[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
HEARDING ISLAND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN 4-1 t _77 _7 -JAL PRE-rAREO 13Y': TI-IF METROPOLITAN INTEFISTATE COMMITTEE... A JOINT VENTURE VENlunF OF THE AnnoWHEAD nEGIONAt ID Nonill'N-ST DE ELOPIMENT COMMISSION AN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSioN SK 411 Y76 1982 PREPAnEE) FOR- THP- Or IVIIINNIcSOTA, t)r--F'ARTNAFNT OF NATURAL RF-sotmc-Efi A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN for HEARDING ISLAND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR November 1982 Prepared for: Prepared by: State of Minnesota, Metropolitan Interstate Committee ... Department of Natural Resources a joint venture of the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission, Northwest Regional Planning Commission, and urban area communities. With funds provided by: Cover artwork: Molly Evans Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Non-Game Wildlife Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 HEARDING ISLAND HISTORY 5 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 7 PRESENT CONDITIONS 10 Physical Development 10 Zoning and Regulations 10 Ownership 10 Soils 11 Vegetation 11 Wildlife 16 Fish 17 Water Quality and Sediments 17 Recreation 18 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 19 General Approach 19 Desired Physical Characteristics 20 Attraction Techniques 26 Control 26 Permitting 27 Signing 27 Public Awareness and Education 28 Research/Monitoring/Long-Range Planning 28 Implementation 28 FUTURE PHASES 29 REFERENCES 31 APPENDICES A - Hearding Island Vegetation, 1973 B - Fish and Birdlife of the.Hearding Island Area C - Sediment Pollutants in the Hearding Island Area, 1973-74 INTRODUCTION Despite the fact that the overall environmental impact of these developmental activities has been The hi story of the St. Louis River estuary, and decidedly negative, there have been some in particular the lower portion which is now positive, albeit unintentional, effects also. known as the Duluth-Superior Harbor, is typical The most apparent of these regards islands formed of most natural harbors in the United States. through the deposition of dredged material within Prior to the advent of the modern shipping the harbor. No natural islands exist in the industry in the late 1800's, the river was a lower estuary, but several man-made ones are marsh-filled estuary characterized by shallow present. These include Hog Island, Barkers waters and shores lined with wetland vegetation. Island, Interstate Island, and Hearding Island. Although quantitative information is for the most While creation of these islands contributed to part lacking, early historical accounts. indicate the loss of existing shallow water habitats, that, typical of estuarine systems, the river was these sites also have a history as important a highly productive biological area and supported wildlife use areas. In particular, they have diverse and abundant flora and fauna. provided important nesting habitat for colonial and semi-colonial bird species (Davis and Niemi, Since the mid-1800's, the estuary has undergone 1980). The shores and adjacent shallow waters significant change, primarily due to extensive have also served as major feeding and resting development of the lower river as an industrial areas for various waterbirds and shorebirds. port. The major alterations which have occurred include the dredging of shipping channels and The use of dredged material islands as colonial docking facilities and filling of extensive areas bird nesting sites has become a common phenomenon for use as industrial sites. The Wisconsin throughout the coastal areas of the United Department of Natural Resources has estimated States, and in some regions these sites have that, of the initial (pre-development) 10,564 proven quite important (Soots and Landin, 1978). acres of open water and wetlands present, over As traditional nesting sites have been destroyed, 3,300 have been lost to development. Severe use of the islands has grown. pollution of the river accompanied this rapid growth phase and exacerbated the adverse impacts Dredge islands have several inherent advantages of the-habitat losses incurred. Although the as nesting sites, the most important of which is estuary remains an important and vital fish and their isolation from the mainland. This results wildlife area, both the diversity and abundance in reduced disturbance by humans and protection of species utilizing it have decreased from ground predators. In addition, the islands dramatically due to these significant losses of often are comprised of materials similar to the habitat. nesting substrates preferred by colonial birds. HEARDING ISLAND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Hearding Is I T :H Lff superior Two colonial bird speci e5 have used dredged certainly cannot be considered one which is material islands as breeding sites in the secure or one which wi I I be adequate i n the Duluth-Superior harbor - the common tern and the future (Davis and Niemi, 1980). Its progressive piping plover (Davis and Niemi, 1980). The development poses an increasing threat to the pattern of use has been similar to that seen in viability of the common tern and piping plover other areas of the United States. The birds have populations. This area has also been colonized invaded a given island soon after its formation, by ring-billed gulls, and their population is used the site for a -number of years, and then rapidly expanding. This species has a history of relocated due to encroaching vegetation (these displacing terns from preferred nesting habitat, species prefer sparsely vegetated or bare, sandy and this appears to be happening at the Port substrate for nesting). Since material has not Terminal site. been deposited on these islands for many years, they have become heavily vegetated and therefore This past year the number of piping plover nests unusable by the birds. dropped from the 4-5 observed the last several years to only one, and the common tern nesting The common tern and the piping plover are population, although comparable in size to recent critical status species. Both are endangered in years, experienced very poor nesting success (T. the state of Wisconsin (WDNR, 1981), and Davis, pers. comm.). These events appear to be preliminary critical species lists for Minnesota due'to a combination of factors including include the common tern as threatened and the disturbance by humans, predation by skunks, major piping plover as endangered (pers. comm., J. construction and accompanying alteration of the Green). Their status on a national basis has site, as well as the aforementioned competition been of concern for a number of years also as for nesting space with ring-billed gulls. indicated by their inclusion on the National 'site is not only important Audubon Society Blue List - a list of bird This single nesting species which appear to be undergoing significant with respect to the estuary, but also with population declines throughout their range respect to the entire Great Lakes system. In (Arbib, 1981). The piping plover is under strong 19 7 7 , the most recent year for which consideration for inclusion as a federal comprehensive information regarding colonial endangered species and is li-kely to be so birds nesting in the Great Lakes region is designated next year. available, this colony comprised nearly 70 percent of the Lake Superior and 7 percent of the For the last several years, essentially all of entire Great Lakes breeding population of common the common terns and piping plovers nesting in terns (Scharf, 1978). Some changes have occurred the St. Louis River estuary have used one site - since then, including significant growth of a the Duluth Port Terminal (Map 1). This site is colony located in nearby Chequamegon Bay (pers. an industrial area, and its use by these birds comm., Fred Strand - WDNR), but the Port Terminal 4 colony continues to be the largest on Lake additional dredged material was placed on the Superior and therefore of major importance to site in 1968 (Aguar et al., 1969). According to this species. Similarly, the few pair of p-iping the original harbor chart made in 1861, the area plovers present in the colony are a rare where Hearding Island now lies was shallow water occurrence on the Great Lakes. In a recent from 3 to 6 feet deep. What now is the channel survey of the entire Great Lakes coastline of between the island and Minnesota Point was Michigan, only 31 plover pairs were found predominantly wetland vegetation. (Lambert and Ratcliff, 1981), and this past year the only nesting record for this species on Lake During the years immediately following its Superior in addition to the Port Terminal site creation, the island was sparsely vegetated, and, was a single nest in Chequamegon Bay. The Port from the early 1940's to the early 1950's, it Terminal is one of only two plover nesting sites served as the major nesting site for common terns known in Minnesota. Thus, it is important that and piping plovers in the estuary (Davis and the nesting populations of these two species in Niemi, 1980). As many as 87 common tern nests the St. Louis River estuary be preserved. To and 10 piping plover nests were observed on the attain this goal alternative nesting habitat must island during this period. Although precise maps be provided for these birds as soon as possible. are not available, it appears that the birds nested on the bayside of the island (P.B. Dredge islands such as Hearding Island, due to Hofslund, pers. comm.). By the mid 1950's, their historic importance and relative lack of encroaching willows and aspen apparently caused human use, are prime candidates for development the birds to abandon the site. of nesting habitat. This potential was recognized in a preliminary plan for relocation In contrast to the island itself, the surrounding of the Port Terminal colony (MIC, 1978). In that waters have undergone significant man-induced plan, Hearding Island was highly recommended for alteration since creation of the area. One of such use because of its proximity to the present the major changes has been the dredging of a 6 nesting area and its public ownership. foot deep boat channel between the island and Similarly, the Land Use and Management Plan for Minnesota Point. This dredging was performed by the estuary (MIC, 1978) recognizes Hearding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1967 in Island's value in this regard. response to concerns expressed by local residents with respect to stagnant water and difficulty of boat access to the area. This dredged channel HEARDING ISLAND HISTORY extends the entire length of the northeast side of the island and approximately 1000 feet toward Hearding Island was created in 1934-35 through the shipping lane on the southeast end of the the deposition of sandy material dredged from the island. In 1979, members of the Sand Point Yacht harbor bottom. Since that time, the island has Club dredged a portion of the area again. been left to natural processes although 5 The extensive shallow waters between the island and the shi ppi ng I ane to the west ha ve a 1 so been altered significantly since formation of the island. Jn 1967, 550,000 c.y. of sand were mined from the bottom in an area off the southeast end of the island. This created a deep hole approximately 30 to 35 feet deep. An additional 150,000 c.y. of material was removed from this same site in 1976 (pers. comm., K. Yetter). The island was designated a wildlife management area by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in 1978, and a program to devel op a portion of the site as common tern and piping plover breeding habitat was undertaken. Since then, general goals and plans for the site have been discussed and preliminary site work begun. However, no detailed management plan has been formulated or adopted. Such a plan is neccesary so that the required site work can be completed and the island made suitable as a nesting area for the species of concern. 6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES General Specific In accord with the Duluth-Superior Harbor Land 1. To develop and maintain a portion of Use and Management Plan, this project will: the island as habitat suitable 'for common tern and piping plover 1. Enhance and expand the natural resource- nesting and brood rearing. base of St. Louis Bay. 2. To maintain and/or enhance the value 2. Enhance the habitat and overall of the island and surrounding area biological value of Hearding Island as a wildlife viewing area. in partial compensation for historic environmental losses in St. Louis 3. To monitor and evaluate management Bay. activities and make recommendations for future efforts including possible In achieving these aims, the project will also enhancement of fish and waterbird become part of the overall harbor natural use of the adjacent shallow waters. resources management program (MIC, in prep.) which in turn is a refinement of and amendment to the Land Use Plan. 7 HEARDING ISLAND Map 2 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA HEARDING ISLAND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN AND VICINITY SCALE IN FEET loo 200 400 600 Minnesota Avenue 00 E10 0 c' 0 0 c:s CEI 11 El 2 2 2 2 2 Baypoint partm 4 Existing 6' Deep Channel 3 2 6 2 6 2 2 6 112 32 26 33 33 1 27 AApartm7entso PRESENT CONDITIONS 51 of administrative code, City of Duluth). A narrow strip of I and al ong the shore of the island lies within the flood fringe. The only Physical Development restrictions within such an area are that modifications shall not unduly interfere with the To this date, the management area has undergone capacity of the waterway to handle floodwaters. no physical development, although the adjacent No part of this management plan appears to be in portions of Minnesota Point have. Most of that conflict with this restriction. Much of the portion of Minnesota Point adjoining the island is'land also lies within the shoreland zone is comprised of private residences and many of (within 300 feet of the waterway). Removal of these have small docks extending toward the vegetation and grading in this portion of the i s 1 a n d .The lands adjacent to the northwest end island, activities which are required in this of the island have been developed for various management plan, may require use permits from the purposes including two small marinas and an City of Duluth (see IMPLEMENTATION section). The apartment complex. The main shipping lane lies official Harbor Line runs between the island and approximately 1000 feet southwest of the island. Minnesota Point and thus federal regulations which require special permits for work on any property within areas bounded by the official Zoning and Regulations (see IMPLEMENTATION Harbor Line do not apply to the management area. section also) The shallow waters surrounding the island are Most of the adjoining portion of Minnesota Point navigable, public waters and are subject to MDNR and Hearding Island itself are zoned residential and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (R-1-C, single-family homes, public buildings, permitting procedures. Initial work on the and home occupations) (Map 3). However, Duluth island would not include any modifications to zoning ordinances allow for marina construction these waters and thus no per-mits would be within residential areas through special use required. However, future phases of the project, permits, and this option has been excercised as described in later portions of this document, along the shoreline immediately north of the could involve such work. island (Sand Point Yacht Club and private marina). A small area just northwest of these marinas is zoned commercial (C-2, highway Ownership commercial). It is in this area that the apartment complex lies. The State of Minnesota is legal owner of navigable waters and bottoms which lie below the Portions of the management area are within low-water line of such waters. The State also official floodplain and shoreland zones (Chapter claims to be owner of all fast land lying atop 10 such bottoms. Using these premises, the State examination of the island was made in 1973 has claimed ownership of Hearding Island and (National Biocentric, Inc.) and a summary of the internally transferred it to the Minnesota vegetation present is given in Appendix A. Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). The MDNR has in turn formally designated the island a Since that time, the MDNR has conducted wildlife management area. In a similar fashion, preliminary site work. In 1979, approximately 5 the State of Minnesota is owner of the acres on the bayside of the island were cleared surrounding waters and bottom sediments. by chainsaw, although the tree stumps remain. This area showed signs of extensive re-sprouting of aspen suckers in 1980 and subsequently was Soils chemically treated. An additional acre, adjacent to the original five, was hand girdled in 1979. The soils on the island have not been analyzed or This procedure was repeated in 1980, and mapped, but on-site observation indicates that essentially all of the trees in this area are now the underlying material is sandy in nature. Much dead although still standing., of the island, in particular the wooded areas, have developed a few inches of organic topsoil. Aquatic vegetation around the island varies with The exposed and underlying sandy soil is probably location. Due to wave action and accompanying Soil Conservation Service types 55 and 55W turbidity, most of the the west or bayside is (Beaches and Wet Beaches). These are medium to essentially devoid of vegetation. Beds of sago coarse sand and are well-drained. pondweed have been reported in this area (MDNR file report, 1972), but on-site inspections this past year failed to locate any such vegetation. Vegetation The' bottom in this area is primarily hard-packed sand. In contrast, the east or lakeside of the The vegetation on the island, typical of dredged island is heavily vegetated and includes species material sites, has progressed from the sparse such as wild rice.