[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
loyctet Statement 'Wou'laoddl 08CL19 Strocutre Final En Confined Pisp ingg operatiolts re v S CLIta michigan Itepctir lictrborg Frankfort . ......... .... ......... ... A4 ...... ..... S. Army Engineer District, TC troit, Michigan 225 F 8 29 F5() FEBRUARY 1980 IWO W, SUMMARY CONFTNED DISPOSAL FACILITY, DREDGING, STRUCTURE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS, FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RESP ONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Telephone (313) 226-6752 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) ADMINISTRATIVE LEGISLATIVE' 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: This statement addresses the Operation and Maintenance of Frankfort Harbor, Michigan, including dredging, disposal. of dredged material and renovation of existing structures. The volume, of contaminaLed material to be dredged totals 114,400 cubic yards and consists of 37,000 cubic yards of backlog dredging, 70,000 cubic yards of maintenance dredging, and 7,40.0 cubic yards of access dredging. Two sites have been proposed for the disposal of this material, one involves the construction of a confined diked acility on the northern shore of Lake Betsie and the disposal f other involves unconfined disposal at an upland site in Fife Lake State Forest, 15 miles southeast of Frankfort. The diked disposal facility would contain approximately 40,000 cubic yards while 74,400 cubic yards of material would be hauled and disposed of at the State. Forest site. A mooring area,would be constructed at the confined disposal facility and consist of steel sheet piling, and pile clusters. Maintenance dredging is necessary to restore the harbor's ability to accommodate commercial and recreational traffic, as is rehabilitation of harbor structures. 3. (A) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The project would allow commercial and recreational traffic in the harbor to-continue unimpeded. In doing so, it would offer another harbor of refuge. There would be increased employment in. the Frankfort area during construction and use of the facility., Upon project completion, the confined disposal facility area would likely be used as a park site in coordination with aDadjacent city-owned marina and launching site. Upland containment of the contaminated sediments will preserve the trophic condition of Lake Betsie, the Betsie River and Lake Michigan. Access dredging at the shore disposal site would improvenavigation in this area of Lake Betsie. At the,upland site, disposal of dredged materials would improve the soil and promote the growth of vegetation. The project would comply with Section 404, Water Quality Act of 1977. (B) ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Dredging of an access channel i to the disposal facility would destroy.small areas of littoral zone habitat in. Lake Betsle. Construction of the diked facility would result in. removal of weedy communities and willow thickets. Noise due to construction. traffic @ind placement of pile clusters and steel sheet piliag would affect ttsers of the existing recreational areas, businesses and nearby residents. Increases in traffic-, dust and noise would accompany the trucking of dredged materials to the upland disposal site. Maintenance dredging would destroy or disturb benthic communities in the channels and temporarily reduce water quality in the harbor througli suspension of materials. Rehabili- tation of the structure would result in temporarily increased traffic and possible disturbance of benthos and fish communities, through minor temp'orary effects upon water quality. ALTERNATIVES: The foll-owi.ing alternatives were studied: a. No action. Disposal of all sediments in open water. C. Pretreatment of materials. d. Use of other disposal sites. e. Maintenance dredging to different depths. 5- COMMENTS REQUESTED: Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U. S. Department of the Interior U. S. Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Department of Commerce U. S. Department of Agriculture U. S. Department of Transportation U. S. Department of Health, Education,.and Welfare Federal. Power Commission State Agencies Michigan Department of Natural, Resources Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation Michigan Department of State - Michigan History Division Michigan Department of Agriculture Michigan State University - Conference of Michigan Archeology Michigan Department of Commerce Local Agencies City of Frankfort Village of Elberta Benzie County Benzie County Planning Commission Environmental Civic Groups Great Lakes Commission. Great Lakes Basi.n Commission Lake Carriers Association 'Micbigan United Conservation Clubs Lake Michigan Federation Historical Society of Michigan National Audubon Society @Izaak Walton Lengue Sierra Club Michigan Student Environmental Conference Michigan Audubon Society Michigan Natural Areas Council National Wildlife Federation Ducks Unlimited Michigan Duck fluntor Association 6. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Federal Agencies. U. S.,DeparLmei-,.L oi- Agriculture Soil Consei:vation Service Forest Service U. S. Department of Transportation Region 5 Federal Highway Administration St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U. S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U. S. Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Department of the Interior Secretary, North Central Region State Agencies State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Officer 7. DRAFT STATEMENT TO COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ON 30 Sept. 19 -77. FINAL STATEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON Table of Contents Section Title Page SU@iMARY .......................................... PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................... A' General B. Purpose 2 C. Authorization 2 D. Materials to be Dredged 2 E. Dredging Operations 3 F. Disposal Facilities 3 G. Renovation of Harbor Structures 6 H.. Economics 7 .2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT AREA ......... 7 A. General Introduction 7 B.. Geology 8 C. Hydrology 9 D. Potable Water Supply 11 E. Wastewater 11 F. Harbor Sediment Quality 12 G. Flood Hazard Area 13 H. Currents 13 I. Climate 13 J. Vegetation 14 K. Faurta 15 L. Cultural Elements, Aesthetics 16 3. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONTO LAND USE PLANS ......................................... 21 PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT ....................................... .21 A. General 21 B. Wetlands 22 C. Vegetation 22 D. Water Quality 2 3 iv Table of Contents (Continued) Section Title Page E. Vectors 24. F. Air Quality 24 G. Benthos, Including Shellfish 24, H. Fishery Resources 25 I. Wildlife 25 J. Recreation 25 K. Socioeconomic Effects 26 L. Flooding 27 M. Commercial Fishing 27 N. Threatened and Endangpred Species 27 0. Municipal Water Supplies 28. P. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Effects and Mitigating Measures 28. Q. Conformance to Regulations Concerning Confined Disposal Facilities 30 R.. Conclusions 31 5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ......... 31 6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ................. 31a A. Open Water Disposal 31a B. Alternative Diked Disposal Sites 31a C. Pretreatment 32 D. No Action Alternative 32 Dredging Methods, Project Area & Dredging Depths 33 7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCE- MENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .................... 33 8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED .................... . 34 9. COORDINATION ..................... ................ 34 A. Public Participation 34 B. Government Agencies 34 C. Citizen Groups 34 D. Comments Received and Responses to them 35 REFERENCES CITED .................. ..............; ............. 48 GLOSSARY .................................................... 51 v CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES, STRUCTURE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING FOR FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHICAN 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. General 1.01 Maintenanc e dredging of the navigable waterways in the Great Lakes is performed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as authorized by Congress, An avernge of approximately 12,000,000 cubic yards of sediments must be removed per year from 64 Great Lakes harbors and ,157 miles of improv(-d channels. The purpose of the maintenance dredging is the restoration of authorized depths in the established projects. These waterways provide vital, transportation routes for bulk materials, ecoi-tomic stimulus, and increased opportunities for recreational utilization of water resources. 1.02 Frankfort Harbor, in the City of Frankfort, is located on the east shore of Lake Michigan, 204.miles northeast of Chicago, Illinois and 28 miles north of Manistee, Michigan. The harbor is formed by the western end of Lake Betsie, a connecting channel to Lake Michigan, and a sheltered area in Lake Michigan which is formed by two arrow- head breakwaters. The Betsie River is about 33 miles long and flows northwest into Lake Betsie. Frankfort is located on the northern shore of Lake Betsie and the Village of Elberta is on the southwestern shore 1.03 The project encompasses: 1. The maintenance dredging of sediments unsuitable for open lake disposal in the commercial turning basin and the recreational anchorage area,.Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. 2., Maintenance dredging and open lake disposal of sediments in the other Frankfort Harbor project areas. 3. The construction of a diked disposal facility for containing or storing a portion of the sediments. 4. Transportation of the remainder of thesediments whichare unsuitable for open-water disposal to an upland disposal site in Fife Lake State Forest. 5. Repair of harbor structures (maintenance of harbor struc- tures was also addressed in an environmental assessment and negative declaration dated 5 April, 1979 "Structure Repair at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan.) B. Purpose 1.04, Heavy shoaling has occurred in the northwest and northeast, corners of the commercial turning basin and in the northwest portions of the recreational anchorage area in Frankfort Harbor. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these sediments are not suitable for open lake disposal. The construction of the proposed diked disposal facility, coupled with unconfined disposal at the State Forest site, would solve@the disposal problem for materials dredged from the areas in which shoaling has occurred. This, along with,ma. intenance dredging of the other project areas, and renovation of harbor structures, would allow for restoration of the harbor's ability to safely accommodate commercial and recreational traffic, and provide shelter during unfavorable weather conditions. C. Authorization and Dimensions of Dredging 1.05 The existing Federal Navigation Project, known as the Frankfort Harbor3 was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1886 and modi- fied under the provisions of Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960. The outer harbor was last dredged in 1977. Maintenance in this project area includes dredging the basin 20' deep and 800' wide at the entrance, decreasing toward the new pier heads to 600' wide, dredging the approach and entrance channel through the outer basin to a depth of 24' from deep water in Lake Michigan to a point 500' landward of the opening between the breakwaters over the entire width outside the breakwaters, and to a maximum width of 500' inside the breakwaters, thence to a depth of 23' through the inner portion of the outer basin to the outer end of the north pier over widths decreasing from 500' to 160', thence to a depth of 22' between the piers to the inner basin.in Lake Betsie. 1.06 Maintenance dredging of the manuevering basin includes removing materials from an 18' deep interior basin in Lake Betsie from within 50' of existing structures on the west and extending eastward approxi- mately 1,550' to the eastern boundary and from within 50' of existing structures on the north and extending southward 800' to the south boundary. Maintenance of the recreational craft anchorage area consists of removal of materials from an a-rea 10' deep and,300' wide extending 600''eastward of the east limit of the interior basin, with its north side in.line with the north limit of the basin. (See map, Page A-18.) 1.07 Based on annual shoaling rate of 4,000 cubic yards in the turning basin and 3,000 cubic yards in the anchorage area, it is estimated that there is 37,000 cubic yards of estimated backlog plus 70,000 dubic yards of ten-year maintenance dredging. D. Materials to be Dredged 1.08' Bottom sediments in certain portions of Frankfort Harbor 2 Navigational Project have been classified as unsuitable for open water disposal by the Environmental Protection Agency. A location map and an evaluation of the sediment samples are included in Appendix A. 1.09 The bottom material to be removed is expected to be similar to that removed by previous dredging operations. Bottom deposits can' be described as organic silts, sandy clay, and silty sand. These deposits contain some organic material which will exert an oxygen demand. The shoals are believed to have originated from the shallower natural lake bottom on the sides of the commercial basin. In addition, sediments are carried into the lake via the Betsie River and other tributaries. Movement of the material is caused by wave action, propeller wash and, to some degree, by ice action. E. Dredgin@ Operations 1.10 Bottom sediments in the Frankfort Harbor project classified as suitable for open lake disposal are normally dredged annually by hopper dredge. The material is disposed of in approved disposal.sites located in Lake Michigan. The bottom sediments inthe commercial turning basin and recreational anchorage area have not been dredged since these areas of the project were constructed in 1969. Main- tenance dredging was suspended in these areas in 1970, when the Governor of the State of Michigan requested that open water disposal of contaminated sediments be discontinued. The outer harbor was last dredged in 1977. 1.11 Dredging in the navigation project would be done by contractor.. The polluted portion of the bottom material would be transferred to one of the two disposal sites. Scows filled by the dredge would be moved by workboat to the mooring facility-. The maximum draft of the scow and workboat would be seven feet. A maneuvering area 250' long x 200' wide would be dredged to this depth at the diked disposal site (See Figure 2). Access to the area would be from the existing anchorage area, which is dredged to a depth of ten feet. A crane with clam-shell would place the material into the diked disposal area from the scow. The dredged material would be spread by bulldozers within the disposal area. Excess material would be placed in trucks for transport to the state forest site (See Figure 8). 5uitable, materials would be depos-ited in a State.approv6d open water si.te:in Lclke Michig an (See Public Notice, Appendix Q. F. Disposal Facilities. 1.12 The authority for the constrtiction of a contained disposal facility is Section 123 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611). Subject to the .provisions stated below, this authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to 3 construct, operate, and maintain diked disposal facilities with the concurrence of appropriate local governments. 1.13 Public Law 91-611 states that prior to construction of any such facility, the appropriate State or States, interstate agency, municipality, or other appropriate political subdivision of the State, shall agree in writing to: (1) furnish all lands, easements,. and rights-of-way necessary for the construction, operation, and main- tenance of the facility; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility except for negligence; and (3) maintain the facility after completion of its use for disposal purposes in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army. 1.14 The appropriate non-Federal interest.or interests agree to contribute 25 percent of the construction costs unless it is waived by the Secretary of the Army upon a finding by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency that the area to which such contribution applies is meeting applicable water quality requirements and standards. The local costs of the construction were waived by the District Engineer, Detroit District Corps of Engineers, by letter dated 27 December 1976. Project costs related to the non-contained disposal of dredged material at Fife Lake State Forest will be funded using regular operation and maintenance, general funds. Therefore, all construction costs of the project would be assumed by the Federal Government. 1.15 The two sites selected for containing the materials were designated as Site 4 and Site 9. Site 4 is on the north shore of Lake Betsie and Site 9 in the Fife Lake State Forest. Site 4 would be used in conjunction with the Fife Lake State Forest site. Site 4 is a permanent site with a storage capacity of approximately 40,000 cubic yards. Excess material from this site would be taken to the State Forest site for ultimate disposition. 1.16 Site 4 was recently acquired by the local sponsor, the City of Frankfort. 1.17 Site 4 is located on the north shore of Lake Betsie in the City of Frankfort. The site is immediately south of Main Street between Seventh and Ninth Street. It is proposed to construct a confinement facility,,approximately 4 acres in area, which would pro- vide disposal volume for approximately 40,000 cubic yards. This site, plus the state forest site, would provide a combined capacity of 114,400 cubic yards. This represents the anticipated ten-year dredging volume plus the'backlog dredging, plus the access dredging. 1.18 The proposed disposal facility at Site 4 would require earthen dikes on the east and west side, 260 and 140 feet in length respec- tively, constructed at the site perimeter. The south side of the 4 site, adjacent to the lake, would be enclosed with approximat ely 800 linear feet of earthen dike, protected on the lake sid6'by@stone. The stone would be graded in various sizes, ranging from small mat,tress stone to armor stone, and placed on plastic filtercloth. The dike core would be constructed of a graded, granular fill. The dike crest would be 10 feet above Low Water Datum (approximately 7 feet.-Above the shoreline in July 1977), 10 feet wide at the top and have side slopes of- 2 horizontal to I vertical. The remaining 100 feet of shoreline would consist of. an earthen dike with sheet piling protec- tion on the outer face. The bulkhead would not extend more than 10 feet lak@@ward of the existing shoreline. The side dikes would*have, 2 to 1 slopes. These would have an effective height of 10 feet above Low Water Datum, tapering to meet the existing grade south of Mai-n Street. The west dike would have a top width of 15 feet to provide access for the crane to the mooring area. The east dike would have a top width of 10 feet for vehicular access @only. (See Figure 6 1.19 The containment facility would be provided witha mooring facility of steel sheet piling along the Lake Betsie shoreline.. Two pile clusters, spaced 80 feet apart, would be placed in the mooring. area adjacent to the sheet piling and work area where the scows would be unloaded. Tho, sheet piling would allow a land based crane to unload the moored scow within a relatively short working radius. The Lop of the dike adjacent to the mooring area would be 24 feet wide to provide an adequate working area. The internal side slopc wmAd be 2 horizontal to I vertical. .1.20 A two foot thick layer of clay would be used to seal the walls of the dikes while the floor of.the facility would be sealed with a plastic liner or bentonite sealer in order to prevent seepage of potentially contaminat,ed material into the surface or groundwaters. The exterior side slopes and tops of the side dikes would be seed-ed with grass. A chain link fence would be constructed aro 'und the dike perimeter for security of the area during the period of dredging operations. The existing brush growth along Main Street and-within the fill area would b-e removed, as would some buildings and foundations which presently exist there. Drainage adjacent to the disposal. area would.be re-routed'from the disposal area to assure that offsite stormwater runoff would not be carried into the stored sediment. The effluent from the diked disposal area would be released into Lake Betsie through ati oil skimmer and weir system. The@discharge from the skimmer would outlet to the lake near the southeast corner of the site. 1.21 initial work at this site would be clearing and'grubbing. This would include removal of existing buildings and rubble;'i.e.piles of. broken concrete, steel, earth, etc. This would be followed by con- struction of any peeded truck. access routes, access channel dredging, and construction of the mooring facility, earthen dikes, and outlet weir. 5 1.22 Site 0 is located approximately 15 miles southeast of Frankfort @n the Fife Lake Stato Forest (See Figure 9@. It consists of 3 upland areas which are identifed on Figure 8 as Areas A, B and C. It is proposed.to spread the dredged material 6 inches deep upon the parcels, mix it with the exif@ting soil by discing, and seed the. resulting surface with natural grasses. 1.23 Tarcel A contains approximately 20 acres. The soil is sandy and is covered with low weeds, moss, and a few trees. For adequate truck access, an existing small road would be improved from Highway M-115 to the area. Parcel B is approximately 60 acres in size and is similar to A. 1.24 Parcel C is an old apple orchard approximately 90 acres in size. Over half of the apple trees have died and fallen. This gives sufficient room between the trees to spread the dredged material. 1.25 Approximately 80 acres of state forest property would be utili- zed. Thematerial would be distributed first at Area A, then at Area B and finally at Area C. The materials would be trucked from the disposal site in Frankfort at 9th Street along Main Street and M-122 to Highway M-115. This route does not pass.through the business district. Rather, it passes by the wastewater treatment plant and a frozen foods plant. Dust, noise, and dirt would be kept to a minimum and roads-would be maintained at least in the state of repair in which they existed before construction. G. Renovation of Harbor Structures 1.26 The following structures would be repaired or renovated, as necessary. The outer harbor structures consist of two breakwaters, 0 450-feet apart at the outer ends, diverging at an angle of 90 ,the main arm and shore connection on the north breakwater being 972' and!1000" in length, respectively, and the main arm and shore connection of the south breakwater being 1,188' and 1,400' in, length., respectively. The breakwaters are built of concrete caissons and their shore connectors are concrete capped timber pile structures. The no.rth pier and revetment are stone filled timber crib and piling structures, capped with concrete. The outer 815' of the north pier an&rev.ctment has been. encased with s'teel sheet piling and concrete capped. The south pier and revetment are stone filled crib and piling struIctures. The outer 36' of the south pier is encased with steel sheet piling with grouted stone capping and the inner 476' of thelsouth revetment is a steel sheet piling wall with sand fill. Fence barricades, W@ith gates, are installed on the north breakwater. These barricades are removed during winter months. Structure repairs were previously address(--,d in a negative declaration and environmental assessment dated 5 April 1979, entitled "Structure Repair at Frankfort,Harbor, Michigan". 6 H.. Economics 1.27 The D.i.strict.Engineer is directed to provide maintenance of. established navigation projects. As the maintenance operations for these existing projects are contained in their original authorizations. no benefit/cost data are required for evaluation of the. work. 1.28 It is also the responsibility.of the District Engineer to be aware of utilization at each.project and to furnish justification for continued niaintenance with his request for funds. 1.29 The construction of diked disposal facilities is an aspect of. continued maintenance of this project. Strict regard for benefit/ cost ratios is not required for their.construction since Congress has directed the Secretary of the Army, under authority of the River and Harbor Act of 1970, P.L. 91-611,, Section 123, to contain dredged material in confined disposal sites. - The containment of polluted material is-considered a.temporary measure to relie 've unacceptable stress upon the water bodies subject to open lake disposal, rather than a permanent solution to the disposal problem.' However, economic considerations are an important consideration in site select-ion. 1.30 Proposed Schedule: Final Environmental Impact Statement Februarv 1980 Advertise Contract May 1980 Commence Construction June 1980 Complete Construction July 1981 Begin Disposal in Diked Area Spring 1982. .2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT AREA A. General Introduction 2.01 Frankfort Harbor is situated on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, in Benzie County, approximately 204 miles northeast of Chicago, Illinoi.s, 100 miles north.of Muskegon, and 30 miles south- west of Traverse City (Figure 1). The harbor protects the channel connecting Lake Michigan and Betsie Lake and consists of an outer basin, inclosed by two shore-connected converging breakwaters., piers, a revetted channel to Lake Betsie, an entrance channel, an interior basin 18 feet deep in Lake Betsie (inner harbor), and a 10-foot anchorage area. 2.02 The River and Harbor Act.of 26 August 1937 authorizes dredging @of Lake Betsie; and the River and Harbor Act of 27 October 1965 authorizes channel deepening, extension of the inner*basin and dredging of the recreational anchorage area. Over the past ten years., 7 the Corps has removed approximately 389,000 cubi'c yards of shoaled sediments, using a hopper dredge. Disposal' of these sediments.was at the 18-foot contour in the open waters of Lake Michigan within a"mile 'South of the harbor. 2.03 Surveys performed by the Environmental Protection Agency revealthat the sediments of Lhe.interior harbor are unsuitable 'for open lake disposal. It is not in accbrdince',@rith present*practic'es' of the Disttict to continue open water disposal of sediments from the interior harbor which contain adverse materials. This would also conflict with the express wishes of the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Environmental Protection Agency. Moreover, authorization to confine such sediments is contained in the River and Harbor Act of 1970. A diked facility with a capacity of 40,000 cubic yards would be constructed tocontain a portion of the 10. year annual shoaling (7,000 cubic yards peryear), or approximately 70,000 cubic 'Yards of contaminated sediments,.the current backlog og 37,00O.cubic yards and 7,400 cubic yards of access dredging (Figures 2-6). B.. Geology 2.04 The western part of Benzie County is marked by high and rugged sandy moraine uplaiads,*interspersed with lakes which range in size from several hundred acres Lake Betsie to several square miles (Crystal and Platte Lakes). Most of the lakes occupy depressions or relic@embayments of Lake Michigan which were impounded on the west by dunes and beach-bar complexes in post-glacial times (1, 2, 3). 2.05 Platte Lake and Lake Betsie are fed by rivers of the same names which arise in the extensivehigh glacial outwash tracts of eastern Benzie County and western Grand'Traverse County, 20 to 25 miles inland from Lake Michigan. The Betsie River is impounded by the Homestead Dam approximately ten-miles upstream from Lake Betsie,, and close to the inland limit of an ancient embayment. Below the Dam, the river follows a meandering course on a broad outwash valley floor to Lake Betsie on a gradient of 2-1/2 to 3 feet per mile. A prominent feature of the Betsie River watershed is Crystal Lake, whose only outlet is a shor't tributary which joins the Betsie 1@iver six miles upstream froT,-t Lake Betsie.(2). Deer Creek, which passes about one-half mile from-the Fife Lake State Forest disposal 6ite, enters the' Betsie River about 3-1/2 miles above Homestead Dam. @.06 Lake Betsie and Lake Michigan occupy the lowest elevation in the region which varies from 576 to 580 feet according to existing lake levels. Within two miles of Lake Betsie to the northwest, a moraine rises to an elevation of 970 feet, providing local relief of approximately 400 feet. The low marginal terraces of Lake Betsie, 8 rising about 30 feet above its shores,,are occupied bv the communities (2). .,of Frankfort and Elbert, 2.07 In the Frankfort Harbor area,''immediately south of Betsie Lake and west of Elberta, high sand dunes rise 310.feet above the Lake Michigan !1:hores. High dunes also line the take Michigan shore between one and two miles north of Frankfort (1-4). The dunes are to erosion by wind and susceptl water in's6me areas which are unprotected by vegetation. 