slips could be filled in to create more land for
new or expanded-industri,es.

RECREATION As part of the overall attempt to draw more people to the waterfront
to view port operations, viewing overlooks at selected sites should be constructed.
These overlooks will permit visitors to see shipping operations at close ranje,
but in a safe and unobtrusive manner. One ideal site would be on top of the-
transit sheds at the Cluredock. Also, improved signing could simutaneously help
guide visitors along the waterfront while keeping them from hazardous areas.

The potential also exists to develop a road system to provide a continual route
along or near the harbor. However, the facility must be designed so.as.not to
interfere with shipping operations.

EASTERN RICES POINT: PROPOSED LAND USE

I I I I I I MARINE INDUSTRY
GENERAL INDUSTRY
@W COMMERCIAL
PLANNING BOUNDARY
............ TRUCK ROUTES
TRANSPORTATION

SUPERIOR'S EASTERN WATERFRONT

Superior's Eastern Waterfront is a grab bag of activities with the primary
emphasis on shipping. Yet, some of the harbor's most exciting potential for
new cormnercial and recreational developments exists along this stretch of,the
waterfront. Superior, which currently la:cks good contact with the harbor,
should look to it.sleastern waterfront to supply this need. At the same time
this reach of@the @hc@rbor can also provide much of Superior's land for future
tions.
pJ ng,opera

SHIPPING..A t.the Burlington Northern docks one can see the newe@t and the
oldest fadiflities for shipping i,ron ore/taconite from the harbor. The current
docks are replacements for the originals which were built in 1892; the new,
high speed,'conveyor loading dock was first used in 1977 and was built at a
cost of $70 million. The nearby Bunge dock should be reserved for an even
newer ore dock or a grain shipping facility. Likewise, now vacant Elevator '0'
should be reserved. On the other end of the eastern waterfront, the mostly
vacant Connors Point should be combined into a single parcel for future,water
related development.

All along this section of the waterfront existing shipping operations should be
allowed to continue at current or expanded Volumes as need dictates.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT According to this plan two mul.t'ipurpose commercial
centers could be developed on the eastern waterfront. The City already has
underway a plan for the redevelopment of Barkers Island. This island, which was
built over a 60 year span from materials dredged from the harbor, will possess
a cautious mixture of commercial development and.natural areas. A 162 room hotel
with a pool, tennis courts and sun decks will lie beside a 350 slip marina, which
incidentally, meets only half of the harbor's estimated marina needs. Beaches,
picnic areas and trails fill out much of the island's middle section. On the
northwest end there already sits the S.S. Meteor museum and shops. The other tip,
isolated and, in fact, to be fenced off, could be a managed nesting ground for
wildfowl, most notably the reloc'ated gulls, terns and plovers from the Clure
terminal.

The land on the mainland opposite Barkers Island should remain undeveloped except
for hfking trails and shore fishing spots. Better views of the island and fewer
negative impacts on nearby property will result from this minimal level of use.
The functionally obsolete and unused Northern Pacific (BN) ore dock dffers another
opportunity for commercial developmeht@ Up to now the dock has been idle, used
only for mooring inactiveJake carriers. However, because it juts two thousand
feet out into the harbor, it provides an unparalleled view of the harbor, Lake
Superior and, because of its height, a sweeping view of Superior. No other
opportunity like this one exists in the entire hai-bor. Potential uses include a
A@arina, restaurant and small s*hops. If commercial use of the dock proves infeas-
ible and if shipping uses are found feasible, then the dock is to be considered
available for such'Use.

CONSERVATION Although-the,primary emphasis along Superior's eastern waterfront
lies with shipping@and,commercial development, two significant natural resource
elements in this area are inv6lved in the plan. Hog Island, a piece of land
created through years of dredge disposal, should be dedicated as a state wildlife
management area. It provides valuable habitat for waterfowl, songbirds and
shorebirds along a section of shore where there is little such land. Also, it.
may be one site for the relocation of the gull, tern and plover colonies which
currently are at Duluth's Clure terminal.

SUPERIOR"S EASTERN WATERFRONT:
PROPOSED LAND USE
@ RECREATION
I I I I I MARINE INDUSTRY
ON= COMMERCIALONC. MARINAS)
PLANNING BOUNDARY
GENERAL INDUSTRY

.....................

SUPERIOR TREATMENT PLANT

NEIGHBORHOOD ACCESS

...............

..............

..........
CONSERVATION AREAS

The second site is the mouth of the Nemadji River. Two spits of sandy clay which
form the mouth of the river should be set aside as a feeding and nesting area,
primarily forsharebirds. This land will also provide a scenic area for viewing
by visitors. Possible commercial or shipping development of the NP ore dock will
not interfere with this site or with the Hog Island site.

RECREATION Although the S.S. Meteor is the sole developed recreational facility
along the eastern waterfront, the possibility of much more exists. The tip of
Connors Point, which commands a panoramic view of the inner harbor, could easily
be developed into a boatwatching park with picnic and boat mooring facilities.

Overlooks could be constructed to complement the one at the BN docks. One could
be sited along Howards Bay so that visitors could view the Fraser Shipyard'
operations.
Besides the proposed rebuilt access at Barkers Island, another boat access is
required in this portion of the harbor. This one would serve light trailered
boats while the Barkers Island access would serve.nearly all craft. Potential
sites exist at the old NP ore dock or at the base of the Bunge dock.

Even though TH2/53 and railroads sever connections between residential neighbor-
hoods and the waterfronti contact points could be developed. The Central Park
Creek and the Nemadji River could be developed as corridors. The creek offers the
chance to create close ties between Barkers Island and the nearby neighborhoods.
Also, overhead sidewalks could be built to provide safe pedestrian and bicycle
access to the water's edge.

TRANSPORTATION For the most part land transportation along the eastern waterfront
is adequate. The East 2nd Street/Highway 2 route needs upgrading and widening, but
traffic still flows rather smoothly. Additional curb cuts should be highly limited
along this street.

Truck parking for the Continental Elevator is inadequate with the result that trucks
park on the public road on Connors Point. The few residents there now complain, but
when the Point is developed industrially and recreationally, the road will positivel
be off limits for overflow parking. Thus, Continental will*have to develop a parkin
lot on the undeveloped portion of its dock.

GENERAL The capacity of the public utility lines serving the eastern waterfront
should be analyzed prior to the construction of any major developments. Water
supply at some sites had been questioned by some landowners during the development
of this plan.

DULUTH'S CENTRAL WATERFRONT

Tightening the physical and visual ties between the cities and their harbor is
one of the basic elements of this plan. Duluth's central waterfront provides an
excellent, and perhaps the only, opportunity to accomplish this task on a large
scale over a sizeable stretch of shore. It is an opportunity that cannot be
wasted or mundanely handled.

To the west of the Arena-Auditorium lies an unused slip with gravel and metal
operations located on the adjacent dock. A complete redevelopment of this sfte,
which is now called the Bayfront Park area, can be undertaken so that an array
of public and private ventures can be situated on or near the waterfront. The
key concept is the direct link with Duluth's downtown via 5th Avenue West and
the recently opened Northwest Passage walkway.

.1
The land immediately on the waterfront should be publicly owned and developed.
Facilities for boatwatching, tourist information, education and water-related
research, boating services and the like could be a part of this element of the
land's development. Transient boat mooring could be accomodated at a redesigned
.slip. Closely tied into the public uses, but not necessarily on the water's
edge could be restaurants, shops and even housing.

East of the Arena-Auditorium lies Minnesota slip lined by Drill's Marina and
assorted industrial operations. Further to the east is the Lake Avenue/South
Ist Avenue developments which are primarily industrial in nature. While costs
would be considerable, this large area should be considered for commercial,
office and housing development to once again draw the city and the water closer
together and to take advantage of the immense numbers of people who visit this
portion of the waterfront.

Canal Park and the Corps of-Engineers' Marine Museum are among the'area's most
popular sites. The Aerial Bridge, the Museum and views of passing ships are
particularly attractive features. In fact, the useage is so heavy that expansion
is required. Larger parking-areas are.necessary as are expanded facilities (the
Museum is already planning to triple its present size). Coordinated site
planning fs required before any of the concerned parties undertakes an expansion
program.

A path system should be developed in this area to not only tie the city and the
water closer together, but also to dramatically illustrate the interrelationships
between the lake and the harbor. A single path could be designed to trace the
lake's shore, continue along the ship canal, around Minnesota Slip, beside the
Arena-Auditorium and onto the proposed Bayfront Park site west of the Arena.

DULUTHS CENTRAL WATERFRONT. PROPOSED LAND USE

COMMERCIAL (INCLUDES OFFICES AND HOUSING)
ffM= 1-35 CORRIDOR
PLANNING BOUNDARY
d
"R, 114 IS
a
TRAIL

R.M.4
N

"NORTHWEST
PASSAGE

RECREATION

ARENA-
AUDITORIUM

UBLIC SERVICE

A
BRIDGE

RECREATION

MZNNESQTA POINT

Minnesota or Park Point is perhaps th6 best known and most heavily used nonindus-
trial portion of the waterfront. It supports a wide variety of often conflicting
uses whose increased use will only heighten the existing problems. This-proposed
plan suggests measures aimed at reducing the conflicts while maintaining the level
and diversity of the uses.

RESIDENCE A continuation of the existing residential neighborhood should be,quar@
anteed. However, the only new housing units to be allowed should be ones located
on lots-north of 19th Street. The intbnt is to fill in the undeveloped portions
of the Point where the development can be accommodated. Most of these new units
should be apartments, duplexes, and condominiums in a move to open up the Point to:
a wide range of people.

Contact with the bayside of the Point, which is mostly privately owned and hence
inaccessible to most people, should be obtained by developing the public rights-of-
way which exist on the undeveloped ttreets that dead end at the shore. Where pos-
sible, attempts should be made to open up more of the bayside shore to use by the
general publi:L

In encouraging more residential development in this section of the Point, there
must also be a complementary restriction or elimination of industrial activity in
this same area. Minnesota Point is not the preferred site for industrial activity
in the harbor.

RECREATION Recreational use of the Point should continue as is today with only
minor changes to be made. Stress should be placed upon assuring that facilities
are definitely oriented to the water or are enhanced by the waterfront location.
An example of this action was the City Park Department's decision to remove all
organized softball games from the Park Point.Recreation Area fields.

Boating is,a ma jor recreational pastime associated with the Point. A new landing
for day saildrs should be built and the existing sailboat-marinas should be allowed
to expand. A mooring area for boats, primarily sailboats, should be located on the
bayside of the Point southeast of Flea@ding Island. Easy la6d access for users of
this area must be assured with sufficient amounts of off-street parking being pro-
vided. There should also be strictly enforced regulations on the use of the area.

The trail' system in the Park Point Forest �hould be expanded with the trails being
for hiking and cross country skii6g only. Provisions for handicapped people should
be made along sections of the main trail.

CONSERVATION As.an unique vegetative and wildlife resource, Minnesota Point require@
protection and,-Where necessary, active management. Several specific parcels of land
need special designations in this regard. The Minnesota Point forest should be
developed as a scientific research area. Hearding Island should be set aside as a
wildlife management area and parts of i't should be considered for active management
as. a gull and tern nesting site.

All steps are to be taken to preserve the dunes and beaches of the Point. Proposed
actions include a compl.ete ban on the use of motorized veh-icles off public streets,.
prohlbftion of any development on the dunes and the construction of walkways built
up and over, but not on, the dunes for-access to the beach.

The erosion south of the ship canal will require more study. Currently, the Corps
of Engineers and the City cannot agree as to a proper course of action. One pro-
posed method wouTd be to build an off-shore submerged breakwater and to

MINNESOTA POINT: PROPOSED LAND USE

RECREATION(INCLUDING MARINAS)
RESIDENTIAL
CORPS.OF CONSERVATION
ENGINEERS
COAST
GUARD

RELOCATED
MAIN ROAD
COMMERCIA BEACH

HEARDING ISLAND
WILDLIFE MANAGE-
.MENT,AREA

SKY HARBOR AIRPORT MINNESOTA POINT FOREST

WATER PUMPING STATION

deposit clean fill upon the beach. Another, proposed by the Corps, ts to period-
ically deposit clean-material upon the beach and to manage the adjoining land for
pdblic park purposes thereby removing the threat to residential properties.

TRANSPORTATION Despite its value as a viewing attraction, the Aerial Lift Bridge
creates water and la@d transportation problems. No one solution can entirely
@remedy thesituation, but some.may offer relief. This-plan proposes that the City
and the Coast Guard-devel-op andjstrictly enforce rules regulating lifting the
bridge. Such rules might state-that recreational vessels should navigate the canal
under power and in clusters if possible, that no lifts should be made for any craft
which can clear the bridge in the.d6wn position, or that recreational craft should
be encouraged to use the Superior Entry whenever possible.

Tremendous conflicts arise on the Point due to the heavy amounts of recreational
traffic which use the sole street to reach the recreation area. This traffic
divides the residential neighborhood and poses traffic, safety, noise and related
problems. A shifting of the alignment of the major route north of 19th Street
should be carefully studied. Such a shift could greatly diminish the number of
homes affected by the traffic, create quiet dead end streets to serve the homes
and decrease general traffic problems.

The continued use of Skyharbor Airport shouTd be studied. The need for an airport
On the waterfront, especially on a resource such as Minnesota Point, should be
aftalyzed as to the best use of the land and the need for the types of services pro-
vided by the facility.