(MDNR, 1972). sand and dune species which were present during the first few years after creation to No federal or state endangered or threatened predominantly shrubs and young hardwood forest plant species are known to occur on the island or (Map 4). When the island was designated a in the surrounding waters. Similarly, the wildlife management area in 1978, its approximate habitats present on the island are not unique. 30 acres was comprised of 18 acres of hardwood forest (Populus spp. mixed with Salix spp.), 7 acres of-Fa-reto @_pa_rsely vegetated-i-a-nd, 2 acres of brush, 3 acres of wet meadow, and 1/2 acre of water and marsh (interior pond). A qualitative HEARDING ISLAND Map 3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONING SCALE IN FEET 100 200 400 Goo Minnesota Avenue F-% -1 'Elcl El 11 ff, -0 1 KI 1@1 El F 2 1 2 2 2 Existing 6' Deep Channel Baypoint partments@@ 2"06 FF Shoreland Boundarv FF FF 2 4 < 2 2 - ----- - --- ----- - - - 32 28 33 27 HEARDING ISLAND Map 4 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA VEGETATION PHYSICAL FE,,4 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN SCALE IN FEET 100 200 400 600 Minnesota Avenue El 00 Q000 00@P nOo@' 0 El E5 11c' 00 C-11 2 2 2 - ----- Approx. 2/3 of all High Winds I> 20 mph) . . .. ...... .. - - - ------ -- -. . . ........ .... . . Existing 6' Deep Channel Baypoint Apartments 4 - - ------ mg, IWA 4@ W- NNA Rik 9. We- @.U MOT, 4W Ag W;' Approx. 1/10 of all Z 6 High Winds (> 20 mph) 0.1 0 2 Tk -PX 4 Approx. 114 of all High Winds I> 20 mph) 2 2 Room Brush Hardwood Forest and Brush F77777771 Sandy Beach 32 Open to Sparsley Vegetated Sand 1 33 33 Wet Meadow 7 - ----------- Wildlife individuals of this species to be seen around the island in the fall. Several nests have been Quantitative information regarding wildlife use found on the island also. These birds feed on of the management area is lacking for all groups the aforementioned vegetation and are fed by but birds. Cohen (1960 and 1961) censused local residents also. breeding bird populations and made general wildlife observations on the island, but the Information regarding other wildlife use of the vegetation has changed appreciably since then, island comes from general observations made by and his results probably are not indicative of local residents and biologists. These sources present use of the island. More recently, Niemi indicate that the interior of the island offers et al. (1977) documented bird use of the shores nothing unique or particularly valuable from a and surrounding waters over a one-year period and wildlife standpoint. An active beaver lodge has conducted breeding bird surveys on the island. been present on the lakeside of the island for Bird species observed during this study are several years. The beaver feed on the extensive listed in Appendix B (Table B-1). aspen on the island. Other species which have been known to or likely use the island are common Bird use of the island itself is -1 i mi ted to and widely distributed wildlife species such as species which are common and widely distributed cottontail rabbit and various small mammals. throughout the harbor. In contrast, the beaches and shallow water adjacent to Hearding Island Two federally threatened or endangered wildlife have been recognized as unique bird habitat. The species are known to occur in the Duluth-Superior primary importance of the area is its use by harbor. These are the peregrine falcon (federal large numbers of migratory waterfowl and other endangered) and the bald eagle (federal water associated birds - in particular gulls and threatened in MN and WI). The latter nests in terns. This area supports some of the highest areas near the estuary and is present in migratory waterbird concentrations in the entire significant numbers as a migrant. The former St. Louis River estuary (Niemi et al., 1979). occurs only as a rare migrant. The harbor also These birds primarily use the waters to the south lies within the range of the eastern timber wolf and west of the island,'although the channel (federal threatened in MN and endangered in WI), between the island and Minnesota Point is also and this species may occur in the area. None of used. The latter area serves as a feeding area these species is known to use the Hearding Island due to the presence of preferred aquatic food management area, nor does it appear the area is p I a n t s .The remainder of the area is used of importance to them. primarily as a resting/loafing area. . Two species of critical status in Minnesota use The most abundant waterfowl species is the the Hearding Island area - the piping plover and mal I ard. It is common for over a thousand the common tern. The piping plover primarily 16 occurs as a migrant and feeds on the sandy To alleviate this problem and to provide easier beaches of the island. It is likely that it passage for boats docked in the area, a channel occasionally feeds in these areas during the approximately six feet deep was dredged by the breeding season also. The common tern feeds U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1967-68 * extensively in the shallow waters on the bayside Additional material was removed by members of the of the island during both the breeding and Sand Point Yacht Club in 1979. However, local migration period. residents continue to complain of stagnation and accompanying odors. Fish Overal I , water qual i ty i n the St. Loui s Ri ver Fi s h u se of the a rea has not been studi ed i n estuary has improved dramatically since the new Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) detail. Although all of the species which have facility went into operation (1979). Prior to been observed in the estuary may occur here this time, severely depressed oxygen levels were (Appendix B, Table B-2), the aquatic habitats common throughout the lower harbor including the present indicate that the shallow waters are not Hearding Island area. Although data are lacking, of exceptional importance in this regard (DeVore, it is likely that the waters on the bayside of 1978). This primarily reflects the sparse the island have now recovered in this respect. vegetation present on the bayside and the lack of Oxygen levels on the lake side may still be low. rel ief or rocks, debris, etc. (i.e., low diversity of the bottom habitat). The area Ironically, one class of pollutants has probably probably receives moderate use as a nursery for increased in 'the management area due to operation yellow perch and walleye. No federal or state of WLSSD. Some chemicals, including chlorinated endangered or threatened fish species have been hydrocarbons, are not "treated" by the facility. reported in the St. Louis River estuary and it Since the plant handles wastewater from therefore is unlikely that any such species occur throughout the region, it in effect serves to in the vicinity of the management area. concentrate these chemicals in the lower harbor whereas they previously were dispersed throughout the estuary. Furthermore, the chlorination Water Quality and Sediments treatment process used in the plant probably produces additional chlorinated compounds. Thus Little information pertaining specifically to it is likely that areas downriver of the water quality in the management area is treatment facility are being subjected to higher available. Possible stagnation problems in the concentrations of these chemicals than channel between the island and Minnesota Point previously. To this date no data regarding this were noted by local residents during the early possibility are available, although studies are 1960s, although documentation is lacking. in progress. 17 Most of the area has not been sampled for are placed in the shallow water off the southwest sediment pollutants. Samples taken from four corner of the island. The main catch is smelt locations near the island during 1973 and 1974 which enter the harbor during their early spring were analyzed by the Minnesota Pollution Control spawning run. Agency (MPCA) (see Appendix C). Two of these samples were taken from the northeast side of the The most common recreational activities are island (i.e., channel side) and they were boating and bird-watching. Due to the abundant considered polluted due to unacceptable levels of and diverse waterbird populations which use the chemical oxygen demand (COD), total Kiel area during the spring and fall migration nitrogen, oil and grease, and zinc. Two sites periods, the island is a favored observation area were sampled on the west side of the island for birdwatchers from the Duluth-Superior also, and, although these proved to be far metropolitan area as well as from other areas of cleaner than the previous two, unacceptable the state (Green, 1977). Observation usually levels of COD and total Kiel nitrogen were found. takes place from Minnesota Point rather than from the island itself. The favored observation point Recent studies by the MPCA and U.S. EPA (1975 and has been the general area of the Sand Point Yacht 1976) examined the status of sediments in the Club and adjoining shoreline to the north. The