2..08 The shallow bedrock of the region consists of shales of.the Ellsworth and Antrim formations. The bedrock here is remote from the land surface, lying 450 to 440 feet deep,in Benzie County (5, 6). 2.;09 Agricultural soils in Benzie County north and east of Lake Betsie include weli-drained loams and sandy loams of the Nester- Iosco-Emmet Association, which occupy the Betsie River embayment below the Homestead Dam. Deeply drained sands of the Wexford- Emmet-Kalkaska-Rubicon Association mantle the moraine uplands aroun d and between Betsie and Crystal Lakes,.and.the high outwash terrain at the Betsie River valley east of the dam (7, 8). 2.10 Erosion by surface runoff in the Frankfort Harbor area is strongly related to steep slopes (greater than 12%), and the erosion by wiad is relaLed to the clean sand texture and sloping faces of the dunes. Steep slopes mark the sand dune uplands which rise within a few hundred feet of the Lake Betsie south shore and the moraine uplands betwee n Lake Betsie and Crystal Lake to the north. The north.shore of Lake Betsie abuts gently sloping land which includes Frankfort Village; but the.Betsie River.valley floor is bounded by steep slopes along much of.its length from the lake to the Homestead Dam (2, 8). Nearly.all sediments eroded inthe basin above the Homestead Dam,are trapped behind it. 2.11 Erosion from these hills in.post-glacial times has led to sedimentation in the Betsie River Channeland Lake Bet.sie.. Nearly all natural sediment in Lake Betsie has. been transported there by the River. C. Hydrolo@y 2.12 Lake Michigan Lake Michigan is the dominant surface water body in the region. Lake Michigan elevations are referred to the mean water level at F'ather Point Quebec (International Great Lakes Datum, 1955). Low water datum for Lakes Michigan and Huron Lies at 576.8 feet. 2.13 Over the 117 year history of lake level observations, the range of Lake Michigan has been 6.6 feet. The greatest variation 9 within 'a cale;.i.dar year, based on the highest and lowest-monthly means., was 2.21 feet in 1943, and the smallest annual fluctuation was 0.36 feet, in 1941. Normal seasonal fluctuations in water level are approximately oneifoot, with the highest levels occurring in July and the lowest levels in February. The highest lake'level recorded in recent times was 4.2 feet above low water datum or 581.04 feet in July 1974. Mean lake levels have declined since 1974 with the most .pronounced change occurring in mid-1974 (May) when the lake elevation fell 1.8 feet. Lake levels fell below average levels (1900-1976) in June 1977 - an event which had not occurred in the'previous five years. The levels of lakes and embayments which are connected to Lake Michigan, such as Lake Betsie, are largely controlled by Lake Michigan levels. Significant differences in elevation between Lake Betsie and Lake Michigan occur only for a,period of hours during storms and seiches, when .lake levels can change by one or two feet over a day's time (1.2, 13). 2.14 Betsie River Watershed and Water Quality - Lake Betsie is approximately 1-1/2 miles long with a width between 1,000 and. 2,.000 feet, and an area of 250 acres. It has a maximum depth of 22 feet and an approximate volume of 120 million cubicfeet. The average outflow of 350 cubic feet per second produces an average hydraulic retention time.of four days. Lake Betsie drains a land area of 245 square miles. There is greater flow in the-Lake Betsie outlet through Frankfort Harbor than in any other outlet to Lake Michigan,in Benzie County. Most of this water, is derived from the portion of the Betsie River drainage basin exclusive of Crystal Lake. The total drainage area of the Betsie River is approximately. 245 square miles, while that of Crystal Lake is between 30 and 40 square miles. The total flow contribution to the Betsie River from Crystal.Lake is only 15 cubic feet per second@ or less than 5 percent of the total (10, 13). The Betsie River is a designated trout stream throughout its length. Water quality information upon Betsie River/Lake Betsie is available from July 1968 through December 1976. The 1968-river data indicated fairly high water quality,.,although.there is heavy plant growth in locations along most of the length of the river (17 and Appendix A). Data from 1976 indicateexcessive total and fecal coliform bacteria during the summer at the Lewis Bridge, three miles upstream from the lake., @Data from 1972 indicate that Lake Betsie is eutrophic and that, productivity is phosphorus-limited (18). Frankfort and Elberta were estimated to contribute 48 percent of the total phospho 'rus load delivered to the lake via their municipal wastewater treatment, plant effluents. Non-point sources from the Betsie River contribute approximately 52 percent of the input. The present use of the lake water at the mouth is limited to industrial water supply. 2.15 Groundwater Groundwater.in the region is abundantand is 10 sensitively coyinected to the.land surface and surface water., The lakes are exceltent surface expressions of the groundwater table and they also receivo groundwater discharged from the surrounding A, highlands. An extensive water table aquifer underlies the entire area. Private welts for domestic water supply are easily.developed and the water quality is generally excellent, as indicated in Table 1. which lists quality,parameters fora number of municipal wells in the region (7). Wells constructed in the western.third of Benzie County yield between 100 and 500 gallons per minute (8, 14). .2.16 In low areas, especially adjacent lakes and the lower reaches of streams, flowing artesian wells are common (8). Locations very near to the shores of the lakes are.likely to lie over natural groundwater discharge zones. Such zones offer groundwater protec- tion by resisting the penetration of the water table by downward percolating water. D. Potable Wat@r SIM @l 2.17 The Frankfort city wells are located one quarter to one half mile north@of the proposed confined disposal facility site on the north shore of Lake Betsie. The three wells are screened in granular materials at depths below 140 feet, above which lie approximately 80 feet of protective clay. There are no potable surface water intake points in Lake Betsie. Municipal well water quality for Frankfort and Elberta are summarized in Table.l. East of.Frankfort, in the uplands within one quarter to three quarters of a mile.from the proposed sites, the residences are served by private wells. These wells are "upstream" from the site,in the pattern of groundwater movement. (15).. Therefore, groundwater would flow from the wells toward Lake Betsie rather than in the reverse direction. E. Wastewater 2.18 Treated municipal sewage wastewaters are discharged into Lake Betsie. The City of Frankfort has a primary-treatment plant serving more than 95,percent of the population. It discharges into the lake near Ninth Street close to the east boundary of the proposed permanent disposal site (Site 4). The combine& storm/sewage collection system bypasses the treatment plant to discharge directly into Lake,Betsie when wet weather flow exceeds.the raw sewage pu.mp.capacities. The approximate average flow to' the treatment .plant is 270,000 gallons per day (7). The City of Elberta'has a primary treatment plant that discharges into the east end of Lake Betsie near the intersection of Frankfort Avenue and Highway M-22. Storm and sewagO collectiori systems are separate,. but infiltration into the system is high during wet weather. There is noindication of need to bypass a portion of the flow during wet weather. Flows averaged'arbund 110,000 gallons per day in 1976 (7). 2.19 The Village of Beulah operates, a sewage treatment plant on the southeast end of Crystal take. It consists of an Imhoff tank (primary treatment) followed by stabilization ponds- and seepage ponds. The plant property is bounded on-the west by the Betsie River at a position approximately one half mile east of the point. of discharge from the Beulah treatment plant", although seepage water from the treatment ponds eventually enters the Betsie River channel by subsurface flow. However, the seepage ponds lack hydraulic capacity to handle present wastewater flows, and an interim discharge permit was granted the Village in late 1974 for semi- annual discharge into the Betsie River. The volume so discharged averages less than 5,000 gallons per day (7). The Frankfort plant and the Elberta plant are achieving,treatment adequate for primary standards but cannot meet the standards which have been proposed for, Lake Betsie which ate (7): 30-Day 7-Day Average Average 5-Day BOD 10 mg/l 15mg/1 Total Suspended Solids 15 mg/l 25mg/1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 200/100 ml 400/10O ml Plt 6.5 6.5 - 9.5 Total Phosphorus (P) 1 mg/1 or 80% removal,which- is greater. F. Harbor Sediment Quality 2.20 Information on the bottom sediments of Lake Betsie was obtained in 1972 and 1975. October 1972 sampling indicated that the sediments in the inner harbor of Lake Betsie near the channel to the outer. harbor consist largely of blackish ooze and silt and contain excess quantities of volatile solids, COD, phenol, nitrogen (TKN), phosphorus, and oil and grease. The outer harbor and channel sIediments were predominantly sand and low in deleterious substances (18, 19). In 1975, the inner harbor analyses confirmed 'that the bottom materials contain excessive quanitities of volatile solids, COD, and the other parameters named in the 1972 study, and in addition, excessive lead and zinc concentrations (20, 21 and Appendix 1.) Chlorinated hydrocarbon levels were not detected except for trace amounts of DDE. Phthalate concentrations were evident. In other 1975 studies, very heavy organic contamination and moderate to heavy contamination by heavy metals, including barium at one station, were found in the harbor sediments. 2.21 Effluents from the municipal wastewater treatmentplants and 12 runoff i-nto the Betsio. River from its,extensive basin would account for the bulk of the contaminants found in the inner harbor sediments. Coirnercial shipping vessels have likely contributed oil, .grease and other residues in undetermined quantities. Lead and zinc are present in insecticides. Other sources in the drainage basin and fruit packing companies in Elberta and Frankfort Are probable sources of these metals. Virtually none of the:contaminant material comes from Crystal'Lake. No additional signifi'cant point sources of contamination have come to light (7). Under the EPA Section 201. Facility Plan Program, design of new treatment facilities is in progress for Frankfort and Elberta to achieve such treatment of wastewater thatit will be acceptable for discharge into Lake Betsie. The EPA has indicated that this measure would reduce the phosphorus load delivered to Lake Betsie by approximately 40 percent, which is expected to improve its trophic condition (7, 18). C. Flood Hazard Area 2.22 The FIA Flood Hazard Boundary Map prepared for the City of. Frankfort (June 4, 1976), shows flood hazard areas extending 100 to 200 feet inland of the north shores of Betsie Lake within the Frankfort corporate limits. The potential flood area remains south of Main Street and west of the shore road near the east corporate limits. The sites selected for confined disposal lie within the-flood hazard area. Records with the F16odplain Manage- ment Section, MDNR, state the .100-year flood level for take Michigan near Lake.Betsie is.583.8 feet. The 100-year water,level in Lake Betsie would be strongly controlled by the Lake Michigan. event (10, 16). H. Currents 2.23 There are no-published studies of the currents in Lake Betsie. The Betsie River is most likely the most significant producer of currents in the Frankfort inner harbor. There may.be some,wat.er level changes in resonance with Lake Michigan.seiches which would produce currents.of short duration. There are probably changeable wind drift cUrreats generated.within Lake Betsie. The net flow of water in the inner harbor is northward and westward into Lake Michigan due to thedischarge of the.Betsie River. The westward drift of water is slow. The features of the inner harbor-and shoreline are generally unrelated to significant current flow of water. I. Climate 2.24 The climate of the Frankfort Harbor region isImoderated over the year by the proximity of Lake Michigan, so that seasonal temperature variations are@less extreme than at locations farther 13 inland. The@ gTow'ing season is roughly five'.*months, which is around, 15.days longer than average for the latitude. "Ued we ther data for Frankfort are'no-t available. The .2.25 De'tai a U. S. DeO"a't@tment@of'Commerce.(W,ea,ther Bureau) maintains a climato@_' logical station in Manistee, Michigan, about 28 miles (45 km) south of. Frankfort. Manistee records suggest that January tempera- 0 tures'average 23.4 F. (-4.80C) in -this area, and'July temperatures 0, 0 average 69..l.F:.. (20.6 C). Extremely hot or severely cold days are. rare for this latitude. Precipitation for the area [email protected] inches (80 cm). September is normally the wettest month, as moisture is picked up over Lake M 'ichigan*by the prevailing.north- westerly-winds and precipitated over coastal lands, Summer precipi7-- tation is mainly in the form of afternoon showers and thunder- 0howers. Thunderstorms occur on an average 'of 31 days annually in this area.. 2-'26 Snowfall totals 66.4 inches (168.6 cm) during.an average winter in this region. frankfort is in the western Michigan snow belt, which is,the.result of prevailing westerly,winds being warmed and becoming moisture-laden and unstable as they reach Lake Michigan's, eastern shore. Cloudinessis greatest-in:late fall and-early winter; sunshine percentag6s are greatest in the spring and summer-(9,,10). 2.27 Five air quality monitoring stations lie within Manistee and Wexford Counties immediately south and southeast of Benzie County-. These measure particulates, SO , and NO J-3 Particul'ates in excess of 24-hour secondary standard Kmits (1 0 mg/m maximum) were noted in 1975 on only one occasion at one location - the Manistee.Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant (11). 'This is a very local phenomenon. No other air quality standards were exceeded. The Frankfort.Harbor Area is well-exposed to regional.air masses and freshening 'frontal passages which tend to maintain highair quality. There are no significant uncontrolled discharges into the air-in the region. Benzie County lies within the'Envirorimental Protection Agency's Region V ' which is inves tigated by EPA's Air Surveillance Branch. Benzie County is located in Air Quality Control Region 126 and. classified with a priority III rating, denoting a relatively unpolluted condition (9).. J. Vegetation .2.28 Vegetation surveys were performed by 'Williams & Works Associates .in July 1977. Old-field successional vegetation dominates the north shore of Lake Betsie at Site 4. These plant communities are characterized by introduced weed species and other vascular plants of disturbed areas. i2.29 Site 4 Where buddings are not present there are willow .14 (Salix interior, S. amygdaloides, and S. glaucophylloides) thickets interspersed with herbaceous weed communities. These week coumuni- Lies are dominated by bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), evening- pri.mrose (Oenothera-bie)inis), white Campion (Lyndhnis alba), - goosefoot (Chenopodium Album), sweet clover (Melilotus alba),' and hoary allyssum (Berteroa inca'na). 2.30 Site 9 Parcel C of Site 9 is an old apple'orchard. Over half the apple trees .Liave died and fallen down. Besides apple trees (Pyrus molus), there are, scattered trees and shrubs: white and black spruce.(Picea glauca aiid Pmariana), elm (Ulmus a.mericana), juneberry (Amelanchier spicata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina). Herbs and grasses include St. Johns wort (Hypericum perfoi7atum), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), hawkweed (Hieraceum. aurantiacum),witch grass (Panicum capillare), black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), star thistle (,Centaurea mactilosa), milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) cinquefoil (Potentilla erecta), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), hairy vetch (Vicia. villosa), and sheep sorrel (Rumux acetosella). Parcel B is largely grass, but supports small trees and shrubs: staghorn sumac, black cherry, juneberry, elm, witch hazel (Hamamaelis. virginian4), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), basswood (Tilia americana), and white ash (Fraxinus americana.) and various herbs. Area A is vegetated primarily by grass and herbs. Staghorn s,umac and black cherry are also present. All three areas support considerablelmoss cover. (see also Figure 9). K. Fauna 2.31 Faunal.surveys were performed by Williams and Works.Associat es in July 1977. Site 5 -- Thealder flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) and song sparrow (Melospiza. melodia) were the only birds found in the willo.w.thickets on this site. No nests were observed. 2.32 Site 4 No species of wildlife were observed on these sites,. which are constantly under disturbance from industrial.or recreational activities. 2.33 The Betsie River marshes above the M-22 bridge between the.. Village of Elberta. on the south shore of Lake Betsie and the City of Frankfort on the northare nesting-brooding, rearing-feeding areas for the mute'swan (Cygnus olor) and the Canada goose (Branta canadensis) (24). B6th-of these waterfowl.species were seen with broods in these cattail (jypjj2 latifolia) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.) marshes. Submerged aquatic plants, insect larvae, aquatic insects, crustaceans, and fish present inthese marshes are the major food., items for these birds. Local residents report that these birds frequent Lake Betsie in the late.summer and fall. 2.34 Bonthic invertebrate studies.for the nearshore waters of Lake 15 Betsie adjacent to.Site 4 have been conducted by the Michigan Departmeant, of Natural Resources (25, 26, and Appendix B). Tubificid worms (Olig6chaeta) represented 75 percent to 86 percent of the benthic fauna in 1966, while midge larvae (Diptera) varied from 14,percent to 25-0ercent. Tubifcid worms formed-between 81 and ?9 percent of the 1975.survey, while midge larvae were between I and 19,percent.1 Organism densities from these shallow water (2 to 6 feet silt, organic detritus, and sludge sediments, showed only 9 minor change from 1966 to 1975, being approximately 900/square meterand 780 square meter, respectively. 1.35 On 30 October 1978, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sampled Lake Betsie for fish within 100 feet of the shoreline at Site 4. The following species we .re present: Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) Steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) Brown Trout (Salmo truttd.fario), Rock Bass (Ambloplites repestris) Northern Pike (Esox lucius) ---(-Micropte@Xu-s Smal.lmouth Bass dolomieui) Burbot (Lota Iota) Redhorse-Tii@x-ostoma anisurum) Carp.,(Cyprinus carpio) White Sucker Catostomus cowriersoni) From this sampling the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded' that there was "a.diverse population of fish species at the time.....". Forage fish species indicated."the presence of benthic. and/or zooplankton orga.nisms on which they feed". They also indicated that "the shallow waters provide potential spawninrr, areas and needed nurserv areas for fish fry".(.S:ee Appendix a)', 2.36 The Betsie River is a designated trout stream. Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), brown trout (Salmo trutt.a), and steelhead t-r-o-u-t-@S-almo gairdneri) have been planted by the.Michigan Department of Natural Resources in Frankfort Harbor. The 1974 MDNR-stocking levels in Frankfort Harbor were.50,000 lake trout., 44,300 brown trout, and 35,000 steelhead. In.1978, 15,206 steelhead were planted in the Betsie River. L. Cultural Elements, Aesthetics 2.37 Archaeological/Historical The National Register of Historic Places (28) has been consulted.and subsequent issues of the Fe deral Register checked. One historic site has been registered offically in Benzie County: the Mills Community House on Michigan Avenue in Benzonia. No districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, or culture recorded by the Secretary of the Interior are in the project. area: nor have any sites in the project area been identified as eligible for inclusion in the Federal Register (13).* 16 2.38 The State Iffs ror [C Preservation Of f icer has reviewed the Draft (See A pendix C). A telephone FIS and foresees n.o ciiltl,mil impact p coRversati.on with the State Archaeologistlof 7 September 1979 -it severe (11stitrbance from filling and construction indicated th, act.Ivities at Site. 4, and the soil typeand distance from water at Site 9, make them unlikely areas for the presence of archaeological materials. There are lio properties in the project area which are listed in ftchigan's State Register of Historic Sites. :2.39 Population/Economy Between 1950 and 1960, the population of Frankfort increased 5.3 percent from 1,605 to 1,690; between 1960 and 1970, the population declined by 1.8 percent to 1,660. Elberta Village has lost.1.8 percent of its population between 1960 and 1970., a decrease from 552 to 542. Crystal Lake, Gilmore and Lake Townships all gained population from 1960 to 1970 (13). 2.40 take Michigan and Lake Betsie endow the Frankfort-Elberta area .,with excellent boating and fishing opportunities. The recre.ational boating season on Lake Michigan extends from June through September, a period of about 120 days. The.City of Frankfort has a newly completed marina suitable for servicing large pleasure craft. A public launching facility is located within the confines of the harbor area, and city docking facilities,are available on the north shore of.Betsie Lake. During 1976, a total of 752 cruisers and sailboats used the city docking facilities. Frankfort sponsors the American Salmon Derb y from August 4 through September 15 along Lake Michigan. Sport fishing off the breakwaters in Frankfort Harbor is popular with both local and seasonal fishing enthusiasts. Until the early 1940's, the .Sport fishery, like thocommercial fishery, was stimulated by lake trout abundance. Both. fisheries have suffered the effects of overfishing, alewife COT]ipetitio'n, and lamprey predation.. Restorative'programs began in the 1950's with the application of selectivepoisions in lamprey spawning streams, and plantings of lake trout and other predator species (coho and chinook salmon and steelhead trout). Approximately 14 Million trout and salmon were stocked in the Great Lakes and inland Michigan. waters in 1971. Between 1972 and 1975, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources planted 60,294; 244,675; 35,145; and 10,044 steelhead in.the Betsie River (13). 2.41 Commercial vessel traffic at Frankfort Harbor consists almost entirely of railroad car ferries, a few locally-based fishing craft, and an occassional self-unloading lake freighter. During the 14-year period, 1961 through 1974, waterborne commerce at Frankfort averaged 1,419,543 tons per yrar. Freight traffic has been steadily decreasing over the past four years to the 1974 figure of 801,645,tons, which is less than half the 1970 traffic of 1,632,508 tons (13). The States of Wisconsin and t4ichigan are currently subsidizing the Ann Arbor Railroad Ferry and no plans have been madeto terminateits operation. 17 it is the highest prLority railroad ferry service on Lake Michigan and would be the last to be terminated. The Ann Arbor Railroad also expects a 50% increase in tonnage carried through Frankfort Harbor. Since it did not join.otbor rrtil companies in a recent 7% rate increase.... 2.42 A- breakdown of freight commodities at Frankfort in 1977 indicates the predominance (by tonnage) of lumber, pulp, paperboard, paper, paper products,.and basic chemicals. A majority of these transported items were received from other Great Lakes ports. In 1972, 37 percent of in-and-out-bound waterborne vessels utilizing Frankfort Harbor were 15 feet in draft, 49 percent were 17 feet in draft, and 2.6 percent were,18.feet in draft (13). In 1977 82% of the vessels had a draft of 17 feet, which require an inner harbor depthlof 18 feet. The Ann Arbor Railroad Ferry used one vessel in 1977, "The Viking", which drew 1'7 feet 9 inches maxiumum.' The:vessel "City of Milwaukee" began servicing Frankfort on 21 November 1978. It has a maximum draft of 17 feet 10 inches. Maintaining the 18 foot inner harbor project depth is justified by the high percentage of use by 17 foot draft vessels. The fallowing is a table of 1977 commercial vessel calls by draft at Frankfort. 18 Coimmrcial Vessel Calls by Draft 1977 Inbound/Outbound Passenger Towboat Draft and Dry or (feet) Cargo Tanker Tugboat Total 20 .1/0 .1/0 .19 .3/0 3/0 18 NI 0/1 17' 454/454 3/0 457/454 16 1/1 - 15 2/2 2/2 12 and Less 93/93 2/5 95/100 TOTAL 548/548 8/5 3/3 559/556 The latest year of r(?coj:d for recreational vessel calls is 1976. Recreational Vessel Calls by Draft 1976 Draft feet) Cruisers Sailboats .6 and greater 5 31.3 4 64 4 3 185 2 161 1 and less TOTAL 424 328 Maintenance of the 10 foot project depth within the Recreational Anchorage area is justified because wave surges caused by car-ferry traffic necessitate'a minimum depth of 1.0 feet to provide safe c le aran ce for moored.recreational-craft, especially sailboats. This depth is also consistent with the depths provided at other recreational harbors. 19 2.43 Existing Land Use There is no residential development adjacent to the proposed transfer, and.d,isposal sites. 'Scattered residential developm'e'nt is present along the-transfer route. A number of commercial and industrial buildings exist near Site 4. Immediately north.of Site kis the eastern edge of the Frankfort Central wsiriess.District. *A senior citizens center has recently been established nearthe northern edge of the disposal site. 2.44',Si.te 4 is presently not being used. Immediately east of Site 4 are a city,garage, the C.J. Kiffy Memorial Launching Facility,,and the city sewage.treatment plant. 2.45 Site 9 is located in the Fife Lake State Forest. The Forest is used for recreation purposes. 2.46 Man.-uiade.FaciliLies an(I Activities - The major highway .transportation routes that serve Frankfort@are Michigan routes 115 and 22. M-115 traverses the state in a northeast to southeast direction and connectR with major north-south routes. 2.47 Utilities in the area include water, gas, sewer, electricity, and telephone services. 2.48 Environmental Use or Management Areas - There are four environmental use or management areas near Frankfort. Approxi- mately 20 miles north of Frankfort is the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The Betsie River is a State designated natural river which feeds Betsie Lake.' The Fife Lake State Forest'is approximately 10 miles south of Fraakfort and the Manistee National Forest is approximately 40 miles south of Frankfort. 2.49 Utilities in the area include water, gas, sewer, electricity, and telephone,,services. 2.50 Environmental Use or Management Areas There are four environmental use or managenent areas near Frankfort. Approxi- 20 miles nortb of Frankfort is the Sleeping Bear Dunes NationalLakeshore '. The Betsie River is a State designated natural river which feeds Lake Be@tsie. The Fife Lake State Forest is approximately 10 miles-south of Frankfort and the Manistee National Forest is approximately 40 miles south of. Frankfort. 20 3. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS 3.01 The City of Frankfort has a land use plan and zoning ordinance The dredging disposal site, Site 4, has been planned and in effect. zoned for: parks and recreation (27) Mr. C. A. Frederickson, City of Frankfort superintendent, stated in a 23 January 1979 letter to the Corps of Engineers, that, at Site 4 "'the present grade requires fill to make possible ultimate use as an expansion of, our waterfront, Mineral Springs Park. Water's edge treat ment compitble with existing shoreline work between Fifth and Seventh Streets, would make possible expansion of our Frankfort Municipal Marina. 3. 02 Disposal Site 9 is owned by the State of Michigan and is within the Fife Lake State Forest. Planning and management of the area are governed by State Forest regulations. The dredged material will add fertilizer to the covered areas, resulting in good plant growth. There is no known conflict of the proposed action with,existing land use plans. 4. PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT A. General Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) requires that the Corps of Engineers apply to its own projects the same criteria used in evaluating projects requiring a These criteria include evaluation under dredge or fill permit. 40 CFR 230, an Environmental ProtectionAgency Regulation, and an adequate opportunity for public review and comment on projects. 40 CFR 230 requires that any proposed plan involving placement of fill material into navigable waters must take into account the effect this action will have on wetlands, water quality, benthic organisms, fisheries and shellfish beds (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, recreation, municipal water supply intakes and threatened and endangered species. Effects of the project fill activities upon these aspects of the environment are evaluated in Section 4, except for shellfish production, on which there would be no effect. The 404 items ate marked with an asterick (*).The fill material of concern would be dredged material deposited in Lake Michigan in an approved water disposal site, or would be a part of the diked disposal facility which would extend up to 10 feet into Lake Betsie. 4.01 Inner harbor sediments, which are unsuitable for open water disposal,will be dredged into a shallow draft scow. The scow will be unloaded at one Of two locations at the immediate north shoreline of Betsie Lake. An access channel will be dredged to allow the scow 21 to reach a convenient point aear the q1toreline for-unloading. At Site 4, 40,000 cubic yards of materials will be confined. The remainder of the 114,4000 cubic yards wi.11 be trucked to Site 9 in Fife Lake State Forest. 4.02 The, use of Site 4 will requiro placement of two pile clusters for anchoring of the scownear the southwest corner of the site.. The southwest 200 feet of the confined disposal area will be sheetpiled on the south face @(facing Betsie Lake)'and a transfer.plat-form extended lakeward-from the-dike@in order to permit access to the-scow by. unloading equipment. 4-03 The diked area will be constructed of core material of graded granular material and will be lined with clay and plastic liner seals. The south face of the diked area, west of the sheet piled portion, will be riprapped with light armor stone. The southdike wall of Site 4 will be at an elevation of 586.8 feet. 10 feet above Low Water.Datuni. It Would.extend as far as 10 reet into-Lake Betsie. 4.04 The following discussion address'es the foreseen impacts of the. construction and utilization of the lakeshore site. A small area of.bottomland,would also be filled in by the dike (see Figure 2Y. B. Wetlands* 4.05 No wetlands occur at Site 4 along the shore of Lake Betsie. C. Vegetation 4.06 Submerged Vegetation Existing submerged pondweed vegetation offshore from the shorelaud site will be removed during construction of the access channel to Site 4,. This will result in loss of aquatic flora and associated snails and immature insects. This vegetation would otherwise function as shelter for fish in the area, provide food for the invertebrate communities, and serve as spawning habitat and shelter for the'larval fish ultimately produced from spawning. The submerged vegetation which wouldbe removed is not unique to the Frankfort Harbor area. 4.07 Upland Vegetation Disturbaii.ce vegetation in the form of old field successional-weed communities and willow thickets occupies the shoreland area. An adverse ef.EecL from removal-of the vegetation would result from utilization of Site 4. The vegetation will be entirely removed. This vegetation functions as habitat for:alder flycatchers, song sparrows, and possibly other songbirds in the Site 4 area.. I't probably also serves as food or cover for.small mammals such as rats (Cricetidae), squirrels and chipmunks (Sciuridae), and rabbits 22 (La be removed is not gomorpha). The (Weedy) vegetation which would unique to the Frankfort Harbor area. 4.08 Topographic changes, during construction and operation at the site would- result in alteration of the surface runoff patterns into Lake Betsie. Sedimentation patterns would be changed only to the extent of the usrface runoff diversion. The shore-land site is not an area of prime natural recharge or storage for storm or floodwater.. 4. 09 Existing- herbaceous vegetation at Site 9, Fife Lake State Forest. would" be covered by approximately 6" of dredged material which would. subsequently.be disced into the present.sandy topsoil. This would kill most.of.the existing herbs, but have little.effect on the shrubs and' trees- in, the area. 4.10. The addition of a much richer, more organic topsoil and immediate, reseeding would, improve the vegetational- productivity of the area. Present areas of sparse vegetation would be eliminated. Successional processes would be accelerated: the presence of aspen (Populus Sp.) and mixed hardwoods in the open disposal areas would be expected sooner than if the disposal did not take place. Percentage cover by mosses would be reduced. D. Water Quality* 4.11 Scow unloading by crane and clamshell near the shoreline may, involve some accidental spillage. The impact of spillage is expected to have only local significance as a stress on biota,because the near-shore ambient water is turbid. An oil skimmer and weir will be used to control the return of water to the lake,and splash pads and, other necessary devices will be used to minimize erosion.Contractors will be instructed to perform in compliance with.appropriate portions of the Michigan Inland-Lakes and Streams Act 346 of 1972 and the Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act 347 of 1972 in all phases of construction and operation.. These Acts limit increases in sediment load and other adverse water quality effects from con- struction. 4.12. The sediments to be dredged contain excessive quantities of volatile solids, chemical oxygen demand,. phenol,. nitrogen, phospho- rus, oil and grease, plus excessive levels of lead and zinc.. Site 4 will be lined with clay to prevent seepage of separated wAter. The skimmer placed in the containment.area,will remove oil and grease from the surface so that clear water with insignificant amounts of deleterious substances will be returned to the lake.. The-overflow will be monitored at control overflow points to be certain that no excessive concentrations go undetected. Should 23 concentrations be found to be unsafe or unsuitable for release into Betsie Lake, material within the containment areas would be treated. Suspension of sediments during access and maintenance dredging would result in a temporary release of chemical constituents and solids. contained in the sediment (See Appendix A). Their removal, however, AP would prevent the future release of nutrients or toxic materials into Lake Betsie waters. Fewer nutrients would,improve the trophi,c condition oft.he waters. At Site 9, no effects on water quality could be expected because of t@hd'distand&-frobi'-Betsie: River and Deer Crtaek, the sandy soils, flat topography, -and surrounding', vegetation. E. Vectors 4.13 The shallow nearshore areas of Lake Betsie already furnish places of breeding,for insect pests. This b6ing.so,'the project activit ies, includi ng the.temporary ponding of water in the dis@ posal'. .site, should have a minor additional impact on the area. However, should unusual insect problems developas a result of the project, these can be controlled with biodegradable insecticides, ponding control measures, or with suitable cover. F. Air Quality .4.14 There would belocal odors at the transfer.,,,c,onfinement and 'forest sites. However, these would be temporary and not.significantly different from the existing shore area atmosphere caused by large Jexposure'of surface water and existing dredged fill along the shoreline. @Site 9 is in'an isolated area so the temporary odors could have no, rsignificant effect. G. Benthos@ 4.15 Benthic fauna would be removed from.the access channel and maintenance dredging area. All sessile benthic organisms inhabiting the dredged areas would be destroyed by the proposed work. Lake Betsie is-a culturally eutrophic environment in which the benthic environment is dominated by turbificid worms and highly organic .detrital and sludge sediments. Bottomland and benthic organisms adjacent to.the.proposed access channel would be buried with sedi- s @dity during, ,ments. Water in the area@would'increas@e in:turbi construction.and a temporary local depletion and simplification of the food chain could result. A small area of habitat would.be filled in by the south dike wall of the disposal facility. 4.16 Monitoring of overflow waters would be performed to be certain that potentially harmful concentrations are not released. 24. Fishery Resources* 4.17 Panfish spawning, breeding, rearing and feeding habitat would be'destroyed in the access channel dredging. As the nearshore bottom se@iments are.highly organic, and only marginally suitable as nesting territory for such fish as the bluegill, sunfish and pumpkinseed, the loss of suitable habitat would be minimal. Spawning habitat of the black bullhead, shallow water with a"heavy cover of 'submerged vegeta- tion, would be removed. Other fish utilizing the area for feeding or cover would be displaced during construction and operation. 4.18 The Schedule for maintenance dredging and dredging of the access channel would be adjusted to avoid potenti.al,impacts on spawning or migration of lake trout, brown trout or steelhead. These species have been planted at the mouth of the Bettie River and could utilize rocky areas in Lake Michigan (lake trout) or sandy-or gravelly-areas upstream in Lake Bettie (brown trout or steelhead). I. Wildlife* 4.19 Areas sometimes frequented by alder flycatchers and--song sparrows would be destroyed at Site.4. At Site,9, wildlife using the open fields would initially be eliminated. After disposal and replanting, the area would support more wildlife because of the increased productivity of the toil. J. Recreation* 4.20 Public fishing inlake Bettie would be locally restricted.d.uring the,dredging of the access channel to Site 4. 4.21 During the construction and operation phases, bird watching would be restricted along the shoreline at Site 4. 25 4.22 No permanent detrimental effect on the potential recreational,,._ use of the area would"occur; rather, following e 10 years of th -year operation period, Sit-_6`4 would become part of the City of Frankfort"i shoreline development project. It would enhance,the recreational..value of'the land for,the city and its visitors. The recently established Senior Citizens Center'would receive increased noi0e*and dust during. construction and disposal but would ultima-tely'be-benefitted by being adjacent-to the park. 4.23 The access 04nri6l.dredging would provide better accommodat-ion of recreationalboats' in nedrshore fishing waters. 4.24 The shoreline of Lake Betsie within the "project area is in a disturbed condition, The scenic quality of this part of the shore7' line would be improved by the action proposed.at Site 4-following completion of the project'. 4.25 At Site-9., after revegetation,,the disposal.site areas would support.ad,ditional wildlife for observationlor hunting., K. Socio-Economic Effects 4.26 Short-term economic benefits from increased employment would be realized in the local area during construction and during the scheduled.! dredging disposal periods. 4.27 The location of construction and transfer equipment at Site 4 would have only slight adverse visual effects-on the aesthetics of the harbor,considering the industrialcharacteristics of-the north shore- line of Lake Betsie. 4.28 No property'tax base would be lost to local governments-from the use of Site 9, since the State Forest disposal site is-now publicly owned and is tax exempt. Acquisition by the City of Frankfort:of Site 4 has removed, the property from the ad valorem property tax base. 4.29 Truck traffic on state and local roads between Site 4 and the State Forest disposal site would significantly increase traffic. The roads would be maintained at the levelof repair when use-of the. constructor began. The roads would be maintained during hauling operations and left in the condition existing prior to the,commence- ment of such operations. 4.30 Dredging an access channel for .scow unloading at Site 4'would provide improved access to this site for vessels.requiring up to 6 feet of depth. 4.31 Filling and improvement of Site 4 as a recreation area would have long-term recreational benefits. 26 4.32 .'-The noise generated by equipment at the transfer site and by trucks along the transfer route may have.a minor adverse.:effect..on userq,.1.,Pf. the- nearby boat launching. site and park, on commercial,:, establisbments.near the transfer site and on populations near and adjacent, to the transfer route'.. Flooding 4. 3i The flobdplain project area.. is* related directly-to the" level J of.Lake@ Michigan The-project would be constructed on the 100-year flood'pla:in,'but 'the top of dikes would be well above that level (586A' feet' vs..' 583.8 feet) and no potential-problems are envisioned. The construction of the confined disposal facility (CDF) has been,- examined'kor conformance with &ecutive Order 11988. Althou'gh'it is recognized that the proposed CDF,would be located.within a previously determined flood hazard area, future use of the CDF for recreation.- would not be incompatible with the flood potential nature of the area. Furthermore, because the surrounding area is heavily developed,,the presence and proposed use of the CDF would not be expected to induce development incompatible with the floodplain designation. It would have no effect on the floodplain elevation in Lake Betsie. Based on the.advantages and disadvantages of floodplain sites and non-floodplain sites.,.no practicable alternative location for the CDF exists. It would also provide further flood protection for the, area directly north of it. Commercial Fishing 4.34 No commercial fishery exists.in Frankfort Harbor. 4.35 Migration patterns of fish in the Betsie River would not be jeopardized by the access channel dredging, as it would take place in shallow nearshore water aside from the main flow through Lake Betsie. Lake trout are mainly coldwater spawning species;.they would not be likely to utilize Lake Betsie for spawning or migration.,.Brown trout, and steelheadi which are late fall and early spring spawners, respec- tively, would be expected to utilize areas of fine gravel and rocks upstream in the Betsie River. N. Threatened and Endangered Species* 4.36 No endangered or threatened plant or animal species listed in the Federal Register 14 July 1977 or subsequently, has been Teported for this shoreline area or for Fife Lake State Forest. The extensive and intensive disturbance of the area would preclude use by those species of shoreline and raptorial birds which frequent the shorelands of the Great Lakes. 27 .111unicipal Waterjy_Ul@es* 4.37 The nearest piiblic witer supply intakes in the project area are one-quarter mile north of the Lake Betsie northern shoreline. The public water supply is obtained from the ground in a location protected by overlying clay and by the natural gradient of groundwaterflow, which is lakeward. 'The distance, gradient, and ground materials would isolate dredged inateri'als from tbeaquifer. Therefore, there would be no impact upon municipal.water suppii-es. I'lie nearest private water supplies are all obtained from the ground and adequately isolated from the project, by the prevailing movement of groundwater in the region. No project effects would therefore be expected on private wells. P. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Effects and nitigating_Measures 4.38 Beneficial impacts include: (1) Upon project comptetion, the confined disposal area (Site 4) would be used as a park site in coordination with an adjacent city-owned marina and launching site. (2) Upland confinement of contaminated sediments woO-d be beneficial to -the trophic condition of Lake Betsie And Lake Michigan. It would also increase biological productivity in the. Site 9 areas of Fife Lake State Forest. (3). There would be increased local employment, during construction and operation of the confinemeut facility. The necessary dredging of a shallow access ch;innol to the shoreline at Site 4 would enhance access for recreat ional vessels requiring up to 6 feet of draft. (5) Maintenance of harbor structures and project depths would inaintain the harbor for commercial use as a harbor of and rocreatioaal. use, and refuge. 4.39. Adverse impacts include: Noise due to construction traffic and placement of cluster and sheet piling would affect users of the 29 exiting marina and park and MaIn-Street businesses, and would. have a minor impact on residences on Forest Avenue,one block north of the project site.The noise impact of pile driving will be mitigated by use of short stroke, fast acting,' diesel hammers. (2) A minor increase in truck traffic would be expected from the disposal area at 9th Street Along Main Street and M-22 to M-115. About one truck every 10 minutes COUld be expected. Minor increases in dust and noise,would be.anticipated, but wo ld be minimized by contract specifications. The haul route is through an industrial area and would have minimal effect on residences and commercial establishments. (3) There is a potential for dust generation in the construction area. It would be kept to a minimum by wetting down the area. (4) Construction of access channels to the shoreline would result in minor losses of panfish and bullhead spawning,rearing and feeding grounds. There would also be destruction of benthic organisms and habitat in the outer and inner harbor project areas from maintence dredging activities and temporary decrease in water quality due to turbidity. (5) Construction of the diked facilities would result in. total. and permanent removal of vegetation, consisting of old-field weed communities, from Site 4. (6) There would be an insignificant impact upon urban residences or commercial-industrial areas from hauling materials from Sites 4 to Fife Lake. State Forest Site 9. (7) Potential release of harmful concentration of contaminating substances at controlled overflow points at the diked facilities would be minimized through settling out of solids in the confined area, ter and groundwater quality skimming, and discharge wa monitoring programs. A further mitigating feature would be the clay and plastic liner seals at Site 4 to prevent leaching of contained waters. (8) Temporary ponding within the diked area could create breeding areas far mosquitoes. Should this 29 occur, draining and other devices would,be used to suppress the breeding. (10) The possible threat of food chain concentration of potentially harmful substances, which would begin with the estblishment of successional vegetation in the confined sites, can be mitigated by an analysis of the settled dredge material and covering if desirable with inert fill. Use of Site 4 as a landscaped park following the project period is a further mitigating measure. (11) Maintenance of structures would temporarily reduce water quality, Affec"' fishing, and inconvenience users of the harbor. Q. Conformance to Regulations.Coucerning..Confined. Disposal FaciliLi-e@L; WAter RHAlity Art of -197.7 4.40 The proposed confined disposal project is in conformity with existing zoning laws. Construction and operations will be in compliance with the Michigan Inland Lakes and Streams Act 346 of 1972 and the Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act 347 of 1972, and Public Law 92-500, which regulates surface water discharges. 4.41 An ecological evaluation has been made in this section of the EIS following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR 230.4 in conjunction with the evaluations considered in 40 CFR 230.5 (40CFR 230.3 (d)). Appropriate measures have been identified and incorporated in the proposed plan to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic environment as a result of the discharge. (40 CFR 230.3(d)). Consideration has been given to the need for the proposed activity, the availability of alternative sites and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment, and such water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law. (40 CFR 230.5). Other site or construction alternatives are not practicable, and the proposed fill and the activity associated with it will not cause permanent unacceptable disruption to the @eneficial water quality uses of the affected aquatic ecosystem. 4.42 The discharge sites for Maintenance Dredging, Confined Disposal, Structure Repair, and Operations, at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan have been specified through the application of the Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines. 'A 30 4.43 Section 401 Water Quality Certification has been obtained from' the State of Michigan (see Appendix C). R. Conclusions 4A4 The project will have no major long-term adverse environmental impacts. Some short-term adverse impacts will. occur during construction, maintenance and operation. However, the long-term economic benefits of re-use of the project site for marina and park purposes, the shore-term economic benefits resulting from increases in local employment during the construction and operation phases, and the improved.approach to the shoreline effected through access dredging, outweigh the adverse effects, not considering the primary purpose,of the project, making possible use of the harbor by commercial and recreational vessels. These uses will make major contributions to the regional economic health and development of the Frankfort Harbor area. 5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5.01 Unavoidable adverse impacts of construction include increases in road traffic and noise, destruction of existing margina 1 panfish ,and bullhead habitat, And elimination of upland weed communities from the confined disposal site.. 5.02 Dredging and maintenance of harbor channels would.result in temporarily increased turbidity, suspended.solids, undesireable alterations of water quality. Dredging to project depths would .continue to disturb benthic, communities as long as the project is maintained. 31 6. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION .6.01 Vic. proposed action involves the periodic repair' of harbor structuresi and maintenance and backlog dredging of,th0_Frankfort9 Michigan, Federal Navigation Channel by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,,as authorized by Congress. This involves the removal of, the shoaling sediments and disposal of the dredged materials'into open water at the 18 foot contour or into confined disposal facilities. when they are unsuitable for open lake disposal. 6.02 Alternatives to the proposed disposal method are: (1) disposal of all sediments in open waterl (2) confined disposal of all materials, (3) pretreatment of materials,, (4) dredging methods,, and (5) changes in project dimensions. Consideration of economics, engineering,. irretrievable resources, and minimal ecological dis.truption, indicates that confined disposal for sediments.unsuitable for open wat.er.-te.lease offers,the bestalternative at.the present time. The ultimdte'solution depends on adeqdate,control of upland erosion and:reduttion ih:con- taminahts from municipal and'commercial dischaf es.- 9 A. Open Water Disposal 6.03 Open water disposal is the least costly alternative but isIn. Ponflict with present practices'. of the.Detroit DistrictlCorp'si,of Engineers and with a request made by the Governor of Michigan to@., discontinue, disposal of unsuitable.dredged material in the'open -lake water. In:addition, the tnvironmental Protection Agency ha.s.stated that most of the material is,,unsuitable for open lake. disposal. 'EPA Regulation 33 CRF 209.145 states a, policy prohibiting open water disposal of such sediments. B. Alternative Diked Disposal Sites 6.04 Ten (10) sites were considered for confined disposal. A site selection committee consisting of members representing the 'U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agencyq the U. S. Army Eagineer District (Detroit), and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources,, conducted:theIn4uiries leading. to I inal site..-. selection. This process began in late 1974.. The sites..ar6 -shown ini Figure 1. 6.05. Sites 1,2,and 3 on the south shore of Betsie Lake are unacceptable because they are valuable wetlands and goose nesting areas. The.Fish and Wildlife Service objected strongly to use of inland industrial Site 6 because part of the site is wetland. Use of Sites 7 and 8, attached to the existing harbor breakwater, would disturb fishing from -the breakwater. -There was also no local support for these sites. 6.06 Site 10, a-private parcel located between the channel south pier and breakwater, also failed to receive local support. 6.07 Based on environmental, economic And operational considerations Site 4 was selected as the most sound of the lake area sites. Site 4 is owned by the City of Frankfort. The EPA.anticipated no adverse impacts from use,of this site for confined disposal. The Fish and Wildlife Service.found Site 4 acceptable for disposal if a stone dike were used on the Lake Betsie side andif the entire structure were to be extended no further than 10 feet beyond-the existing-shorelihe. 6.08 Three areas -in the Fife Lake State Forest havebeen selected ,as Site 9 (see Paragraphs 1.26 through-1.29). 6.09 Site-5 was considered -for temporarystorage of dredged materials at a time when-the-citywas inthe process of trying to acquire Site 4.. Settled sediments would then have been hauled to Site 9 for permanent disposal-. Because.-ofimmediate andlong-term comm Iunity benefits from recreational use, of Site 4, use of Site 4 and 9 was selected instead- of Site 5. The cost of the use of Sites 4and 9 is also lower. C. Pretreatment 6.10 several Treatment of dredge material could be accomplished in. ways: (1) local sewage treatment works; (2) separate onshore treat- ment plants; (3) on-board treatment prior to in-lake discharge. 6.11 Assuming the removal of a moderate amount of dredgings, i.e., :1,000 cubic yards of material per day, a 0.5 percent slurry would be avolume equivalent to the wastewater discharge of 0.25 million people. Existing sewage treatment plants do not have the-capacity to treat these additional volumes. Costs for new treatment plants are prohib- itive andchemical treatment to settle the suspended solids is expensiVe. In addition, chemical flocculation in conjunction with open lake dispo could cove lake bottoms with sediments unsuitable for sal r biological production. No Action Alternative D . 32 6.12 If maintenance dredging was not undertaken, continuous shoaling. of the channel would eventually impede the movement of recreational and commercial traffic. It would also deny usage of Frankfort as a harbor of refuge. Existing and planned public and private harbor facilities would become useless when the channel no longer could Provide safe and adequate navigation. Area businesses dependent on distant and l6al boater commerce would suffer. The Ann Arbor Railroad Ferry, the most important railroad ferry on Lake Michigan, would be forced to shut down. This would affect the railroad. 6.13 If structures were not maintained. there would be loss ..of. commercial and recreational usej loss of a harbor of refugej and eventual cluttering.of the harbor with the delapidated..structure component,s.., 6.14 In terms of economics, practicality, irretrievable.resourc&S,. and minimal ecological disruption, confined dike disposal of sediments. unsuitable f.or open water disposal offers.the bestsolut,iohat.the. present time. Continued maintenance dredging and structure rehab- ilitation also are preferable tono Federal action. E. Dredging Methods, Project Area, and Dredging Depths 6.15 The harbor could be dredged either by clamshell or by hydraulic dredge. However, State Forest disposal reauires.clamshell dreAgin.g.tD obtain dryer material-The two.methods are comparable with respect to their environmental effe(ts on water quality and on local biology. 6.16 Present commercial and recreational usage of the harbor, justifies.- maintenance of present,project dimensions.and depths@(see Section 1)'.i Neither increasing or decreasing the depths,wduld be.,advantageou.S...at. this time. 7. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES,-OF MAN .'S ENVIR014MENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 7.01 Upland confinement of deredged sediments which are unsuitable for. release into o .pen waLers contributes to.long-term improvements in the. trophic condition of Lake Betsie and Lake Michigan. After 2 years of, the ten year project period, the confined disposal facility at.S.ite 4: would be developed as a recreational park consistent with the City.of. Frankfort's overall development program for the Lake Betsie.shoreline., There would bea long-Lerm.reduction, of benthic.productivity in.the dredged areas'due to periodic disr'uption-of biological prod. esses... 