COMMERCIAL The existing neighborhood commercial store on the Point should be con-
tinued as it provides a needed service to visitors and residents alike. Other com-
mercial operations should be restricted as they create traffic related problems in
an area that already has-enough. Developing a commercial service center for boaters
could be considered with its location being convenient to marineas or mooring areas.

GENERAL The 1977 fire at Industrial Welders graphically pointed out the short-
comings of the water supply system for the Point. Duluth should analyze all facets
of water service to the Point and act upon that analysis. One part of the study
should determine the exact extent of the water supply for fighting fires of various
types on the Point. One possible remedy would be to upgrade the water supply system
with emphasis given to where the line crosses the ship canAl.

WISCONSIN POINT AND ALLOUEZ BAY
-Wisconsin Point and Allouez Bay form an outstanding natural resource that as a
natural area and as a recreation area i's firmly embedded in the harbor plan.
Within this area is one of Lake Superior's few mar 'shes, a climax pine forest,.
abundant wildlife habitat and long stretches of sand beaches.
,CONSERVATION Allouez Bay and Wisconsin Point should be kept free of any
substantive developments. Both areas should be left in their natural state as
habitat for wildlife and as scenic attractions. Also, the P6int and the Bay
themselves represent significant landforms and vegetatfve communities which
should be highly regarded and preserved in their own right. The continuation
of waterfowl hunting in Allouez Bay should be reexamined for potential conflict
with the area's value as a haven for birds.
Reduction or elimination of the erosion problem on the'lake side of the Point
is to be accomplished by whatever measure is deemed best after'appropriate
study. The city, state and Corps of Engineers should cooperate on a study of
this problem so as to prevent future breaches of the Point or exposure-of the
old landfill.

RECREATION The entire Point should be dedicated as a city park and general
improvements to facilities should be undertaken. Among these improvements
should be new picnic sites with grills and tables, improved and well-defined
parking spaces, signing, development of trails and the closing of roadways
leading onto the beach.

A-new park should be developed upon the site of the old landfill at the base
of the Point. Picnic grounds, play equipment and an area for field games
could be the primary facilities. Perhaps a bicycle rental operation could be
opened to lessen traffic on the Point and to offer people a scenic trip.

The boat accesses should continue on the Point but they should be minimally
developed and only serve light boats and canoes. Trailer usage should be
eliminated or restricted. Heavier boats can use the accesses to bedeveloped
on Superior's eastern waterfront. In this way excess traffic will be drawn
away from the Point.

As With all other portions of the harbor, creek corridors are to be reserved..
In this instance, Bluff Creek should be so designated and set aside.
HOUSING The potential for new housing.can be found on the bluff up.on'the
west shore of Allouez Bay. Up and back-from the Bay, this housingwould'have
a view of the harbor without intruding upon it. As with other proposed,res.11-
dential developments, a mix of types and costs are desired to open up.the
opportunity of living beside the harbor to as many people as-feasible.

DREDGED MATERIALS DISPOSAL The so-called Itasca disposal site should be considered
for further disposal of dredged materials. The site is already deemed
acceptable for this use.
GENERAL Of general interest to the entire. harbor is the development of a
system of historical trails. The various historical sites, withinthe harbor
should be connected via self-guiding booklets in a move designed to educate
visitors to the waterfront. Depending on the sites, the actual traveling could
be by auto, bicycle, foot or boat. Certain historical sites may have to be
restored while others may simply require markers.
The current educational facilities hous&d in the old lightkeeper's house at the end of
the P6int shoU-Td be retained. However, no uses of this site, even if educational ones,
should be allowed if they regularly generate significant amounts of traffic.

WISCONSIN POINT AND ALLOUEZ BAY:
PROPOSED LAND USE

@'RECREATION
RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING BOUNDARY

EDUCATION

CONSERVATION/RECREATION

POSSIBLE DREDGING
DUMP SITE WITH
PIPELINE TO DISPOSAL SITE

CONSERVATION

DISPOSAL
SITE
4e"

EEP OUT
Akl
/two,
MIS

Mks-

CH EGI Ly
2 iNTERLAI, 5

STOF,

IMIN
IP

ci,

--iffiow @

- 77 M
Harbor Management

HARBOR MANAGEMENT

The previously described land and water use areas depict how the harbor should
be developed and used. Transforming that plan into reality is the role of
the various processes which have been lumped together and labeled "harbor
management".

But what exactly is meant by "harbor management"? Management of the harbor
entails,making decisions on harbor issues, designing and enforcing regula-
tions concerning harbor activities and resources, and designing and funding
programs to develop and maintain harbor resources. Managing the Duluth-
Superior harbor spans the spectrum of issues from shipping to wildlife to
zoning.

As with most things, the level of harbor management can vary and still achieve
the same goal. However, regardless of the system chosen, certain policies
are to be satisfied in order to achieve the quality of management designed
for the Duluth-Superior harbor.

POL.ICY GUIDELINES FOR HARBOR MANAGEMENT

The structure for managing the Duluth-Superior harbor should:

1 possess the ability to effectively implement a harbor plan and
its recommendations;

2. achieve close cooperation and coordination between local, state
and federal governments;

3. provide a major local role and responsibility in harbor management;

4. include active, formal i.nvolvement by citizens representing the
public interest, marine industry, environmental organizations,
unions and waterfront residential neighborhoods;

5. accomplish its tasks with the minimum cost to the public and prIvate
sectors;

6. achieve an effective balance between harbor interests and prevent
domination by a single group;

7. assu re its accountability to the public;

8. be responsive to the needs and concerns of all harbor interests;

9. represent the minimum amount of regulation and control necessary to
implement a harbor plan;

10. provide procedures for independent, peri-odi'c evaluations on the
effectiveness of and need for a harbor management structure.

Potential management systems considered for the Duluth-Superior harbor varied
from the "null" alternative or status quo to the creation of a "harbor
government". The draft version of this plan contained descriptions of these
options; a brief review of their collective shortcomings will serve to
introduce the method selected in this document.
67

The weakness of the "null" alternative or status quo was evident during the
recent dredge disposal issue where a lack of a cohesive, recognized man "age--
ment structure kept negotiations and discussions at a snail's pace. No b'n'e
body was responsible for making the dec-ision or initiating the process to
make one. Proposals were tendered and rejected as all_p arties individually.
kept their options open and held steadfast to their own positions; collectively,
they effectively stalled dredging-in the harbor.

While still a possibility with the desirable feature of no loss of sover6ignty,
the hull alternative has definite faults. At the minimum,. a catalytic agent
for harbor issues is necessary to keep a coordinated decisionmaking process
on course and moving.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from the status quo is the creation of
a new unit of government to govern the harbor. Under this alternative the
two states would pass legislation establishing a single body to regulate
nearly all aspects of harbor activity. While local, state and federal units
of government would participate in thi-s harbor,government., primary control
would be in the locals' hands.

The attractiveness of this option would be its probable efficiency and
effectiveness; it would represent a one-stop, all-purpose government for the
harbor. Its readily apparent failures would be chiefly political in nature.
State agencies are highly reluctant to surrender existing authorities and both
cities, if not the states, fear undue control by the other. Also, the proposal
means establishing,another governmental unit at a time when most people seem
to prefer less government.

In short, neither a continuation of the existing process nor the creation of
a harbor government is proposed in this-plan. Between these two extremes lie
numerous possibilities most of which rely on reworking the existing authority
structure. The process,cho'sen in this plan falls into this category with
its prime feature being to pull together current authorities to form.a rational,
cooperative approach to harbor.mana'gement.

DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR COORDINATING COUNCIL
This pl@n recommends, 'establishtfig a Duluth-Super'ior Harbor Coordinating Council
(HCC) which is to be an ddvisory body to the Metropolitan Interstate Committee
(MIC). Its purpose will be to coordinate existing management authorities
relative to the harbor. It will be established by the MIC and will be composed
of the agencies and interests noted on the membership list. Figure 1 describes
the HCC's position.

Purpose

The purpose of the HCC will be to work towards the full implementation'of
the adopted plan for the Duluth-Superior harbor.

FIGURE 1: Duluth-Superior Harbor Coordinating Council

Minnesota Wisconsin

Arrowhead Regional Development hwest Wisconsin Regional
Commission Planning Commissi,on
[@Ort

Metropolitan Interstate Committee

Harbor Coordinating Council

Membership

The membership of the HCC will reflect the various management agencies in-
volved in the harbor as well as pertinent harbor interest groups. The pro-
posed roster is:

US Army Corps of Engineers
Coa-st Guard
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Douglas County Planning Commission
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Duluth Planning Commission
Superior Planning Commission
Superior-Douglas County Development Association
Seaway Port Authority of Duluth
Superior Board of Harbor Commissioners
Citizens representing:
marine industry
environmental organizations
marine unions
waterfront neighborhoods
public interest

To the extent feasible the representatives from the public agencies are to
be from their respective boards as opposed to staff personnel. For the -first
term Duluth's mayor will appoint one citizens representative each for marine
industry, waterfront neighborhoods and the public interest; Superior's mayor
will appoint one representative each for environmental organizations, marine
unions and public interest. For each succeeding term the cities will rotate
these appointments.

FIGURE II. HARBOR COORDINATING COUNCIL: FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS

PLANNING ZONING PORT OPERATIONS
-Duluth -Superior -SBHC SPAD -Duluth -Superior -Douglas Co. -SPA0 -SBHC
-Douglas Co. Functions: Functions:
Functions: each operates own program - joint lobbying program
- joint harbor p.m. tion program
each operates own program - joint cargo development program
- joint review of private port
MCC Role: MCC Role: operations
conduct harbor wide planning -.review harbor related requests -------
A-96'review of plans for conditional use, variance,
coordinate local plans rezoning, or text change MCC Role:
initiate planning efforts seek consistent "lations
review programs

SAF M Minn. Wisc. HEALTH
-Coast Guard -SPAD -SBHC I I -SPAD -SBHC -CORPS -USCG
ARDC %RPC
Functions: Douglas co. -St. Louis Co.
MIC
- establish recreational boating -I Functions:
safety programs Harbor Coordinating Council
- establish shipping operations establish rat control program
safety programs Membership: establish litter and debris
--------- ------------- - -------- - ---- SPAD, SBHC, WONR, MDNR, MPCA, ...... =al programs
Duluth and Superior Planning
MCC Role: Commissions, WLSSO, S-OCOA, MCC Role:
Douglas Co. Planning Commission, -.0 1 ,
review programs Coast Guard, Corps, US F&W, review programs
citizens (marine industry,envi-
ronmental organization, union,
neighborhood, public interest).

114OUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT General Duties: HARBOR REGUE-ATIONS
-SPAD -S3HC -S-OCDA harbor information; initiate -SPAO -SBHC -Coast Guard
'proposa Is; review program ;
Fuictions: coordinate plans and programs;
- OSHC and S-OCOA act jointly flor mediate harbor disputes; assist Harbor Master
Superior waterfront activities harbor operations; review Functions:
- each side operates own prolram permits. establish harbor rules and
-------------- - regulations
MCC Roles: Federal enforcement by Coast
Guard
A-95 review of plant' local enforcement by Harbor
initiate development ideas Master
coordinate between two sides - - - - - ---- - ------- - -----------
provide assistance MCC Roles:
review rules and regulations

NATURAL RESOURCES DREDGINGIDISPOSAL OF DREDGED
SERVICES MATERIALS- -
-414R 'aMtNR -USF&WS -MPCA -WLSSD -Private Providers *Corps of Engineers -SPA 0 -SBHC
Functions:
-establish joint or coordinated *Public Providers Functions:
monitoring Functions: - establish long-range dredging
-coordinate permitIng program program
(exeludes ASSO) provide services - adopt and implement annual
-WONR/MONR/F&WS: establish joint dredging and disposal programs
and coordinated habitat, fish & MCC Rule: - establish dredged materials reuse
wildlife programs; establish program
coordinating guide for all harbor - research service needs ------------- - - ---------------------
natural resources management - initiate service proposals MCC Roles:
programs - review service operations
- adopt long-range disposal plan
MCC Roles: - reviiw annual dredging and
review programs disposal programs
review permits L. - review permits for dredging and
approve management program not disposal
mandated by law
initiate program proposals

Powers

The powers of the HCC are extremely limited because of its relationship as an
advisory body to the MIC. Thus, the HCC's powers are those of the MICas
applied to the harbor area. According to the agreement between ARDC and NWRPC
the MIC's powers are:

a. To direct and oversee research studies, collection and analysis of
data, the preparation of plans to guide the harmonious physical,
economic and social development of.the.Duluth-Superior Metropolitan
Area and provide technical assistance to local units of government
within the urban and urbanizing.metropolitan area. Program re-
sponsibilities will be specified in the work programs adopted by
MIC and.contractual obligations established by NWRPC and ARDC. A1.1
policies and plans of the MIC will be subject to review and comment
by NWRPC and AROC pursuant to the Regional Development Act of
Minnesota and the Regional Planning Commission Law of Wisconsin and
appropriate federal regulations.

b. To perform the federal grant review and coordinating function for
NWRPC and ARDC for the Duluth-Superior area pursuant to the designa-
tions held by ARDC and NWRPC and Regional Clearinghouses under the
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95. The regional
commissions, however, will retain the option of reviewing grant
proposals that have regional as well as metropolitan significance.

c. To review and comment uponall policies and plans provided to the
MIC by local units of government that"have jurisdiction in the
metropolitan area.

d. To adopt plans which have been developed for the Duluth-Superior
Metropolitan Area by any planning agency recognized by either
Wisconsin or Minnesota or by any agency or department of the United
States Government having authority to do so.