nearby shipping channel. These studies indicate immediately adjoining shoreline of Minnesota that the sediments are "marginally polluted". Point also provides docking facilities for local Unacceptable levels of COD, total Kiel nitrogeh, residents and two private marinas. Thus the oil-grease, lead, and zinc were reported (U.S. surrounding waters are important in that they EPA, 1977). provide boat access to the harbor and Lake Superior. Recreation Recreational use of the island and surrounding waters is varied. The island proper receives limited use, although it has been used as a play area by local children and for other unorganized low intensity activities. Essentially no sportfishing occurs around the island due to the extremel"y shallow water and generally low populations of game fish. Limited commercial fishing does occur. During the spring, pond nets 18 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM fill in order to be considered prime nesting habitat, this phase would involve only 14 acres General Approach of the island. Approximately one third (5 acres) of this would be considered prime nesting The general plan for the island is to alter a h a b i t a t .The remaining 9 acres, although portion of the southwest quarter to provide cleared, would not be prime nesting habitat due habitat appropriate for common tern and piping to its proximity to the wooded portions of the plover nesting. All vegetation and any organic island of its low-lying nature. topsoil present in this area would be removed, thus providing a bare, sandy substrate. The Previous work with piping plovers indicates that remainder of the island would be unchanged, thus their nests are located an average distance of maintaining a barrier or buffer zone between the 300 feet from adjacent treed areas (Lambert and managed nesting area and residential areas on Ratcliff, 1981). There is a great deal of Minnesota Point. This belt of vegetation would variability in this regard, but, using this vary from 200 to 600 feet in width (see Map 5). figure as a first approximation in determining the portion of cleared land which would not be The buffer zone would serve several purposes. "usable" as nesting habitat for plovers, 5 of the Firstly, it would visually isolate the proposed 14 acres would be so classified. Another 4 acres nesting site from the residential and commercial would remain lower and wetter than desirable and areas on Minnesota Point. Local residents have thus less than optimum. expressed a strong desire to have a visual barrier between them and that portion of the The initial phase would provide habitat to island to be cleared. This also would benefit attract nesting birds and would serve as a pilot nesting birds by reducing disturbance due to program. Assuming this effort was successful human activity on Minnesota Point. The research and monitoring programs would be used t@ vegetation would also serve to reduce the determine if creation of additional nesting potential of increased wind erosion and the habitat would be beneficial. If this proved to accompanying problem of blowing sand in adjacent be the case, future "phases" could be implemented human use areas. in which more of the initial 14 acres and as much as an additional 6 acres would be managed as It is recommended that the program be implemented nesting habitat. These later phases would in a phased approach. The first phase would require placement of some type of fill on utilize only materials presently available on the portions of the island. island (i.e., no additional fill would be placed on the site). Since much of the potential nesting area is low-lying and requires additional 19 Desired Physical Characteristics And Management Size of Nesting Area Techniques Determining the desirable size of the actual The following discussion details work which would nesting area is difficult. However, if one be done during the initial phase of this project. assumes that the goal is to maintain the present Subsequent stages, which may or may not be common tern and piping plover 'populations in the implemented, are described at the end of this harbor, the area being used at the Port Terminal document. should serve as a first approximation. The size of this nesting area has ranged from 18 to 26 The desired physical characteristics of the acres during the past 5 years (T. Davis, pers. island and the primary nesting area are comm.). However, these figures include only summarized in Table 1 and Map 5. Most of this those portions of the site in which nests have information has been derived from previous been found and does not include adjacent land, studies of colonial bird use of dredge islands some of which undoubtedly plays a role in use of and reflects those characteristics which appear the area for nesting. best suited to common terns and piping plovers (Soots and Landin, 1978). It thus appears that nearly all of Hearding Island could be required to support the existing populations, assuming that nesting has not Island Size occurred at other sites within the harbor. However, a maximum nesting area of 20 acres is The island size considered optimum for use as a recommended. This reflects the desire to colonial bird nesting site is from 5 to 15 acres. maintain a zone of vegetation between the island Larger islands often present problems in that and Minnesota Point (i.e., buffer zone) and to they can support predator populations, and avoid removing vegetation in those areas where smaller ones provide limited space for nesting. shoreline erosion may be a problem. The value of Hearding Island is somewhat larger than the maintaining a buffer zone has already been optimum. The potential for predation will have discussed. Clearing more than 20 acres of the to be watched *closely not only because of the island would probably require additional erosion island's size, but also due to its proximity to protection along some of the shoreline and the Minnesota Point. Although there is no direct addition of coarser surface material to prevent connection between Minnesota Point and the wind erosion. island, the channel on the north and northeast sides could be crossed by predators such as skunks and dogs. 20 Table 1. Desired physical chara cteristics of island and/or nesting area. SUBSTRATE sandy to small size pebbles (present underlying material acceptable) VEGETATION a. bare to sparse herbaceous (less than 25% cover) b. less than three feet high c. evenly distributed in vegetated areas ISLAND SIZE 5-15 acres (present size larger than optimum, but acceptable) ISLAND SHAPE no preference known for target species, although a bay may be useful for secondary user species TOPOGRAPHY a. want dive.rsity (e.g., ridges, slopes, etc.) b. maximum elevation to be 10 feet c. slope generally gradual - along shore prefer about 1:30 21 HEARDING ISLAND Map 5 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN PHYSICAL CH SCALE IN FEET 0 100 200 400 600 Minnesota Avenue El 0 0 00 000P []DOD 0 0 a 00 0 2 2 2 Approx. 213 of all High Winds (> 20 mph) 2 2 Existing 6' Deep Channe( Baypoint Apartme@ @50 ;t 5 k 2M ?@n -a - 2N -%FAW6U 4 XR.R i'm 6 W, 6 TIMM g Approx. 1/10 of all a High Winds 20 mph) 004 0 4 5 0 "g, Approx. 1/4 of all High Winds 20 mph) 2 2 Brush Hardwood Forest and Brush Sandy Beach k120111 32 28 E-72-1 Open to Sparsley Vegetated Sand 33 i 33 Wet Meadow 27 Vegetation to be Removed (14 acres) Vegetation waters. Local residents have expressed great concern regarding the potential use of these Initally, the intended nesting area would be techniques, and have reacted strongly to the past cleared of all vegetation and whatever topsoil use of he'rbicide on the island. In addition, exists, thus presenting a bare, sandy substrate. these techniques in and of themselves would not Re-vegetation of this area would be allowed to be adequate, and further work to remove the woody occur through natural succession until i t is debris and to modify the topography would be apparent that much of the vegetation is needed. Hand-clearing, though feasible, would approaching unacceptable density, height, etc. require a large crew and much time. Thi s At this time from 50 to 100 % of the area would technique would therefore present problems in be cleared again. The proportion to be cleared terms of getting the site prepared this fall. would depend on whether or not nesting has taken Due to the urgency of providing nesting habitat place. If the site is being used by the target for these birds, use of a bulldozer or similar species, only those areas not used the previous equipment seems the best choice. A bulldozer year would be cleared. In this way at least a could remove vegetation and do the required portion of the nesting area would remain modification of topography simultaneously.. The unchanged from year to year, but new, suitable residual herbaceous "scraps" could be burned and habitat would be provided on an ongoing basis then buried on the island. Woody debris could be If no nesting has occurred, all areas deeme@ handled similarly, although other options such as unsuitable would be cleared. selling