3 3 8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH@WOULD BE INVOLVED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED 8.01 Commitments of labor,.materials, fuel and equipment will be required in construction and operations. 8.02 Marginal quality panfish and bullhead bottomland will be eliminated uring.construction of the access channel. 9. COORDINATION A. Public ParticiRation 9.01 The Frankfort Harbor disposal site selection committee consists of members from the Corps of Engineers, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the U..S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the S. Environmental Protection Agency. 9.02 Coordination included meetings with various officials from the City of Frankfort and the Village of Elberta, and the Benzie County Planning Commission. A public workshop was held at Frankfort High School on September 6. 1976, discussing previous decisions, the description of the project, and environmental impact. Suggestions were received from the audience and audience opinion was solicitedon site alternatives and other matters. There was little or no concern expressed about the enviornmental effects of the project. Public notices for maintenance dredging and the d iked disposal facility were issued on 16 February 1979 and 5' January 1078, respectively (see Appendix C). B. Government Agencies The following government agencies have been contacted for infor- mation in the preparation of the environmental impact statement: (1) Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2) U. &. Fish and Wildlife Service (3) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency State Historic Preservation office Michigan History Division C. Citizen Groups The following citizens group was contacted for information in the J61 34 preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: (1) West Michigan Environmental Action Council 9.03 Comment and Response -Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and responses to the comments follow. Comment letters are found inAppendix C. 35 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHOLOGY Comment This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled, "Confined Disposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure, Repairs and.Operati-ons., Frankfort Harbor, Michigan." The enclosed comments .from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your consideration. 'Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, -which we hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving eight (8) copies of the final statement. Response. 'Eight copies of the final environmental statement will be mailed to 'you as requested. GREAT LAKES ENVI RONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Comment 2 Maintenance dredging of Frankfort Harbor and maintenance of the .harbor structures will, in our opinion, produce no long-term impacts on Lake Michigan. Either one of the two selected sites On the shore. of Betsie Lake for the interim disposal of polluted spoil and the' ultimate disposal of that spoil in the State.forest is acceptable. Response Thank you for your comments. NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY Comment 3 On page 2-7, paragraph 2.26, the recent high level should read 581.04.feet, vice 581. Therecent low level.should read 575.35 feet, vice 575.38. The dates cited,are.correct. Also, page 16, first paragraph, change 2.23 feet to,2.21 feet., Response The appropriate changes have been made, please referto paragraph 2.13 pagelO. 7A 36 Comment 4 Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed pro- jected area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or.. destroy these monuments, NOS requires not less than,90 days' notifi- cation in advance of such activity in order to plan for their relo- cation., NOS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS monuments. Al Response Prior to the start of any work, all geodetic control survey monu-- ments in the project area would be located.. Precaution would be taken so as not to disturb any of the monuments.; However,: if.the project would imp-act on a monument, the suggested procedures for notification of NOS would be carried out. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMIS.SION Comment I Comments of this office are made in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of.1969 and the-August 1, 1973 Guidelines.of the Council on Environmental Quality. Our principal concern with this development is its effect on bulk:electric power facilities.includin: g @potential hydroelectric developments and on natural gas pipeline: facilities. Since.the above noted proposed.project apparently would pose no*, maj or obstacle to the construction of such facilities,@ we have.no. comments. on the Draft EIS. The statements are of this officeand do not necessarily 'represent the views of the Federal Energy Regulato,.ry Commission.... Response. Thank you for your commetit. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region V Comment We have completed.our review of the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS) for the pro@osed confined disposal facility, dredging,: structure repairs and operations.at.Frankfort Harbor,, Michi&n'which 6 us with your letter of October 20i 19f77. Based on info was sent t r 37 mation presented in th7e EIS and our September 27, 1977, visit to the .site of the proposed confined disposal facilities, we have no major objections to the proposed activities, but request additional infor- mation for a complete assessment. We offer the following comments for your use in preparing the Final EIS. Response. Thank you for your review and comments. Comment 2 Our Agency finds use of sites 4 (the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation property), 5a (Luedtke property), and 9 (the Fife Lake.State Forest) acceptable for dredged sediment.disposal.at Frankfort Harbor. But it should be noted that the sediment.analysis for Frankfort Harbor in- dicated that sediments contain high levels.of lead and zinc. Conse- ring.. quently, measures to mitigate water quality impacts and monito procedures should be designed.to adequately protect against contami-.,, nation by those pollutants. Resplonse Site 5A is no longer being considered for use. The receiving waters offshore. of Site 4 would be monitored by the. Corps for water quality. if 4 problem arose, the appropriate measures would be taken to, elimi- nate the source of the problem or bring the situation within accep- tablle standards. No special measures would be required for adequate p otection against contamination in Fife Lake State Forest. Cation r exchange capacities of such typical sandy soils are high enough to absorb zinc and lead pr(--,.sent in concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than present in the dredged material that would be applied and tilled into the Fife LakeState Forest soil. (Knezek, B. D. and R. H. Miller, eds., "Application of Sludges and Waste- waters on Agricultural Land: A Planning and Education Guide", Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Research Bulletin 1090, Wooster, Ohio, October 1976.) The areas to contain dredged materials are surrounded by vegetation. They are one-half mile to I'mile from streams (the Betsie River.and Deek Creek)...They.are also in flat areas of the State.Forest. The sandy@soils of thearea would rapidly absorb runoff from the dispogalareas. Comment If lead and zinc rema@-_n attached to the fines in the sediment, the sand filter at.Site 4 should be adequate; however, if the pollutants are converted to salts, they may be released with the CDF effluent and a liner Tnay be required along with appropriate remedial. measures ,to achieve water.quality standards. 'The Final EIS should address' '18 potential chemical reactions which could occur during dredging and disposal operations and which may allow lead and zinc to be converted to salts. We request the opportunity to review the monitoring pro- cedures that will be used at Frankfort and recommend that a series of pipes be incorporated into the dike design at Site 5a to accomplish testing of the effluent. It should be indicated in the Final EIS who will assume responsibility for monitoring the confined disposal facility effluent and what parameters will be tested and how fre- quently. We recommend the following monitoring procedures: The following parameters are basic and easy to run in the field. They can be used to control the sampling program and detect changes immediately: temperature, specific con- conductivity, pH and turbidity. Suspended solids should be run to determine the efficiency of the sedimentation process in the disposal area. Ammonia should be run because it can be toxic,a nutrient and is the compound most likel' to leach- from the spoil in easily detectable quantities. Chlorides and sulfites should,be run because they are soluble, con7 servative and can be-used as tracers for th e plume. Addi- tional parameters should be selected based on the results of. the bulk sediment or elutriate analysis.of the original spoil. If bulk sedimentconcentrations exceed the following, values, the parameter should be run: TKN 2000 mg/kg Manganese 500 mg/kg Phosphorus 650 mg/kg Arsenic 8 mg/kg Lead 60 mg/kg Cadmium 6 mg/kg Zinc 200 mg/kg Chromium 75 mg/kg Cyanide 0.25 mg/kg Barium 60 mg/kg Iron 25,000 mg/kg Copper 50 mg/kg Nickel 50 mg/kg Or if elutriate test results exceed the following values, the parameter should be included: Cyanide 0.01 mg/l Lead 5 ug/l Phenol 50 mg/l Zinc 25 ug/l Arsenic 5 ug/l Hg 0.5 ug/l Cadmium 1.0 ug/l TKN. 5 mg/l Copper 10 ug/l Phosphorus .05 mg/l Iron 500 ug/l Manganese 500 ug/l The bulk sediment values ate based on over 250 samples from, Great d during 1974 and 1975. The Lakes harbors. collecte elutriate values are based on 48 samples collected during 1975. 39 Parameters which are consistently below the level of detectability in the first 5 samples may be discontinued.- Response Site 5A is no longer being considered for use. A. six inch layer of bentonite is planned which would act as an impermeable liner at Site 4. A series of wells for obtaining leachate samples will also be incorporated into the design of the facility at Site 4. Samples obtained will be analyzed for the following parameters during dredging operations:.- Temperature. Lead PH Zinc Turbidity Barium Suspended Solids Phenol Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Volatile Solids Total Phosphorus Iron Oil and Grease Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) The effluent would also be monitored for these parameters. Effluent from Detroit District disposal sites is usually sampled at two week intervals. After repeated absence of levels of sensitivity, sampling takes place at greater intervals.@ This practi6e@would be'.main,tained at Site 4 bytheDistrict. Comment 4 Macroinvertebrate@samples should be collected in-the receiving waters before the discharge.starts and,again near the end or immediately' after the discharge ceases This will detect and document any effects that the discharge may have had on the benthic cormnunity'.6f.the receiving waters. Response The macroinvertebrate community would be sampled af ter.,cohstructi@on and within one or two years of initial disposal.of dredged 'Materials Comment 5 In addition, vegetation produced at the'Fife Lake State Park property. should be monitored for intake of pollutants. As previously conveyed to your staff,.U. S. EPA's publication on "Application of Sewage. Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals" should be helpful in determining the best condition for disposal at the State Forest. The pot.ential for. smothering existing tree roots, by placement of spoil and erosion of the sediment should be addressed in the Final EIS. Planting should be planned as soon as possible tomitigate sediment erosion. Response The suggested reference and an EPA sponsored conference publication, "Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land" indicate that there is no real reason For concern about food-chain contamination, for the following reasons: Human food chains are not involved; there will not be repeated applications; and retention in the soil of high levels of toxicity compared to concentrations in the disposal material. As indicated in the EIS, only 6" of soil would be applied. Since it would be largely silt and tilted into the soil,there should be little concern over root smothering; there' are also very few trees to be concerned about. Seeding would take place, soon after disposal of materials at Site 9 to reduce erosion. Erosion would be insubstantial because of flat topography, sandy soils, and surrounding vegetation Comment 6 At the time of our site visit at Frankfort Harbor, it was not certain whether the railroad-car ferry service was going to continue. The sh ld be. i d d current status of the ferry service ou nclu e in t h e Final EIS. Response The states of Wisconsin and Michigan are currently subsidizing the Ann Arbor Railroad Ferry. No plans have-been made to terminate. ferry service. TheFrankfort Harbor ferry is the highest priority railroad ferry on Lake Michigan, so it would be the last to be terminated. The Ann Arbor Railroad did notjoin other rail companies in a recent 7% rate increase.As a result of its relatively.cheaper rates, it expects a 50% increase in total tonnage carried through Frankfort Harbor.The status of the ferry service has been described in Section 2 of the FEIS. Comment 7 The old sediment guidelines used by U. S. EPA should be eliminated, from the document (page 1-17)or their proper historical perspective.. explained. The new sediment ed by U. S EPA should guidelines now us be presented in full including page 1(copy attached). Response The appropriate revisions are present. in the final environmental, impact statement,. Refer to Appendix 1. 41 Comment 8 The U. S. EPA sIhould be included as i member of the Si te Selection Committee referenced on page.42. Response The omissio n has been corrected. Comment 9 As indicated in the above discussion and in accordance with EPA's procedures, we have classified our comments on the proposed CDF and maintenance operations as LO, lack of objection, and rated the Draft. EIS as Category 2, additional information required. The date and classification of our comments will be published in the Federal Register. Thank you for the [email protected] review the subje t. document. If you have any questions about our comments, please. cIontact Ms. Barbara Taylor of my staff at 312/353-2307., PL-eas@e,send us two copies of the Final EIS when it is filed'with the Environmental, Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. Response The additional information.required has, been added to the' final .environmental impact statement. SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Comment Reference is made to, NCEED-ER 20 October 1977.traiism.ittal of the Draft EIS's for maintenance dredging,of the following harbors and, waterways-, Les Cheneaux Islands, Michigan St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan Frankfort Harbor, M Port Austin Harb6r, Michigan SLSDC has reviewed the subject EIS's and has.no comments to ffer., Thank you.for tb eopportunity, to examine these documents. Response Your review and, comment are appreciated. 42 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Comment We have determined that the use of Site 4 for the construction of a four-a cre confinement facility could constitute a conflict with Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. As proposed, the Site 4 facility would be located entirely within an area (totaling approximately 6.5 acres in size) that has been approved for acquisi- tion with assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to expand the.Mineral Springs Park and Marina (Projects 26 00741and 26 - 00893). These projects-were approved by the Lake Central- Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, on July-16, 1976i and February 11, 1977, respectively. Response The use of Site 4 would not constitute aconflict with this Act. The. City of Frankfort acquired the site, with the assistance of.the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and is proposing to expand its Mineral Springs Park into this area. The site needs to.befilled to be compatible. with the existing park. The construction should be completed.within 2 years for the.City to be in compliance with:BOR (now Heritage Con" ser vatio n and Recreation Service),guidelines.@ The useof.this site would be in furtherance of the.existing.land use plan-of thecity. Comment 2 if Site 4 is unavailab'le, the draft statement mentions that Site 5A will be used as a temporary confinement facility. This site.would.be situated adjacent to the 10th Street Boat Launching Park, whichwas, developed with assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (Project 26 001.26). Therefore, any permanent.or temporary.taking of land from the park during construction of the,proposed earthen access road from t-lie (,xisting 10th Street right-of-way to s.ite:5A would conflict with Section 6(f).of the Land and.Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. As amended, Section 6(f) reads: No property ac quir.ed or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only, if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing com- prehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon. such conditions as he deems necessary@to assurethe substitu- tion of other recreation properties of at least equal @f air 'onable equivalent usefuln s market,value and of reas e s dnd@@ location. 43 We request that the Army Corps of Engineers coordinate the above matters with Mr. 0. J. Scherschligt, Deputy Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909. Response Site 5A would not be used for this project. Comment 3 4.D. Water Quality Bottom sediments in the project area have been classified as unsuitable for open-water disposal owing to excessive quantities.of volatile solids, COT), phenol, nitrogen, phosphorus, and oil and grease, plus ex@essive levels of lead and zinc (page 31, paragraph 4.12). In order L.o reduce any adverse effects.on water quality within the harbor that may result from dredging operations, measures such as silt-screens should be used to locally control the migration of the turbidity plume which may contain.hazardous concen- tkations of olluted materials. p Response Monitoring of turbidity levels of the surrounding water would be carried. out during dredging operations.. Turbidity levels would be made to conform to conditions that would not in injurious to any designed use of the waterway. Based on conditions that have proved to. be harmful, the Corps of Engineers has established-a turbidity limit .of 50 Jackson Candle Units (JCU) above ambient water conditions.at a distance of 500 feet from the operations. Should a problem arise, operations would cease until the cause ofthe problem has been eliminated or at least mitigated. Comment 4 6.B. Alternative Diked Disposal Sites In Section 6.07 (page 43), the.draft statement mentions.that Site 4 is owned by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR). This statement is incorrect and should be replaced with one indicating.that the BOR has approved Land and Water Conservation Fund projects for the acquisition ofthis area by the City of.Frankfort to.expand Mineral Springs. Park.and Marina. Response The sugg Iested correction has been made,- please refer.to the- kevis.ed. paragraph 6.07 page 32. Comment 5 9.B. Government @jencies We note 'on page 46 that, th,eState..Historic. 44 Preservation Officer (SHPO) was contacted for information during the preparation of the draft statement, but no indication of the results of this consultation has been provided. The environmental impact statement.@fiould include documentation of consultation with SHPO and contain a copy of her comments on the proposed action. Response The letter of comment from.the State Historic Preservation Officer has been included in this final environmental statement,@please refer to Appendix C. Comment 6 To comply with the policy set.forth in Section 10) of Executive Order 11593, all areas to be affected by the proposed. project-including all proposed disposal areas and any borrow areas to be used for construc- tion materials-should be professionally:examined for.archeological remains. Any archeological sites identified shoul&then.be evaluated. with reference to the critbria for listing on the @at16nal Register of Historic Places,(36 CFR 800.10).- Response The State Historic Preservation Officer has received the project'and .has determined that it would have no impact on cultural'resources. A telephone discussion of the State Historic Preservation Officers rationale for indicating no cultural impact was held with-the..state Archaeologist, Dr. John Halsey on 7 September 1979. The presence of refuse materials from the surface to depths of from.4.9 to 15.0 feet in Corps soil borings at Site 4, indicates a history of severe disturbance which would disqualify site 4 as a potential site of- Archaeological significance (See boring logs, Appendix B, Revised:., Letter Report for Diked Dredged Disposal Area, Frankfort, Michigan, December.1978). Dr. Tialsey:also indicated that because of the distance.of Site 9 from water, and the nature of the soils in,the area,, there is a low probability of finding anyarchaeologicial site 'in the State Forest disposal area.' It va S agreed @that the-Te exists no archaeological justification for.conducting a recorinaissan.ce-at either site. Z. 45 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Region 5 Comment 1 In the summary of adverse effects and other parts of the statement, it is noted that increases in dust and noise due to construction as well as increases in traffic congestion are expected. Truck access routes will need to be constructed.at Site 4 as well as improved from M-115 to the Fife Lake State Forest disposal site. Interim handling, dewatering and truck hauling are proposed and a railroad crossing is affected. The effects of truck traffic on the State and local roads are considered unavoidable and short-term.. We believe some mitigation of these adverse effects should be considered since they are significant and especially since they will affect traffic in the, business district. We, therefore, recommend the State and/or local. road agencies be consulted and -the statement address the mitigation measures which can be implemented to minimize the adverse impacts to traffic congestiori, noise and dirt due to construction operation in this area. Response The draft EIS was incorrect with respect to tne hauling route. At the disposal site trucks would leave from Ninth Street, proceed down.Main to M-22, Ithen from.M-22 to M-115. This route is east of the commer.cial district and the area is largely industrial in composition * The increase' in traffic would be slight; Ytruck would pass out of the disposal/loading area approximately every 10 minutes. Noise, dust, and dirt would.be limited to inoffensive levels through contract, agreements. The contractors would.have to.leave roads in as good condition as when they began using them. Any road improvements made in the project area would be maintained until the contract is complete. Comment 2 It is also recommended the statement address the impacts associated with disposal Site 9 such as antic@'pated odors, the effect of truck L hauling and the extent of improving and maintaining the small@access road in the forest area. The condition of this road.and the nature. of the improvementincluding its environmental effects asi,-wel.llas the responsibilities for maintenance should be considered. Response No significant odor is expected at the Fife.Lake State Forest Site. The disposal areas are broad.open areas with.very few trees and sandy 46 soils. The access road in question is a two rut trail Improve- ments necessary for access and disposal would consist ;nly of grading. @No significant environmental effects would be expected from access construction in this area. The.road would be maintained at the improved level through completion of the project. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Comment 1 We believe that some planting program should.be applied to Site 5A if it is used, even if it is not used as a landscaped park like Site 4. Response Site 4 has been selected as the disposal/transfer area. Soil Conservation Service Comment 1 The Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the City of Frankfort and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Waterways Division, has-a Resource Conservation and Development measure currently under construction. This measure is designed to stabilize the eroding bank of Lake Betsie in the city marina between Fifth and Seventh.Streets. This is adjacent to proposed disposal Site A. The dredging project should be carried out in such a manner so as not to cause additional erosion hazards or endanger the erosion control measures currently being installed. If.Site #4 is used for disposal, the containing dike, should be installed in such a manner as to be compatible with the .'erosion control measures being installed. Response@ According to an 8 June telephone conversation with Jerry Keller, of the SCS East Lansing office, the measure is complete. Interference could only be expected:from undercutting of the measure due to disposal activities. Review of plans of the completed project provided by Mr. Keller suggest that this would not occur because of the extent of protection of both projects at the land-water interface and the erosion control measures which would be carried out at Site 4. Thank you for your review of the EIS. 47 9.04 Coodination under Section 404, Clean Water Act of 1977- A public Notice and Preliminary Evaluation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 were issued in January 1980. After a 15 day review period flour comment letters were received (See Appendix F for the Notice, Evaluation, comment letters and replies.) 9.05 Three of the comment letters (U.S. EPA,U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, and Michigan United Conservation Clubs)concerned the possibility of impacts on fisheries, specifically impacts on spawning or migration which could result from dredging, disposal, or construction of the confined disposal facility. Fisheries information obtained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which was not presented in the context of the 404 evaluatin was presented in the Draft Environmental Statement and will be found in Sectin 2 and Appendix B of the FEIS. Dredging schedules are routinely coordinated on an annual basis with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to minimize possible impacts of fisheries. The yearly review allows utilization of the latest fisheries information from each harbor. The dredging schedule at Frankfort would thus be adjusted to minimize impacts on fish spawning and migration. 9.06 The comment letter from the Michigan United Conservation Clubs questioned the benefits of placing the contaminated materials in a confined disposal site near the lake edge. In response, it was noted that this would avoid placing the contaminated materials in open water where they could be disseminated and either contribute to eutrophication or allow toxic materials to enter the food chain. The shoreside facility would be lined with bentonite or other materials to prevent leakage into the groundwater or the lake(See FEIS, page 23, Subsection D., Water Quality.) The use of the selected site would also provide recreational benefits and avoid the trucking of dredged materials through downtown Frankfort. Michigan United Conservation Slubs also questioned the necessity for dredging the access channel to Site 4 if other upland disposal alternatives exist. Based on technical, social, economic, and environmental considerations, the use of Site 4 in conjunction with Site 9 proved to be the best alternative for confinement of contaminated dredged materials(See FEIS, Section 6, alternatives to the proposed Action, page31a). 9.07 The fourth comment letter(Stephen Zetterburg) requested the use of uncontaminated dredged materials for beach nourishment along the shore of Lake Michigan north of the breakwater to compensate for erosion due to the presence of the breakwater and "dumping of Betsie dredging in deep water". Michigan shore north of the breakwater to help alleviate beach erosion (Final Environmental Statement, Mitigation of Shore Damage Attributed to the Federal Navigation Structures at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan, U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, Michigan, September 1976). 47a REFERENCES CITED 1. Michigan Geological Survey. Publication 49. The Glacial Geologic Map of Benzie County (1959). 2. U.S. Geological Survey. Frankfort, Thompsonville, Onekema'and Qopemish Quadrangles, Topographic Maps. 3. Martin, Helen M. (1955). Map of the Surface Formations of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, Geological Survey Divisionj Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 4. Calvert, James L. (1946). Occasional Papers on the@Geology of 11. Air Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Air Quality Report (1975). 