Duties

The duties of the HCC will be of two general types. First., the HCC-is to
recommend actions to the MIC on projects, programs, etc.-. which occur in the
harbor and which fall under the jurisdiction of the MIC's existing authority.
Secondly, the HCC will have duties which are separate from the normal affairs
of the MIC, are harbor specific and do not require MIC approval of HCC actions.

HCC will advise the MIC on:

a. on-going harbor planning;

b. adoption of an annual harbor improvement program;

c.. authorized reviews of local, state and federal policies, plans, per-
mits, regulations and programs related to the harbor;

d. establishment of ad hoc task forces to investigate specific harbor
issues;

HCC will undertake on its own:

e. provide information pertaining to the harbor;

f. mediate harbor disputes brought before it;

g. conduct and coordinate harbor related research;

h. coordinate provision of public services in the harbor;

i. coordinate local, state and federal activities in the harbor;

j. initiate action on harbor improvement or development proposals;

k. provide technical assistance to,public and private harbor concerns;

1. conduct any other authorized activity deemed necessary to implement
the approved harbor plan.

Staff

The MIC.will provide staff for the HCC.

Related Agreements
By itself the HCC will hot insure implementation of the harbor plan or
coordinated management. Special arrangements between agencies will be
necessary to achieve these goals. In creating the HCC the MIC will
request that the affected agencies con@ider establishing the following
additional arrangements.
a. Harbor Regulations

1. Parties: SPAD, SBHC and Coast Guard
2. Purpose: to adopt and enforce a uniform set of rules and
regulations governing operation of commercial and recreational
vessels within t'he Duluth-Superior harbor.
3. Arrangement and Duties: SPAD and SBHC are to*jointly
establish the position of Harbor Master whose duty it will be to
enforce the rules and regulations adopted jointly by SPAD and
SBHC. The Coast-Guard is to advise the two authorities in the
creation'of the regulations. Also, the agreement is to delineate
the separate roles in harbor enforcement of the Harbor Master
and the Coast Guard.
4. HCC Role: to review the rules and regulations for consistency
with the harbor plan.

b. Industrial Development

1. Parties: SBHC and S-DCDA.
2. Purpose: to coordinate industrial development along
Superior's waterfront.
3. Arrangement and Duties: SBHC and S-DCDA will jointly undertake
industrial development activities along Superior's waterfront with
the SBHC being the lead agency for these efforts.
4. HCC role: review projects.

c. Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal

1. Parties: Corps of Engineers, SBHC and SPAD
2. Purpose: to develop and implement an annual harbor dredging
and disposal program.
3. Arrangement and Duties: the three agencies agree to jointly
design a.l.ong-term dredging plan, devise an annual dredging program
for each season, select public dredged materials disposal sites,
and operate reuse programs for dredged materials.
4. HCC Role: design and adopt long-range dredged materials disposal
plan; review annual dredging and disposal programs; review any
permits required for dredging or disposal; assist in coordinating
agency involvement for implementing dredging and disposal plans.

d. Health

1. Parties: Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers, Douglas County,
St. Louis County, SPAD and S8HC.
2. Purpose: to develop and implement programs promoting a healthy
harbor envi ronment.
3. Arrangement and Duties: the parties are to jointly develop and
implement programs to control harbor rat populations and other
nuisances, to remove litter and debris from the harbor's land and
water areas, to obtain the cooperation of private interests in these
programs, and to generally improve the health and welfare of the
harbor area.
4. HCC Role: review programs.

e. Safety

1. Parties: Coast Guard, SPAD 'and SBHC.
2. Purpose: to make the harbor a safe place in which to w. ork, play
and live.
3. Arragement and Duties: working through existing operations and
the newly created Harbor Master's office the parties will implement
or coordinate recreational boating, commercial shipping and general
safety programs. These efforts are to include educational programs
and harbor regulations.
4. HCC role: review programs.

f. Natural Resources

1. Parties: USF&WS, MDNR, WDNR, MPCA and WLSSD.
2. Purpose: to implement a coordinated program for the management
of the harbor's natural resources.
3. Arrangement and Duties: all agencies agree to coordinate or
merge their respective resource monitoring programs and share all.
harbor related information. The WDNR, MDNR and MPCA agree to
coordinate their permi-t programs. The MONR, WDNR and USF&WS agree
to cooperate on management programs, and to establish an overall
guide to harbor resource management.
4. HCC Role: review programs; review permits; approve any manage-
ment program not mandated by law.

.g. Port Operations

I. Parties: SPAD and'SBHC.
2. Purpose: to better coordinate public port operations and to
better promote the Interests of the Duluth-Superior ports.
3. Arrangement and Duties: SPAD and SBHC will form joint committees
on lobbying, promotion/cargo development and port operations.
4. HCC Role: review programs.

Reviewing and Amending Harbor Plan

In point of fact, there will-be at least five "harbor plans" in effect al-
though each plan will be*identical to the others. The multiplication occurs
when each of the pri'mary agents - Superior, Duluth, SBHC, SPAD and MIC
adopt the same document but under their own separate legal authorities.
Further expansion in the number of "plans" could occur if other agencies
adopt the plan as their own; more likely, these agencies will only initial
or endorse the plan as one they will use but not necessarily incorporate as
their own. Nonetheless, there tt a marked need for coord-ination to keep all
plans in line with one another.

The responsibility for insuring that the harbor'plan reflects current cir-
cumstances and that all versions of the plan are kept apace of all changes
falls to the HCC. It will also be the HCC's role to review the plan for
improvements and alterations@

The process for reviewing and amending the plan will be as follows:

a. Any party to the agreement who wishes to change the plan in an area
where they have jurisdiction should first notify the HCC of the pro-
posed change(s).7
b. HCC then notifies all-other parties of the' proposed change(s).
C. Within 30 days the HCC will re view the proposed change'(s),. Time
extensions for this-review can be provided. If the HCC does not act
within the allotted time the HCC is assumed to find no fault with.
the proposal change(s).

d. HCC makes its determination-on the change(s) and notifies all parties
of.the decision., The HCC amends the harbor plan accordingly.

e. The parties in cluding the initiator of the change(s) amend their
plans or endorsement of it as they see fit in regards only to the
proposed change(s).

f. The HCC may also,initiate plan changes via the steps outlined above.

Beyond this process the HCCwill conduct a thorough evaluation of plan goals,
policies and land use map every four years. Recommended changes resulting
from this review will then be adopted according to the process above.'

74.

Commitment of Agency Support

By signing the agreement establishing the HCC, the parties agree to support
the HCC, to provide representation on it and to utilize the adopted harbor
plan within their respective agencies.

Reviewing the Management Process

Every four years the MIC's resolution establishing the HCC will expire requiring
a reaffirmation to continue it. Prior to this time the HCC will form a task
force to undertake an evaluation df the HCC's management structure and alter-
natives to it.

The task forte is to review the HCC structure, evaluate the performance of
the HCC, determine overall harbor management needs and make recommendations
concerning changes, in harbor management.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN

Clearly, the Harbor Coordinating Council has the potential.to provide sound
management for the harbor. That it can do so through an essentially voluntary
process is commendable although this approach also holds the seeds for the
HWs downfall. In order for the HCC to succeed each participant must fully
honor its commitment.

As measured by the ten policy guidelines for harbor management listed earlier
in this section, the HCC is acceptable. If the process works as described,
all of the policy guidelines are satisfied. The HCC's performance, of course,
will determine if the guidelines are actually met.

Proposed Guidelines for Harbor Management

1. Pozze&s the abitity to ei6ectivety L'Mptement a ha,%boA ptan and Zt.6
tecommendations.

If the voluntary approach in the -HCC is honored, then the proposal will satisfy
this policy. The only power of the HCC is to advise the MIC, and the MIC's
main authority is to review and comment upon projects involving state or
federal funding. Obviously, the HCC wfll not have a direct enforcement power.

The HCC's main power will be the pressure on each agency to comply with
decisions that have been reached by -a body (the HCC) composed of other agencies
This pressure could be particularly intense if only a single agency decided
to move.counter to the other's position.

The HCC's link to the MIC can be both a strength or a weakness. Its strength
is found in the make-up of the MIC, which is comprised-of local elected
officials. The HCC will be able to sensitize MIC members to harbor issues and,
because of their positions on city councils or county boards, the MIC delegates
can work on remedies via their own unit of government.

On the other hand, the link with the MIC can be a weakness in that it represents
one more actor involved with a harbor decision. It allows for the possible-.
reversal of a HCC decision by the MIC or by the MIC's parent organizations'.

Another possible weakness of the HCC is its size and composition. Nineteen
people on a committee can become unwieldy with problems in obtaining a
quorum or facilitating discussions.. Also, the HCC's mix of citizens, pro-
fessional staff and policy people can create difficulites in communication
and group dynamics. Quite often, the variance in status or level of know-
ledge can stifle debate, skew the groups thinking or otherwise hinder free
and open discussions. On the other hand, such an unusual mix of people and
positions can open up channels of communication that would otherwise remain
closed.

2. Achieve close cooperation and coordination betwoeen local, state and
federal governments.
While the-performance of the HCC and its members will determine if this policy
is satisfied, the structure itself provides a solid opportunity for cooperation
to occur. The HCC will provide a far better forum for discussion and problem
resolutions than currently exists.

One reason the HCC is composed of so many representatives of agencies is
precisely to satisfy this requirement. It is because there is such a tremen-
dus need to coordinate public action that the HCC format was selected. Other
alternatives, such as an all local citizen-body, were considered, but seemed
unable to obtain the level of governmental cooperation deemed necessary.

3. Provide a major local tote and responibility in harbor management.

The largest bloc on the HCC will be composed of local representatives. Also,
the HCC process formally involves local interests to a far greater extent than
exists at present.

4. Inctude active, formalt involvement by citizens representing the pubtic
interest, marine industry, environmental organizations, unions and wateA-
front residential neighborthoods.
The HCC specifically includes these groups.

5. Accomplish its tasks with the minimum cast to the public and private
sectors.

The HCC is a readily implementable process which will not require any
significant new expenditures. In all cases existing staff will be used and
only a minimal amount of new costs should be incurred.

6. Achieve an effective balance between harbor interests and prevent
domination by a single group.

There is a balance in the HCC membership both by interest group and level of
government. Beyond that the issue is up to the representatives and their
respective agencies.

7. Assure it accountabitity to the public.

Although the membership of the HCC will not be elected, the elected officials
on the MIC will help assure public accountability. Furthermore, the wide and
diverse membership will act as a ready conduit for public concern.

8. Be tuponAive to the need6 and conceAM oJ aU hatbot inteAests.

Nearly every conceivable harbor interest is represented on the HCC. The one
group that is not directly represented is recreation interests.
9. Reptesent the minimum amount oJ teguZation and contAoZ nece/s.6cAy to.
imptement a hoAbot ptan.
Under this process no new authority is created; there is only a coordinating
body established.to make better use of those that already exist. The laws or
regulations that will be developed will be local-in nature.
The HCC approach is the minimal organization possible save a continuation of
the present situation. If anything, it may prove to be too minimal.

It should be noted that participation in the HCC by public agencies will not
amend, restrict or repeal the statutory authorittes of those agencies or bodies
of government.

70. Ptovide pAcceduAez 6ot independent, peticdic evaeuationz on the
ej6ectivenez4 oJ and need Sot a hatbot management ztAuctuAe.

These procedures are provided in the structure. There may be some question as
to the independence of a task force established by the HCC to review harbor
management. The MIC's role above the HCC may serve to counterbalance this
potential problem.

MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS

Admittedly it is difficult to correctly anticipate how a management process
will actually operate. However, a brief description of how the HCC might
function will serve to highlight the HCC's intended role.

The HCC will have a dual responsibility in relationship to the harbor plan.
First, the HCC will use the plan to react to proposals and programs. In this
reactive role the HCC will comment upon proposals, suggest changes or provide
4-
or deny support for the measure using the plan as its guide. Where Lhe plan
does not adequately address a given issue, the HCC will have to formulate new
policies not just to handle that specific situation, but to cover all cases
of that general type.

Secondly, the HCC will use the harbor plan as a basis for action. While the
HCC's direct powers are extremely limited, it can suggest or otherwise affect
the implementation of needed projects. In this active role, the HCC will
aggressively pursue courses of action or urge others to,as a means to fmplement
the harbor plan. One particularly important form of action will be the HCC's
collective impact on the membership's individual programs.

Between these two roles the HCC will be both a guide and a catalyst. Its
restricted powers will not give it an abundance of legal authority to assure
its goals. Yet, as observed in the evaluation, its composition could achieve
this end.

It is possible that a particular issue may be so devisive that one or more
members of the HCC will desire to withdraw. At this time it is inconceivable

that, given the HCC's limited powers, anyone would wish to do so since unilateral
action by a single member is not precluded by HCC membership. It is hoped-,'
however, that the HCC will serve to replace such unilateral action with coordi-
nated implementation of a compromised resolution to dn-issue.

In fact, it is the notion of compromise or "trade-offs" that is central to.
the HCC's management role. The HCC is to'use its concern for the harbor as
a single entity-and its multi-agency composition to-provide the forum for the
formulation of programs acceptable to all sides of an issue. To th-is end,
it may be reduced to being a meaningless debating society. On the other hand,
it may serve to open up vital lines of communication and facilitate the
resolution of issues.

7j,

Implementation
A`6
Aki

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementing the harbor land use plan and management structure will require
a concerted effort on the part of all levels of government and private
interests. This section of the document outlines the general steps required
to transform the plan into reality.