this material to the public exist. All clearing and other site preparation Subsequent habitat alterations would be required activities should take place outside the nesting periodically (on the order of once every 2-3 season (April 15 to August 30) unless no nesting years) as the natural succession of plants makes has occurred during the given year. Since birds the area progressively less suitable as nesting are more likely to nest in areas that have had at habitat. The precise timi.ng and extent of these least a few months to stabilize following activities would be determined through ongoing clearing activities, the optimum time for monitoring and research programs. c I e a r i n g a n d r e I a t e d w o r k is t h e September- November period rather than early Ongoing habitat management would require far less spring. workthan initial clearing since removal of trees and other woody vegetation would not be needed. Initial clearing could be done in several ways The primary problem in this regard probably would including use of a bulldozer, hand clearing, be aspen suckers and willow. As in the case of fire, and herbicides. The'use of fire and/or initial clearing, this work could be accomplished herbicides seems undesirable due to potential in several ways including hand clearing, impacts on local residents and the surrounding bulldozer, tiller, tractor and harrow, fire, and 24 herbicides. Once again, the use of fire or Thus, incorporation of relief features would herbicides appear undesirable due to potential provide several stages in vegetation development. impacts on local residents and surrounding waters This should help ensure that the substrates as well as the decidedly negative response local desired by each species would be present and that residents have given to use of these methods. that they would be present over longer periods of Those techniques involving the use of large time than would be true in a flat area. There is equipment do not appear as feasible due to the some evidence to indicate that relief features difficulty of getting equipment onto the island. also have value in that they may provide natural definition of adjacent territories within the The most suitable techniques would be colony. hand-clearing and/or use of a tiller. Cooperative programs in which local environmental Incorporation of a smal I , temporary pond may be organizations, the Youth Conservation Corps, etc. desirable also. This primarily relates to use by assist should be considered in these stages. piping plovers. On the Atlantic coast, researchers have found that high beach ponds may Topography be an important feature in nesting areas (Lambert and Ratcliffe,'1981). The present nesting area Several factors contribute to the determination at the Port Terminal includes such ponds and of the appropriate topography in the primary casual observation indicates some use by the nesting area. In general, it is desirable to plovers and terns. The major concern in this have some diversity (i.e., relief). This is not regard is that if a pond is formed, it should because the target species appear to prefer hold water only on a temporary basis. It particular topographic features on dredge otherwise could promote disease (e.g., botulism). islands, but because ridges, mounds, and other such features affect the vegetation, and the The elevation of the nesting area is an important birds do respond to the latter'. Topographic and design parameter. As in the case of other therefore habitat diversity is even more topographic features, its importance primarily important in a case such as the present relates to its impact on vegetation. In addition management plan where two species, with slightly to its direct effect on wetness of the soils, different microhabitat preferences, are involved. etc., elevation is a major determinant of the Ideally the nesting area would provide adequate impact that wind will have. Previous work with amounts of both sparsely vegetated and bare dredge islands indicates that the usable substrates and thus potentially support both elevations fall within the 3 to 10 foot range. piping plover and common tern nesting. The higher the island, the more the impact of wind and the slower the encroachment of Encroaching vegetation typically shows a steady vegetation. Present elevations on Hearding progression from the bottom of slopes to the top. island vary from water level to approximately 25 10 feet above water level. As noted previously, Overall , Hearding Island would easily accomodate a portion of the proposed nesting area is lower the above preferences in topography. Initial than desirable and wet. clearing could incorporate the necessary grading to create the desired features. The existing Since the target species prefer bare to sparsely extensive shallow waters adjacent to the island vegetated substrates, an elevation near the are suitable and would not require any recommended maximum (10 feet) is preferred. modification with respect to its use by colonial Should wind erosion prove to be a problem, bi rds. additions of coarser substrate material (e.g., gravel) which are more resistant to such effects would be indicated. These coarser materials are Attraction Techniques quite suitable as nesting substrate and would not cause problems in this regard if they appear In addition to providing appropriate habitat, needed. The continued presence of a large belt there are several active techniques which, if of vegetation should minimize this problem. employed, may increase the possibilty of attracting birds. The first is the use of Another important configuration factor is the decoys. This technique has proven successful overall slope in both the nesting area and the with other species of terns (Kress, 1980). The adjoining waters. Experience has shown that WDNR tried this approach last year at the Barkers gradual slopes are definitely preferred by Island Sanctuary with no obvious effect, but colonial nesting birds. Diked islands receive previous experience indicates that it takes a few far less use than islands with natural slopes. years for the technique to yield results. The Slopes of approximately 1:30 have been second approach, to be used in conjunction with recommended by some researchers. It should also decoys, is playing tapes of colony sounds. As be noted that it generally is preferable to with decoys, this technique has proven successful maintain easy access to the surrounding waters with other tern species. Since the WDNR is using for offspring. or considering using these techniques in the harbor, a cooperative program between the two The other design factor which is important with DNRs is recommended. respect to topography relates to the apparent desirability of having unobstructed visibility from the nesting area to the water. The target Control Techniques species seem to prefer an extremely large angle of vision and thus points, peninsulas, and the The success of the project also depends upon like are preferred. With respect to Hearding controlling the use of the site by gulls - in Island, most of the primary nesting area would particular the ring-billed gull. This species have approximately 270 degrees of unobstructed has presented problems at the Port Terminal site vision. and it is important that it be prevented from 26 colonizing the island. The primary problem in Permitting this regard is that breeding gulls return to their nesting areas 2 to 3 weeks earlier than do The first phase of this project probably will not the terns and have first choice of breeding require any permits. Although all work would be h a b i t a t .Because of this they can dominate done in accord with City of Duluth ordinanaces, available habitat and prevent common terns from preliminary indications from the City are that it nesting (Davis and Niemi, 1980). will not require permits since the island is owned by the MDNR. The city's formal position There appear to be some simple solutions to this remains to be clarified. problem, all of which revolve around discouraging/preventing the gulls from settling on the island during the few weeks prior to the Signing arrival of the terns. Potential techniques include covering the nesting area with plastic The MDNR placed signs on the perimeter of the sheeting, using noisemakers to frighten the island when it was designated a management area, gulls, and simply having personnel walk the site but many of these were located too near the wave and disrupt any gulls which may be present. By impact zone and have since fallen. In addition, the time the terns arrive the gulls should have these signs do not adequately indicate settled into their traditional nesting areas. restrictions, the critical no trespass time period, etc. For these reasons new signs should Some concern has also been expressed regarding be created and erected which identify the area common tern use of adjacent areas on Minnesota and indicate its purpose. Any restrictions, Point and potential problems related to the especially as pertain to trespass, and the aggressive nature of the bird in its nesting