12. Department of the Army, Detrolt Di�trict Corps of Engineers. Monthly Bulletin of Great Lakes Levels. 1,3. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit. Environmental Assess- ment of Alternative Sites, Frankfort Harbor, Michigan Dredge Dis posal Area. 14. Twenter, Floyd R. General Availability of Ground Water in the Glacial Deposits in Michigan (Mao)', Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. 15. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Logs of Water Wells on File with the Geological Survey Division. 16. Federal Insurance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Flood Hazard Boundary Maps. 17. Michigan Water Resources Commission, Bureau of Water Management. Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality of Selected Lakes and Streams in the Grand Traverse Bay Region, 1970. 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Eutrophication Survey (1975), Report on Betsie Lake, Benzie County, Michigan,. Working Paper No. 185, 1975. 19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V (1972). Evaluation of Sediment Quality in Michigan Harbors and Navigation Channels, 1972. 20. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1975J. Sediment Quality Survey of Betsie Lake, July 16. 21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Great Lakes Surveillance Branch (1975). Report on the Degree of Pollution of Bottom Sediments, Frankfort Harbor, October. 22. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (1974). Identification of Objectionable Environmental Conditions and.Issues Associated, with Confined Disposal Areas. 49 23. U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit (1964). General Design Memorandum for Rehabilitation of Navigation Structures at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. 24. Wood R. and W.L. Gelston. 1972. Preliminary Report: The Mute Swans of Michigan's Grand Traverse Bay Region. Michigan DNR Rep-2683, 6 p. 25. Bryant, W.C. and D.J. Seeburger. 1966. A biological survey of Lake Betsie, Benzie County, Michigan. Michigan DNR, 10 p. 26. Raymond W. Mills & Associates (1969). Frankfort Future Land Use Plan. 27. Federal Register, February 1, 1977, Part IX. 28. Michigan Department of State, Michigan History-Division (1975). Michigan Historic Preservation Plani 50 GLOSSARY Accretion Natural or artificial buildup of Dike mound of earth, sand, clay or other land by the action of air or water substance on land or in the water de- deposition. signed and Wilt to confine materials. - Any biologic process which requires Dissolved Solids - The total amount of dissolved material. Aerobic organic and inorganic, contained in oxygen to function. water or wastes. Anadromous - Type of fish that ascend rivers from DO - Dissolved Oxygen. The oxygen freely the sea (or lake) to spawn. available in water. unpolluted water will contain more DO than polluted Anaerobic - Any biologic process which dues not water. require oxygen to function. Dredge, Clam-Shell - A barge mounted crane with a split- - Plants rooted in the substrate that bucket or clam-shell suspended from Aquatic Plants it, powered by steam or diesel, grow in water, either floating on which operates by dropping its clam- the surface. growing up from the shell to the bottom by gravity where bottom of the body of water, or it is closed and lifted, along with growing under the surface of the the sediments it catches, from the water. bottom by wire cables. Generally used for dredging soft sediments. Aquifer - A hydraulically continuous volume of sand and gravel. the ground water which yields useful quantities of water to wells. Dredge, Hydraulic A barge or ship mounted vacuum suc- tion device. sometimes fitted with Artificial Nourishment - The process of replenishing a beach by an "eggbeater" type cutter head. artificial means. powered by steam or diesel, which operates by breaking up the sedi- Baymouth Bar - A bar extending partially or entirely ments with the rotating cutter across the mouth or a bay, head and may pump the material from the bottom through pipes to a dis- charge.point at same distance from Benthic - Relating to the bottom of the equipment, in the water, on a stream, lake, or harbor. land or into a confinement facility. Generally used for dredging muck. Benthos - Bottom dwelling organisms; uniformly soft sediments or sand. Operates associated with with about 20X solids and 80% water. applied to animals substrates. Dredge. Ponar A bottom sediment sampling device which operates similar to a clam- Biomagnification Increasing accumulation of a substance shell dredge. Usually used to (such as mercury) from organism to or- sample soft muck, sand and fine ganism in tire food chain. gravel sediments and associated benthos during aquatic surveys. I BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of oxygen consumed ill the Dredging A method for deepening and widening biologiCal Processes that break down stream,,, swamps or coastal waters organic matter in water. by scraping arid removing solids from the bottom to restore tile authorized BreakWater A long narrow (rubble mound) Pile Of depths in the established projects. rock. concrete or wood; a structure in the water designed to break or Ecotone The edge between two or more diffe- moderate the effect of storm driven rent communities (e.g., tile transi- waves. Usually placed ("It into tile tion between forest and grassland). water from shore at an entry channel to provide safer boat or ship navi- Endangered Species A species of plant or animal which gation during stormy weather. is in danger of extinction throuqh- all or a significant part of its range. Carrying Capacity. Sustained use (or production)of tile land without environmental degradation. COD Chemical Oxygen Demand. The amount of Environmental Impacts A phrase used to express the.ex- oxygen required to oxidize organic and tent or severity of an environ- oxidizable inorganic compounds in water. mental effect; tile impart. Eutrophication Natural processes which result in Coliform Any of a number of organisms common to water quality reduction via nutrient the intestinal tract of man and ani- enirichment. Eutrophication over time mals, whose presence is an indicator changes open lakes to, swamps arid even- of pollution. tually to dry land. Conductivity (specific Fauna The animals, terrestrial or aquatic, Conductance) - A measure of a solution's capacity to of a region. convey an electric current. Coriolis Effect - The tendency of moving air masses to change direction continuously in res- ponse to the earth's rotation. 51 Fecal coliform A group of organisms common to the in- Percolate Downward movement or Infiltration testinal tract of Pon and of animals. of water through the pores or spaces of rock or soil. Flora The plants, terrestrial or aquatic, of a region. Permeable Able to allow water to seep through.. Food Chain Energy transformations - movement of food from one form of life to another; PH A measure of the relative acid or for example, algae to zooplankton to alkaline state of water. PH is fish. measured on a scale of 0 to 14. A pH of 7 is neutral, a pH below Foredune That zone of shoreland immediately in- 7 is acid. a PH above 7 is aika- land of the beach and the result of line. Painwater is usually slight- Windblown sediment deposition. ly cid. Granular Sand and/or gravel in composition re- Phenol s A group-of organic compounds that ferring to sediments. in very low concentrations produce. a taste and odorproblem inwater. Ice Ages The late Pleistocene Epoch., a period Phosphorus An element thatwhile essintial to f time which ended in Michigan ap- hich life,contributesto the eutrophi- proximately 8,000 years ago and w cation or lakes and other bodies was marked by glaciers and extensive of water. t-ising and lowering of the Great Lakes levels. Phytoplankton the algae of the open water of lakes... Impermeable. Able to confine water without any rivers and streams. seepage. Phytosociology Thestudy of plant associations. Interface The point at which two substances. such as water and bottom sediments, come together. Perm ted of Piers anent structures construc teach To remove a substance by water fil- stone, steelcement or a combina- tration or percolation. Jon of those materials which are used to define and stabilize entry Littoral The shallow waters that extend along channels from the pen lake into a the shoreline of a lake or sea. harbor. Littoral Drift The sediments moved in the littoral Rare species An extremely uncommon species zone under the inflUence of waves limited in distribution. and current. Direction of movement or "transport" of littorral materials depends upon wind and wave direction. Riprap A.layer. facing or protective mound of stones randomly placed to pre-' Longshore Current Somewhat similar to littoral drift. vent erosion, scour,-or sloughing. of a structure or embarkment; also Low Water Datum LWD. IAn approximation to the plans the stone so used. of mean low water that has been adop- ted as a standard reference plane. S.cow A large equipped with trap-doors in its bottom which is used for moving and dumping dredge spoil. Marsh A wetland doninated by herbaceous vegetation; primarily sedges, reeds, and grasses. Sediments Clay, sandgrayel or stones which have been eroded from the land or -Monitoring Program To study the.amount of pollutants pre- from beneath the water. have been transported by river or lake cur- sent in the environment. rents. and re-deposited. Mooring Facility A place where a ship. barge. or scow Fluctuations above or below "nor- Selche Is fastened. mal" water level in a basin caused by wind. barometric pressure or. a MoraI tic Glacial till, or sediments deposited combination of both - resulting directly from ice. in a rise or. fall on shore over a period of hours.. Nekton Aquatic organisms (larger than zoo- plankton) which swim freely in the Sheet Steel Piling Interlocking lengths ofsteel water. driven into a stream, lake or har-. bor bottom next to the shore to Nutrient Elements or compounds essential as prevent storm, wave.or ship damage. raw materials for organism growth and development; for example,carbon. Shoal A place where water is shallow. oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. sometimes created. by a sandbar, In the shipping channels, created Organic Material derived from organisms, by deposition of eroded material. leaves, sticks, animals, fish, etc. silt Finely divided particles of. soil Outwa -or rock. Often Carried in cloudy sh Sediments deposited directly from susension in water and event ually glacial meltwater stream:. or lakes. deposited as sediment.. r 52 spoil Sediments which have been dredged from beneath the water. Staging Area Major concentrations of waterfowl or shorebirds occurring on certain lakes and ponds during spring and fall migration. Succession The change in species composition from initial colonizing organisms to members of a diverse. stable community. Surface Water Atmospheric water that runs off to collect in streams, ponds, lakes. swamps. marshes, etc. Terrace A level area marking a period of constant lake water elevation.. The 'general natural setting of the Terrain land surface of an area as imparted by a particular geological process. Threatened Species A species which is likely to become endangered because of low reproduc- tive capacity. loss of suitable habitat or over-kill, now limited in numbers to few isolated popula- tions. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen. A measure TKN of the ammonia and organic nitrogen. but does riot include nitrite and nitrate nitrogen. Tombolo A sand or gravel bar connected from shore to an island or off-shore, structure. Topography The configuration of the landscape including its relief, the position atural and man-made features. of its n Trophic Food chain relationships in an eco- system.. Turbidity A cloudy condition in water due to the suspension of silt or finely divided organic matter. The sensitivity of the landscape Visual Vulnerability to accommodate a given use (e.g., a disruption of natural landscape features). Volatile Solids (Total) A measure of the organic material that could decompose and thus exer t dy of water. an oxygen demand on a bo Wave Aridge, deformation, or undulation of the surface of a liquid. Wetland Habitats characterized by aquatic or tcmi-aquatic plants that are permanently wet. or intermittently water covered. Zinc Zinc (Zn) is a heavy metal. which in ntial to trace quantities is esse life. but which-in greater quan- tities may be toxic to life. Zo Animal microrganisms living un oplankton attached. in the water. 53 T.ULE 1 WATER QUALITY FOR @@U--.-ICIPAL I .4ELLS AT FRANKFORT AIND ELBERTA, MICHIG' (Source- Michigan Dopai nt of Public Hoalth, [email protected]) CHEMICAL FRANKFORT ELBERTA 1962 PHS FAP_L@@ETER T-JELL P17,IP DISCHARGF. 1-.T-LL DRINIKINIG WATER - S T A 1; DRED S 2 `2 cz. rbonat: e-CaCO 180 230 168 3 68 Cla L CIL um.- C a 54 74 43, 0 0 Carbonate- 0 12 Chioride-Cl 5. 7' 13 2.0 250 d,@-F 0.17 - I uo r i, 0.27 - 0.11 05 llz:rciness 260 3 ron-Fe < .05 0 5 <.. 05, 0.65 0.3 --sium-Mg 27 22 26 1 21 Ma: a n es e -Mn <. 01: < .01, 0.04 0.05 Nitrate-N.03 as N 1 .7 2@6 0.65 1.63 45 Potassium-K 1.0 1-4 0.78 O@97 S.. 102 ..7.7 ili.ca-S ll..:5 0.3 S064 .i! - . . 2.8 um-Na 6.8 29 13 80 2-0 SuIphare- S04 7.0 4.7 D Solids 323 33 379 198 500 2 p J, .7.6 7..5 7.5 7.7 fort Well 4L 1 Location:,@ 504, Beech Street Frz-nkfort Well 42 Location:. City Park, 317 Day Avenue an ca Elb,!rta Pump Discharge Wells d #2 to tions: M166.atGeorge Road a) From Table-8, Mitigation of Shore Damage Attributed to the Federal Navigation Structures at. Frankfort Harbor@, Michigan, Final Environmental, Statement,. The U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit (September, 11976). 7 V@j le s -!SPIRE SPUR 7) is@ _j 7 2 ............. @83 L:i !.Wn J,. 771 k rl- TF L VJ CID i am 2 LI-S, 4 Ic L. - - 9 15 -t r." a rr "A r im R Bn 283 k 16 PROAC), 10 fy 5 16 6 1975 17 jrT MAY 1975 4 7 N WIN-4 'i PRojfcr DCPrH /8 FT 24 fT - -)v . C 5 S.., S'A( rr MAV 9' - " -j @Rojfcr ofprH,?.? ty 8 7 Q-. ev rr 3 IJ 1 8 7 r F F OQ N. OQ N. 7 5 SITE 7 CROSS 3 r, 14 \SITE @@5 3 7 14 \@2 if 14 5 4 10 STE A !2 9 m 34 2 NP J VA N".\ IN 20 11 4\ to SIZE jl@ 11111 17 21, 21 7 rij Io\ Al\\\,.@, FRANKFORT 33 SITE#4 14 0 .30 SCALE",. I v cm!:iTy V.- C:. LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP In 9 2 @ \@ 9 @,- 4 \9. �ir ,Ln OD N E W 5 t4 S ST -i t4Gr N E W OU"T LET New STRUCTURE IRF- CrF-J:) cv-os-rclls Kew DDRS 10. ST I t-A Gr A c- @-i oR ^cr FRANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA DISPOSAL SITE PLAN SITE #4 FIGuRE 2. S POSA. L- .0 S tj IL 9: x c. WE 16, F- a Per o P-A i -r + 31-c F. 0. 14 E x i sT. cr FRANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA DIIK'E SECTION A-A SITE #4- FIGURE 3 -511E&T PILIWO 'F-G- KEG' L. 5UFFi\CF- C @ e". . gl-* a Etvro)vlre, 2@ C Z-Ay lk Lwo Si 6. 6,- &4.4 cr (gri. 0.0-1J.- MOW 62AMULAQ FfLL le NEW 5070M E L& v,&r 1 ot4 :5sp 6:4,- -74-5- P 2--27 0 13 DM. C o &I Cq E, r-c' -4 4 r- 0 0. A 4/6 q,,1@4,0F 2- /4 S7 LD FRANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA SITE 4frL 4 MOORING AREA SECTION SITE N! 4 L A X. ESIDE DISPOS&L. Slos /Z lot -oil SL/,P, rA CC STME. %NT. 5* 2 c e..4 y iwu silel' 10 :20C)-'---%,, C7RA DED 0-4a 0.0') x le- ril?AAJULA,@ 3' A// "q Ln -C;f F I LT E QCLOTH @EXI tt GVADE 14f -61 DI E C) r-A FRANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA SITE04 DIKE SECTION- SITE NL4 FIGURE 5 OUT51 1) E I:) a 15 1-00 PIKE 101-0 _,AGGIZESATE -50R.FACE (WESI (71KE OPIJLY) 1-. 0 IKE -T^PF-ILS MotA S66.6 'ro meaT 12"CLAY SF.4L s v, i s -r tA er ew w-pop sS. oF oNim s-r. I @, , -p ST % 0 GRAMULA FILL EAST AND WEST DIKE SECTION t4O SCALF- FRANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA SITE #4 DIKE SECTION SITE N! 4 FIGURE 6 SS16.5 TOP OF VIKE C., elt 1/4 1 3r6- STIOP 160.64 kto,o) Iso STOP 1.0fis A piol T1 arG FILL W/ cosic 7. VAONIMAL, IDIA SO ASO thpL 7?1 0 C Mr Ltjo 8 CoAGO) FRONT ELEYATION SE(;TION A-A Ro'TATED 900 NOTE- "SLICKBAR " OIL SKIMMER OR EQUAL TO BE USED IN CON- JUNCTION WITH WEIR 3/,6 WEIR DETAIL SECTION B - 8 Cor4c.FIL6 7. ------------ FRANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA SITE#4 OUTLET STRUCTURE SITE Nl 4 FIGURE 7 _jIA 61 Q NORTH IN SCALis4"t I MILE r MANKFORT DISPOSAL AREA FIFE LAKE STATE FOREST SITE*9 ,SITE PLAN FIqTji3E 8 ANORTH 62 FC 41 A ASPEN. LAKE 0 LIPLAN -FRANKFORT J JACK P MICHIGAN M NORTH BEULAH R RED PI S BLACK W WHITE BENZON A ELBERTA ST 1-3 REPR 4-6 POLE 7-9 SAW A4 M/ G R2 R2 is M4 M4 A2 M2 As A4 M7 4 ms J3 M4 W2 5 M7 A Rfil c W2 M7 ms )2 AS R2 AS m Rl 0 R7 5 30 M7 'Al M. M4 9 A) W2 A4 A4 B M4 WELDON -S2 ;AS M4 ml A S2 m m ml AS %N2 m'; Rl G 92 my M4 M7 G m G A4 ____ -t --=== F, M7 7 Its IM FRANKFORT HAUL ROUTE TO ONE QUARIER MILE SITE 9. FIFE LAKE STATE FOREST FIVATRE 9 K M4 M' 2. _M4 .77 APPENDIX A WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY DATA Michigan Water Resources Commission Betsie River Quality Survey, 1968 US EPA National Eutrophication Survey Betsie Lake Quality Survey . US EPA Bottom Sediment Surveys, 19.72,1975 Corps Of Engineers Inner Harbor Borings USEPA Guidelines For The Pollutional Classification Of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments W,,,ATER QUALITY- OF SELECTED. LAKES AND S T REAMS IN TH.. GRAND BAY TRAVEWSE J?EG10-ZV Michigan Water Resourc-e's Commission Bureau of Water Management Department,of Natural Resources State of Michigan March 1970 A-2 FiGtME I RIVER SAMPLING STATIONS MAND TRAVERSE REGION WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION ViCmIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATiON iiod r ri (D %'I 14 % 'o 01 *-7 T 0 it It 4 '41 LEGEND -fl)ONLV GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED ----(9>COMP0SlTE GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTL A-3 RIVER SAMPLING DATA GRAB SAMPLES GRAND TRAVERSE REGION, MICHIGAN JULY, 1968 Tot.1 Fo,a Station Col I rom Cal I to 14,Wnr Sur two Water cwmi Untion LorAtion W-t-, Couets/100 Cmtllt Lis llots[* Rover G. Tievorse lleul* River Rd. 7/22 1 Vag 230 8'? M 103% ... G 1550 Co.., a's 8:2 9.2 ,A <1 Do 7/22 2140 22 0.8 8.41 M 7/23 2200 22 8.8 8.6 97X 1/23 0215 2@ 8.8 8.6 97% 7/13 064 a 1 9.0 8.0 BOX ... 7/23 070D clear io 9.2 8.2 89% .500 1/23 1045 It. '9.0 8.8 97% - a 8stsio River 0"210 Val I in md. 7/22 1318 14@ 8.5 9.0 105% ... 7/22 1630 Clear 26 8.2 9.6 11 7x 400 7/22 2200 20 9.2 7.0 76% - 7/22 2210 23 0.7 6.8 76% 7/2) 0240 21 9.0 6.4 71% 7/2) 0640 20 '9; 2 6.0 65% 7/23 0720 Clear 18 9.S 6.2 65X 6.700 z 7/2) 1to$ 2rj -9.2 8.4 9m --- Battle Ili", 26"16 Rd. 7/23 1325 i2o 8.0 9.0 102% 7/12 100 Cloor 24 1" 7122 2320 21. ':' " wx 9 0 :'a 7/n 224 1; 8.9 7.2 7/23 0255 20 9.2 7.2. 7ft. ... 7/23 M45 --- 16 9.5 7.2 7 SA ... 7/23 0730 Clear is 10.2 7.4 ?2Z 4.600 7/21 1115 - it. 9.0 9.7 96% - to Dottie River plan I a 446 powi. s. W. of 7/22 1338 - 219 9.0 9.6 106% - Ttowlim.1 I so 7/22 1705 Clear 22 8.8 9.8 111% 200 Ic 7/22 223S 20 9.2 7.0 76% ... ... 7/22 2300 9.1 6.8 71% 7/23 0310 9.14 6.6 m 7/2) 0700 --- 9.5 6.8 Px ... 7/23 1,740 Ckoar 17 9. ? 6.0 71% 1.600 713) 1130 - 20 9.2 8.9 96% ... ... 5 1161:510 Ove, 60"16 14-115. 3 -list A. of 7/22 134 - me 9.1 8.6 95Z ... ps"Is & U. S. 31 7/22 1120 cloor 1@ 9.0 9.2 lorx 3" jurction ?m nas to. 9.2 8.2 on ... 7/22 2315 30- 9.3 9.2 89% 7/2) 0120 111@ 9.5 @1.8 82% M3 om 17 9.7 7.8 e0z 7/23 07" clear 17 9.7 7.8 gm Z.SOO IF 7123 1140 20 9.2 9.41 9rx ... 6 Settle River goozi. U.S. 31 9. or 7/22 14W 220 8.8 9.0 102% - 7/22 1731 Cl mor 21. 9.0 6.6 M 100 7/22 2255 29, 9.1 7.8 7/22 232S 20 9.2 7.8 84 ... 7/23 0335 20 9.2 8.2 8qx --- 7/23 0715 20 9.2 7.8 m - 7/23 0800 to", 39 9.4 8.1 8ft 909 7/23 1150 20 9.2 8.6 93% 7 Dottie River unzi* It Ivor no" S. W. of ?/n 140 230 1.1. 9.41 IN% Iseconis 7/22 Ism 1:14o' .23 6.7 .1014 lin SAW 7/22 2310 20 9.2 7.8 84% 7/22 2335 21 9.0 7.8 86% 7/23 0350 19 9.4 7.2 76% 7/2) 0730 18 9.5 '7.2 75% --- ... 7/23 0815 clear 49 9.'k --- - 2.300 .31(. 7/23 -Im - 1. 9.2 9.6 93% - 9. I.W. Rllor@ Boos 1*. 11- 22 Derommo lilberte 7nz ws - n4 0.8 '8.6 1 On - Frankfort ?A2 Isis clear 24 83 9.8 111% zoo IND 7/22 2320 21 9.0 8.0 8&X --- 7na 2350 22 8.8 -7A 86% --- 7123 040 21 9.0 ?A 82% 7/23 0735 .18 9.5 ?.0 ?IZ 7/23 082S Cloor 10 9.2 6.4 61A 9.200 7/23 1211 21 9.0 '7.9 171 - 9 sots3@ Alto, emnsle off Plor At Comst Guard 7/22 1435 -T no 83 .5 - statim 1. plonitt"t 7/22 low 'Clear 22- 4.8 a.'D .90% :200 <1 0 7/22 HIS all 9.0 7.6 7/23 WK 22 in) wo 2.1 9.0 8.2 .91% 7123 074S 84% - 7/23 0035 c;:;, "200:- 9':Z' 7 a ft 10 7/23 1320 9.0 8.1 A-4 ..RIVER SAMPLING DATA COMPOSITE SAMPLES GRAND TRAVERSE REGION, MICHIGAN JuLy, 1968 0 0. c 7; Stat ion N or Surface Water Station Location I Betsle R;ver Beisle River Road 0.4 172 166 6 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.04 0 0.0 38 9, 3.0 1.5 25 9.1 IJO 135 0 2 Betsle River Wallin Rood 0.7 3 Betsie River Thompsonville Road 0.7 4 B.tsie Rl@ei M-115,S. W. of o.6 181 175 6 0.20 0.0 0.00 0.03 0 0.1 44 9 3.2 0.5 21 8.0 145 150 0 Thompsonv I I I a 5 8etsie River M-115, 3 miles E. of o.6 M-115 & U.S. 31 Jct- 6 Betsic River U. S. 31 S. of Senzonia 1.0 7 Betsle River River Road S. W. of 0.6 200 186 14 0.20 0.0 0.00 O.OS 0 0.2 44 10 3.9 0.6 30 8.0 150 150 0 Benzonla Betsie River M-22 eet@en Elbarts 0.8 & Frankfort 9 Betsie River Off Pier at Coast 1.1 1,98 180 18 0.10 0.0 0.00 0.05 2 0.3 40 11 4.4 0.6 29 8.0 1145 140 0 Guard Station In Frank fort I Platte R1vqr Sanford Lake Road, by Lake Ann 0.7 145 140 5 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.02 0 0.0 is 9 1.8 0.5 20 8.0 130 130 0 2 Platte River Co. Rd. 669 above Fish o.6 Hatchery N. of to r Platte River U.S. 31.E. of Honor 0.8 IB9 too 9 0.25 0.0 0.00 0.02 0 0.0 46 9 2.5 0.5 15 8.0 150 155 0 Platte River N. Pioneer Rd., S. E. 0.6 or Honor 5 Platte River India. Hill Rd., N. W. o.4 '194 186 a 0.40 0.0 0.00 0.03 0 0.0 48 9 3.2 0.5 15 A.0 155 165 0 of Honor 6 Platte River M-22 In Edge Water 0.8 7 Platte River Lake Tp. Park, est of 1.0 170 166 4 0.10 0.0 0.00 0.02 o m 4o 10 3.2 0.5 31 A.o 14o ISO o Edqewater, (mouth of river) I Boardman River Co. Rd 612. N. E. of 0.4 175 170 5 0.7 0.0 ... 0.00 0 - --- --- --- --- 13 8.1 150 --- 0 Kalkaska 0.1* 1.2* o.6* 2 Boardman River U.S. 131,.W. of 0.4 170 167 3 IIA 0.1 0.02 0 12 7.9 145 --- 0 Kalkaska 0.6* 0.61-' o.6* 0.6* 3 Boardman River Supply Rd. S. W. of o.4 Kalkaska 0.6* o.6* 0.13* O.V 4 Boardman River Garfield Road 1.0 OX 1.0" 1.0* I.0* 5 ecardma nR'Iver Beltner Road 0.6 0.4* 0.8* 0.8* 2.4* 6 Boardman River S. Airport Road 0.14 Igo 184 6 OJS 0.1 --- 0.0 0 15 8.0 ISO --- 0 0.8* 0.8" 0.8* 0.2* NOTE: SOD analyses (node on grab samples collected From 0605 to 2020 on 7-18-68. All constituents e=ept pN are expressed as mg./I. A-5 TABLE 3-A AVERAGE TEMPERATURES AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS AT THE RIVER SAMPLI'NG STATIONS Station Average Average Average River Number Temp. OC D@Oj, (Mq./I.) % Saturation Betsie 1 -8.6 97 2 21.5 7.4 83 3 20.4 7.8 86. 4 j9.6 7.8 84 5 19.1 8.3 89 6 20.3 8.2 .90 7- 20.4 8.3 91 8 21.1 7.9 88 9 21.1 7--9 Platte 1 20.9 7-9 89 2 19.3 9.3 91 3 16.9 8.7 81 4 16.9 8.8 92 5 17.4 9.2 95 6 20.5 8.4 0 7 22.2 8.2 93- Boardman 1 16.6 9.0 91 Run #1 2 21.4 6.3 70 3 17.0 8.7 89 .4 19.0 9.4 100 5 19.0 8.5 90 6 22.0 1.5 86 7 23.6 8.6 98 Boardman 1 14-5 9.3 90 Rup #2 2 )9-3 8.4 89 3 15.9 9-3 93 4 17.5 9.6 1.00 5 18.0 9.0 92 6 19.8 9.2 99 7 21.5 8.9 1.00 Mitchell Creek I 18.,o 7.3 76 2, 17.5 7.8 82 Torch I --- 9.6 A-6 Cr Ysta I Lake k-forf Bi Al 01 X49 t Benzonia utie qp el A 3 A 2 > Elberto 13e -\-Ij BETSIE LAKE Tributary Samplinq Site 0) X Lake Sampl i ne Si te Sewage Trea::7@ent Facilitv Dir--c-t Drain-,Q& reA Ls 2 86, 110 Phytitdl 6nid che"Micial Cha,ea,,ci-6H�iict,-:, @ALI..,.VALUO'. L Pa raltiO td r mI ild.6 h. f i 64 J 6.h. ti@inoe@a'tu@ei (Ce'dif.) 2' Di@-;dlveid 119/1) 9.18 �A t6lidilcli@ity (ollh6t) jib ii5 jib* OH (urflis) 7.6 7A AlkAlinity (iild/i) 2' 129 i@@ ToUl,P (6ij/1) dbt@ 6-.0,22 Diss61V@d P '(hiy) 6:00 0 . "4 d ho 4 No, (mu @,2 A13@610A ?Mg/l O;bJo Obij O-Ab 0 6, 4 0 ALL-VALA8. Secchi disc (ihches)' 24 a S I jt4t r RLI-elEVAL DATt. 7-3/ij?/j4 26 1 uu I 41 31 4d.j U80 14 Ub.0 oEFSIE LAKL 4.3 M I Cri 16 AN IIEIALE5 21112u2 0015 FEET DEPTm ouolu U03uj vue7l ljuU,14 00400 00413 uobjo 00tilo 00005 00a66 UAIr T14E DEPTm wATEK 00 Tn. 4s" C,,jOuCTvy PIH T ALK .140 2vio 3 N H 3 -.*4 PmUS-TOT PHOS-015 Frium OF TLMP SECC-1 FIELU CACUj N-TWAL, TOT AL TU UAY FEET CEpjT 14G/L I NC,4E,.-@ M I C4ur4,ri(i su Mu-/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P @P. 1 72/06/11 15 1,* UOOO 17.4 '31 2ou b.j7 I tiu U.Iou 0.040 0.017 0.006 15 14 0012 15.1 7. t) e1v 0.01 162 0.110 0.060 0.016 0.006 7211 W 15 11 37 00uo '14 3U3 7. 4--i 1"5 U. I it) 0.03u 0.036 0.014 11 37 0004 17.4 il. 3 u 13 7. -j.., 1"S 0.14L) 0.040 0.04b' 0.014 It 37 0015 17.4 0. IS JEW 7.46 144 ii.i3o 0.030 0.031 0.01i 7211111Z 15 30 0000 32v 7.6u 1?7 U.2440 0.04U 0.031 0.011 iS 30 0OU4. 6.2 3lu 7. ov 121 U.,C4U 0.030 U.022 0.007 15 30 @Uld 6.2 lu.o 3LJ 7.oj 12@i o.z4u 0.030 0.022 0.001 J2217 UATt FLOE DEPTM C"LkPHfL Fiqu ur@ TO UAY FEET UG/L .72/it/i? 15 14 bOOU 1.31 7 ?/,1 Y/ I L. 11 37 uU00 I Jj I/ I Ii 30 viou J Y-ILUE Ncwvvi T-J' STOREr REIRIEYAL DArE.75/,(#2/v4 2.610AI LS2faluAl 44 Jd UU.0 JS6 15 3U.0 CETSIE L.AAe 26163 1@ FRANKFOo4f 0/nEYSIE LAKE 2Nu sr V4 FkANKFUXT IIEPJALES 2111204 0000 FEET- DEPTH 00630 oeblo 00671 006bi DATE TIME DEPTH N026NO3 TOF KiCt, N"j-N PmOSr-015 PH%)t)-T0F FR 0 OF- N_@TOTAL- N I v T AC Uk T HO' TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L M'j/L MG/L P MG/L 0 7?@10/29 10 00 fi-IOR 19,400 0,05tj %)&0U5K -U*U31 72111/27 16 40 0.2,30 1 (0 54 V.Qk6 .0.014 0.035 io 10, u.-29u 0 39,U AJ,042 %).Oil #@ . 0 2 .5 -6 @7 0 (1 1 (1 C.026 u.022 73@ 2/)3 Q_ 11 7j/()3/03 Q 1 50 9.35U U.e6j 0.039 i)9466 o.u2u U.210 0*370 4-.050 u , OU9 O.U25 ?V94/29 12 39 a 1.470 fj 0 0 10 U. to4i) 74/05/13 1.5 25 0.1,54 0.424 OoVli 0*011 0. @ 4D 73/U6/14 ..09 00 (#.O@q A. b60 a 0 U.JubK 1) . to -$ 0 j / 0' b'/' 2 6 @l S I O.Q23 J.04?7 U 14 1j.04U U?@ 4-5 .@/_ 14 9 4) .4 7 5 0*030 u.-u37 U0006 O.b4O 73/08/i2 07 30 ii - 9 10 e, 0,40iu u.007 Q.UUDK U.040 74/0-4/04 1@ io-I 3.017 0 q $;oo 31334- U*Q07 0 .,j:5 j Q s 13? ut 6 to 3 C1 1.0V 6 -YAWC, KNOWN TQ 4C @KT@ T"A" NUC-ATF-6 STORET RETRIEVAL DAfE 75/02/,14 261OA2 LS261UA2 44 37 UO.U Obb 10 00.0 OETSIE RIVER is FRANKFUHT I/riEf@:.IE LAKE .2S MI BELU LEWIS BROG 6LLOBENZONIA STP IIEPALES 2111204 .4 0000 FtET DEPTH 00633 00625 3ublO 00671 Utibo-3 DATE TIME DEPTH NO2&NO3 TOT KJEL ,4H3-N PmOS-uI5 PmOt),-TOT FRUM OF N-TOTAL N TUTAL U14THU TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L #3 72/10/29 10 25 0.87o 011500 0. 12U 0.005K 0.016 72/11/27 16 54 U.280 0*420 .0.015 0.005K o.ull 72/12/29 10 25 0.273 1.760 0.2bU O.OUSK U-017 73/02/03 08 ?5. 0.2i2 0.5010 U.049 O.UU6 0.010 -73/03/03 08 10 0.300 U.250 0.636 0 . ooir( 0.615 73/04/08 12 00 0.210 0.490 O.C.50 0.007 J.02u 73/04/29 12 34 0.126 20100 0.0b.3 J.OU7 (j.u2o 73/05/13 15 00 (i.130 0.480 o - o 2,e 0.005K 0.02s 73/06/14 09 12 0.094 0.7!jS O.u35 (j.ou5K 0.035 73/06/26 22 05 U.120 0.5au U.020, 0.010 0.(J3@ 73/07/14 08 00 0.120 0.520 ).u65 0.00-3K 0.02@ 73/0d/12 U7 45 6.126 0.370 ou.02j 0.005K O.U25 73109/08 16 25 (J-200 0 . t-60 0.0se 0 . 005K o.u2Q K VALUE KNOWN TO :@E LESS THAN INDICATE,) ST ORE I kLTRI-EVAL UATE 1-3/U2/v4 2h I J A 3 44 .31 00,.0, 086 117 ju,0 oETblE k1lkq 2b lb FRANKFUkT f/bETSIE LAKE vt3ENZONIA S.TiJ b 1.21@ W ST hWV. ll'!Di At%O@ LIEVALES 211 12'04 4 DEPTrf 0000 FLLT 00630 0662i 6(,610 (JO671 a0bbi -IOT UATE TIME DEPTi wU2&N03 TOmf KJEL fdH,.j-N PHUS70 th PHJb N ORTm0 VROM OF N-TOTAL, TOTAL TO DAY FEET MGIL MG/L M1.v/L M(P/L P MG/L P 72/11/27 17 05 0.260, 0 . 3 rs@j 0;. 0 01 U030SK 0. U 12 7@/ 121 2q 10 30- O .2,30@ 0-*340 i),..(J,4-%i 0 O'DK ?3/dj2/0J 08 35 0 . 2-, U . 544 -4.u33, 4).00tiK O.UiO -73/0 3/0 3, 08 20 0.3uu .0.?4@1 &.UJ4 O.,J05K o.u t5 73/04/08 12 15 0.2i0 0.420 3.050 O. J0 7 0.0 I 7 3/ s) 4/ 2'1 12 45 u.. 13h U1980 3.0512, i:v. 0 u 7 00029 73/05/ 13 15 05, 0.132 &. 400 U.04,1 O.UU6 @f.rog!@) 73/05/14 09 20 6.1,10 0.740 i#.&]4e 0.005K o.uJ2 73/oo/2o 22 16, 0,147 1 .,ri.30 i:. U.3 3 O.ull u. ii 30 13/01/1. 6 a lo. 0. l2p) O . 4 ') 0 U. J115? J.005K 0.u2s 73,'48/14 98 00 O .@ 1 32 O:i?5 0.327 0. ) 30 U.U.6u 73/09/Oa Lb 15 6.,132,. a.# b@ 4.. JO.) K V.@Jd 73/10/03 i8 55 00140 it.,62U t,.De7 J.00-1:K Ai . 2 K VALUE KNOWN Tu- 6r: LESS THAN@INUIUJEU STORET RETRIEVAL UATE 75/02/04 Ls 2b1081 .0 086 08 J0.0 44 39 00 UNNAMED jUTLLT CRYSTAL LAKE 2b 15 FRANKFURT 1/8ETSIE LAKE ST HWY 115 swu(; 1.75 ml W 6ENZONIA > 11EPALES 2111204 4 0000 FEET DEPTH 00630 00625 00610 00671 0.0665 DATE TIME DEPTH NU2SNO3 TOT KJEL WH3-N ptiOS-015 PHOS-TOT FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL URTHO TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P 72/11/27 16 30 0.048 0.390 .'