PLAN ADOPTION and ENDORSEMENT

The first step in implementing the plan is to have local g,,overnments adopt it
as official policy and to have various other units of government endorse or
otherwise approve the document.

1. Plan adoption by:

@a. City of Superior - as an element of the City's comprehensive plan.
b. City of Duluth - as an element of the City's comprehensive plan.
Both cities will have to undergo formal adoption procedures which
include hearings, planning commission action and council approval.
c. Superior Board of Harbor Commissioners - as the SBHC's harbor
plan under the authority given in Chapter 30.38(5) of state
statutes.
d. Seaway Port Authority of Duluth - as the SPAD's harbor plan under
the authority given in Chapter 458.16 Subd 2(l) of state statutes.
2. Following action by the local units the plan is to be adopted by the
Metropolitan Interstate Committee and its two parent organizations, the
Arrowhead Regional Development Commission and Northwest Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission.

3. Endorsed by the following agencies according to their own procedures:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of
Natural resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,, Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and
Minnesota Department of Transportation.

4. Reviewed by the Minnesota and Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Programs
for consistency with each state's coastal plan.

IMPLEMENTATION

Once the plan has been adop ted and endorsed, then actual impelementation can
begin.
1. Harbor Management
a. Establishment of Harbor Coordinating Council by MIC and invitations
to join sent to Duluth, Superior, SPAD, SBHC, WLSSD, WDNR', MDNR,
MPCA, Cd@ps of Engineers, Coast Guard, and USF&WS.
b. The Harbor Coordinating Council is to establish a long-term improve-
mentprogram to be implemented through annual programs.
C. Identify any changes in legal authorities required to implement all
,aspects of the harbor plan.

d. Developed coordinated port p.romotion programs.

e. Establish programs which will involve the general public in the
management of the harbor.

f. Establish a program for the review 'and evaluation of all harbor
management efforts including the H.C.C.

2. Harbor Systems and Land Use Plan

a. Natural Resources

(1) Identify all significant natural resource sites within the
harbor including habitat, spawning grounds, nesting sites,
feeding areas, unique or rare resources and those
threatened by development.
@(2) Prepare management programs for the identified sites for
the purpose of protecting, preserving and managing them.
Possfble management tools include public purchase, easment,
cooperative public/private programs and incentive taxing.
(3) Establish a harbor environment improvement and management
program which includes an environmental:loss mitigation
plan.
(4) Establish baseline data for the harbor's major natural
resources.
(5) Establish an on-going process for monitoring the harbor's
natural resources.
(6) Conduct research into means to manage, enhance and improve
the harbor's natural resources.
(7) Establish coordinated fish and wildlife law enforcement
programs.
(8) Undertake erosion control measures for critical erosion sites.
(9) Develop a simplified and coordinated permiting program.
(10) Devise and establish an uniform set of environmental
standards- for the harbor.
(11) Establish coordinated programs for the improvement of the
quality of the air and water of the harbor.
(12) Establish programs designed to involve and assist private
and citizens in improving the harbor's natural resources.

b. Land Use

(1) Make appropriate modifications to the text and maps of local
zoning ordinances so as to conform with the harbor plan.
(2) Mbdify local.s.ubdivi.sion regulations so As to conform to the
harbor plan.-
(3) Establish local utility ex'tension policies which.conform to
the harbor plan.
(4) Undertake improvements to the harbor's port operations.
(5) Public sector is to devise strategies to encourage and
assist 'residential, marine industrial, commercial and
recreational developments which conform to the harbor plan.
(6) Design plans to guide development of sub-areas within the
harbor.

c. Recreation

(1) Undertake a comprehensive site-by-site analysis of boat
accesses, design the appropriate level of facility for
each site and develop the sites.

(2) Evaluate existing recreation facilities for consistency
with the harbor plan and identify means to upgrade them.
(3) Develop new water-related recreation facilities with
emphasis on camping, boatwatching, trails, and boat moorings.
(4) Provide a coordinated system for distributing information on
harbor recreation.
(5) Develop an interpretive program for the harbor.
(6) Coordinate city and state recreation programs.
(7) Develop a coordinated system of trails throughout the harbor.
(8) Assess identified historical and archeological sites to
determine their significance, interpretive potential and
appropriate level of administration.
(9) Provide free access on public lands to the harbor, streams
and Cake Superior to allow fishing.
Establish recreation and access corridors along streams
flowing into the harbor.
(11) Develop fishing piers along the shore.
(12) Deve-lop scenic overlooks at key sites in the harbor.
(13) Develop canoe trails and specific promotional programs for them-

d. Transportation

(1) Evaluate .potential improvements to the water transportation
system.
(2) Analyze bridge conflicts with the intent to devise measures
to correct or reduce each problem.
(3) Identify means of correcting railroad crossing hazards.
(4) Research potential for expanding the use of the water
transportation system.
(5) Evaluate potential improvements to the rail, auto and
transit systems.
(6) Develop a coordinated bicycle and pedestrian pathway system.
(7) Analyze rail and road access problems for waterfront
property.
(8) Conduct a study into the required level of airport service
in the harbor.

e. Dredging and Dredged Materials Disposal

(1) Develop annual programs for dredgin.g operations.
(2) Develop a long-term dredged materials disposal plan with
annual implementation programs.
(3) Develop uniform dredging and disposal permiting programs.
(4) Evaluate potential disposal sites for environmental, social,
developmental and economic acceptability.
(5) Research constructive uses of dredged materials for use
within the Duluth-Superior area.
(6) Conduct on-going monitoring of bottom sediments to
determi@ne levels of pollution.

f. Harbor Design
(1) Analyze harbor view corridors and determine required
corrective measures, management strategies and development
potential.
(2) Develop an uniform signing program.
(3) Analyze lighting in the harbor and identif3i means to improve
lighting for the purposes of safety, tourism and energy
consumption.

(4) Develop a guide for overall design considerations
within the harbor.
(5) Develop criteria for designing shorelines altered or by
resulting from fill or disposal.
(6) Develop site specific design ideas to improve aesthetic
appeal-, access to the waterfront and enhancement of a
positive harbor "atmosphere".

g. Harbor Services
OY Enact local ordinances regulating garbage/dunnage collection,
treatment and disposal.
(2) Enact local ordinances regulating sewage treatment and
disposal operations and facilities including those aboard
vessels and recreational boat'pumpouts.
.(3) Develop a litter control program for both the land and
water areas of the harbor.
(4) Provideassistance to private providers of harbor services.
(5) Develop a joint training program for firefighters with
emphasis on probable types of fires to be fought along the
waterfront.
Develop plans for fighting fires at all harbor facili@ies
including coordination between agencies, fire departments
and facility operator.
(7) Review coordination between police operations and private
security programs.
(8) Undertake an on-going rat control program.
(9) Undertake a vegetation control program as part of health,
safety and beautification efforts.

A
now

mlP

Ar"'T

Appendix
1-4

APPENDIX I:

SUGGESTED PROJECTS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The following section presents specific programs or projects which could be
used to implement portions of the harbor plan. These items are not presented
as absolutes on what must occur, but rather as ideas for what could occur.
Although each one satisfies the goals and policies of the harbor plan, a
careful review of each project and its alternatives will be necessary to
determine which project, site or program should actually be developed.

A-1

A. NATURAL RESOURCES

Natural Resources Management

The guiding principle for managing the harbor'-s natural resources must be to view
the resources as a single ecosystem with all management efforts woven together into
an unified program.. In terms of site specific programs, this goal means that the
use of any one site must be put into the context of the harbor as a whole and in
light of the management practices on all other sites. In terms of institutional
concerns, this principle means that close coordination between agencies is a must
and may even require one agency being designated as the "lead" management agency.

Preserve Specific Sites-

Grassy Point, Interstate Island, Hearding Island, Minnesota Point Forest, Hdg Island,
mouth of Nemadji River, Wisconsin Point, and Allouez Bay and Marsh should be desig-
nated as state wildTife management areas-, natural scientific areas or other categories
which will protect and,' if necessary, manage them properly. Local ordinances can be
used to accomplish this task as well.

The degree of protection required or desired varies for each site, but.the overall
intent is to prevent them from being developed or otherwise adversely affected. In
this vein, while Minnesota Point Forest dnd Wisconsin Point are to be protected, such
recreational pursuits as picnicking, hiking and swimming should be allowed.

Relocate Clure Terminal Bird Colonies

The gull, tern and plover colonies on Clure Terminal occupy land which someday will
be developed for commercial shipping purposes. A last minute effort to relocate the
bird's would bnly delay development and probably harm the birds. Therefore, steps to
relocate the colonies shoald be taken now.

Three parcels of land can be designated and developed as acceptable nesting habitat
for the birds: a portion of Hearding Island' can be cleared and fenced; the south-
eastern tip of Barkers can be similarly developed; a portion of Hog Is land can also
be cleared, but fencing would probably not be required.

Once these sites are readidd,.the Clure Terminal site can be allowed to naturally
revegetate causing it to become undesirable habitat for nesting. During this time
the site is to be posted to prevent disruption. If all goes as intended, the
colonies will gradually relocate to the newly developed habitat.

Protect Herony

A great blue heron colony on Kimball's Bay should be publicly protected. Although
the birds are not a rare or endangered species, they add to the quality of experience
along the harbor. This colony is the only one in the harbor and, in addition, it.
serves A--total area of approximately 60 miles in diameter. The nature of the site
seems to indicate that it will last for 25-40 years. Public protection of it during
that time would aid in maintaining a significant harbor resource.

Fish Management

As the harbor's overall water quality improves, the importance of the harbor's fishery
will rapidl'y increase. To protect and enhance this resource will require active
management within the harbor. Existing fish spawning beds, especially the walleye
grounds on the St. Louis River, should be protected from any adverse development. For
other species, such as northern pike, the loss of marshy areas along the shores cannot
be tolerated.

A-2

bit romi ow iL I imm IIIIIIIIIIIII

NATURAL F
SUGGESTED
HARBOR &RE& W&HMENEW FUH
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

HEARDING ISLA
.................. .

I STAT E AND

BA
T?K
I LAND
7
tit,

UTH
N NEMAD

ol o.
6?

LEY
N s

Ul RI R A SHE

Shallow water feeding areas in the lower St. Louis River and Bay also have to
be protected or enhanced. Loss6@ caused by proposed fill operations should be
recovered by requiring that other shallow water areas be managed to obtain even
-better habitdt. The loss of significant amounts of adequate shallow water areas
in these two reaches of the harbor cannot be permitted to occur.

All forms of habitat enhancement shoul d be used in bettering the fishery. Rip-
rapping on shores and artificial reefs or forage areas are to be utilized where
appropriate.

While stocking of most fish species is not necessary, programs for stodking such
,fish as chinook salmon are to be continued and expanded. Also, a walleye egg
stripping station on the St. Louis River jointly operated by the two states
would make beneficial use of the immense walleye spawning run on the river.

Preserve St. Louis River'Marshes and Shores

The extensive marshes along the St. Louis River, especially those upstream of
Clough I�land, are important to the fish and wildlife of the harbor. The loss
of these marshes to fill or other forms of degradation should-be prohibited.
This protection can be achieved through local land use controls, public purchase
or easements.

At the@same time the shores of the St. Louis River should also be protected. In
the undevelopment portions of the river the shores provide habitat for wildlife
and a scenic view of the hi�hbst quality. Clearcuttin'g of shore vegetation or
inappropriate development would disrupt and mar this resource. Once again, local-
land use controls could handle this situation although state or federal easements
may be a more secure form of protection.

Interstate Island

Since its creation through dredge disposal, Interstate Island has become a
significant natural resource whose greatest potential lies untapped.. The island's
location in St. Louis Bay makes it a prime site for recouping environmental losses
in the bay resulting from possible fill'operations. The island can be considerably
enlarged to-accomodate new marshes or sandy areas for gull or tern colonies. It
can be used by natural resource managers-as a site for experiments on habitat
enhancement or creation. Additionally, the shoal area around the island can
possibly be developed into a major fish foraging site.

B. LAND-USE

Duluth's Central Waterfront

The land from Canal,Park to west of the Arena-Auditorium holds a vast potential
for redevelopment. To the west of the Arena along the waterfront and a rebuilt
slip could be a tourist information center with headquarters for local marine
organizations.. This building could also hold facilities such as showers for transient
boaters. A public mooring site along the slip would provide a needed service and
lend "atmosphere" to the development.

In conjunction with this building could be a Lake Superior oriented education
and research labratory operated on the same basis as the nearby cultural center.
Thus, Duluth would have twin facilities catering to the cultural and scientific
interests of the region.