area enforcing agency should be indicated. These (e.g., diving at humans in the area). Although signs should be posted around the perimeter of it seems highly unlikely that terns would nest in the island such that anyone approaching it would these areas, if monitoring programs indicate that be able to read them from a reasonable distance this is happening, techniques similar to those (e.g., 50 feet). Perimeter spacing of signs in proposed with respect to the gulls should prove similar situations has been on the order of 100 sufficient to prevent nesting. It is important feet. To avoid the problem of wave impact, the that if such action is deemed necessary, it be signs should be placed some distance from the undertaken early in the season prior to nest shoreline or perhaps placed on the nearest trees establishment and egg-laying. This would allow rather than relying on posts driven into the the birds to locate in other more suitable areas. sandy soil. 27 Public Awareness and Education of the harbor should be gathered also, especially at the present nesting area and on the two other To insure the success of the project, the general sites being managed as potential colonial bird public, especially that segment which uses the nesting areas (Barkers Island and Interstate harbor and/or resides near the island, must be Island). These data should be used to evaluate made aware of the existence of the management the Hearding Island program on a regular basis. area and its purpose. This is advisable during both the developmental and actual management stages. In particular, anglers, birdwatchers, Implementation and general recreationists should be told of the enhancement efforts so that they can take full The Minnesota DNR, in particular the non-game advantage of the added value of the site and be program, has assumed responsibility for this sensitive to the restrictions and precautions project, and implementation would take place neccesary for its proper management. under its direction. Funding for initial work on the island has been allocated. Similarly, ongoing management and habitat alteration Research/Monitoring/Long-Range Planning required would be the responsibilty of the MDNR. Research and monitoring programs will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the project as well as to determine any modifications of the management plan which may be required. These programs would also provide the information required to determine when future habitat modifications are needed. They should be performed on an annual basis by the Minnesota DNR and/or in cooperation with the local universities or other parties deemed acceptable by the Minnesota DNR and should include assessments of nesting populations of the target species, nesting success of these species, the amount of suitable nesting habitat available, and potential and real predator problems. In the case of piping plovers, a banding program in which any nesting birds and offspring would be banded should receive strong consideration. Information pertaining to nesting success in other portions 28 FUTURE PHASES the island should he considered - in particular the possibility of expanding the managed nesting The first phase of this program would serve as a area to the 20 acre maximum. measure of the feasibilty of attracting the target species to the island. Although only Since some of the proposed nesting area is limited work in relocating bird colonies has been low-lying and in some areas wet, expansion of the conducted, the available information indicates primary nesting area would require some filling. that it takes several years for such projects to Although the topography of the island has not come to fruition (Kress, 1980). The birds must been precisely mapped, the following figures first begin to use a given site for non-nesting represent first approximations of the amount of activity such as roosting and general loafing. additional material which would be needed as This period may last for several years. Once determined by on site inspection. accustomed to the site, the birds may then begin using it as a nesting area. The actual time 1. To make the entire 14 acres included involved depends on many variables, many of which in the original phase of work cannot be controlled. suitable nesting habitat would require approximately 3 feet of In the present case, the crucial factor would material over an area of about 5 seem to be the status of the present nesting acres (24,200 c.y.). site. Previous documents addressing the desire to relocate the birds in question have 2. To expand the managed area to the recommended allowing the vegetation at' the Port maximum of 20 acres would require Terminal site to advance to a stage unacceptable another 24,200 c.y. to the birds, thus "forcing" them to another site (total of approx. 50,000 c.y.). (MIC, 1977). If this approach were followed, the present nesting area would probably be There are several sources of fill. One of these, unusable within four to five years. However, the use of which would also serve to solve a ongoing development on the site results in some related problem, is the shallow bottom material of the area being cleared on a regular basis, around the island. This material could be thus slowing the process. hydraulically dredged onto the island. If the material was taken from the boat channel on the With these factors in mind, it is recommended north and northeast sides of the island, the that the initial assessment stage be continued problem of boat access and stagnant waters around for a 10 year period. If at that end of 10 years the island could be lessened at the same time. there has been no success, the entire project should be re-examined. Alternatively, if the Use of this material does present some problems. initial efforts prove successful, further work on In particular, it would have to be demonstrated 29 that it is unpolluted material. The fact that If expansion of the nesting area is deemed polluted material has been reported in the area necessary or desirable, the above options as well does not speak well for this option (Appendix C), as others would have to be more thoroughly but sampling has been sparce and it has been explored with respect to cost, availabilty of several years since any analyses were performed. dredging equipment, etc. Since this work would Secondly, the actual cost of dredging would be most likely take place several years from now, high. Even small scale hydraulic dredging costs these analyses are not included in the present in the neighborhood of $1-2 per c.y. (i.e., document and are deferred to such time as it is $50,000 to expand nesting area to 20 acres) apparent that the work is needed. (Dunst et al., 1974). In addition to further work concerning the Another possible source of dredge material is the development of nesting habitat on the island, it deep hole between the island and the shipping appears that the extensive shallow waters around channel. While it is likely that material which the island may be appropriate for other resource is now present in this hole is polluted, a enhancement projects. At present, these waters program in which unpolluted harbor maintenance appear to be moderately productive fish habitat, dredge material would be stored in the hole until but knowledgeable observers have noted that needed on the island could be used. As with the certain improvements could greatly increase their previous case , the material could be value to fish and waterbirds. Thus it i s hydraulically dredged to the island. This type recommended that this potential be examined and, of program could be used indefinitely. if feasible, such improvements be incorporated into the management plan. The cost of the above choices would be prohibitive unless they could be done as part of the overall harbor maintenance dredging program or in cooperation with other interested parties which would provide some financial support. Use of the deep hole could be tied in with the harbor maintenance dredging program, but it would require that the cost of disposal, including periodic placement of material on the island, be less expensive than other options available to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 30 REFERENCES Aguar Jyring Whiteman Moser, Inc. 1969. Green, J.C. 1977. Birdwatching in the Recreation site study of Duluth-Superior 'harbor, Duluth-Superiorharbor. Informational brochure Duluth, Minnesota. Report to U.S. Economic for League of Women Voters, Duluth. Development Administration. 43 pp. Kress, S.W. 1981. Egg-rock Update. Newsletter Arbib, R. 1981. The Blue List for 1982. of the Patrick Fratercula Fund of the National American Birds 35. Audubon Society. Cohen, B.R. 1960. A study of Harbor Island, Metropol itan Interstate Commi ttee. 1977. Dul uth. Flicker 32:73-75. Proposed plan for relocating bird colonies from Arthur M. Clure Public Marine Terminal Cohen, B.R. and S.B. Cohen. 1961. Second year Unpublished file report.- study , Harbor Island, Duluth. Flicker 33:111. Metropolitan Interstate Committee. 