-0.014 0.005K 0.008 72/12/29 09 50 0.070 1.540 .0.025 0.005K 0.005r, 73/02/03 08 00 0.075 0.520 - 0.020 0.005K 0.005K 73/03/03 07 45 0.069 0.120 0 017 u.005K 0.005K 73/04/08 11 15 0.062- 0.140 0:0113 0.005K 0.005K 73/04/29 12 35 0.048 0.650 0.028 0.QU5K 7j/05t/13 15 35 0.054 1.050 0.0b2 0.005K 0.010 73/06/14 08 50 0.013 0.63u U.037 0.005K o.ulu 73/06/26 21 38 0.017 0.5,+0 O.U27 0.006 O.UO6 73/07/14 07 30 0.01b 0.260 6.0 3ts 0.005K O.OOL@K 73/08/12 07 20 0.010K 0.420 0.016 0.005K U.010 73/09/08 16 50 0.014 1.200 O.u77 0.007 00010 73/10/03 18 00 0.021 1.150 0.020 3.005K 0,UOSK K VALUE KNOWN TU BE LESS THAN INDICATED :iTjkET RETRIEVAL 041@-75/02/uft O"qzb IV 50 Pooj545 4@ 37 00.0 08b 10 ELdExTA ebL63 It) FRA.%(%fU-4T -)IE LAKE. WoEl. uET'Sit, LAKL I IL,ALES 214121)4. 4, 0000 FEET DEPTr, oub3i 00625 006N 0()6711 oubbs 50051 t3,0053 UATE FINE DEPTti iNO2&NO3 TOT' KJEL NHj-N PHOS-DIS PmOS-TJT FLUw- CUNUUIT FROM OF N-TUTAL h TUfAL OR T lit), RA-TE FLOWI@MGU TO UAY FEET Mla/L MG/L M-i/L MG/L P M(i/L P INST HGO MUN I HL I 73/Q.1/29 08 10 1.500 15.000 1.370, 2.400 4.20G 0,-- 14 7 u.-I.J2 @73/02/U 08 00 CP M@ 1000 24.000 [email protected] 4.00.0 1.0.0- Q.,12-9 U.139 > 711021Z8 17 010 1 13/06/05 08 0-0 1-4 CP (-T) - I- . 5 04 22.000 41.JQJ 3.zqo 6.600 0.140 U-13-4 73/0@4/05 13 0.0 73tvS/14 08 00 cp(T)- 0.994) 1.4-400. (0,150 4.140 -.i.,700, Q, L12 0.1,39 73/45/14 17 60, 73/,4.6/04. 08 00 CPL(jl@ 1,570. 20.00V- 3.,760 3.OQU @1:- N 0 0. 1 tis Lt. L41 7'3/ub/0,4@ 17 00 73/07tIZ 07 0.0 CP I..,.5,.,o 16.,aqG. 1:06Ji 2.Auo S. 43 J 4. Lb5. 0. Lov 7r3tO U-1je i 7 Oa 73/109/49, 08 00 ce 44 "). - 5.@4U@d. 1,4..30U. 3-.134,(,, 2',4 0 4 6.,;)J0, 0.11lu 7 3 / 0 19 17- 00, 73/10-kisl- 0 8@ 00 cv, ("t) - U,.Ujor, d.. 6 U, 3.30@ 4.4UO- 1) I-J-0 oz.1t05 7@W-14/48 17 00 73411 Zt) 0,9: 00 crl-M U-b44 19.5,4-0 2.3to 2.97tj !i..OQO,- 0 7'3.f 1,1/2 b. U iltk, 74403/1-2 09 00 CP4 T I 2.,O%iQ. 1-111. (J-0 Q !J.2ft. C,,Uj-@ -zo . W v- 74IN-V 12 lb- 00 74/t)4/al; u 9 00, CP (,T).- 1. 3 u etm. Lkc,t, 3.. 4 ee4eva- 4.-O-J l)-. 14 b V:.44,3- 74/04/2*1 1,6 04) 74tQ5421 1.4 30 1',24.0.-, 2 Z-. U-04 -.Ov4; 3@P,[email protected]. [email protected], 20 -7 7@- c-.tpe 2!- 15@ ao,- k-AA6 S.,-49, u GA. 5, k,ew -vwtkolr a.jd-@Wd, UL.,Ob@ Ilk Aj :iT3REl rfETklEVAL DATE 75/02/u4 261051 PR261USI P001756 44 38 00.0 086 10 00.0 FRANKFORT 26 15 FRANKFORT U/dETSIE LAKE OETSIE LAKE IIEPALES 2141204 4 FEET DEPTH 00630 00625 00610 00671 0066-3 50051 50053, DATE TIME DEPTH W024,NO3 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS-UIS PHOS-TUT FLOW CONUUIT FROM OF N-TOTAL N-, TOT AL OR filu RATE FLOw-MGU TO UAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L.P INST MGD- MONTHLY 73/61/25 Utl 00 CP(Tl- 1.50o 14.900 2.100 3.100 6.860 0.513 0.420 73/01/25 17 00 63/u2/12 dd 00 CP(T)- 1.700 24.000 3.700 3-100 7.500 0.394 0.464 73/02/12 05 00 73/03/06 U8 00 > CP(Tj- 1.500 20.ooo 1.470 le. 900 8.3ou 0.472. 0.406 73/03/06 17 00 73/04/lb 08 30 CPIT)- 0.9bo 17.000 1 bo 2.600 5.960 0.4ad 0.474 73/0%/16 16 IS 73/05/21 06 00 CP(T)- 1.000 31.uOU ?.400 4.300 lu.040 6.516 t).400 73105121 1 ty 30 73/06/29 08 30 CP(T)- 1.000 24.000 6.100 3.4UO 0.86U 0.4J7 0.474 7j/Oo/29 16 30 73/07/10 08 00 CP(Tl- 0.01d 32.600 3.040 7.500 13.501 0.328 0.368 73/07/10 16 30 73/06/06 J8 30 0.13() 22.030 J.400 3.t,20 7.000 0.,*,)2 0.431 73/tid/0i 16 00 7-s/u-)/10 08 15 Ck i T) - U.110 26.OuO 4.t-03 @o.70u 0.3bd 0.,.38 73/09/10 16 30 73/ju/06 06 30 cr; I I I - 0.2-ju 26.30v 6.-Oc 1(0. 0au J.JF7 u.33b 73/lu/Ob 1(3 45 73/11/U5 Cd 15 Cj I T) - 0.130 27.00J 7.,k)O 4) u [email protected] V.j3l 7j/li/oj 16 40 7@/12/07 Od 20 COM- 1.260 25.zf)u J.V00 !).nul, IV.-Z)OU a.-Jo G.317 7311d107 .0 k.ETRIEVAL OA7TE-75/0.2/U4 2t) I u ti I er(2-6.1,05 I P00175-0 44 id ou.-O -Cti6 1"o 00- 0 -E LAKE ul dt T::@ I 0EISIE LAKL I:IEPALL!z fO.000 FEET UEPTH 00630 - 0.0625 y j blo, 000A '00ob-i 5.0051 SI)atla DAT E TIME bEPT-Pi NU2.aN.03 JOT -1(.JEL N.h@i-N' I'L U ,FRPM OF N-JUTAL N JVLAL vramo. RALt -FLU*@M" ,TO DAY F.E-ET kiG/L MG/L k..3.4L AQ/L P MU/L P INST 'M66 :MUNIMLY 74/41/-IU. 30 7,4/ 0 1 10 16 45 0,.-440 21.0-0.0 1 4,010 d Q, 0 lu".@Sov Jtl 1 7 1 @j EPA FRAINUORT, RARBOR BOTTOM.,SEDIMENT DATA- -1972 and 1975 Ofg/Kg-bry Weight) Solids Tot. Station (Percent) Chem, Oxy Kj e 1 Tot. Oil@& Total Number Year Composition Total Tot. Vol Demand Nit Phos Grease I. Iron Phenol Mercury Lead Zinc 1 1972 100% org. silt 26.6 21.5 310,000 5,600 680 _3,000 17,000 900 2 1975 87% silt 18.1 24.6 420,000 11,000 1,200 2,200. 19,000 -e-l 68 130 3 1975 81% silt 17.@' 28.9 400,000 101,000 68C6 2,100 18,000 .1 .22 56 4 1975 48% silt 49.1 6.69: 100,000 2,500 270 500 290 .1 27 334 47% sand 5 1972 100% silt 30.8 17.3 240,000 5,500 -910 2,100 16,0 00 0,200 6 1975 72% silt 30.2 16.6 230,000 6,100 800. 1,100 15,000 1 66 93 7 1972 100% sand 83.0 0.2 550 290 4 5 230 2,600 22 - - 8 1975 51% sand 67.6 2.32 32,000 760@ 180. 400 140 < .1 < 10 18 43% silt 9 1972 90% sand 79.1 .7 9,900 200 97 290 2,700 4.0 10 1972 95% sand 78.8 .7 5,800 180 56 300 1,600 4.0 11 1972 100% sand 82.4 .4 360 20 37 270 1,600 CORPS OF ENGINEERS US ARM N 19: PARK AVIE VAR FR A @N K FORT BENZIE COUNTY LEMANAW L A *WE- is C.S. LSJ 009"aw Limit of P'S' C6 a realwal Pre've? it z Z6 z PPOJECr UAKCA -.1 r ogp;o crl L 24 'Roger 01PI'm Aw AMJfCr #ArP 11 3TV 3 f is ANN JITTtffs a 41 311 A:?' 1 230' 33 STW PROTICTIGIN CAMADA SAW SIL to MICHIGAN 40 A M C H G A N RA .4 LEGEND :t WATERFRONT OWNERSHIP loomm.. SHOWN THUSM HEAVILY POLLUTED 1. Am Arbw R.R. car ferry slips 2. City dock 3. Luedilke Engineer" Co. UNPOLLUTED MICHtGAPI 01-4/ 4. Ed Olson 8 Co. S. Jacobson Marine F@ Sediment Sampling Stations cariand Marine Service Iand Harbor Status NOTES Prajvc@ deptno.soundings and alo"km am, referred to tnternorlonal Great Lake Datton 11955) for Lake Michigan, VICINITY MAP US I orm.LAC Elevati 1 .0. M= Wal. LIM f%tWU' .1 Paw. O"b". F.. a" "Cat" Staft Routs ]FRAN'RFORT H4RBOR. C. S. (caution Sign) 111ICHIGAIN 0 P.S. (Poj*ct Idwilficatiols Stan SWMQ' ine, Cable In 4 thoots Shoot No. I or Scale of Feet MIS ARMY ENGINEER- DISTRICT. DETROIT -Y A-18 CORPS OF ENGINEER U. S. ARMY LEELANAU AV E. L A K E ST. 2 z El EO M F-1 I XCITY DOCK.'.* 1 1 1-62 0 1 LAKE I I.- & -T 2-58 3*-59 59 3-5 -0-- BErslE L--58 N N MICHIGAN FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 1962. LOCATION OF. BORINGS SCALE OF FEET 500 0 500 1500 ------------ U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT A- VISUAL COLOR'- -OR, RELATIVE. DENSITY CONSISTENCY GRAIN- SIZE IDE NTIFICAT'10N. MINOlt MATERIAL- MA'JOW MATERIAL @UNIFIED SOL CLASSIFICATION 4k CW 0, SAMPLE NUMOER , R)fl > w Z 0 M,C '(HIN WALL z SAMPLE LBOTTLE. SAMPLie r rn X NO@ RECOVERY LINER SAMPLE, a < CD- rrl r G): - 4 X, z z oc, CORPS OF ENGINEERS U. S. ARMY BORING NO. 1-62 BORING NO. 2-62 A 13 APRIL 1962 13 APRIL 1962 D. EL. 576.8' 1-.WD. EL. 576.8' 0.0, L. P LOCATION: LOCATION: 3 SO' S. and 220' S. and 20' W. from 5 2 0' E. from S W Corner of Ct SW Corner of City Dock. City Dock . (ON) (OH)L LOOSE LOOSE SANDY SILT, SILT, ORGANIC 15.0, -ORGANIC (ON) Irs.e 12 (ON) 17.d t0 SAMPLEWPUSHED TO DEPTH OF 22.0'WITHOUT ENCOUNTERING LOOSE ANY SOLID MATERIAL. SILTY ZO.5@ -SANO, FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN ORGANIC SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 1962 n3 LOG OF BORINGS 1"SAMPLER PUSHED TO DEPTH OF Z5.0' WITHOUT ENCOUNTERING U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICTDETROIT ANY SOLID MATERIAL. SCALE, 1"t3.0' A-21 GUIDELIN ES FOR THE POLLUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GREAT LAKES HARBOR SEDIMENTS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PR6TECTION AGENCY REGION V CHICAGO, ILLINOIS April, 1977 A-22 Guidelines for the evaluation of Great Lakes harbor sediments, based on bulk sediment analysis, have been developed by Region V of 'the U.S. Environmentai ProtectionAgency. These guidelines, developed under the pressure of the need to make immediate decisions regarding the disposal of dredged material, have not been adequately related to the impact of the sediments on the lakes and are considered interim guide- lines until.. more scientifically sound guidelines are developed. The guidelines are based on the following facts and - assumptions; 1. Sediments that have been severely altered by the act1vities of man are most likely to have adverse environmental impacts. 2. The variability of the sampling and analytical techniques is such that the assessment of any sample must be based on all factors and not on any single parameter with the exception of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's). 3. Due to the documented bioaccumulation of mercury and PBC's, rigid limitations are used which override all other considerations. Sediments are classified as heavily polluted, moderately polluted, or nonpolluted by evaluating each parameter measured against the scales shown below. The overall classification of the sanple is based on the most predominant classification of the individual parameters. Audi- tional factors such as elutriate test results, source of contamination particle size distribution, benthic macroinvertebrate populations, color, and odor are also considered. These factors are interrelated in a complex manner and their interpretation is necessarily showewhat subjective. The following ranges used to classify sediments from Great Lakes harbors are based on compilations of data from over 100 different harbors since 1967. NONPOLLUTED MODERATELY POLLUTEL HEAVILY POLLUTED Volatile Solids (%) <5 5 - 8 >8 COD (mg/kg dry weight) <40,000 40,000-80,000 >80,000 TKN <1,000 1,000-2,000 >2,000 Oil and Grease <1,000 1,000-2,000 >2,000 (Hexane Solubles) (mg/kg dry weight) Lead (mg/kg dryweight) <40 40-60 >60 Zinc <90 90-200 >200 The following supplementary ranges used to classify sediments from Great Lakes harbors have been developed to the point where they are usable but are still subject to modification by the addition of new data. these ranges are based on 260 samples from 34 harbors sampled during 1974 and 1975. NONPOLLUTED M0DERATELY POLLUTED HEAVILY POLLUTED Ammonia (mg/ kg dry weight) <75 75-200 >200 Cyanide <0.10 0.10-0.25 >0.25 Phosphorus <420 420-650 >650 Iron <17,000 17,000-25,000 >25,000 Nickel <20 20-50 >50 Manganese <300 300-500 >500 Arsenic <3 3-8 >8 Cadmium * * >6 Chromium <25 25-75 >75 Barium <20 20-60 >60 Copper <25 25-50 >50 *Lower limits not established The guidelines stated below for mercury and PCB's are based upon the best available information and are subject to revision is new Information becomes available. Methylation of mercury at levels > mg/kg has been documented (1,2). Methyl mercury is directly available for bioaccumulation in the food chain. Elevated PCB levels in large fish have been found in all of the Great Lakes. The accumulation patbways are not well understood. However, bioaccumulation of PCB's at levels > 10 mg/kg in fathead minnows has been documented (3). Because of the known bioaccumulation of these toxic compounds, a rigid limitation is used. If the guideline values are exceeded, the sediments are classified as polluted and unacceptable for open lake disposal no matter what the other data indicate. POLLUTED Mercury > 1 mg/kg dry weight Total PCB's > 10 mg/kg dry. weight A-24 The pollutional classification of sediments with total PCB concentrations between 1.0 mg/kg and 10.0 mg/kg dry weight will be determined on a case-by-case basis. a.' Elutriate test results. The elittriat& test was designed to simulate the dredging and disposal process. In the test, sediment and dredging site water are mixed in the ratio of 1:4 by volume. The mixture is shaken foi 30 minutes., allowed to settle for 1 hour, centrifuged, and filtered through a 0.45 1i filter". The filtered water (elutriate water) is then chemically analyzed. L sample of the dredging site water used in the elutriate test is filtered i:hruugh a 0.45 P filter and chemically analyzed. A comparison of the elutriate water with the filtered dredging site water for like constituents indicates whether a constituent was or wis not released in the test. The valae of elutriate test results are limiteu t"ot- ovorall pollutio'lal classificat.ton because they reflect only immediate release to the water colurim under aerobic and near neutral pH conditions. However, elurriate test testA.ItS con be used to confirm releases of toxic materials and to influence decisions where bulk sediment results are marginal between t1q0 classifications. If there is release or non-release, particularly of a more toxic constituent, the elutriate test results can shift the classi- fication roward the more polluted or the less polluted range, respectively. b. Soun-ce of sediment contamination. In many cases the sources of sediment contamination are readily apparent. Sediments reflect the inputs of paper mills, steel mills, sewage discharges, and heavy industry very faithfully. Many sediments may have moderate or high concentrations of TKN, COD, and volatile solids yet exhil@it no evidence of man made pollution. This usually occurs when drainage from a swampy area reaches the channel or harbor, or when the project itself is located in a low lying wetland area. Pollution in these projects may be considered natural and some leeway may be given in the range values for TKN, COD, and volatile solids provided that toxic materials are not also present. c. Field observations. Experience has shown that field observations are a most reliable indi- cator of sediment condition. Important factors are color, texture, odor, presence of detritus, and presence of oily material. Color. A general guideline is the lighter the color the cleaner the sediment. There are exceptions to this rule when natural deposits have a darker color. These conditions are usually apparent to the sediment sampler during the survey. Texture. A general rule is the finer the material the more polluted' it.is. Sands and gravels usually have low concentrations of pollutants while silts usually have higher concentrations. Silts are frequently carried from polluted upstream areas, whereas, band usually comes from lateral drift along the shore of the lake. Once again, this general rule can have exceptions and it must be applied with care. Odor. This is the odor noted by the sampler when the sample is collected. These odors can vary widely with temperature and observer and must be used carefully. Lack of odor, a beach odor, or a fishy odor tends to denote cleaner samples. Detritus. Detritus may cause higher values for the organic parameters COD, TKN, and volatile solids. It usually denotes pollution from natural sources. Note: The determination of the "naturalness" of a sediment depends upon the establishment of a natural organic source and a lack of man made pollution sources with low values for metals and oil and grease.. The presence of detritus is not decisive in itself. Oily material. This almost always comes from industry or shipping activities. Samples showing visible oil are usually highly, contaminated if chemical results are marginal, a notation of oil is grounds for declaring the sediment to be polluted. d. Benthos. Classical biological evaluation of benthos is not applicable to harbor or channel sediments because these areas very seldom support a well balanced population. Very high concentrations of tolerant organisms indicate organic contamination but do not necessarily preclude open lake disposal of the sediments. A moderate concentration of oligochaetes or other tolerant organisms frequently characterizes an acceptable sample. Tile worst case exists when there is a complate lack or very limited number of organisms. This may indicate a toxic condition. in addition, biological results must he interpreted in light of the habitat provided in the harbor or channel. Drifting sand can be a Veil harsh habitat which may support only a few organisms. Silty material, on the other hand, usually provides a good habitat for sludgeworms, leeches, fingernail clams, and perhaps, amphipods. Material that is frequently disturbed by ship's propellers provides a poor habitat. REFERENCES 1. Jensen, S., and Jernelov, A., "Biological Methylation of Mercury in Aquatic Organisms," Nature, 223 August 16, 1969 pp 753-754. 2. Magnuson, J.J. Forbes, A., and Hall, R., "Final Report - An Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Dredged Material. DispeIsal in Lake Superior - Volume 3: Biological Studies," Marine Studies,Center, 4 University of Wisconsin, Madison, March, 1976. 3. Halter, M.T., and Johnson, H.E., "A Model System to Study the Release of PCB from Hydrosoils and Subsequent Accumulation by Fish," presented to American Society for Testing and Materials, Symposium on Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation," October 25-26, 1976, llemphis,, Tennessee JI APPENDIX B VEGETATION AND FAUNA DATA Phytosociology of an Old-Field Succession NORTHSHORE OF BETSIE LAKE Frankfort, Michigan Table J-2. Partial List of Plants, Site 9(1-3), Fife Lake State Forest Table K-1, Status-of Wildlife as of 1970,Northern Lower Michigan List of the Common and Scientific Names of the Flora and Fauna Included in the Text of the EIS Biological Survey of Lake Betsie Benzie County, Michigan (MDNR 1966) Benthic Animals from Lake Betsie, Benzie County, Michigan (NDNR 1975) B-1 Pbytosociology I of,on Qld-fie14 Succession NORTH SHORE OF BE.TSIE LAKE Frankfort, Michigan Benzie County: T26N, R16W., Sec. ?7 - NE 1/4 July 9. 1977 Location- North Shore ofBetsie Lake Elevation. M,); ca. Geology: Post"Glacial Lake Basin Topographic Position: Shoreline Slope and Exposure: 0 SW Drainage Condition; Poor to Well Ground Water Table, (ft.,):. 6+ Soil, Type: Fill Land Use: pump Waste Assimilation Capacity-, Egtremely Unsuitable Pl qt N.G. 1 2. 3 4 Plot Si:Zq (1/lIQ acre)(ft.):- 6'0@ 60 66 x 66 66 x 66, 66 x 66, Shrub Stratum,-.. Crown Closure M 3 3 15 5D Height (ft.). a to. 15 Salix interior (S@4ndbar-willow). t + Z 3; Sal i x (amyg4a 11 Qi de's + + Z (Peach-16af wtlJow) Solix gl@aucophyl IoidLes (6, t W, 4 i. ; @ 1) 1 upg' , i. ow + @Oljx (petiol,ari s). ('Wi l1ow)- + + Sambu,@q,s ca+nadppsjs, (Comon, Elder)" + Herbaceous, Stratum: Crown ClGsure M. 55 50 40: M Height (ft.) 0.5 to 4.1 Ci,rsium vul-gare (Bull. Thist1e) 3@ f. 2 f. +f Oenothera hiepni-s (EY'ening-Primrose), 2 f.. I f@.' I f. Lychnis alba (White Campion) 1 f.+fr. 2 f.+fr. +f. + Chenopodium album (Goosefoot) 2 3 1 + Melilotus alba (Sweet-Clover) 2 f. 2 f. + Convolvulus sepium (Bindweed) 2 f. I f.: +f. Berteroa incana (Hoary Alyssum) 3 f. I f. + Potentilla anserina (Silver Cinquefoil) 1 f. +f., +f. Daucus carota (Wild Carrot) +f. 1 f. + Agrostis stolonifera (Creeping Bent) +f. +f. +f. Arctium minus (Burdock) 2 + 1 Solanum dulcamara (Nightshade) +f. +f. +f. Plantago major (Plantain) +f.+fr. If.+fr. Plantago lanceolata (Plantain) +f. +f. Verbascum thapsus (Mullein) 1 f. +f. Saponaria officinalis +f. +f. (Bouncing get) Solidago (rugosa)(Goldenrod) + 1 Barbarea vulgaris (Winter Cress) +f.+fr. +f.+fr. Polygonum persicaria (Smartweed) + + Trifolium repens (Clover) +f. + Panicum (oligosanthes)(Panic Grass)+fr. +fr Euphorbia cyparissias (Spurge) +f.+fr. + Rumex crispus (Curly Dock) + fr. Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Ragweed) + Equisetum arvense (Horsetail) + 2 Asclepias syriaca (Milkweed) +f. + Thlapsi arvense (Penny Cress) lf.+fr. +fr. Solidago canadensis/altissima (Goldenrod) - + 1 Urtica dioica (Stinging nettle) - + 1 1 Solidago graminifolia (Goldenrod) - + + + Scirpus acutus (Hardstem Bulrush) - 1 fr. +fr. Leonurus cardiaca (Motherwort) - +f. + Sisymbrium altissimum (Tumble Mustard) B - 3 Melilotus officinalis (Sweet-Clover) +f. Juncus effusus (Rush) +fr. Juncus nodosus (Rush) +fr. Carex (comosa) (Sedge) +fr. Adjacent Species: Poa pratensis (f.)(Kentucky Bluegrass) Glyceria (canadensis)(f.) (Rattlesnake Gross) Agropyron repens (f.)(Quack Grass) Bromus erectus (f.)(Brome Grass) Ground Stratum: Ground Cover (%) 5 1+0 25 5 Height (ft.) 0.1 Fill (%) Exposed 45 40 40 30 Equisetum (scirpoides)(Horsetail) 1 2 3 1 ---------- Cover values and notations for species: + - >1%; 1 - 1% to 5%; 2 - 6% to, 25%; 3-26% to 50%; 4 - 51% to 75%; 5 76% to, 100%. Fr. fruit; f. flower. B-4 Table J-2. Partial List of Plants, Site 9(1-3), Fi fe Lake State Forest August 23, 1977. Site 9 Area Presence Species Vascular Plants 1, 2, 3 St. John's-wort, Hypericum perforatum L. 1, 2, 3 Strawberry, Fragaria virginiana Duchesne 1, 2, 3 Hawkweed, Hieracium aurantiacum L. 1, 2, 3 Witch Grass, Panicum capillare L. 1, 2, 3 Black Raspberry, Rubus occidentalis L. 1, 2, 3 Staghorn Sumac, Rhus typhina L. 1, 2, 3 Black Cherry, Prunus serotina Ehrh. 1, 2 Juneberry, Amelanchier (spicata) (Lam.) k. koch 1, 2 Elm, Ulmus americana L. 1, 3 'Star Thistle, Centaurea maculosa Lam. 1, 3 Milkweed, Asclepias syri,aca L. 1, 3 Cinquefoil, Potentilla recta L. 1, 3 Pearly Everlasting, Anaphalis margaritacea (L.) Benth. & Hook. 1 Hairy Vetch,Vicia villosa Roth 1 Sheep Sorrel, Rumex acetosella L. I Black Spruce, Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P. I White Spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss I Apple, Pyrus Malus L. 2 Witch Hazel, Hamamelis virginiana L. 2 Sugar Maple, Acer saccharum Marsh 2' Basswood, Tilia americana L. 2 Ironwood, Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) k. koch 2 White Ash, Fraxinus americana L. 3 Hawkweed, Hieracium longipilum Torr. 3 Hawkweed, Hieracium floribundum Wimmer & Grab. B-5 Lichens and Mossesl 1, 2, 3 Cladonia cristatella Tuck (3) 1, 2, 3 Cladonia chlorophaea (Flk.) Spreng. (2) 1, 2, 3 Cladonia gracilis (L.) Will& (2) 1, 2, 3 Cladonia mitis Sandst. (1) 1, 2, 3 Cladonia rangiferina Wigg. 1, 2, 3 Cladonia subtenuis (Abb.) Evans (+) 1, 3 Cladonia caespiticia (Pers.) Floerke (I) 1, 3 Cladonia pleurota (Floerke) Schaer. (1) 1, 3 Cladonia coniocraea (Floerke) Spreng. (+) 1, 3 Cladonia fimbriata (L.) Fr. (+.) 1, 3 Cladonia nemoxyna (Ach.) Nyl. (+) 1, 3 Cladonia uncialis (L.) Wigg.(+) 1, 2, 3 Candelaria concolor (Dicks.) B Stein (2) 1, 2, 3 Parmelia aurulenta Tuck. (2) 1, 2, 3 ParMelia rudecta Ach. (2) 1, 2, 3 Parmelia sulcata Tayl.(2) 1, 2, 3 Parmelia carperata (L.) ach(1) 1, 2, 3 Physcia millegrana Degel. (1) 1,,3 Pyxine sorediata (Ach.) Mont. (+) 1 Stereocaulon tomentosum Fr.(+) 1, 2, 3 Polytrichum piliferum HedW. (3) 2 Dicranum polysetum Sev. 2 Thuidium delicatum (Hedw.) BSG 1 Cover values are given for the lichens and mosses occurring on Site 9-1, as: + - 0 to 1%; 1 - 1 to 5%; 2 - 6 to 25%; 3 - 26 to 50%; 4 - 51 to 75%;5- 76%+. TABLE K-1 STATUS OF WILDLIFE AS OF 1@70 Northern Lower Michigan Planning Subarea 2,4--Michig2n Class and Species Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Decreasing Black Bear Low Decreasing Turkey Low Increasing WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Geese Medium Increasing SMALL,GAME Cottontail Rabbit High Stable Ring-necked Pheasant Low Stable Ruffed Grouse High Increasing Gray Squirrel Medium Increasing Fox Squirrel Medium Increasing Snowshoe Rare Low Decreasing Woodcock High Increasing Mourning Dove Medium Stable Bobwhite Quail Low Decreasing FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Decreasing Mink Medium Stable Beaver High Stable Weasel Medium Stable Raccoon High Increasing Otter Low Decreasing Skunk High Increasing Opossum Medium Increasing Badger Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck, Medium Stable Porcupine Low Decreasing Red Fox Medium Stable Bobcat Low Decreasing Crow High Increasing Raven Low Stable R-7 Table K-1 Cont'd Class and Species Density Trend Notes Red Squirrel Medium Increasting Coyote Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED (S)1 Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Decreasing American Osprey(S) Low Decreasing Missaukee and Osceola Counties Kirtlands Warbler(E) Low Stable Eastern Pigeon Hawk(S) Rare Transient UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3 Sandhill Crane Low Increasing Spruce Grouse Low Decreasing Golden Eagle Rare Transient Sharp-tailed Grouse Low Decreasing Lower Peninsula 1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and souther subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 4Modified from Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix 17, Wildlife. 1975. B-8 LIST OF THE COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC. NAMES OF THE FLORA AND FAUNA INCLUDED IN THE TEXT OF THE EIS. The,species are arranged within the various groups as they are first given in the text. Speci.es observed during the field inventory reported for the project area are listed, unless otherwise (*) indicated. Vascular Plants Sugar Maple, Acer saccharum Marsh. Yellow Birch, Betula alleghaniensis Basswood, Tilia americana L. American Elm, Ulmus americana L. Black Cherry, Prunus serotina Ehrh. White Pine, Pinus strobus L. Hemlock, Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. Beech, Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. Aspen, Populus grandidentata Michx. and P. tremuloides White Birch, Betula papyrifera Marsh Black Spruce, Picea mariana (Mill.) Bsp Sandbar Willow, Salix interior Rowlee Peach-leaf Willow, S. amygdaloides Anderss. Dune Willow, S. glaucophylloides Fern. Apple, Pyrus Malus L. Bull Thistle, Cirsuim vulgare (Savi) Tenore Evening-primrose, Oenothera biennis L. White Campion, Lychnis alba L. Goosefoot, Chenopodium"album L. 13-9 Sweet-clover, Melilotus alba Desr. Hoary Alyssum, Berteroa incana (L.) DC. Mammals2 - White-taled Deer, Odocoileus virginianus Miller Deer Mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus Hoy and Kennicott Woodchuck, Marmota monax L. Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel, Citellus tridecemlineatus Mitchell Birds3 - Ruffed Grouse, Bonasa umbellus Blue Jay, Cyanocitta cristata Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Black-capped chickadee, Parus atricapillus Hairy Woodpecker, Dendrocopos villosus American Goldfinch, Spinus tristis Vesper Sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus Song Sparrow, Melospiza melodia Alder Flycatcher, Empidonax traillii Herring Gull, Larus argentatus Mute Swan, Cygnus olor Canada Goose, Branta canadensis Fishes3 - Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus Wilson *Round Whitefish, Prosopium cylindraceum Pallas *Rainbow Smelt, Osmerus mordax Mitchill Northern Pike, Esox lucius L. B-10 Carp, Cyprinus carpio,L. White Sucker, Catostomus commersoni Lacepede Black Bul.lhead, Ictalurus melas Rafinesque Brown Bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus Lesueur Green Sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque Yellow Perch, Perca flavescens Mitchill *Lake Trout, Salvel-inus namaycush Walbaum *Brown Trout, Salmo trutta L. *Steelhead, Salmo gairdneri Richardson Vascular plant nomenclature follows Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants of North- eastern United States and Adjacent Canada. D. Van Nos- trand Co., Inc., Princeton, N.J. viii + 810 p. 2 Mammal scientific names follow Burt, W.H. 1954. The Mammals of Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 287 p. 3 Scientific names for bi.rds are those of the American Ornithologists' Union (Check-List of North American Birds, 5th Edition). 