A-4

M 01i M M MON

Interstate Island Manage.ment Area

FISH FORAGING HABITAT J,/
7tqzooo
2 0. Wo' C)
c 19 z I 1014-D'o, Auo@ nq 00N -
Moll= 8P-000000000 000(
)4
ol-"-)00(1))Ooco,0,0)(,))Oocooo 000
)00()0()(:)()" o .0 C) () 00 o'
0000000(1100 000001)0
000000i 00 -)000000 'oo(G)c(5)p@@600?oooo oooo@'
'00 c
CK-)(,O 00() 000 0000M..
C)008800000c)oc)o()(Dc)ooi-)(-)Ooc)oc)(-@)()()O( QD000()o0c
0- oorAco oooooooc)C)C)C)OooonoooGC)(-)O()C)OL)L. - 0000c^
(--.00(@0()C)()00000()()OOC)()()C)0000otDOOC)O()00000 @ QD00
OC)OOCOC)OCIOOC',C)()O()()00()O@',(D(DC@C)OOOC-;0000k:)C)0(0)()O 0 00008000c)(04000 o(j-
00000 000000000 00
@(-)(-"9000()O()O(:)()0000000000()Oooooooo00000000000000 o
00
000000000000000000(-)OGOOOOOOOOOO
-1ek)oo()(.)oc1o'-1' 00
WATERFOWL NESTING,-__-..--. ;:@Qo000(:)C)0000(:)00()Oooc)ooooooooooooooo000000000000
(It@)0000000041@kO().00000000000(:)0000000000000000000
)10(-)8000088000000000000c)OOOOOOOO@-I
FEEDING HABITAT 00000000cV.1, 0
000000 00000000000000000000c@
000000, -qo 00
'66(oc @90
C,)(:)oo,-J(- 1-'(- 10 000000'@' 000000000000000000 '
0- ;)888000000000000000000
00000000000000 00000 - --*-.knooo8sc)ooooooooooooooc@.
0C)C)--Doooc)c)oc)c1' 000000000000000000000 00000 0000000000000000 -
1'UU()U0o0(D(DoC)()00':'3 0(-"-, 00000000000000000000000000 01300 D .%-)fA(')ooooooo000oo00000 -
@'000000")o0oor C'@o@ )DOD 0 0000000000 -
Moo 0000000000000000000000000000 0g) 00 00 00 00 8
- -)000000000000000 0 00000000&3
o )04 -\nQoooc:) 000 0
()oC)C)J00Uk-)(-U1) --)Ooooo -Qogooooooooooo 0888000000000000
0 )0... 0000000( -)000000c)"j 00000000000(o)
11.w) 00000 -';4Qoo()(00000000'1
"@Qoooouooooo
'00' 0%
OOOOGOOO -AQ00000000C
i 00000000(0
0000000000000('
000
W00000k 000000000000
:X)0000( 00DC10 00000000(
C)00( 00000(11-1 0000000(-
000000001( - 000(
000GOOCK
GULLJERN, PLOVER
)0004 000
000 ( 0000000
NESTING HABITAT ioooooooooO(- @1(.
occ-xx)0()oo0C OL
oo(:,;)(
Mo 6M)o(mc)(Mou
4,9WIC D'oooc 0@
A
0 'o oQv& c ooc-
k-)of 0 oao(o
00(0(
30 oclop0igow
Do 0 -)C) 0 0
0
V(o 0 c 0@ -
0 .06
0 (0
0
LA A marshland C)

sandy area
tc, L! shrubs, small trees
'
0) (0) C,o
)00(-)""
'@'0(--)o'o 00 co, oc"o)o') C@)'o) (0),0()0

'@@000000000(
0
00000000`Oooo@
- ooo()()(:)Oo(
0000000(
@@f @ooo-(
IER

LAND USE:
SUGGESTED
HARBOR &RM W&HMENEHU FL&K PROJECTS
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE
T K

-6 -------------

2 E. WEST CK

tqNNOR POINT
IE Pi

OER OCK

-- ----------

RAR S

HALLE

B c

Just off the*shoreline but coordinated with these public facilities could be a
series of prfvate developments. A restaurant and small retail shops would
readily complement the nearby public development and help draw people to the
harbor. Some form or residential development could be used to "round out" the
full use of the site.
Also, beginning at this site would be a' Path along the water's edge which would
run from there, beside the Arena-Auditorium, around Minnesota slip and then
connect with the Ship Canal paths.

Barkers Island

Superior's plans for Barkers Island'are to be endorsed and supported. The marina-
hotel complex will provide both needed boating services and an enormous attraction
for Superior and the harbor.

St. Louis River and Bay Shipping

Several parcels of land could be redeveloped or created to support an expanding
shipping industry. Land -for potential new coal-transshipment docks could be
created in Superio'r west of ORTRAN, in the area betIveen Hallett Dock 46 and
C. Reiss dock, and possibly even at Erie Pier or Connors Point.

Erie Pier and the area west of the WLSSD plant offer excellent sites for shipping
or related activities. One possibility would be to have all harbor services
relocated and concentrated onto one of these sites in order to- provide more room
for these operations and to provide better services to the harbor.

All of these sites also provide the two cities with plentiful opportunities to
attract more marine-related industries to the area.

Northern Pacific (BN) Ore Dock

Now standing obsolete and vacant this dock has the potential to be transformed
into an amazing commercial development. A marina of 150-300 slips could easily
be built along the dock's southeastern flank. On the end of the dock, nearly
2000 feet out into the harbor and 75 feet above it, could be situated a first
class restaurant and associated facilities. Elevators could shuttle people up
from the marina and parking lots while trolly cars would transfer visitors along
the tracks out to the restaurant.

While at the dock visitors would be treated to vie ws of Superior, the Nemadji
River, the Hog Island nature area, the BN ore docks, the Superior Entry,
Wisconsin and Minnesota Points, Superior's eastern waterfront and Lake Superior.
No other viewof this extent and variety exists anywhere else in the entire
harbor. Creative utilization of this dock would multiply by many times the
number of people attracted-to'the harbor as weT-1 as theirenjoyment of it.-

The Boat Factory

At the Riverside terminal of the Western Waterfront Trail could be an active
reminder of the harbor's role in shipping on the Great Lakes. Prior to the
now vacant marina the Riverside docks were the sites of several shipbuilding
firms, the first being the McDougall Duluth Shipbuilding Company in 1917. 70
commemorate the area's shipbuilding past a new Boat Factory could be built
,with a rusticly designed building for a museum on shipbuilding on the Great
Lakes as well as shops -IFor teaching the building of small wooden boats and
canoes. While, actual construction an the students' projects would take place
here, the major effort would be the construction of replicas of the historic
wooden ships which sailed the Great Lakes. Under the guidance of skilled
craftsmen these vessels would be built and sold. The proceeds would be used
for the construction of still more of the old boats. Also at the Boat Factory
site could be a marina, landing and Picnic qrounds.

A-7

BARKERS ISLAND

390 CAR
"M JEOR" BIRD
E b SANCTUARY

I;tp 276 SLIPS----),

FISHING AT
PIERS LAUNCH

9001v
4m 40
-40
N E T;AIC
Fnnnnn

C. RECREATION

Western waterfront Trail

Using the-grade of.an abandoned railroad track this multipurpose trail will
connect Jay Cooke State Pa@k with the Duluth Zoo and involve numerous sites in
between. Operating on.the rebuilt tracks will be an excursion train which will
carry passengers between terminals at Commonwealth Avenue and Riverside. At
each termi'nal-lwill be boat accesses, picnic grounds and other activities.

Paralleling the tracks and extend.ing beyond them@at wither end will be hiking
and bicycling paths. Along the trail will be opportunities to view the river,.
observe wildlife and visit nature study points. At one or more selected sites
nature learning centers should be built. This trail will act as an effective,,
but unobtrusive method of bringing people, especially th
e elderly and handicappe
into contact with the river.

Boat Accesses

A two-ti6red network of boat accesses should be deve"T'oped throughout the harbor.',
The first tier is to consist of major accesses which,will serve nearly all sizes
of trailered boats. Each of these site@. should have launching ramps, docks, paved
parking, toilets, and trash containers. This level of access should be built at
Fond du Lac (to be affiliated with Chambers Grove Park),,. the foot of Commonwealth
Avenue, Riverside, Indian Point, Bil'lings Park, Rices Poltnt, Park Point Recreation
Areaj Barkers Island and the old N.P. Ore dock.

The second tier..is to be comprised of accesses designe d'to serve canoes and small
boats. The level of development at these.sites is to be less than that for the other
tier consisting of defined parking areas, trash containers and,,sp@ll docks to aid
launching and landing. These accesses should be located at Ofiver'@, Smithville,
Pokegema Bay,,just'south of Billings Park, foot of Arrowhead Bridge, at one or two
points along Minnesota Point, several on Wisconsin Point and one@,6r two on the
Nemadji River.

All sites should be marked as to location and level ofl.use. Map@-,of the harbor
.showing the accesses would be a helpful guide to all boaters.

Camping

The Indian Point Campground should be expanded, better signed, better promoted and
have its access road @ebuilt and paved.@ Also,, a nea,rby boat access should be
constructed or made available to campers.

.New camping facilities can initially be built at two sites in Superior. Whiteside
or Clough Island can,.easily accommodate a semIi-primitive level campgroun.d. The
old Whiteside farm can'be-partially restored@-as a historical site and attraction.
A boat landing would have to be buflt, perhap's on the site of the one which.used to
serve the farm.

The other site would be on one of the points between Kimball's Bay and Billings Park
(but not near the heron colony). Thi's campground could serve all forms of camping,
but in well.separated nodes. All necessary facilities and services wo@ld be provided
at this site. A boat access probably could not be buiTt because of the, steep banks,
but a mooring area could be constructed with the loading and unloading [email protected] to be
done at a nearby access.

Other campsites accessible by boat only could be located on both sides of the St.
Louis River between-Fond du Lac and Billings Park. The opportunity w6uld be provided
0
for people to boat and camp this area, spend each night at a different site, be in a
wild to semi-wild area and not ever be more than tem miles from the hearts of two
cities,holding 130,,000 people.
A-9

RECREATIO
SUGGESTED
mmoom &HE& kz@HMEHIEHV PUH'
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE ANAL PARK

21st AVEN

FIELD ENUE PARK AN
T ---\
NORS P T PARK

14GS Y

I C IRK is
Or ItEK
IAN POINT 14 4 1
WEST -N R ON cc
WATERFR D cc S
TRAIL N,P DOCK

PO MA BAY ACCESSES

FON

C r
E

I R A C

BN Dock Development
Zk

COVERED
WALKWAY

RESTAURANT

TROLLEY
SERVICE J

ELEVATOR

MARINA

Connors Point Park

. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . ...
. .. . . ... .... .
. . ........ ..
. . . .. ......... ..
...... . . . ..
............
.. . . ....
... .....
41t; IVA >

..... ... .... ...... .. .... .........
- ;;n@-
...... .... .:: . .... ................. 11
. ..... . . .

SCENIC
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DRIVE
NATURE
I Ak
TRAIL

..........
............
... .......
CPO
....... ..I
. .. .. . . .. . .. I
.... ...... ..
...........
............... . .......... IecA
................... ..... ... .....
..... . . . . . . . 40.
.......... . . . . . ........ ....
....... . .................. I.
FISHING
40
. .. ........
S
. ..... ..
.. . . ........... . . ....... .
. . . . . . . . .. . . ..... . .. .
. . . ... .. ....
. ........... .
. . .. ..
PIER@
. . .... .... .
....... .... . ......... . ..... ......... ......
. . ... . ... ...... . .............. . . ..... ..... .
......... . .. .. ... .. . ........ ... .....
.. .. .. ...
...... ......... .. . .. .... ..
. .. .. ... ... . . ..
i III .... ..... ..N . ...... ..
...........

WATCHER'S
...................

.. ... . .....
PARK
. .. . . . .... ....... . ...

........ ........
. . . . ....
. . ....... .. ..

Parks

Two major new parks should be built and several small sites developed or improved.
At the tip of Connors Point can be a boatwatching park built on the site of the
oTd shipping operations. Picnic tables and grills would enhance this park, which
affords visitors close up,views of boats entering-Howards Bay, loading at grain
elevators, going through the BN Bridge and traveling between Rices and Connors
Points. Relocating the road serving the point to run along Howards Bay will offer
better views of Fraser Shipyard, give access to a postible overlook along the bay
and separate the park area from the prooosed industrial use of the rest of the
Point.

A new pa rk could be built at the base of Wisconsin Point to complement the less
intensive development on the Point itself. At thig new park could be picnic
grounds, play equipment and an area for field games. Also, bicycles could be
.rented out for leisurely rides along the Point. An important aspect of this park
and Wisconsin Point in general is to improve both the access road and signing
leading up to the Point.

On Rices Point opposite the Connors Point Park could be another smaller development
concerning boatwatching. This site could be developed in conjunction with the
proposed boat access.

In Duluth's 21st Avenue West Slip a non-intensive open space should be developed
utilizing the mouth of Miller Creek, the view of the water and the public right-
of-way which encircles the nearby WLSSD plant. Birdwatching and picniUi,ng.-wouTd
be the primary activities along with general harbor watching.

Billings'Park, which is a beautiful riverfront park, should be upgraded and have
an old, now abandoned feature restored. As already noted, the boat access should
be rebuilt with a realigned access road. The small islands between Points One and
Two are to have.new rock rip-rapping to replace the current mixed concrete and rock
material. Other general improvements such as rebuilding the seating area by the
old beach can also be undertaken. Finally, the boat and canoe rental service -- .1
should be reinstituted to allow more people to boat along the scenic and relatively
calim shores of this section of the river.

accommodate more parking. Moreover, new paths connecting the park with proposed
Canal Park, probably the harbor's most visited site, should be enlarged so as to

Elbow Park on Lake Superior and Arena-Auditorium on the harbor sho0d be added.
.These new features would allow the park to handle the presure it now receives as
well as to guide the vi-sitors to other-recreation spots nearby.

A-12

Creek Corridors

Priority should be given to developing three creeks as connecting links between
the harbor and adjacent neighborhoods. In-Superior, Central Park Creek should
have paths developed all along its course to provide a physical link between the
Central Park area and the development at Barkers Island.