1978. Land Davis, T.E., G.J. Niemi, J. Kotar, and P.B. use and management plan for the Duluth-Superior Hofslund. 1978. Assessment of habitat types and harbor. 82 pp. and appendices. bird populations of the lower St. Louis River estuary - Phase II. Report to Metropolitan Minnesota Dept. of Nat. Res. , Div. of Game and Interstate Committee, Duluth, MN. 95 pp. and Fish. 1972. A wildlife habitat reconnaisance in appendices. the vicinity of Hearding Island and Park Point, Duluth harbor. Unpublished filke report. Davis, T.E. and G.J. Niemi. 1979. Larid breeding populations at the western tip of Lake Superior. Niemi , G.J. , T.E. Davis, J. Kotar, and P.B. Loon 52(l):3-14. Hofslund. 1977. Assessment of habitat types and b i rd. popu 1 a t i on s i n the Dul uth-Superi or ha rbor. DeVore, P.W. 1978. Fishery resources of the Report to Metropolitan Interstate Committee, S u p e r i o r - D u 1uth estuary. Report to the Duluth, MN. .75 pp. and appendices. Metropolitan Interstate Committee, Duluth, MN. 80 pp. Niemi, G.J., T.E. Davis, and P.B. Hofslund. 1979. Distribution and relationships of habitats and Dunst, R.C. et al. 1974. Survey of lake birds in the St.-Louis River estuary. Report to rehabilitation techniques and experiences. Wis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Paul Field Dept. of Nat. Res. Tech. Bull. No. 75. 179 pp. Office, St. Paul, MN. 59 pp. and appendices. 31 Scharf, W.C. 1978. Colonial birds nesting on man-made and natural islands in the U.S. Great Lakes. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Tech. Rep. D-78-10. 136 pp. and appendices. Soots, R.F. and M.C. Landin. 1978. Development and management of avian habitat on dredged material islands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Material Research Program Tech. Rep. DS-78-18. 96 pp. and appendices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Report on the degree of pollution of bottom sediments, St. Louis River, Minnesota. Wis. Dept. of Nat. Res. 1982. Endangered and threatened species list. Pub. 1-1520 (82). 32 I I I I APPENDIX A I HARDING ISLAND VEGETATION 1973 1 I I I I - I I I Taken from National Biocentric, Inc. (1973). I I VI H-EARDING ISLANID 14ith the exception of a region on the northeastern or Minnesota Point side, this renion received spoils last in 1934. The vegetation of the older snoils is stabilized with a mixed hardwoods growth. A band (approximately 5n feet in width) along the land side varies from sparse to .dense cover of herbs and willows. In addition, the water to the north and point side supports a dense growth of pondweed, Potamogeton. A. The Herbaceous Band. This region forms a continuum from sparse vegetation on the north (Duluth Entry) side to dense vegetation on the south (Superior Entry) side. The substrate texture also varies from coarse sands to silty sands. In addition, the north end of the island is more exposed to wind and possihle wave action. On the north end one finds the biennial evening primrose (abundant in small patches) horsetail, willow, some tansey, quackgrass, wild rye, wormwood, and ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Beach Dea, present here, soon disappears as one moves southward along the band where rush, Canadian thistle, pearly everlasting and strawberry increase. The grass, red-top, (Agrostis so.) becomes abundant. In some regions, the vegetation becomes ver dense and I y consists of tall (1.5 m.) stands of willow, tansey, and goldenrod with pearly everlasting and timothy present in lesser amounts. This rich growth, with increased mesic conditions, probably results from substrate influence which consists of finer clays and organics. B. Pond. Between this hand and the woods, a narrow area (about 15 x 150-200 ft.) perhaps representing an "unfilled" spot betvieen the original deposit and a more recent spoils site, contains water. This vegetation, with sedge, umbrella-sedge, and arrowhead along the edges and duckweed (Lemma sn.), pondweed (Potamogeton sp.) and water-starwort (Callitriche) in the water, provides a differing aspect. Shaded by willow and alder, tansey, sedges, smartweed (Polygonum sp.) occur in fair abundance as does the long leaved chickweed (Stellaria lonaifolia). The Canadian, thistle is abundant, and mint (Mentha sp.) and spiked loosetrife, (Lythrum salicaria) were observed. The vegetation is dense around this region. C. Woods. The major portion.of the deposition site is covered with forest. Substrate type is a fine sand with appreciable accumu- lation of organics deriving from the stand of vegetation. The forest floor is about two to three feet above the current lake level. The forest cover is not entirely uniform, however, since there are small meadow openings as well as a strip, some 100 feet wide of meadow through the island. Canopy height is approximately 25 feet, though individual trees may reach 40 feet in height and appear to be as old as thirty years. Chief woody species include the trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), willow (Salix sp.), alder (Alnus rugosa), Balm-of-Gilead (Populus balsamifera) and birch (Betula papyifera). The two species, Populus tremuloides and Populus balsamifera, are dominant. Understory plants, forest edge plants, and meadow opening plants are similar to those previously reported from Barkers Island and Hogg Island. The successional stages of this island are similar to the others discussed. Again, there is no evidence of climax vege- tation present. I I I I APPENDIX B I FISH AND BIRDLIFE OF THE HEARDING ISLAND AREA I I I I t I I I I I I Table B-1. Common name, scientific name, and status of bird species observed within the Hearding Island management area during 1977-78.1 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS2 Common Loon Gavia immer S,M Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus S,M Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps S,M Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax -auritus S,M Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias S,M Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax M Whistling Swan Olor columbianus M Canada Goose Branta @_anadensis M *Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S,M Black Duck Anas rubripes S,M Godwall Anas strepera M Green-winged Teal Anas crecca M Blue-winged Teal Tn-as discor S,M American Wigeon Anas americana S,M Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata S,M Redhead Aythya americana M Ring-necked Duck Aythya colTa-ris S,M Lesser Scaup Aythya Tf-finis S,M Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula W,M Bufflehead 'Buc-e-pFail-a `aB_eo_1_a W,M Common Scoter Melani:Ft-a nigra M Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis M Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullRus S,M Common Merganser Mergus merganser W,M Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator W,M Sharp-shinned Hawk )kE-c _ip i tTr s -tr i a t u s W,M Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperil M Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus, colchicu P American Coot Fulica americana S,M Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus M COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS2 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus S,M *Killdeer Th-aradrius vociferus S,M Bl ack-bel 1 i ed Plover Pluvialis squatarola M Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres M Common Snipe Capella gallinago S,M *Spotted Sandpiper Tc t @it 1 s -ma-c-u-T a Tri a S,M Yellowlegs -rr--i n g -as p p M Dunlin Ta I Tid r i _@_a 1 p i n a M Semipalmated Sandpiper Ta I i -dr i s -pu-s I T Tu s M Dowitcher species Limnodromus spp M Herring Gull Larus argentatus P Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis S,M Bonaparte's Gull Laru-S phfladelpFi@a M Common Tern Sterna hirundo S,M Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia M Mourning Dove Zenaida macrour@ S,M Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon M'S Common Flicker Colaptes auratus M'S Yellow-bellied Sapsucker S-p-Fyrapicus varius S,M Hairy Woodpecker Dendrocopu-s -V-171-0sus P Tree Swallow Irodoprocne bicolor S,M Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata P Common Crow Corvus brachyrh_yn__c_F6s P Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapiT-lus P *Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum S,M *Robin Turdus migFr-atorius S,M Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus M *Veery CatFa-rus fuscescens S,M Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula S,M Starling Sturnus vulgaris P *Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S,M Nashville Warbler Ve'rmlv-6ra -ruficapilla M'S *Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia S,M COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS2 Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca S,M Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvan ca S,M Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum M Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichAS S,M *American Redstart Setoph ruticilla S,M *Red-winged Blackbird Agelalus phoeniceus S,M *Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S,M *Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S,M *Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticiis.ludovicianus S,M American Goldfinch S p i n u s-t 'r, ST1 -s S,M Dark-eyed Junco ju-nco hyemalis M,W Tree Sparrow 9-p-izelTa -arborea. M Chipping Sparrow Spizella easserina S,M White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albi@_ollis S,M Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca M Swamp Sparrow Mejospiza georgiana S,M *Song Sparrow Mel ospi-za -m-eTo-dia S,M Source: Niemi et al. 1977. 