4 Fish-nomenclature follows Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Res. Board,' Canada., ix + 966 P. A biological Survey of Lake Bettie, Benzie County, Michigan November 14-16, )966 This survey was conducted at the request of District Engineer, George F. Liddle, Jr. This survey commenced following receipt of complaints from several residents concerning the poor water quality of Bettie Lake. Commission biologist William C. Bryant and D. James Seeburger, made an investigation of Bettie Lake on November 14-16. The purpose of the survey was to determine the effects of local waste discharges on the physical.appearance and macroinvertebrate life in the lake. Several industrial and municipal waste discharges enter Lake Bettie. The known waste discharge sources were: 1) the Frankfort Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 2) the Elberta Wastewater Treatment Plant 3) the Pet Milk Company, and' 4) the Elberta Packing Company. Methods Quantitative collections of the bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrates were made by singl dredge hauls with a Poner dredge. U.S. Standard #30-mesh soil sieves were used, for sieving the samples which were then fixed with formalin and labeled. Organisms, were washed, sorted, identified and tabulated in the Lansing laboratory. Animals were assigned a tolerance status according to published accounts and past experience of the author. Tolerance status refers to the 'animal's relative ability to wtth stand and/or respond to adverse environmental conditions. individual tolerances are, generally derived from an animal's reaction to 'organic wastes and attendant 0xygen depletion. Tolerant status terms may generally be defined as: Tolerant - organisms that can withstand a variety of adverse environmental conditions and often respond by becoming more abundant while lets tolerant animals respond by becoming less abundant. Intolerant - organisms found only within a narrow range of optimum environmental conditions, rarely found in waters of poor quality. Facultative - organisms with the ability to survive over a wide range of conditions. They possess "medium" tolerance and often respond positively to moderate organic enrichment. Some aquatic animals independent of dissolved oxygen content ate included in this category by the author. in addition to tolerance status, the diversity of animals present in a given bentic community is significant. Irv general, pollutional communities are characterized by very low species diversity, while normal undisturbed communities contain many different species. The following information was recorded at each take sampling station: depth, surface water temperature, Secchi disk reading,bottom sedIment type and odor, and general observations. This information is included in Table 1. B-12 -2- Shoreline Observations The Elberta WWTP effluent enters the Betsie River at the M-22 highway bridge. The nearby downriver area had an abundant micro-biological slime growth. The Betsie River surface water temperature above the outfal) was 390 F. Station A(Figure 1) was located along the Lake Betsie shoreline near the Elberta WWTP. This area was relatively shallow, sluggish and showed signs of enrichment. The following animals were found on pieces of bark and wood; 2 physa snails, 3 sowbugs, 5 scuds, 2 dragonflies, and I mayfly. A concrete slab was covered with numerous aquatic sowbugs. Station B(Figure 1) was a small creek adjacent to 9th Street in'Frankfort. This creek had a clear effluent of about 20 gallons per minute. The biologists conducting this survey thought they could detect a slight septic odor but were u6- certain because the stream banks were covered with dense growths of nightshad which gave off an odor which masked other odors. Small amounts of biological slime growths were present. There were many aquatic sowbugs and scuds in the stream. Station C(Figure 1) was along the shore of Lake Betsie where the Frankfort WWTP discharge pipe enters the lake. No chorine odor was present. Light to thick deposit of cherry pits were noted along the shore east of the outfall. Abundant slime growths were found at least 90 yards east of the discharge. The shoreline was cluttered with old car bodies, stoves, concrete slabs and other junk. Station D(Figure 1) was located along the west ditch of Pet Milk Company. The waters of this ditch were black, very turbid and had a strong septic odor. The only animals present in the ditch were aquatic sowbugs and syrphid larvae(rat- tailed maggots). Station.E(Figure 1) was along the east discharge ditch of Pet Milk.Company. This ditch had an abundant slime growth and a strong septic odor. There was a large bed of-water-cress 15 yards upstream from Lake Betsie. Station F(Figure 1) was -at the shoreline area in front of Elberte Packing Company. Two discharge Pipes enter the lake in front of this plant. On November 14 1966 a 6 inch discharge pipe was discharging a dark brown waste which had a disiinct cider odor. Many Canadian geese were feeding in the area adjacent to the outfalls. Discussion The twenty-seven lake sampling station locations are shown in Figure 1. in order to facilitate interpretation of the macroinvertebrate findings of this survey the stati-6ns have been divided into six groups(area 1,-area 11, area 111, area IV, area V, and area VI) based on their proximity to various waste discharges and physica features of the lake. Stations in area I were in the deepest portion of the lake (20 to 22 feet). Those in area 11 were in 5 to 9 feet of water in the center portion of the lake those in area III-.(at,3.5 to 6 foot depth) were nearest to the Frankfort WWTP, those in area IV(at 2 to 5 foot depths) were in the vicinity of the Pet Milk Company's two discharge ditches, those in area V(5 foot depth were nearest to the Elberta Packing Company discharges and those in area VI(I-5 to 4.5 foot depth) were mid-lake in the relatively shallow eastern end. Station 27 was taken in the Betsie River above all municipal and industrial waste discharges. B-1k @j -3- Tabulation of the analysis of benthic fauna samples from all station s is presented in Table 2. From those data all other summaries and conclusions relative to the' benthic community are derived. Figure I graphically portrays the total number 0@# species collected as well as the number of species in each of the tolerance grouos- (intolerant, facultative, tolerant). Area I Stations I through 3: Benthic samples were taken in this area at depths between 20 and "22 feet. Bottom deposits were silt. sand and fibrous materials which had a slight septic sewage -1 odor. The Average number of animals per sauare foot was highest in area I due to the large populations of tolerant sludgeworms(TLibificidae) and tolerant midge larvae(Tendipes). Onlv two.other types of animals(scuds and damselflies) were found in this Area An extremely large number of tubificids(62,983/scuare foot) was found At station three. A preponderence of tubificid worms such as occurred at station three is indicative of poor water cuality. Of the nine species present in area 1, four were tolerant, four were faculative and one was intolerant(Figue 2). Area 11, Stations 4 through 7: Samples of the bottom"dwell ing animals in this area were taken f rom depths between ...ive and nine feet. Bottom deposits consisted-of sand, silt, organic debris -and plant detritus. The average number of macroinvertebrate animals per square foot was 204 of which tolerant tubificid worms(188/square foot) were the most abundant followed by midge larvae, amphipods and mayflies. Although a few intolerant amphipods(4)"and intolerant mayflies(2) were present, it was apparent that the water quality was similar to that in area 1. Of the nine species present in area 1, 4 were tolerant, 3 were facultative and 2 were intolerant. Area III Stations 8 throuth 13 Samp] es_of the bottom-dwelling animals in this 'area were taken at distances ranging from 15 to 90 yards from the Frankfort WWTP outfall. Bottom deposits consisted of silt, sludge, vegetative detritus, sand, relic ihells and detritu-t. At station 13 .the bottom sediments had a slight sewage odor. All samples were-collected between depths of 3-2L and 6 feet. The average number of-"animals per,square foot was 100 and of these 86% were tolerant tubificid worms and 14%,tolerant and facultative midge .larvae. The bottom fauna of area III was @simila r to that of area 11 except for the absence of all intolerant animals. Of the nine species present five were tolerant and four were facultative. Area IV Stations 14 through 19 Benthic samples in this area were taken between-35 and 80 yards off the two Pet Milk Company discharge ditches. Bottom depos'its'-consisted of relic shells, flne sand, silt, cherry pits and various types of deteitus. The water depth was between 2f and 5 feet. A slight sewage and/or septic odor was detected at stations 16 and 17. The benthic-macroinvertebrate population living in this area was dominated by tolerant tubificid worms-(75%) and tolerant and facultative midge larvae(25%). B-14 io -4- Of the nine species of animals present 4 were facultative, 5 were tolerant and none were intolerant. Area V Stations 20 throuigh 24 samples of the bottom-dwelling animAls were taken in this Area at distances ranging from 20 to 85 -ards off the Elberta Packing Company discharges at depths of 5 feet. Bottom sediments were silt, muck, sludge, fine sand, plant detritus and relic snail shells. The bottom sediments had moderate to strong septic odors at stations 20 through 23. The average number of benthic-macroinvertebrates was 77 per square foot. The dominate animals in area V were tolerant and facultative midge larvae(5r/.). Tubificid worms were the second most abundant animals(460/.). in area V there were 12 species which represents an increase of three over areas 1, 11, Ill. and IV. Of the 12 species present I was intolerant, 6 were facultative and 5 were tolerant Although there were more species present in this area. they were either tolerant or facultative which indicates that the water cuality had not improved substantially over the previously mentioned areas. Area VI Stations 25 and 26 Stations 25 and 26 were located near mid-lake in the relatively shaliow, southeastern portion of Lake Betsie. The bottom samples were collected from a depth of 1-21 and 4j feet. The bottom deposits consisted of sand, silt, and detritus. The average number of benthic animals per square foot was 133. Of these 71 were tolerant tubificid sworms and 59 tolerant or facultative midge larvae. This area was occupied by seven different species of which 4 were facultative and 3 were tolerant. Betsie River Control Station 27 A.Ponar dredge sample was taken midstream and other organisms were qualitatively collected along the river banks. The two samples were then combined to form one oual;tative sample for this station. The main river bed had a sand bottom while along the river banks there were rocks and silt deposits. The most abundant organisms were flatworms(Dugesia sp.), amphipods(Gammarus sp.), and mayflies(Heptagenia sp.). Sow bugs(Asellus militaris ) and snails(Physa sp.) were common in their occurance. Those organisms which were found only occasionally were leeches(Placobdella sp.), stoneflies(Isoperla sp,), Hemiptera(Corixdae), midge larvae(Tendipes sp.) and snails (PleuroceriTae). Those organisms which were found in only one location included mayflies(Baetisce laurentina), damselflies(Coenagrionidae), caddisflies(Noureclipsis) sp.). And Me-etles(Stenelmis sp.). Of the'15 species present 6 were intolerant. 5 were facultative and 4 were tolerant. This station had a healthy balanced macroinvertebrate fauna. Upon and within the bottom soils of a lake live large numbers of invertebrate animals. The many different types of bottom animals vary widely in their tolerance to pollution As wastes increase, a lake's bottom animals are 'eliminated in order of their sensitivety to the waste; the most sensitive organisms disappear first and the most tolerant ones, last. Usually mayflies, caddisflies and certain amphipods are the first to go, whereas sludgeworms and bloodworms can tolerate very heavy pollutional loads. A complete lack of bottom organisms indicates severe pollution and is often analogous to the absence of oxygen. 5 The physical and chemical changes produced by a wastewater outfall in a lake eliminates the organisms that require a clean habitat. At the same time these changes favor other organisms tolerat of these conditions. The elimination of sensitive predators and competitors makes life easier for the surviors. One of the most tolerant bottom organisms is the sludgeworm (Tubificidae), therefore their presence in large numbers, reflects poor water quality conditions. The result of this biological survey in Betsie Lake, show that the tolerant sludgeworms and bloodworms were the dominate organisms at all stations. Unlike other similar lakes in Michigan , a very limited number of species were found in those areas where one would expect a high diversity of species. Usually in the littoral zone one can find an abundance of mayflies, amphipods, and other intolerant forms but these were very sparce or completely lacking in Betsie Lake. From this survey it ws evident that the existing water quality could not support a balanced aquatic community. Summary and Conclusions 1. During November of 1966, aqyatuc biologists of the Michigan Water Resources Commission, appraised the macroincertebrate fauna in Betsie Lake. General shore- line observation were made in the vicinity of all known wastewater dicharges. 2. Known wastewater dicharges to Betsie Lake were: 1)the Frankfort WWTP, 2) the Elberta WWTO, 3)the Pet Milk Company, and 4)the Elberta Packing Company. 3. A total of 27 macroinvertebrate bottom samples were collected from six areas of the lake and one sample was collected from the Betsie River. 4. This biological survey showed that the tolerant sludgeworms and bloodworms were the dominate organisms at all lake stations. 5. A very limited number of species were found in those area where one would expect a high dicersity of species. Usually in the littoral zone one can find an abundance of mayflies, amphipods, and ohter intolerate forms but these were very sparce or completely lacking in Betsie Lake. 6. From the biological findings of this survey, it is evident that existing water quality cannot support a natural aquatic benthic community. i L..... .I [----J FR ANKFORT np 100 4 90 lie Area 1 129 20 6* E Area 111 170 Area.11 70 160 50 150 14* I Area I V 19 0 ....... ............................. Figure 1 20 024 926 21 t ..4 Area VI 023 MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION F BIOLOGICAL SURVEY. *22 025 rea V. OF LAKE BETSIE BENZIE COUNTY N c.3 NOV 14-16_1966 lo Benthic So"alpie stri. ELBERTA SCALE IN FEET Observotion pt. 10 0 Figure 2. Total number of species of bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrate animals and their tolermnce status. Lake Betsie, Benzie Countv, Michigan, November 11-14,1966 18 A D intolerant 14 Facultative 12 Toterant 10 Area I Arep 11 Are,% III 6 CL 4 0 2 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8, 9 1.0 11 1-2 13 18 16 be-tsie River 14 12 Arep IV 10 8 Area-V Area- VI' 6 U C1 %. 4 0 2 E 0 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 21 23 24- 25 26 27 B-18 TABLE 1. FIELD DATA AS RECORDED DIMING A BIOLOGICAL SOVIET OF BETSIE LAKE. BINZIE COtWVV. MICHIG", "OKIGER 14-16, 19". 50FACE SICCMI SAMPLIMIC WATER TU S. TYPE OF "'Th TEMP P STATION LOCATIOM @.L, I. FEET OF IrEFIKSYT BOTTOM TYPE AND BOOKS REMARKS ;a 1 50 Yard. off it. W.,*, -at Porar 22 37 4 5% fine Samil, 95% silt, slight domestic Water color murky or-, no ad., and "' from middle car add, f.'ry dock 2 Mid-lk., -.1 and, eut P-- 20 37 4 60% smad. 35% lit. 5% fib-. material water -)., -by brown. as add, from aid-., Ferry Block 3 50 Yards off 5 shore, wit Ponar 22 37 70% sand. 20% silt. 10% weed ditritus, Water color murky brown. no odor, a- And. cut :- 11-,r ... Y Blight vaptic -n' tualfIcidet and a low midges and far" doe 4 25 Yard, off a mor. P-.r S 37 80% silt, IS% organic dabirl., 5% sand. Water -10, surk, brown, few moderate domestic saws" odor .149., And tubifi.id- 5 30 Yard. off S nor. Pon., 317 5 94% flit, 5% fiblaue d.tritul, 1% fine Water color aurky bowai no odor, sw .and scuds And midges 6 Kid;lsk wouth of Frankfort Pons, 5-6 37 4 95% 111, 5% waddy bell- W:t., color -ky brown. - o4o,, Pas Df;ice mali had . slight ."Il. odor . -1 ad midge )-se And hm,ry Bit, 7 Mid take -th of Elth Pon.r6 37 4 9S% I It, 5% .1ant dt,iw,. no abnormal W.I., color murky or-, midges, St r;., bell- Poor .6 cherry oil. 8 90 yard I of:s1wle. scull, Pon.r 5-6 37 4-5 70% silt, 3D% vagotative dtrit,s, ho va,:;s@lorzky broW,. sw many midge of 90 St. t abnormal odor. I., And rr,aIt, 9 20 yard, aff-r.. j black Por., Si 37 5 50% lit. 50% sludge. modarate domestic Water color murky brown ,no odor, sam east of 91% S11-1 ssWs@ add, t.bifi.id. a" ch .. v oil, 10 10 Yards offshore, mouth Pon&,5 37 4 90% silt. 5% sludge. 5% mogart.tive We ter Pull* turbid. murky brown, of 8h S,rds, detritus, moderat, s", odor ho -1-1. 11 50 Yard, off M hot., P.... Ii 37 41 9silt. 5% vogetati We detritus, 3- Water color murky brow,n. saw no sminals _t, of Bch Scroet Me and 1.1 ic Ital 1. and 2% 1Id9w, Blight Build Odor 12 11 f WPa- 6 37 90% .!It, 57 fine V ter Color morky bramm, - an. widg, of P a ,;.I I .:snd@ 5% mage miti rY_ WW" i: "tritus, sligh tI coor 1: 15 IS ..d:d:ff an far, P- @4 %:h-,@plts, Water cold, m,rky braw,, mcd-- -.9. ,.,:Yl WT I,ilee 05- S%.."itu odor, I-ificids wmn@ moderate domew, -.go 11 yard, off M h*r.,.-t Pon.,3 37 3 7ft r.] I, Intl I., 2S'@ Woody det, i tu.. Hod't;Puble, abtajr;rq :adi I. m, f_ 1., -1 P, E ,1 5% 1 It, no admo-I ad., adu dce fb@k and It. Milk Ccapary. E dr.i. -gamil- her,, Pit, pr..,.t 15. f W Pat Mils Pon., 2i 37 2, reli fibrous vaget,ti- turbid, - an. Pldg. I.r- c5o@=y'd%in 10); woody actrilu, -6 d.tri I.,IM pl, 16 40 Yard. ffw.hra, Is tmawn Pon.r237 2 4n bark, 45% r.1 1, h.1 1,, 1014 cherry Wet- r :mtU2Idwurky.brdWm,ds1 ightp.ept e tim, Iwc Pat ilk Compar, Pits And fine and imel awn, me", it, drains 17 40 Yards off k share, wt Part, 2i 37 2j 15% Fine relic Watt, turbid brown. slight 5-ge odor, fronw P., milk C-pari, he".. ", .tat . 6. !1... fou d-id"B, ch-, oi,, drain -d.r.,. ..." odor b.::- is 60 Yard, off M her. due Smorer5 37 4 WA relic shell,, 20% silt, 2(r, was, Water color surky brown. na, Nor, of9in tr-t d-tIlt... lb% b.1k. Blight Bad,I. our - . f- midges - harr, oil, ig 80 Yard off. r., P-.r 4 37 4 702 sand, M. relic shells, 5%, silt, W.I., Col., murk, brown, no ad.,, f- letMT Coqpt, djtS.@Pf E fightg, ..Ii, our -logo.. V.bifi.ldl and ... r, Bit, 20 60 Yards M of Elbert. P-r 5 37 4 50% fib- -9 ... live d.trit.s, 25% water color murky brown, m War. sw Packing Company Stock, muck. 25% ,udg.. dear made-0y mary midges 25 yard, offshore ..,Ic 21 15 Yards off Elb rt. FewerS 37 3A 50% mck,PSC% sl""(Yellawish slim. Water was a murky brown WlDr.eauitc turbid, Puking Come an, , W APP i, N . fb_ magetati Ztdct,ltus), sfw floe' Ing organic material ver 200 Yard, aide, Paw relic shells, strong aic odor . fshor-cmd, :rce Elbert. Puking C-.-Y-- ._ . f-.Idge 22 25 Yards offshore. just IPower5 37 3 50% Yaq.t.ti.. dtritu., 25% ?A- Water color a murky brown many midges Of Elbert& Packing Company silt, 1% fine samd, strong septic odor Vlwt 23 65 art. offshore, -1 f -P-ar5 37 3 W% fibrown, -"let crIt- 25% Water light broYm, Wit, turbid, sw me way- -k 24% alit 1% a loading Black at Elbarts Packing Coms,... ,or. *"rate septic fly andfew midges. 150 same ch-v Pits 24 81 1;1, hor "I V,,,, Pars,S 37 3 5DC :!brasm. wood, and vopmi d.1rius, Wate; turb III` an "u'd""" of floating of t.:I:, I I% I. it fo E:de. It .--1 20% 10% muck. rz sludge. 1*4 And --arto Backing Codsm",orawn maple Puking Company Nip). found . few midges And -Vfl i., 25 id-I As E of Elbert. P-.r if 37 Ij 707 Bond, 25% silt. 3% ;ody detritus, Water color light brown , no odor. - :mcking,Ccapany due S. of' n vagastative detritas f- tiubifl.lds Ioil, Condany 26 Mid-l,ke due S of pot m; 'k yaner hi 37 4 70% .111. 30% woody anal voge-i- Water Win, I ight brown, mis odor, - Cmaidery. 80 yard. N of d.1rit.. f- .1d.. Statim 25 27 lomar , 10-14 39 b@ ;-r mmily, rocks and silt V.I., cal., I ight brown, me ad., A-22,bridg. on a.,.;. Ivs dri.id-, )-he.. idg nd (25 a-- TABLE 2. BENTHIC ANIMALS FCUND IN QUANTATIVE AND QUALITATIVE SAMPLES DURING A 8101.061CAL SURVEY DFVTSIE LAKE, BENZIE COUNTY, MICHIGAN NOVEMBEA14-16, 1967. NUMERALS 0(occaslonal), and P(present). Station nurrher: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 Tolerance Type of Sample: Porar Ponar Ponar Ponor 'Pon's r Ponar Ponar Poner Ponar Ponar Status Scientific Name Depth of soMle: 22 20 '22 5 8-9 5-6 6 5-6 -:51 - 5 Turballaria (flatmms) Area I -a- Area I I Area III F ougesle sp. 0119achoots (aquatic eartt@vrn,5) T Tublflcldoe 398 39 62-.983 250 1�8 131 175 133 :12 -.67 Hlrudl me (leaches) T Placobdelle sp. Isopoda (saw bugs) F -Asellus-militarsis (scuds) I Gmemarus sp. 2 -4 Plecoptera (stonefiles) I Isoperla sp. Ephemeropters (@ayflles) I Beetinne I Baftisca laurentina I '"ex9onle op. 2 I 'N"tagenle op. I Stenonama op. 0donsta (dragonflies & ilmeselfl;es) F Comejr;ooldae 2 Hemlptero (true bugs) f Corlxhiae Tricoptere (coddisfIleo) F @Hydropsycbe-sp. I -Neurecilpsis sp. 'Coleoptere (beetles) F Iteftelials sp. Dipter (true files.and midges) P* 14 @T = , Pentoneure flavifrons F 'Pentanburn sp. F #rocladius Wumbrotus I'l 2 F fProcladlus cultelfor.is '89 :2 2 -F Procladlus'sp. 2 15 2 'Hydrobsems op. F .Cryptochlronomus dIgItatus 2 F tryptochlronomus Op. IF fteudachlronomus sp. 'T Tendlpes attenuatuls t Twxllpes pluaosas 32 42 T Tendipas 'riparlus T 1andIpes T "Tanillpes taxis 2 71 !9 T Tandipes sp. 146flusce T Plourocerldse T pbYsm op. Total numbor of -animals per square-foot -409 @4@ 63.257 20 204 :144 213 is ,2 12' 73 Total number of species 2 3 3 3 3 41 It .0 latal number of 'Intolerant 'species 0 lotal number facultative-speeles 1 1 3 1 1 1 .0 1 'D I Total @numbw of -tolerant specles 1 2 4 2 :1 .2 .3 -2 1 '1 7 tolerant, F --facultative. I Intolerant INDICATE N ,UMBER OF ANIMALS PER SQUARE FOOT. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF ORGANISMS IN QUALITATIVE SAMPLES IS INDICATED BY VA(very abundant), A(abundant), C(common), 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ponar Ponar Ponar. Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Ponar Qualitative 54 6 3; 3 2; 2 24 5 4 5 5 5 11 44 --- W. Area IV Area V Area VI - Control A 62 23 221 104 21 136 179 28 27 104 21 27 18 14 122 20 0 C A 0 p 2 A 0 p 0 P 5 P 2 4 4 2 35 2 4 2 2 16 16 It 12 2 2 7 11 4 2 2 4 4 7 11 24 28 3n 18 h4 55 9 7 6 16 24 25 2 6 4 39 7 2 2 0 0 C 78 27 M 124 25 i45 199 83 79 154 31 101 76 36 173 93 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 5 6 4 4 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 I 0 1 2 0 I 0 1 1 2 3 4 1 0 3 5 1 2 2 7 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 2 @2 2 4 2 4 Table Benthic animals founif in "Petite Ponar" dredge samples from Betsie Lake, Benzie County, July 16, 1975. Station Number: BL-1 BL-2 BL-3 BL-5 BL-6 BL-7 Depth (ft.): 40 is 10 20 35 25 Substrate Type: Gravel Silt Sand Silt Cinders Silt sil-t Sand Sand Silt Coal Gravel Sand Toler@nce, Sample: A 8 A 9 -A B A B A B A A 8 F Nematoda (roundworms) Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Aulodrilus piguetj 43 129 172 86 645 A. pluciseta 516 473 1204 5" 6 172 387 258 2150 688 86 F Uero so. T F.-- di_gitata Limnod-ril7us Ma-paredianus T Limnodrilus cervix 86 301 258 129 473 43 T L. hoffmeisteri 43 43 1032 344 1032 774 43 516 387 215 1720 1548 Zl 5 Ir 11. neensis F 'Raididae F 8al freyi .172 172 86 43 T P. mult longidentus F. MU!tl� &TtTs -et -osTs .T I S : tt ON,1 258 1@9 43 I 'Fotamothrix moldaviensis vejdovskyi 258 Slaving apeendiculata immature wl th capinTform chaetae 43 129 86 172 215 86 215 43 immature without capilliform chaetae- 301-- 86 5289 1290 172-0- 2064 430-- 2064 1849, 1247 7310- 301 7740 258 Pilecypbda (clam's)' 172: T Pisidium 43 Or 86 86 86 43, 172 T Fpfiaerium 43 129 86 86 ISO7POUi 'ISDw bugs) T Asellus militAris. 43 43 AmPUP-oda (scuds) Gammarus @215 129 Eph-emeroptera (mayflies) I Hex@aenia limbata Trichoptera (caddisf ies) I bipphilopotamidae 43 tera (flies, midges) I Ceratopogonidae thironomidae (true midges) pupad 43 Chi.ronomus 43 43 ryptocki-Forlomo, Iut 96 43 129 43 F Mtoten Pet T -ro n gel -1 Glyptotendipel j, RIOV060001 A) Table Benthic animals found in "Petite Ponar" dredge samples from Betsie Lake, Benzie.County, July 16, 1975. Station Number: BL-8 BL-9 BL-10 BL-11 BL-12 BL-13 BL-14 Depth (ft.): 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 Substrate Type: Sand Silt Silt Silt Sand silt Silt Gravel Detritus Tolerance sample: a A B A B A 8 A 8 A 8 A B F Nematoda (roundworms) Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Aulodrilus-piqueti 172 172 86 516 1204 2408 258 E. 516 ygisefa- 258 430 86 258 344 387 86 86 258 F Dero sp. 86 T V.--ji gi tata 86 86 `11 215 drilus Claparedian s - Limnodrilus cervix 129 258 172 T L. hiffmeisteri 344 516 344 645 86 774 258 344 516 430 86 86 T E. m-a-u-me-e-n-sl -s 258 172 F WaiUTUa-e 86 F Nais sp. 86 86 T.-el iguis 86 Tel colex freyi 172 86 T T. -nylltisetosis longidentus 86 T F. 50tisetosis -m-uT-tisetosis 86 86 258 86 86 86 86 43 172 86 258 516 F Tof-amothrix moldaviensis 86 43 F P. vejdovskyi 344 43 Tlavina apeendiculata 344 86 ure with capilliform chaetae 172 86 516 86 86 1032 258 516 1806 immature without capilliform chaetae 946 1462 2924 5160 3612 1548 2580 1978 817 1247 2494 1720 2924 1720 Pelecypoda (clams) T Pisidium 215 T 7 p7a -erTu-m 301 Isopoda sow bugs) T Asellus militaris AmpWPoTa--(`scuTsT- F Gammarus 86 Eph-eme@o-ptera (mayflies) I Hexagenia limbata Tri ptera (caddis?'lies) I Philopotamidae @@'Piptera (flies, midges) I Ceratopogonidae 43 Chironomidae (true midges) F pupae 43 43 T Chironomus 43 344 F Cryptochfronomdus 43 43 43 43 43 43 F Cryptotendipes 43 T Dicrotendipes 43 86 T Ulyptotendipes F Microtendipes Table Benthic animals found in "Petite Ponar" dredge samples from Betsie Lake. Beffzie County, July 16, 1975. Station Number., BL-16 BL-17 BL-18 BL-19 BL-20 BL-21 Depth (ft.): 10 8 5 7 7 6 3 Substrate Type: Silt Silt Silt silt Silt Silt Sand, Silt Plant Plant Plant :Remains Remains**-, Remains tolerance Sample: A A 8 A 8 A 6 A 0 A- A 8 F Nematoda (roundworms)@. 258 Oligochaeta (aquatic Earthworms) S Aulodrilus piqueti 43 258 A 430 172 387 43 516 M @jset:a 43 86 86 86 86 86 F Dero sp. P T, 0. j9_9Ltata L Limnodrilus E Claparedian s T M-nodril-uscervix L T 17-Fo-f-imel-steri 86 516 215 602 2S8 0 860 602 .20i", @129 43 215 301 T maumeensis S F Waididae T F Nais sp. N. eliquis Feloscolex Lfreyi, os T -P.-m-u T t -is e t Is cnqidentus t -jT P. multisetosis multisetosis Potafrothrix moldaviensis 86 P. veldovskyi Tia-vina apperdiculata immature with capffffform chaetae 215 430 301 2322 516 602 129 301 43 112 172 immature without capilliform chaetae 817 1978 1118 4386 129 1548 2236 '731 1548 473 689 344 Pel'ecypoda (clams). T Pisidium 43 T Sphaerium 43 86 86 43 86 43 Isopoda (sow bugs) T Asellus militaris AmO@hipoda (scuds) F Gammarus Ephemeroptera (mayflies) I Hexagenia limbata Trichoptera (cidgisf ies) Philopotamidae Diptera (flies, midges) I Ceratopogonidae 43 -Chironomidae (true midges) F pupae 86 43 T Chiron s 258 4@ 43 86 43 43 _F torvronomous 86 86 96 43 43 F Cic n ,tote ims 43 43 rot@n T ndlggs 41 86 41 T GI totFU s 43 F tendipes 96 Table (Continued) Station Number: BL-8 BL-9 BL-10 BL-11 BL-12 BL-13 BL-14 Depth (ft.): 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 Substrate Type: Sand Silt Silt Silt Sand Silt Silt Gravel Detritus Tolerance Sample: A B A 8 A B A A 8 A B A 8 F Phaenopsectra F Polypedilum 86 903 43 T Procladius 129 43 817 817 1290 86 86 43 43 F Rheotanyta rsus F ThienemannTmy"Ta Total number of species/ sample 6 8 8 6 2 7 7 4 5 5 9 S 9 1 Total number individuals/m2 2150 3612 3956 8084 3784 3440 4687 3956 1548 1806 5375 3870 7095 5160 Combined @amples-Total species/. stations Combined samples-Total individuals/ tK stations 5762 12040 7224 12255 8643 3354 9245 % Oligochaete individuals/stations' 87 90 82 74 95 99 99 % Chironomid Individuals/stations 4 9 17 26 5 1 1 % Mayfly individuals/stations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Other individuals/stations 9 1 1 0 0 0 0, Oligochaetes lost Table (Continued) Station Number: BL-15 BL-16 BL-17 BL-18 BL-19 BL-20 BL-21 Depth (ft.): 10 8 5 7 7 6@ 3 Substrate Type: Silt Silt Sil-t Silt silt silt Sand, Silt Plant Plant I Plant Remains Remains** Remains- .Sample: A B A 8 A a A B A B V B A' B F Phnnopsectra- F ilum 86 T Procladius 172 559 43 43 86 129 F Rheotanytarsu 43 43 -43 43 43, F Thiehemannimyia 43 43 43 86 43@ 43- Total- number of 'species/ samples 8 7 6 6 4 7 6 6 7 4 4** 8 10 Total number indiViduals/M 1@48 3956 2150 8127 516 3655' 3995 1892 2322 1 1161 301 1333 1247 Combined samples -Total species/ 9- stati dns 10 9 5 9 6 9 Combined samples-Total individuals/ stations 5504 10277 516 7650 4214' 1462 2580- tr X Oligo'cha6te Iridivid6als/sIations 81 90 75 93@ 87' 92 77 % Chironomid indjvi.&Ws/stations@ 1'6 8 8@ 5 12- 3 18 0: .8 1 1 3- 5 %@Mayfly-individ6alt/stafidris 0 .% Othe'r' ihdividuals/st6tions 2 2'' 1 0 2 0- Ofigochaetes lost Table (Continued) Station Number: BL-1 BL-2 BL-3 BL-4 BL-5 AL-6 BL-7 Depth (ft.): 40 15 10 15 20 35 25 Substrate Type: Gravel Silt Sand Silt Cinders Silt Silt Sand Sand Silt Coal Gravel Sand ToTe-rance A B A 8 A B @A B A 8 A B A B F Phaen 0p@ectra 43 F Polype@jjum 86 43 T Procladlus 688 344 301 129 43 301 43 602 43 1247 43 F Rheotanytarsus F Thienemannimyia Total number of species/ sample 5 4 6 6 9 10 3 6 3 6 7 3 6 6 Total number individuals/m2 559 473 8041- 2752 5031, 4343 817 3698 2967 2451 12986 473 11610 774 Combined samples-Total species/ stations 8 8 .13. 