In Duluth, West Duluth Creek should be utilized as a solid'connecting facility.
This creek's valley is perhaps the only remaining direct physical link between
the West Duluth neighborhood and the bay. Numerous obstacles are in the way,
but an attempt should be made to develop this essential connection. As an
alternative, Keene Creek may be considered for this purpose.

Also in Duluth, Kingsbury Creek which flows through the zoo can bkused to connect
the harbor to the zoo and beyond it to Spirit Mountain. This par 'ticu1ar connection,
would tie the zoo to the Western Waterfront Trail magnifying the attraction and
impact of both facilities.

D. TRANSPORTATION

Aerial Lift Bridge.Regulations
The institution of bridge hours for recreational,craft should be studied, but
delayed until a trail period of voluntary efforts to reduce'.lifts:is evaluated.
Recreational craft should be encouraged through signing, information booklets
and other information processes to cluster into groups wh6n,-using the bridge or
to follow.commercial craft through the canal. Al.so, there ;could be@a voluntary
effort to not use the canal during morning and evening rush hours. City ordinances
governing the use of the Canal and the raising of the bridge should be*enacted so
that the bridge operators do.not have to act on their own initiatiye.

Minnesota Point Street Realignment

As originally suggested in the City of Duluth's Park Point Sketch Plan, the back-
bone street system for Minnesota Point should be re''aligned.- This ftalignment would
entail a two'stage shifting of the road to the bayside of the point, and returning
to the original route at 19th Street.

The shift would greatly diminish the number of homes affected.by the ''road. There
would also be fewer turning motions and hence a safer flow of traffi:c. Moreover,
the shift would permit the full development of Franklin Park. Segments of the old
main route can be used for neighborhood parking and block parks.

Burlington Northern Bridge

A study should be-initiated concerning both the Minnesota and Wisconsin draws of this
bridge. The conflict between rail and water traffic probably will not be fully
resolved, but a redesigned bridge might eliminate the difficulty ships have.navi-
gating the draws.

Grain Truck Parking

Expanded parking for grain trucks is needed at Superior's Continental Elevator and
Duluth's General Mills Elevator. For the former, there is ample room on the dock
itself. For the latter, there is no available land and thus, the tip of the elevator's
slip should be filled in to create the necessary room.

A-13,

TRANSPORW
RAIL D SUGGESTED

METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE AERIAL LIFT BRIDGE
NEW TRA
STREET RELOCATIO

IDENING N H HARBOR BASIN

BRIDGE
RAIL AD CROSSIN

EX
AN(

HANNELI DEEPENING I

Railroad Crossing Improvements

Along Duluth's Railroad Street and in Superior's northern waterfront areathere
are a series of railroad crossings that need to be improved. Measures which
should be implemented as soon as possible include removal of two concrete
pillars along Railroad Street, increased lighting, improved lines-of-sight and
better signing.

Harbor Deepening

The harbor should have all channels dredged to a depth of 27 feet to facilitate
efficient use of the entire harbor. This Corps of Engineers project should be
undertaken in coordination with'.the dredge disposal program described in the
following section. and. th.e
Further consideration should be made o-f widening the Cross Channel
Duluth Harbor Basin, expanding the Superior Anchorage area, and eliminating.the
shallow triangle lying between the North'and South Channels west of the Cross
Channel. Also, once the old Arrowhead Bridge is removed, the channel at.that
point should be widened to ease navigation along the curve found there.

Mooring Areas

Public mooring areas for recreational craft should be designated. The most
probable location would be along the bay side of Minnesota Point.

E. DESIGN
Since much of the concern with design involves-individual develOpments, the
primary over-all emphasis should be on creating and maintaining view corridors
open to the harbor. Major existing and proposed corridors open to the harbor.
Major existing and proposed corridors are shown on the map al@though these
represent only a rough examination of the issue with more 'intensive work being
required.

The line of sight for corridors should be retained by preventing the construction
of buildings or signs which obstruct the views. Vegetation should also be
controlled.for this purpose.

One means by which to establish new harbor viewing sites is to develop overlooks
along the waterfront. Currently, such stands exist at the DMUR and BN docks.
New ones could be built atop the transit sheds at Clure Terminal, near ORTRAN
in Howards Bay overlooking Fraser Shipyard.'and on the old NP dock. Each of
these overlooks would open up spectacula'r view corridors for visitors.

While down on the waterfront people should be reminded that the view.of the
surrounding cities from the harbor ts also pleasing and surprising.

Another significant overall design project that should be undertaken is the
'development of an uniform signfng program. Signs used to mark trails, designate
historic sites, identify overlooks, give directions or mark recreation
facilities should be coordinated and uniform throughout both sides of the harbor.
This approach would add a distinctive flair to the harbor as well as greatly aid
people's ability to move about the waterfront.

A-15

DESIGN:
MAJOR VIEW
MZ%HBOR &RE& W&HI(RENIEHU PUH
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

,-H

Lm
@ m

F. DREDGING: SUGGESTED OPERATION AND FILL AREAS

The proposed program for the disp osal of dredged materials has four elements:
on-land disposal, fill sites in the harbor, island and marsh creation or main-
enance, and disposal in Lake Supeffor.

On-Land Disposal: Itasca Site

The primary disposal of the 130,000 cubic yards of annual maintenance
material should be on-land as follows:

1. Dipper dredged from harbor.
2. Bottom dumped from scows at the base of the Bunge Dock in-Supe:r'i,or.'
A �ilt screen will be used at this site. This operation is-t *o be .:
designed so as not to interfere with any future shipping.,ase,s*of this
dock.
.3. A permanently positioned hydraulic dredge,and pipeline wil,l pump.
material from the dump site to the Itasca..,,disposal facility.
4. Materials which cannot be handled by the h'y'@draulic dredge will be
dumped on a dock and transported by truck to the disposal site.
5. A private operat6r under contract with the public body controlling
the material will market whatever amount of the material can be used
for construction, fill or whatever.

Depending on the.marketing of the dredged material, the Itasca site c an
accommodate matertal@ for ten years (no reuse) to.infinity (100% reuse)..
The life span of the dump site will be lengthened if 'all local and state
public agencies make commitments to use the materi.a.1s',.-b-efore obtaining
comparable materials from on-land sources.,-S-teps sho ld be taken immedi-
u
ately to determine the marketability of'the'L`dredge materials.
The Itasca site has been used before for d1sp*osal and has been.found
acceptable for this purpose.
On-Land Disposal: Superior Municipal F0 rest Stlie"

Up to 160 acres of land in the SupeHor Municipal Forest could be used for
the disposal of material dredged from large"scale improvement projects (i.e.,
for a harbor deepening project as opposed to the annual maintenance dredging
program). The process would be as follows:

1. A hopper dredge would be used for dredging.
2. Discharge the hopper dredge into the mouth of a pipeline located just
upstream of the Arrowhead Bridge.
3. Pipe the material approximately 10,000 feet to the up-land site.
4. Material is to be placed behind retaining dikes. Measures will be taken
to filter the effl-arent before it is allowed to drain back towards the
harbor.

Unlike the Itasca site, the Forest site would be for large-scale, short-term
projects. Its availability over time after its initial use is not as large a
fAdtor as at'the Itasca sJ 'te. However,.reuse of the M'aterial,.would obviously
make the site available as well as. reduce any negative impacts.
With or without reuse other potential uses of the site after disposal include'
revegetation for wildli. fe.habitat and contouring for@recreational us-es.

A-17

DREDGING:
SUGGESTE
SITES
METROPOLITAN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE (NUMBERS
TEXT)

I AND

----------

SUPERIO FOREST SITE

Fill Sites

Eight sites have been selected as potential fill areas upon which spoils
can be deposited in order to create new l.and for marine related activiti6s.
If polluted materials are being deposited, measures will be taken to prevent
pollution of harbor waters.

Note. It must be pointed out that therecommendation
of these sites does not represent an endorsement of
them by any regulatory agen'cy'nor does it g .uarantee
that the sites will in fact be used for disposal.
These recommendations.-are "first cut" attempts,at
determining what sites can most likely be used for
disposal. They are'based upon current.16vels of
information and, thus, as more-inf(ormation is gathered,
the original recommendations may-be altered. Further
work will be necessary to refine this initial: list
down to the sites.that actually can and will be used.

The material for these sites can come from various harbor improvement
projects, on-land fill material and maintenance spoils. The 'proposed
harbor deepening project will generate 1.6 million cubic yards of material.
Another 2 million cubic yards may result from other possibleimprovement
projects.
Except to fill in obsolete slips or to smooth out irregular docks, no
filling is to be allowed unless there-is documentation stating that
reasonab-..le demand for the resulting land exists or will exist'in the near.
future. Creating land just to create land or fo.r.-,Speculativeipurposes is@
not to be permitted.

The eight sites are:

1. Hallett Dock #6 - C. Reiss: If the slips are-coMpletely filled in,
two million cubic yards will create 80 acres of new land b6hind.3,600
feet of dikes. Probable useas per harbor plan: Shipping.

2. MP&L Dock: 195,555 cubic yards of material.will create 14.acres@of
land behind 1,950 feet of dikes. This land will:@ enlarge 4'n existing,
but currently idle, dock. Probable use-.. Shipping.'

3. Erie Pier to MP&L's Hibbard Plant: Approximately 2 million. "cubic
yards of material will create 80 acres of land,behi.nd-3,25.0 feet of
dike. It abuts the existing,Erie Pier disposal-facility.' Probable-
use: Shipping, marine dependent industries,.recrieiat@ion (for water-
front access).

4. Erie Pier: 1.5 million c6bic yards of polluted *spoils will be,
deposited on this site as part of the current disposal program.
Probable use: Sh ipping, marine dependent industries.

A-19

Erie Pier: Possible Devel o-pment

BULKHEAD

rnnrlr7

CONVEYOR LOADE
RAIL MOUN ED
CRANE S
GRAIN ELEVATO S cj?
OPEN NNW
STORAGE
CON EYORS

ANALYSIS
TRUC 0 FICE
Bum
MARINE cap
RELATED
INDUSTRY 0 @@C ;E RAI
Dum

STORM
WAT E R di 0
RAINAGE

MANUFACTURING

MANUFACTURING
1?9

4ft 4%

EX
SHORELINE

5. Adjoining Rallett Dock #5: 126,667 cubic yards of material
will create 9 acres of land behind 1,600 feet of dikes. It
will adjoin an already developed dock. Probable use: Shipping.

5A. A variation of this site involves a 1 900 foot dike running
from Hallett Dock #5 to the. new Erie Pier dike. The total area
created would be 41 acres utilizing 675,000 cubic yards of .
material. Probable use: Shipping, marine dependent industries.

6. Lakehead Materials Storage Dock: 470,000 cubic yards will
create an additional 21 acres behind 1,200 feet of dike for
this harbor facility. Probable use: Shipping.

7. 27th Avenue West: 800,000 cubic yards of material will create
60 acres of land behind 2,900 feet of dikes. It will adj6in the
.WLSSD Oier and the Lakehead Materials Storage Dock. Probable
use: Shipping, marine dependent industries, recreation.

8. West of Incan dock: 2.3 million cubic yards of materia'l will
create 129 acres of land behind 4,900 fee@ of dike. Probable
use: Shipping, marine dependent industries.

As stated earlier, also to be considered for fill are portions of slips,
obsolete slips or irregula-rities in existing docks.

creation of Islands and.Marshes

Dredged materials can be used to create new islands within the harbor.
These islands could be used as habitat for wildlife and fish using the
newly created shallow water areas. Other possible uses include such
recreational pastimes as picnicking, hiking, camping and boat mooring.

A 20-25 acre island of this nature would need about 445,000 cubic yards
of material. If the material was polluted, a lined dike would most
likely have to be used. However, for best island design, especially
along the shores, no dike should be used. Therefore, clean dredged
materials or other fill would prove to be better island making material.
If a dike or some other retaining device is required, it should be
designed to help lend a natural appearance to the shoreline.

A-21

At this time only a single island is under consideration. Yet, a series
of large and small islands is readily envisioned.

Prior to the active reworking of the harbor through dredging and filling
the harbor was essentially a large marsh. Today little of that environ-
ment exists. The proper d-isposal of dredged materials can be a prime
element in the rebuilding of marshes in selected portions of the harbor.
Quite obviously only clean non-polluted material can be used for this
endeavor.

These new and renovated marshes will eventually become excellent habitat
for fish,. wildfowl and small mammals.

Lake Superior

As of this time, both states have policies opposing disposal of"dredged
materials into Lake Superior. This suggested program allows for such
disposal if the material is clean and unpolluted and if the material is
used for a' constructive purpose. One acceptable use would be so-called
beach nourishment wbereby eroding beaches are periodically replenished
with dredged sand.

EVALUATION OF SUGGESTED DISPOSAL SITES

The basis for evaluating. the suggested disposal plans is the set of policies
listed in the harbor plan. Figure I offers a site-by-site evaluation of the
plan.

Environmental/Social Assessment

Many of the policies governing dredge disposal are designed to protect
if not enhance the harbor's-natural resources. It is the intent of the
suggested program to minimize environmental losses, maximize environ-
mental gains and create enough land to meet the anticipated demand.

In determining environmental impacts it is difficult to judge what is
and is not significant in terms of habitat and what can and cannot be
developed. Along the waterfront one must be aware that much of the
habitat is actually areas once used by man that are now vacant, perhaps
only on a temporary basis. If all of these sites were deemed environ-
mentally significant or untouchable, development may well be stopped or,
in the@ future, land owners fearful of such a decision may see to it that
their vacant land is left as undesirable habitat. In the latter case,
good but temporary habitat could be lost. The wiser course of action as
noted in the harbor plan is to designate permanent habitat sites where
development is forbidden.