2 S = summer resident P = permanent resident M = spring or fall transient W = winter visitant *Denotes species that nested on the island in 1976-77. Table B-2. Fish species known to occur in the St. Louis River estuary.1 Common Name Scientific Name Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Walleye -ST-1zostedion vitreum vitreum Northern Pike Esox lucius Muskellunge Esox masquinongy Rainbow Trout Sa I mo ga i r-Tn -er i Brown Trout Salmo T-rutta Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush Chinook Salmon Oncorhyncus tsFa-wytscha White sucker Catostomus commersoni Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Shorthead Redhorse Iffo-xostoma macrolepidotum Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rock Bass AmFlopites rupestris White Bass Morone chrysops Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Bullhead Ictalurus melas Brown Bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus natalis Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus Carp Cyprinus carpio Goldfish Carassius auratus Smelt Osmerus mordax Burbot Lota lota Log Perch Percina caprodes Johnny Darter Et eostoma nigrum Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Freshwater Drum TpMoUinotus grunniens Trout-Perch Percopisis omiscomaycus Brook Stickleback Culea inconstans Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius- Common Name Scientific Name Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides Bluntnose Minnow FiTmephales notatus Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus Golden Shiner Notemigonus chrysoleucas Common Shiner Notropis cornutus Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus Longnose Dace Rhinichthys catapoctae Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus Stonecat Madtom Noturus flavus Lake Herring Coregonus artedii Central Mudminnow Umbra--limi Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis lCompiled from DeVore (1978) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Superior Harbor Fish Index Station Reports. I I I I I APPENDIX C I SEDIMENT POLLUTANTS IN THE HEARDING ISLAND AREA 1973-74 1 1 I I I I I I Taken from Min-nesota PCA files. I I LERCH BR0THERS INCORPORATED GENERAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS ALLOUEZ $--i CONSULTING SERVICE CAIAM 5 "Cl U, IRON ORE ZO OF CAMAJ14 MINNESOTA,. WISCONSIN AND CANADA LACRACOR,CITV. NFLD, ------- ----- - -- 50*"E" L". Oueuc Siff ILM QUENC JNM GENERAL'OFFICE .S CORNER ff. 4ru AYE. W. Ano GRANT STREET C MAIL ADDRESS - P. 0. BOX 8 -PB P..e (214) 162-3434 PC HIBBING, MINNESOTA 55746 March'20","*'1973 MAR22 A.M. POUTE MPCA - DULUTH DULUTH, MN- Fit F, ;;-re Mossier Minnesota Pollution 'Control Agency 1015 Torrey Building Duluth, Minnesota 55802 F lot LE t. Dear Dr. Mossier: k rt, The following are the results of the bottom sediment samples sent to us per your correspondence dated March 7, 1973: A B Cadmium, mg/kg Wet 2 4 Chromium, mg/kgWet 12 20 Copper, mg/kg Wet. 2 .4 Lead, mg/kg Wet 16 C@ 10 *Mercury, mg/kg Wet 13 44 Iron, mg/kg Wet @16,300 28,900 Manganese, mg/kg Wet 80 156 Nickel, mg/kg Wet 4 10 Zinc, mg/kg.Wet 31 46 Arsenic not determined not determined Surfactants, rpg/kg. 10 410 Chlorides,.mg/kg <15 15 pH, units 6.8 6.7 PheAGIs, mg/kg 11.3 .3 Oil & Grease,ma/kg 1,600 2,950 Ammonia, mg/kg (N) 48 64 Volatile Solids 6.54 17.27 Total Solids 55.29 39.90 Total Soluble Phosphorus, mg/kg 3 800 4,700 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/kg(N)2,098 2,289 BOD, mg/kg 495 769 COD, mg/kg 493 890. Sincerely, M Donald H1. J. Schn rtz, J Chief Chemist *P.S. Mercury looks a little high, possibly mercury contaM4nation. If you have any questions, call. OVER 75 YEARS OF SERVICE M M 409) LERCH BROTHERS INCORPORATED GENERAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS -EMT. @@Ift ALLO@jEZ -5- -1 ILfr- CONSULTING SERVICE Cxpl= sw CS OF CA lko@ ORE Co LA r.plosp MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN- AND CANADA CPA0C4Z,C1r, .FLO Hff"RV LLE QUEBEC SEPT ILM, QUEBEC GENERAL OFFICES CORKER N. Arm AVE. W. 'AND GRANT STREET MAIL ADDRESS - P. 0. BOX 8 P*"& (213) 262-3434 ip V, HIBBING, MINNESOTA 55746 JNM MAY 23 A.W .- @ J. - ISM MpCA - DULUTH May.22,. 1.973 DB Ll@ DULUTH, W4- PC Dr. jere Mossier POUTE Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1015 Torrey Building - F11 E Duluth, Minnesota 55802 Dear Dr. Mossier: When compiling data on your bottom samples of April 30, 1 ran across two decimal point errors on our analysis of your March 7 samples. Reported Values Correct Values A B A B Mercury, mg/kg Wet 13, 44 1.3 4.4 COD, mg/kg 493@ 890 49,300 891000 Everyone makes mistakes, but chemists shouldn't. Thank you for your understanding in the matter. Sincerely, @ona I d Chief Chemist PC 1- 4 Al OVER 75 YEARS OF SERVICE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEFARTMEN'r Office Memorandum Mr. Grant Merritt, Executive Director TO Dr. John Olin, Deputy Director DATE:February 14, 1974 John Pegor, District Representative-Duluth FROM Dr. Jere Mossier, Research Biologist A SUBJECT: Polluted bottom sediments in the Duluth Harbor near Hearding Island The following discussion is derived from attached summary Table 1 p resent- ing data or. levels of volatile solids, COD, TKN, oil and grease, mercury., lead, zinc and phosphorus found in bottom sediment samples near Hearding Island in the Duluth Harbor and sampled on 3/7/73, 9/18/73 and 1/4/74. Samples taken on 3/7/73 have shown that volatile solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, oil and grease, mercury and phosphorus all exceed meximum, accep- table levels established by the EPA. Further sampling became warranted when Mr. William Deimeria presented bottom sediment data to the Duluth office which showed a change and/or discrep6ney,r in levels of some of the eight parameters being discussed (Table 1). These additional samples, taken 1/4/74 from approximately the same proposed dredging area East of Hearding Island were split and sent to Lerch Brothers, Inc and National Biocentric, Inc. Some of the data are too variable to draw any valid conclusions, ranging from 4.3 - 11.2, 151,000 - 65,700, 20,900 -1,960, 1,800 - 10,600 and 64,164 for volatile solids, COD, total Kjeldahl nitro- gen, oil and grease and zinc for Lerch Brothers, Inc. vs. National Bio- centrict Inc. respectively. However, the maximum acceptable levels estab- lished by EPA are exceeded in all instances for COD, TKN, oil and grease and zinc for samples taken on 1/4/74. Mercury, lead and phosphorus levels were vaiiable again, however, they do not exceed EPA maximum levels. Levels of zinc and lead have increased from 3/7/73 to 1/4/74 while levels of mercury and total phosphorus have decreased below the EP9 maximum accented levels. Samples taken West of Hearding Island on 9/lS/73 (Table 1) show that levels of volatile solids, COD, lead and zinc fall within the range found for bottom sediment sampled 3/7/73 and 1/4/74. However, oil and grease, mer- cury and total phosphorus are appreciably less than for sediment samples taken East of Hearding Island on the two aforementioned dates. In summary, bottom sediment samples taken on 1/4/74 exceed EPA maximum levels for COD, TKZ, oil and greasel zinc while levels of mercury, lead and phosmhorus do not exceed EPA maximum levels. Unfortunately, the data is variable, contributing to serious difficulty in its interpretation. Toble, 1. Canparison of levels of Volatile Solids, COD, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Oil and Grease, Mercury, Lead Zinc and Phosphorus in bottom sediments Last (A, B, IA, 2W) and West (1A, 1B) of flearding Island, Duluth Harbor vs. iliaximwit acceptable levels accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency for in- water disposal of bottom dredge material. Sampled (Lerch Bros) (Nat.Biocentric) Plaximuin Acceptable 347/7 3 1/4/74 1/4/74 9/10/73 paraindtar Values by EPA A B IA 2W 1A 2W IA IB Volatile solids MO (6.0) (6.5) (17.3) (4.4) (4.3) (9.0) (11.2) (7.4) (5.3) COD 50,000.0 49,300 09,000 151,000 150,000 65,700 96,000 110,000 82,000 Total Kieldahl Nitrogen 1,000.0 2,090 2, 209 19,500 20,900 1,960 2,800 1 1,800 1,000 oil and Grease 1,500.0 1,600 2,950 1,800 20000 3,200 10,600 1,110 925 Mercury 1.0 1.3 4.4 .06 .05 0.33 0.43 <.01 <.01 Lezid 50.0 10.0 16.0 19 21 26.7 35.0 16 26 Z i n c 50.0 31.0 46.0 64 70 76.9 164.0 47 89 1 381 i ToLal 1@hosphorus 1,000.0 3, 80(Pl L-4,700 I.Bf) L3 4 0, 103 < ij L-<11 I in ingAg dry weight unless otherwise indicated indicates % Indicates soluble phosphorus 7 7 ANY! IN I 3 6 68 14103 1 08 1 i I f I I I I 'I I I I I I I iilei 9 I I