Two examples of the concern described above are Grassy Point (Duluth) and
Clure Terminal. The former is an old lumber dock long since transformed
into an ideal habitat area; it is to become a wildlife management site.
On the other hand, the vacant land at Clure where the terns and plovers
nest, is to one day become developed; but, because the bird colonies are
important, new nesting grounds will be established prior to development
of that land at the Clure dock.

Evaluation of each suggested site will have to be more complete than
that which is offered here. However, these assessments, which are based
upon existing information,l do provide a general basis for review of the
problems with each site.
ISources: Assessment of Habitat T es and Bird Populations in the Duluth-
Superior Harbor (UMD, Sept. 1977), Progress Report Duluth-SuperTor Harbor
FisH-erySurvey (UWS, July,1977) and various environmental impact statements.
it 11 n

i.gure I. EVALUATION OF SUGGESTED DISPOSAL SITES

l
isposal
olicies - Proposed Fill Site
efer to Lake On-Land: On-Land:
,pp. 36-38) 1 2 3 4 5 5A 6 7 8 Suoerior Island 'Itasca Forest
@a)
7. + + + + + + + + + N.A. + m.A. N.A.

8a. + + + + + + + + + N.A. + M.A. N.A.

b. + + + + + + + + +

C. (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b) (b)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

10. + + + + + + + + N. A N.A. N.A. N.A.

+ + + + + + + + + + +

12a. N.A N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. M.A. N.A. + N. A. N.A. ii.A.

b. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. + N.A. N.A. N.A.

13. + + + + + + + + + + + +

14a. + + + + + + + + + 11'. A. + +

b, + + + + + + + + + + + +

C. + + + + + + + + N.A. +

d. + + + + + + + + + + + + +

15 + + + + + + + + + N.A + N.A. N.A.

16a. N.A N.A N.A N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. M. A. + +

b. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. + +

C. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. M.A. + +

17a. + + + + + + +. + + + .+ + +

b . + + + + + + + + + + + N.A@ N.A.

c + + + + + + + + + + N.A. N.A.

18a. (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d) (d)
+

b. + + + + + + + + + + + + +

(a) symbols mean: "*" (satisfies policy), "-" (does not satisfy oolicy), N.A. (policy
does not apply).
(b) refer to following environmental assessment.
(c) need exists for any one site, but not for all at once.
(d) specific cost analysis is necessary for each site.

A@23

Site 1. Impact will- not be significant as only slips are being filled.
Keene Creek, which empties into one ot the slips, would
probably be moved so as to ease development. If this were
done, the creek could be channeled so it flows onto the
proposed Grassy Point Conservation site thereby improving
the habitat there.

Site 2. Impact will probably be insignificant. Available research
does not indicate any notable use of the site.

Site 3. Potential for significant impact at this site. Ring-billed
Gull and Common Tern colonies located on MP&L pier ma@ be
adversely disrupted or destroyed; mitigative action might
include habitat enhancement at Interstate Island or on
existing colony sites in the'area west of the MP&L plant.
Also, the large shallow water area is used by game and
non-game fish for feeding. Mitigating action for this and
any other shallow water area would be to enhance remaining
shallow water fish foraging sites in St.' Louis Bay. Another
loss would be the potential to develop a corridor along 48th
Avenue West Creek, which would connect West Duluth with the
waterfront.

Site 4. Impact is potentially significant. The loss of fish feeding
areas may be significant. It may also reduce the value of the
habitat area which lies.immediately to the northeast of the
site.

Site 5. Impact will probably be-insignificant. There is the potential
that if both Sites 4 and 5 are developed, then the habitat
area which lies between them will lose it isolation which is
a key factor in its significance as habitat.

Site 5A. Impact will be significant. The loss of the above-described
marsh will be felt by shorebirds who use the isolated shallow
water and shoreline. Also, some waterfowl may nest in this
area. To replace this site Interstate Island could be reworked.
to accomodate both shorebirds and waterfowl for nesting,
feeding and loafing.

Site 6. Impact will be insignificant as the dock is already actively
used for shipping and disposal.

Site 7. Impact will probably be insignificant. Years of sewage outflow
into this area has left much ofit biologically "dead".
Nonetheless, if the fill area is properly designed, it can
enhance the use of the 21st Avenue West Slip as a resting area
for waterfowl. Consideration must be given to preserving the
view of the bay from the road along I/Jestern Rice's Point.

Site 8. As with sites 3 and 4, this site will have significant impacts
because of the loss of fish fora ging areas.

Island(s). Impacts are unknown., but the creation of habitat on and around
the island(s) should easily balance any possible losses.

Lake Superior. Impac t would be insignificant as long as unpolluted material is
used.

A-24

On-Land: Itasca. Impacts will probably be insignicicant. The site is
already used for disposal and has been found environ-
mentally acceptable for those o0erations.

On-Land: Forest. Impact may be insignificant dependi ng upon the amount
of land consumed. The area to be used is open meadow
and second growth trees and shrubs. Itis already
used,for sewage sludge (slurry) disposal. Caution
must be taken to protect stands of mature white pine
and to control the effluent's return to the river.

Cost Analysis

Policy 19 states that disposal costs are to be kept to a minimum assuming
that all of the other policies are.satisfied. At thils time there are no
cost figures for each site which 'can be compared to determine lowest cost
for disposal. Some figures are available for sites considered in the harbor
deepening project, but they relate to that project and, besides, less than
half of those proposed here are considered for that project.

A-25

Summary

The suggested disposal plan encompasses nearly all' methods for-disposal. -Yet,
in allowing-for flexibility in disposal, the policies carefully dictate when,
where and how each method can be used. Circumstances may negate several of
these methods because at that time, the methods or sites cannot satisfy the
policies.

When th .e disposal policies are applied to the overall plan, the fairness and
reasonableness of the plan is evident.
a. Dredged materials wil.1 be constructively used. Land is being
created where needs for it are perceived; the rate of actual land
creation will deoend upon the changing needs for the land over
time. The material will be- marketed, as they are today, to the
degree there is a need for them.

b. Costs are minimized insofar as they can be and still satisfy the
remaining policies. Rehandling and transport of the material has
been minimized and hence havelowered costs.

C. In most cases ease of operation has been achieved, particularly
for the on-land disposal operations. Bottom dumpifig of the scows
is quick and efficient. Their use as well as that of the hydraulic
dredge for on-land transport means that unlike other transfer
methods the unloading process will keep pace with the'dredging
operati-on. The use of the hopper dredge for the Forest site will
realize large cost savings as well as reduce the amount of water
used as compared to other hydraulic systems.

d. Environmental losses have been kept to a minimum with no large.
significant areas being destroyed. On the other hand, mitigating
action would create new habitat or enhance existing habitat to a
degree that should more than make amends for the losses.

e. Although, the two States' policies banning disposal in Lake Superior
are not strictly followed, the disposal plan's policies clearly state
under what situations disposal is allowed. Specifically, only
unpolluted, clean material may be used and then only for constructive
'purposes.

A-26

APPENDIX II

Mitigation of Environmental Losses

One critical element of the Duluth-Superior harbor plan is the concept of
mitigative action to balance environmental losses caused by development.
Because mitigation as applied at this scale is relatively new, a brief
discussion of it is deemed necessary.

Mitigation includes actions which have beneficial consequences for the
environment, but which do not directly relate to the project's functional
purpose. Definitions of mitigation vary as seen by this sample:

1. "to cause to become less harsh or hostile; to make less
severe or painful." (Webster)

2. "any additional work recommended to restore or enhance
ecosystems and improve ecosystem carrying capacity. "I

3. "to mitigate is to prevent, correct, or-compensate for
damage in some degree, but not fully 2

The need for mitigation is clearer than its definition. Wetlands and
estuarine areas such as the harbor are immensely valuable natural resources.
They are highly productive biological areas with a productivity level nearly
20 times that of deep waters-and 10 times that of nearshore waters. 3 Their
role in the food chain is central; they provide food, store nutrients and
supply breeding habitat. In addition, the adjacent wetlands regulate storm@
water run-off and filternatural and man-made pollutants which pass through
them.

Thus, mitigation represents an attempt to balance the loss of importan-t
wetland, shoal water or estuarine areas by undertaking corrective actions
elsewhere within the same general ecosystem. However, mitigative action
cannot be an ad hoc proposition.nor must it be an unreasonable process. For
the Dulu.th-Superibr.harbor, mitigation is to involve these principlesL

1. There must be a harbor-wide plan which defines the type of
mitigation to be undertaken. Individual projects will be
plugged into this plan. In thts manner the cumulative impact
of many single projects will not be -allowed to cause a gradual
but nonetheless still disasterous loss or shift of habitat.
Instead, each a ction will be fitted into an agreed upon overall
plan.

One of the key elements of the mitigation plan will be to retain
of regain the diversity of the harbor's ecosystem. In other words,
it is not enough to create marshes every time mitigation is required.
At that rate the harbor's ecosystem would become all marsh with no
shoal water feeding areas or other needed habitats.

2. It must always be remembered that an adverse impact has occurred
despite mitigation., Mitigation only balances the loss, but none-
theless there was a loss. Also, there is a loss of sorts where the
mitigative action occurs. Thus, two vital points must be kept in
mind and followed. First, bad decisions should not be mitigated.
Mitigation does not magically transform the original bad decision
A-27

into a good one Second, mitigation itself is bad if-it is used as the
crutch which supports inappropriate development. The first quest 'ion
should always be: must the development be located where it causes'an
adverse impact? If not, no amount of mitigation will correct this mistake.

3. Environmental options must be preserved. At-all times the tendency
must be to avoid irreversible, large-scale change.

4. The mftigative action is to bia a replacement-i n-kind for the area
lost. Taken as a whole the harbor is not to undergo a net loss of
its biological potential.

5. The mitigative acti.on cannot be allowed to financially prevent the
.initial development from occurring. In Los Angeles certain mitigative
actions were four times more expensive than the project that
necessitated them.. 4 The primary reason for this imbalance was the
high cost of land acquisition. Thus, the use of public lands or
incentives (deferred taxation, etc.) to obtain private lands as
sites for mitigative actions will help make mitigation an economically
realistic concept.

6. The process of determining and implementing mitigative action must be.
straightfoward, relatively simple and easy to administrate. It
cannot be allowed to be so cumbersome, as it has been in some areas,
that it creates unneces-sary delays.

lClark,'John R., Coastal Ecosystems Management, 1977, John Wiley-and Sons,
New York.
2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Navigable Waters Handbook, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
3Clark, Ibid.
4Weir, Robert R., Impacts of Coastal Dredging in San Pedro Bay, CaTifornia,
in Time-Stressed Coastal Environments: Assessments and Future Action, Proc.
Second Annual Conference of the Coastal Society, November, 1978, p. 119.

A-28

APPENID-IX III

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Harbor Specific Documents

Architectural Resources, Inc., Duluth-Superior Harbor Study;
Phase I: Inventory, for the USACE, August 1973.
Phase-II: A Long Range Projection of
Economic Development, for the USACE, January 1974.
Bartholomew and Associates, Harbor Study for Duluth, Minnesota, 1927.
A Repo t Upon the Port of Duluth, A
Part of the Comprehensiye,Plan, January 1958.
Behr, Michael R. (UWS), Economic Impact of the Superior Harbor on
Douglas County, Wisconsin: 1975, 1975.
Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies (UWS),
Environmental Inventory of Lower St. Louis River Covering Proposed
I rovements,to Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsi.n,
Final Report, March 1, 1976.
City of Superior, Barkers Island Development: Applicants.Draft
Environmental impact Statement, 1976.
Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Inc., A Study of-O ganization and
Development for the Duluthl/Superior Ports, Volume I: Port
Activities and Organizations, for the Upper Great Lakes Regional
Commission, May 1974.
Volume II: Industrial Development
Opportunities and Organization, May 1974.
Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., Duluth-Superior'Harbor Pollution
Control Program, for UGLRC, Apri 1 'l 973.'*-'-""
Chara@tteriZation of Vessel Wastes in
Duluth-Superior Harbor, for the National Environmental Research
Center, December 1.9.74..,
Flaherty, Mark C. (City of Duluth), 1976 Status of Beach Erosion,
Minnesota Point, July 14, 1976.
Interstate Port Authority Commission,.Final Report to the Minnesota
and Wisconsin Legislatures, December 1976
J.F.P. and Associates, Inc., The Economic Impact on . Minnesota of the
Seaway Port of Duluth, March 1977.
Lake Superior Basin Studies Center (UMD), Evaluation of Bubbler-System
for Winter Navigation, Howards Say, Superior, Wisconsin, for USACE,
July 15, 1974.
National Biocentrics, Environmental Review Report for Demonstration
Bubbler System in @-he Superior Entry, Duluth-Superior Harbor, for
USACE, May 1973.
Superior League of Women Voters, Operation Shi.pshape (series of
Ipamphlets on harbor), 1975.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Ports of Duluth, MN, and Superior, Wis.
Taconite Harbor, Silver Bay and Two Harbors, MINN, and Ashland, WIS.,
Port Series No. 49.
USACE , St. Paul District, Duluth-Superior Harbor, Lake Superior Minnesota
and Wisconsin, Feasibility Report, Harbor and Channel Improvement for
Navigation, Phase I, October 1974.
' Section III Detailed Project Report, Beach
Erosion Control on Minnesota Point at Duluth, Minnesota, November 1974
Diked Dredged Material Disposal on the Great
Lakes: Duluth-Suoerio; Harbor at Duluth-Superior, Minnesota - Wisconsi
Revised Letter Report on an Alternate Disposal Site for Polluted
Dredged Material, August 1976.

inal Supplement, Final Environmental
Impact Statement Duluth-Superior Harbor Operation and FFaintenance'
Diked Dredged Disposal Facility, July, 1977.
Duluth-Superior Harbor Operation and.
Maintenance: Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 1974.
, Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
Refined Products Terminal La-kehead Pipe Line Co., Inc., Duluth-
Superior Harbor, May 1975.
Walker, David A- and Stephan P. Hall, Duluth-Superior Harbor Cultural
Resources Study, Minnesota Histori Societv for USACE, August 19'76.
Weston, Roy F., Inc Coal Transshipment Facility Superior, Wisconsin:
Ehvironmental Imp";ct Report, for the Burlington Northern, Inc.,
August 1974.

B. Metropolitan Interstate Committee Reports

-Inventory of the Resources of the Duluth-Superior Harbor: Identifying
the Issues, December 1977.
-Policy Guidelines for the Water Transportation System of the Duluth-
Superior Harbor, May 18, 1977.
-Assessmen-f-o-f-Tabitat Types and Bird Populations in the Duluth-Superior
@arbor, prepared for the MIC by the Lake Superior Basin Studies Center
TUMD), Gerald Niemi et.al., September 1977
-Progress Report Duluth-@Superior Harbor Fishery Survey, prepared for
The MIC by the Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies, (UWS),.
Philip V. DeVore, July 1977.
-Proposed Plan for Relocating Bird Colonies From Arthur M. Clure Public
Marine Terminal, October 1977.
-Workshop I: Brainstorming Session on Harbor Issues, December 1976.
-'@orkshop II: Dredge Disposal: The Next 50 Years, ril 1977.
III: Managing the St-. Louis River, Harbor and Estuary System,
july 1977.
-Workshop IV: Reviewing the Draft Plan, January 1978.
-Short Range Improvement Progra5i for-the Duluth-Superior Harbor Area,
August 17, 1977.
-Superior Industrial Site Survey: Case Institute of Technology Property,
Architectural Resources, Inc. for Superior - Douglas County Development
Association (on a MIC grant), March@ 1977.
-Duluth-Superior Harbor Planninq_Prospectus, April 1976.

C. Related Documents

Bolles, John S. and Associates, Northern Waterfront Plan (San Francisco),
1968.
Coastal Zone 1978, Volumes I-III, American Society of Civil Engineers,
March 197T.-
Columbia River Estuary InventorX, Col'umbia River Estuary Study Task-
force, Astoria, Oregon, 1978.
Eckbo, Dean, Austin and Williams, Mississippi River, A Comprehensive
Plan for the Mississippi Waterfront in the City of St. Paul, 1970.
Gezen,.Dr. Asil, Economic Benefits of the Port of Detroit, for the
Michigan Department of Commerce, May 1976.
Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission, Grays Harbor Estuary Management
Plan (Preliminary Draft), March 1978.
Gr4-atLakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix
F20 (Federal Laws, Policies and Institutional Arrangements, 1975.

a_,in

Appendix S20 (State Laws, Policies and
Institutional Arrangements, 1976.
GREAT I, Interim Status Report, March 1978.
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Waterfront Project, 1977-1981, January 1976.
Michigan Department.of:Commerce, Office of Economic Expansion, The Land
and the River, Report of the Interagency Task Force for Detroit/Wayne-
County Riverfront Development, June 1976.
Minnesota Coastal Zone Management Program, State Planning Agency, various.
reports.
Minneapolis Planning and Development DepartmentMississippi/Minneapolis,
1972.
New York City Planning Commission, The Waterfront: Supplement to Plan for
New York City, January 1971.
Schenker, Eric, Harold M. Mayer and Harry C. Brockel, The Great Lakes
Transportation System, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant College
Program, January 1976.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway Navigation
Season Extension, Interim r-easibility Study,_Volume 1: Main Report,
March 1976.
Wakeford, Ronald.C...and Do'nal.d.-Mac-Donald, Legal, Policy and Institutional
Constraints Associated with Dredged Material Marketing and.Land

Enhancement, for USACE Waterways Experiment Station as part of the
Dredged Material Research Program, December 1974.
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Wisconsin Coastal History Trails:
Lake Superior, February 1976. . Wisconsin's Great Lakes Ports:
Alternative State Policy Options, September 1976.
, Economic Impact and Needs of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes Boaters, July 1976.
Impacts of Recreation in the
Coastal Area: Demand and Supply of Recreation in Wisconsin's Coastal
Counties, February 1977.

A-31

APPENDIX IV

Plan Adoption by Local Units of Government

Prior to action on the harbor plan by the Metropolitan Interstate
Committee five units of local government voted on the plan. All.
five units - Superior Board of Harbor Commissioners, Superior
City Council, Duluth Planning Commission, Seaway Port Authority
of Duluth and Duluth City Council - adopted or endorsed the plan.
Each had its own list of minor changes of alterations designed to
fit the plan to the specific needs of the body. However,the
intent and major features of the plan are common to all of the
adoptions.

The following is a record of the reslutions for each of the units,
plus a listing of any changes eath made.

A-33

SUPERIOR BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS

At its April 26, 1978 meeting the SBHC discussed and voted upon the Harbor
Plan. The main points of the discussion were:

a. That the current zoning within Superior does not conform with
the plan.
b. That the proposed zoning ordinance and the plan will conform
to one another.
c. That adoption of the plan will not diminish the City's power to
re-zone.
d. That there was concern that the management portion of the plan
could hamper future zoning decisions which could in turn hinder
or slow down federal funding along the harbor.
e. That the City Council should know tha,t when the City adopts the
plan, it becomes official City policy.

In two votes the SBHC adopted the Land.Use portion of the plan, but with
two amendments from the draft version. The first amendment was to delete
dredg&-disposal p6licy 13 which stated "Disposal of dredged materials is
to be done in an environmentally acceptable fashion". (This policy has
been deleted from the final MIC version of the plan.)

The second amendment changed Land Use p6licy 15 on page 27 to read "Non-
maritime dependent industrial uses are to be sited on appropriate land not
within the harbor area.except with the approval of th6jSupOrior) Board of
Harbor Commissioners'%'

The SBHC also adopted the management section of the plan.

In deleting the general policy on environmental concern the SBHC clearly
stated its desire to improve the harbor's physical environment. The board
felt that the plan has numerous and sufficient policies which address
specific aspects of environmental care (e.g., p6licies 7, 8, 9,12, 16).
To add a general, vaguely worded policy to these specific ones would be, in
the board's feelings, to simply confuse the issue.

Furthermore, although there is not a p6licy which explicitly states as much,
the SBHC in its discussion noted that all appropriate state, local and federal
environmental regulations are to be followed in harbor dredging and disposal
regardless of the plan's policies. The SBHC mAy, of course, seek to have.
these regulations changed where they conflict with the policies of this plan.

A-34

SUPERIOR CITY COUNCIL

At its June 13, 1978 meeting the Superior City Council heard a
report on the plan from the SBHC and the Council's Harbor,
Docks and Transportation Committee. The Council then adopted
the followifig resolution:

"I. Adoption of Harbor Land Use and Management Plan
proposed by Metropolitan Interstate Committee, as
amended and recommended by.Harbor Commission."

"2. That existing boat landing:or improved boat l.anding
on Barker's Island always be free and no cha?-ges to
users be made."

A-35

SEAWAY PORT AUTHORITY OF DULUTH

After conducting a special meeting to receive comments on the
plan from port interests, the SPAD adopted the following
resolution at its June 22,,1978 regular meeting.

"WHEREAS, the Seaway Port Authority has recei-ved and
reviewed certain documents prepared by the Metropolitan
Interstate Committee entitled "Final draft land use and
management (plan) for the Duluth-Superior Harbor."

IT IS RESOLVED, that Seaway Port Authority concurs
generally with the main goal, guidelines and concepts
of said plan, Seaway Port Authority in its descretion
and to the extent permitted by law will consider the
elements of said plan in its harbor plan and that this
resolution'shall become null and void and SPAD's con-
currence revoked one year from'the date hereof unless
SPAD takes further action on the resolution."

It should be noted that SPAD board members were unsure of the
full extent of the legal ramifications that plan adoption would
have on their day-to-day operations. The one year limit would
allow time to review these implications.

A-36

DULUTH PLANNING COMMISSION

At its May 23, 1978 the Commission's Harbor Committee, which had previously
been granted the authority to act on behalf of the entire Commission, held
a public meeting on the plan.

After members of the public had an opportunity to present their views on
the plan, the Commission adopted the following resolution:

"WHEREAS, the Duluth City Planning Commission, in particular its
harbor Plan Committee, has during the past two years worked closely
with the staff of the Metropolitan Interstate Committee toward the
development of a Harbor Area Plan; and
"WHEREAS, it is clear that the inputof the City Planning Commission
as well as other groups and individuals having an interest in the
Harbor Plan has been observed and implemented,

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Duluth City Planning
Commission hereby approves the April 1978 final draft land use plan
for the Duluth-Superior Harbor Area, noting that it anticipates
certain wording changes to be incorporated in the final printed
edition of the plan. The City Planning:Commission also recommeds to
the Duluth City Couficil that such body approve and adopt the plan.
@The City Planning Commission at this time will take no action on the
specific management plan recommended (the recommended "Duluth-
Superfor Coordinating Council").- Although the Commission favors in
principle the concept of the.suggested coordinating council and notes
a number of advantages to the recommended management plan,'in partfc-*.
ular the coordinating function of such a body, it notes some potential
(problems) with details of the management pl&n, such as in@dequate
representation by the City and individual adjacent neighborhoods."

The resolution notes that.,the Commission anticipates "certain wording changes"
will be made in the MICs final version of the plan. The particular changes
that the Commission mentioned are-

1. At least two items of data would seem helpful to ificlude in the
plan report in order to serve as base line data for future planning
activities:

a) d table of land uses by acres.
b) commercial shipping trends
tThis has been done. See pages 9 and 10.)

On page 3, more definitive language in the fifth line is suggested
regarding water edge access.. After the word "enlarged-" the fol-
lowing phrase is suggested: "for adjacent neighborhood residents
and visitors". (This has been done. See Page 3.)

3. On page 21, under "RESIDENCE" no new neighborhoods should be
created. The reference should be to*"'existing residential neighbor
hodd expansions". (This has been done. See page 29.)

A-37

4. It is suggested"that the deep dredge line should be clearly
shown on maps. (This has been done. See page

5. The phrase "although not ful ly a recreational consideration,"
which is u@ed to describe protection or creation of views@
should be eliminated. Also on this page, in regard to the)
second to'the last@paragraph, which refers to the possible
transfer of existing use of the BN rail yards to industrial
development, mention should be made that the land should be
pl@tted to provide for proper utilities, a collector road,
etc. (This has been done. See page 55.)
6. On page 56,, 7th line, it should be noted that rules regulating
lifting of the bridge should.be refined or developed before
they can be strictly enforced. (This has been done. See page 64.)

7. On page A-12, notation should be made that the high exposure
of buildings and sites from the water should be recognized,
and that architecture and site design should, therefore, be
given carefu.1 treatment.

8. That the plan include more detailed discussion and maps of crit-
ical wildlife areas which have been determined in studies during
the past two years. (See companion inventory report.)

9. That a discussion of the need for a nature center as well as a
specific suggestion for a location based on recent City studi6s
be included. (See Page 42)1 (This has been done. See pageA-7.)

10. That any management body that is determined in the future have
definite geographic limits in order to define the local govern-
mental zoning and land use responsibilities. (This should be
noted on page 3 and-in the management chapter). (This has been
done. See pages 49, 53, 56, 58, 61, 63, 66 and plan map.)

11. Recreation/open space policies shall be expanded to make specific
reference to the river resource for enhancement of formalized
canoeing (promotion, facilities, etc.) Pages 22 and 23. (This
has been done. See page

12. The implication that the City of Superior should be given prece-
dence for new marina facilities should be eliminated. (Page 24-
reference to reducing conflicts at the aerial bridge). Also the
map on page 55 should include marina facilities north of Hearding
Island.

13. More definite mention of a truck collector road on both side5 of
Rice,@s Point should be made (pages 46 and 47). Such road could
also b4 utilized as an extension of "Tour duLhUt" in order to
enhance Harbor Front contact. (This has been done. See page 54.)

14. The suggested project map (page A-9) should include specific
neighborhood water contact points, the nature center, the Indian.
Point Campground expansion, and Canal Park expansion.

A-38

15. Dredge disposal site No. 7 shouTa be decreased in size. Such
decrease should be noted both in text and terms of the acreage
and on the map. (Page A-16).
16. Under land use policies (#15 on p. 19) the' following shoald be
added: "unless approved by the City Council". (Alternative
MIC wording has been used instead. See page 27. ) For the
purpos-es of th.e'Ctty of Duluth Policy 15 shall read: "Non-
maritime dependent-industrial uses are to be sited on appropriate
land not withi,n the harbor area unless approved by the City
Council."

A-39

DULUTH CITY COUNCIL.

At its July 17, 1978 meeting the Duluth City Council unanimously
supported a resolution adopting the harbor plan. The wording of
the resolution was nearly identical to that passed earlier by the
Planning Commission.

A-40

3 6668 14101 4029

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
420@

HAMPTON IN,
.1 CLASP