6 6 9 7 Combined samples-Total individuals/ stations 1032 10793 9374 4515 5418 13459 12384 %-Oligochaete individuals/stations 54 89 @89 89 97 92 85 % Chironomid individuals/stations 17 10 5 8 2 7 12 % Mayfly individuals/stations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 %'Other in.dividuals/stations 29 1 5 3 1 1 3 Oligochaetes lost- jl@ APPENDIX C Correspondence in the Course of Preparing the ..Environmental Impact Statement C -.t DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT -TTERS COMMENT LE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Room 101, 1405 South Harrison Road' East Lansing, Michigan 48823 November 21, 1977 U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit ATTN: Chief, Environmental,Resources Branch P.O. Box 1027 48231 Del,troit` @kichigan Gentlemen: We have reviewed the draft environmental statement and letter report for the Confined Disposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure, Repairs and Operations, Frankfort Harbor, Michigan, and have the following comments to make:, The Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the City of Frankfort and the Michigan-Department of Natural Resources, Waterways Division, has a.Resource Conservation.and Development measure currently under constructio n. This measure is designed to stabilize the eroding bank of Lake Betsie in the city marina between Fifth and Seventh Streets. This is adjacent to proposed disposal site #4.: The dredgi ng project should be carried out in such.a mannerso as not'.to cause.additional erosion hazards or endanger the erosioncontrol measures currently being installed. If site #4 is used for disposal, the containing dike should be. installed in such a manner as to be compatible with the erosion control measures being installed. We appreciate the opportunity to review and. comment-on. the proposed project.. Sincerely, Arthur H. Cratty State Conservationist cc: @Coordinator, Environmental Quality Activities,.,USDA,, Washington, D.C. R. M. Davis., Administrator, SCS, Washingtoni D.C. c-3 I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTHEASTERN AREA, STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY 61316 MARKET STREET, UPPER DARBY. PA. 19082 A215) 596-1671 8430 November 28, 1977 Mr. P. McCallister Chief, Engineering Divi .sion U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit ATTN: Chief, Environmental Resources Branch P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Refer to: NCEED-ER, Draft Environmental Statements, Confined Disposal Facilities, ...Frankfor* Harbor, MI Dear Mr. McCallister: We believe that some planting program should be applied to Site 5A if it is used, even if it is not used as a landscaped park like.Site 4. you'for the opportunity to review this draft-state- ment. Sinc,erely, DALE: O.1A/1A�Ni`UR0 Staff.Director Environmental Quality Evaluation FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Building - Room 3130 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 November 1, 1977 U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit Attn: Chief, Environmental Resources Branch P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Gentlemen: We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact, 'Statement dated September 1977.for Confined Disposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure Repairs and Maintenance Operations', Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. Comments of this office are made in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,and the August 1, 1973 Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality. Our principal concern with this development is its effect on bulk electric power facilities including potential hydroelectric developments and on natural gas pipeline facilities. Since the above noted proposed.project apparently would :pose no. major obstacle to the construction of such facilities, we have no comments on the Draft. EIS. The statements are of this office and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Very truly yours, Bernard D.-Murphy Regional Engineer'. C-5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 0 230 S01,11H DEARRORN ST CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604 Mr. P. McCallister Chief, Egnineering Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit: P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, M@chigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: We have.completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact State-, ment (EIS) for the proposed confined disposal facility, dredging, structure repairs and operations at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan which was sent to us with your letter of October 20, 1977. Based on informa- tion presented in the EIS and our Sep tember 27, 1977, visit to the site of the proposed confined disposal facilities, we have no major objections to fhe proposed activities, but request additional informi- tion for a complete assessment. We offer the following comments for, your use in preparing the Final EIS. our Agency finds use of sites 4 (the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation pro- perty), 5a (Luedtke property), and 9 (the Fife Lake State Forest) accept-. able for dredged sediment disposal at Frankfort Harbor. But it should be noted that the sediment analysis for Frankfort Harbor indicated that sediments contain high levels of lead.and zinc. Consequently, measures,to mitigate water quality impacts and monitoring procedures should be designed to adequately protect against contamination by those pollut.ants. If lead and zinc remain attached to the fines in the sediment, the sand filter at Site 4 should be adequate; however, if the pollutants are con- verted to salts, they may be released with the CDF effluent and a clay liner may be required along with appropriate remedial mea 'sur6s to achieve water quality standards. The Final EIS should address potential chemical reactions which could occur during dredging and disposal operations and which may allow lead and zinc to be converted to salts. We request the opportunity to review the monitoring procedures that will be used at Frankfort and recommend that a series of pipes be incor- porated into the dike design at Site 5a to accomplish testing of the effluent. It should be indicated in the Final EIS who will assume responsibility for monitoring the confined disposal facility effluent and what parameters will be tested and how frequently. We.rec6mmend the following monitoring procedures: -2- The following parameters are basic and easy to run in the field. They can be used to control the sampling program and detect changes immediately: temperature, specific con- ductivity, pH and turbidity. Suspended solids should be run to determine the efficiency of the.sedlimentation process in the disposal area. Ammonia should be,run because it can be toxic, a nutrient and is the compound most likely to leach from the spoil in easily detectable quantities.. Chlorides and sulfites should be run because they are soluble, con- servative and can be used as tracers for, the plume. Additional parameters should be selected based on the results of-the bulk sediment or elutriate analysis of the original ,spoil. If bulk sediment concentrations exceed the following values, the parameter should be run:. TKN. 2000 mg/kg Manganese 500 mg/kg Phosphorus 65.0 mg/kg Arsenic 8mg/kg Lead 60 mg/kg Cadmium .6mg/kg Zinc. 200 mg/kg Chromium 75 mg/kg'.. Cyanide 0.25 mg/kg Barium 6.0 rftg/kg Iron 25,000 mg/kg Copper 50 mg/kg Nickel 50 mg/kg Or if elutriate test results ex'c6ed the following values, the parameter should be included: Cyanide 0.01 mg/l Lead 5ug/l. Phenol 50 ug/l Zinc 25 ug/l Arsenic 5.ug/l Hg 0.5 ug/1 Cadmium 1.0 ug/l TKN .5 mg/l Copper 10 ug/l Phosphorus .05-mg/l Iron 500 ug/l Manganese 500 ug/l The bulk sediment valueF7 are based on over 250 samples from Great Lakes harbors collected during 1974 and 19,75. The* elutriate values are based on 48 samples collected during 1975. Parameters which are consistently below the level Of detect, ability in the first 5 samples may.be discontinued. -3- BIOLOGY Macroinvertebrate samples should be collected in the receiving waters before the discharge starts and again near the end or immediately after the discharge ceases. This will detect and document any effects that the discharge may have had on the benthic community of the receiving waters. In addition, vegetation produced at the Fife Lake State Park property should. be monitore4for intake of pollutants. As previously conveyed to your staff, U.S. EPA's publication on "Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals" should be helpful in determining the best condition for disposal at the State Forest. The potential for smothering existing tree roots by placement of spoil and erosion of the sediment should be addressed in the Final EIS. Planting should be planned as soon as possible to mitigate sediment erosion. At the time of our site visit at Frankfort Harbor, it was not certain whether the railroad car ferry service was going to continue. The current status of theferry service should be included in the Final EIS. The old sediment guidelines used by U.S *EPA should be eliminated from the document (page 1-17) or their proper historical perspective,explained. The new sediment guidelines now used by U.S. EPA should be presented in full including page 1 (copy attached). The U.S. EPA should be included as a member of the Site Selection Committee referenced on page 42. As indicated in the above discussion and in accordance with EPA'-s pro- cedures, we have classified our comments on the proposed CDF and main- tenance operations as LO, lack of objection, and rated the Draft EIS as Category 2, additional information required. The date and classi- fication of our comments will be published-in the Federal Register. Thank you for the opportunity to review'the subject document. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Ms. Barbara Taylor of my staff at 312/353-2307. Please send us two copies of the Final EIS when. it is filed with the Environmental Prot,_ection Agency in Washington, D.C. Sincere Susan P. Walker, Chief Environmental Impact Review Staff Office of Federal Activities Attachment United States Department of Commerce The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology Washington D.C. 20230 (202)377-3111 December 13, 1977 Mr. P. McCallister Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled, "Confined Disposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure, Repairs and Operations Frankfort Harbor, Michigan." The enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your condideration. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these comments, which we hopw will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving eight (8) copies of the final statement. Sincerely Sidney R. Galler Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs Enclosures- Memo from National Ocean Survey, November 15, 1977 Memo from Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, November 14, 1977 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Survey Rockville, Md 20852 Nov 15, 1977 To: William Aron Director Office of Ecology and Environmental Conservation From: Gordon Lill Deputy Directior National Ocean Survey Subject: DEIS #7710.27- Confined Disposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure, Repairs and Operations Frankfort Harbor, Michigan The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of NOS responsibility and expertise, and in terms of the impact of the proposed action on NOS activities and projects. The following comments are offered for your consideration. On page 2-7, paragraph 2.26, the recent high level should read 581.04 feet, vice 575.38. The dates cited are correct. Also, page 16, first paragraph, change 2.23 feet to 2.21 feet. Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed project area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy these monuments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance of such activity in order to plan for their relocation. NOS recommends that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocation required for NOS monuments. ~0 U.S. ~qOEPAR~tMENT OF COMMERC~E National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES Of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 2300 W~ashtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 November 14, 1977 TO: Director Offi~c f ology and~Enviornmental Conservation, EE FROM: Eugene J. u ert Director, G~qLER~qL, RF24 SUBJECT: DEIS 7710.27 - Confined Disposal ~'Facilities~,~, Dredging, Structure Repairs, and Operations, Frakfort Harbor, Michigan The subject DEIS ~qprp~qeared by the Corps of Engi~ne~qers~,~De~qtr~qoit District,, on maintenance dredging i~n Frankfort Harbor, Lake Michigan, and disposal of polluted spoil has bee~2qPreviewed and comments herewith submitted. Maintenance dredging of Frankfort Harbor and ma~intenanceof the harbor structures will, in our opinion, produce no long-term impacts On Lake Michigan. Either o~qne of the two selected sites on~.the ~q6hore~f Betsie~. Lake for the interim disposal ~of.pollut~qed spoil and the ulti~0qmate~is~qp~o~s~qq~ql of~that.~spoil I r~qi~:~' ~qth eState forest is acceptable. ~q6~q. ~60qW~60qW C ~q-~4q1.1 United States Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary North Central Region 2510 Dempster Street DES Plaines, Illinois 60016 December 5, 1977 Colonel Melvyn D. Remus District Engineer U.S. Army Engineer District P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Remus: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement and Letter Report of Operation and Maintenance for Frankfort Harbor, Benzie County, Michigan as requested in your transmittal letter of October 20, 1977. The following specific comments concern the draft environmental statement. We have determined that the use of site 4 for the construction of a four-acre confinement facility could constitute a conflict with Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. As proposed, the site 4 facility would be located entirely within an area (totaling approximately 6.5 acres in size) that has been approved for acquisition with assistancew fram the Land and Water Conservation Fund to expand the Mineral Springs Park and Marina (Projects 26- 00741 abd 26- 00893). These projects were approved by the Lake Central Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, on July 16, 1976, abd February 11, 1977, respectively. If site 4 is unavailable, the draft statement mentions that site 5A will be used as a temporary confinement facility. This site would be situated adjacent to the 10th Street Boat Launching Park, which was developed with assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (Project 26- 00126). Therefore, any permanent or temporary taking of land from the park during construction of the proposed earthen access road from the existing 10th Street right-of-way to site 5A would conflict with Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. As amended, Section 6(f) reads: c-12 No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such.conversion only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonable equivalent usefulness and location. We request that the Army Corps of Engineers coordinate the above matters with Mr. 0. J. Scherschligt, Deputy Director, Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 4.D. Water Quality Bottom sediments in the project area have been classified as unsuitable for open-water disposal owing to excessive quantities of volatile solids, COD, phenol, nitrogen, phosphorus, and oil and grease, plus excessive levels of lead and zinc (page 31, paragraph 4.12). In order to reduce any adverse.. effects on water quality within the harbor that may result from dredging operations, measures-such as silt screens should be used to locally control the migration of the turbidity p.l'ume which may contain hazardous concentrations of polluted materials. 6.8. Alternative Diked Disposal Sites - In Section 6.07 (page 43). the draft statement mentions that site 4 is owned by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR). This statement.is incorrect and should be replaced with one indicating that the.BOR has.approved Land and Water Conservation Fund projects for the acquisiti-oni of this area by the City of Frankfort.to expand Mineral Springs Park and Marina. 9.B. Government Agencies We note on page 46 that the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was contacted for information during the preparation of the draft statement, but no indication of the results of this consultation has been provided. The.envir.oh- mental impact statement should include documentationof consultation, with the SHPO and contain a copy of her comments on the proposed action. 3 To comply with the policy set forth' in Section 1(3) of Executive Order 11593, all areas to be affected by the proposed project --including all proposed disposal areas and any borrow areas to be used for construction materials--should be professionally examined for archeological remains. Any archeological sites identified should then be evaluated with reference to the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 800.10). Sincerely yours, David Jervis Regional Environmental Officer cc: Michigan Department of, Natural Resources,, Attn: 0. J. Scherschligt U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION 5 18209 DIXIE HIGHWAY HOMEWOOD. ILLINOIS 60430 November 8, 1977 IN REPLY REFER TO HED-05 U.S. Amy Engineer District, Detroit P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 ATTN: Chief, Environmental, Resources Branch Gentlemen: The draft environmental statement for the dredging, structure repairs and,operations,'Frankfort Harbor, Michigan, has been reviewed. In the summary of adverse effects and other parts of the statement,- it is noted that increases in dust and noise due to construction as well as increas *es in traffic congestion are expected. Truck.access routes will need to be constructed at Site 4 as well as.improved from M-115. to the Fife Lake State Forest disposal site. Interim handling, de- watering and truck hauling are proposed and a railroad crossing is affected. The effects of truck traffic on the State and local roads and hauling within the business district are discussed. These effects are considered unavoidable and short-term. We.believe some mitiga@ion of these adverse effects should be considered since they are significant and especially since they will affect traffic in the business distri:ct. We, therefore, recommend the State and/or local road agencies be con- sulted and the statement address the mitigation measures which can be implemented to minimize the adverse impacts to.traffic congestion, noise and dirt due to construction operation in this area. It is also recommended the statement address the impacts associated with disposal Site-.9 such as anticipated odors, the effects of truck hauling and the extent of improving and maintaining the small access road in the forest, area. The condition of this road and the nature of the, c improvementincluding its.environmental effe ts as well as..the respon sibilities for maintenance should be considered. Sin cerely yours,. Donald E. Trull Regional Administrator 0; By: W Emrich Director@ fo Office- of Environment sind.Design. e 7-E DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION p SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20390 MASSENA. NEW YORK 13662 November 16, 1977 Mr. P, McCallister Chief, Engineering Division Amy Engineers, Detroit District P. 0. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: Reference is made to NCEED-ER.20.October 1977 transmittal of the Draft EIS's for maintenance dred 9of the-follow'ing' gi n harbors and waterways:. Les-Cheneaux Islands, Michigan St..Joseph Harbor, Michigan Frankfort Harbor, Michigan Port Austin'Harbor, Michigan SLSDC has reviewed the subject EIS's and has no comments to off er. Thank you forthe opportunity to examine these docu- ments'. Sincerely., Clarke F. Di I ks. Chief, Envi ronmental Planning c-16 STATE OF MICHIGAN WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. BOX 30028, LANSING, MICHIGNA 48909 HOWARD A. TANNER, DIRECTOR NATIONAL RESOURSES COMMISSION CARL T. JOHNSON E. M. LAITALA DEAN PRIDGEON HILARY F. SNELL HARRY H. WHITELY JOAN L. WOLFE CHARLES G. YOUNGLOVE January 9, 1978 Mr. McCallister Chief, Engineering Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit ATTN: Chief, Environmental Resourses Branch P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: Thank you for the opportunity to review your Draft Environmental Statement on the Confined Disposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure, Repairs and Operations, Frankfort Harbor, Michigan and the Letter Report. The Department has reviewed these reports and have found them satisfactiory in dealing with the environmental concerns of this project. We have no additional comments at this time. Sincerely, Howard A. Tanner Director cc: O.J. Scherschligt MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE RICHARD H. AUSTIN SECRETARY OF STATE LANSING MICHIGAN 48918 MICHIGAN HISTORY DIVISION ADMINISTRATION, ARCHIVES, HISTORIC SITES, AND PUBLICATIONS 3423 N. LOGAN STREET 513-373-0515 October 25, 1977 District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Attn: Environmental Resources Branch Dear Sir: Our staff has reviewed the following project and concludes that it will have not effect on cultual resources. Confined Sisposal Facilities, Dredging, Structure, Repairs and Operations, Frankfort Harbor If you have further questions, please contact Dr. Lawrence Finfer, Environmental Review Coordinators for the Michigna History Division. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely yours, Martha M. Bigelow Director, Michigan History Divison and State Historic Preservation Officer MMB/LF/cw GENERAL CORIMPONDENCE C-19 United States Department olf the Interior IN lkr.PLV REFER TO: -ISII AND WILDLIFE SER VICE @41 EAST LANSING FIELD OFFICE (ES) Room 301, Manly Miles Building 1405 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823 October 3, 1979 Colonel Robert V. Vermillion U.S. Army Engineer Detroit Distr'ict P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Vermillion: We have, reviewed the proposed alternative disposal locations for the maintenance dredging project at Frankfort 11arbor, Benzie County, Michigan. The following comments are provided in accordance with prov.isions.of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401 as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and in compliance with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We have no objection to the us,e of -site site 5, or site 5A as interim., upland sites, with the excess dredge materials trucked to the Betsie Riv6r@ State Forest (site 9). In preparing the interim site, the lakeward most extension of the bulkhead should not exceed 10 feet from the existing shoreline.. S' I yours Clyde R. Odin Superv3.sor C-20 W I ce y ClvderR. 00d'i 2 Les Cheneaux,Cedarville,Michigan: Expand Future Boat Launch - We Are not opposed tothe expansion. by 1/2 acre of the proposed boat launch area providing certain coordinated steps are taken to ensure minimal impacts on boater and fishermen use of the launch. Such disposal actually would limit the impact to one specific site and project for the Cedarville area. Golf Course Site - As stated in the minutes, we are opposed to the use of this site. The two-acre interim site is located in wetland consisting of reed canary grass. Other non-wetland type habitat should be used for temporary Storage sites. Dredge materials Possibly could be placed on the parking lot or portions thereof, adjacent to the Golf Course during the-off season. Portions of the Golf Course Site Above the reed canary grass marsh are uplands, and possibly materials could be piped along the driveway to that site. Docks at the end of the parking lot probably could be removed andthe area used. as a mooring area for piping or offloading. Sincerely yours, Assistant Prgional Director Enviroment cc: Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. CHICAGO. ILLINOS 60604 DEC 10, 1976 Colonel Melvin D. Remus District Engineer Detroit.District, Corps of Engineers Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 -Dear Colonel Remus: Reference is made to an August 2, 1976, request by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for a determination of the eligibility for waiver of the 25 percent non-federal contribution for the contained dredge spoil.disposal program at Frankfort, Michigan. Section 123(d) of Public Law 91-611 gives the authority to the Secretary of the Army to waive the required local cooperation when the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency finds that certain requir- ments are being met. The two requirements that must be fulfilled are: 1. Local entities must be participating in and in compliance with an approved plan for the general geographical area of the dredging activity for construction, modification expansion, or rehabilitation of waste treatment facilities. 2. Applicable water quality standards are not being violated. Since both requirements have been satisfied, we find that the local sponsor is eligible for the waiver of the 25-percent non-federal contribution towards construction costs of the dredge spoil dis- posal program for Frankfort Harbor. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact thins office. Sincerely yours, Valdas V. Adamkus Deputy Regional Adminisrator 7 Dec 1976 NCEED-T Dear Dr. Tanner: This concerns your 2 August 1976 requestt to the United States Environ- mental Protection Agency for a waiver of the 25 percent non-Federal coutribution for the contained dredga spoil disposal program at Frankfort, Michigan. Paragraph (c) of Section 123 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611) require the appropriate state or states, inter- state agency, municipality, or other appropriate political subdivision of the state to agree to contribute to the United States 25 percent of the construction costs prier to construction of a contained dis- posal facility. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that Frankfort is participating in and in compliance with an approved plan for the geographical area of the dredging activity for constructions, identification, expansion or rehabliltation os waste treatment facili- ties and applicable water quality standards are not being violated. Consequently, the Environmental Protection Agency has found Frankfort eligible for a wavier from contibution to construction costs. This is to inform you that I have reviewed the findings of the Environmental Protection Agency in the matter. By the provisions of paragraph (d), Public Law 91-611, under the authority of the Secratary. 7 Dec 1976 NCEED-T Dr. Howard A. Tanner of the Army, I hereby grant a waiver of the obligation of non- Federal interasts to contribute 25 percent of the construction costs of the proposed spoil disposal facility to be located at Frankfort, Michigan. Sincerely yours, Melvin D. Remus Colonal, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Copy Furnished: Hr. Dale Granger, Chief, Hydrological Division 2 Inland Route We concur with the use of the SLt'e Nos. 1 and 2 as interim storage areas and Nos. 5-and 6 for final deposition of dredged material. Harbor Beach We concur with the use of the City-owned property at Site No. 1 as an interim drying area and final deposition at the county-owned gravel pit (Site No. 3) at Harbor Beach. St. Joseph We concur that Site'7 (Mallable) and Site 8 (ships canal) are acceptabl e for spoil disposal at St. Joseph Harbor. We conducted a field investig'a- tion of Site 10 on March 9, 1977'. and found it to be acceptable as well... Port Austin Our November 1, 1976, letter toyour office indicated that.we preferred the village lagoon site (Site E) for confined disposal at Port Austin. We understand.from the Site Selection Committee meeting-that this upland, site Is.no longer available for spoil disposal. Since there are,no apparent environmental problems with the island site (Site C), we will concur with a decision to proceed with its design. More specific info.r- mation on the facility's affects on littoral processes, harbor water quality, etc. should be included in subsequent assessments. Sebewaing We,underst.and that the development of Site A-1 at Sebewaing and its ultimate.use as an airport runway extension has the support of the local community. We also note your proposalto replace the 7 to 8 acres of wetlands that would be lost with construction of Site A-1 with.an equivalent area in.deeper water and adjacent to the navigation channel. .However, considering the value of existing wetlands at-Site A-1, our Agency finds construction of a confined facility there unacceptable. until all feasible alternatives to wetland destruction have been. ,thoroughly evaluated. We commend your efforts to derive public benefit in developing a dike disposal area for polluted,materials and your offer to mitigate wetland loss. We believe your proposal to replace wetlands presents an excellent method of compensation for projects.which have already adversely impacted wetl,ands, as well as,for futureprojects for-which there is no other alternatives that would avoid wetland impacts.. We would be pleased to see, such a research effort,undertaken. But we do not believe such mitigation is appropriate In a situation where the initial destruction. of wetlands can beavoided., @5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604 .1-4t PROI 197? Mr-Bernard Malamud Acting Chief Engineering Division Detroit District, Corps of-Engineers Box1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. Ma.lamud: Reference is made to.your letter of.February 1, 1977, concerning.E.P.A.'s' position.on alternate dredge material disposal site's at Frankfort, Les Cheneaux, Inland-Route,.Harbor Beach, St. Joseph, PorL Austin, aytd Sebewaing, Michigan 'as discussed by the Site Selection Cormaittee at. their January 20, 1977 meeting. We.trust the ' following information will clarify our position on-each project proposed for the above harborsi Frankfort The Committee discussed two feasible alternatives for dredge material disposal at Frankfort: to fill the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) SiteNo. 4 and truck 6xcess material to the State forest property or,use' the Luedtke property, Site No. 5 as an interim holding area and truck all the material to the State forest property. Another alternative. discussed involved using the'Luedtke and State forest propOrty1or,the backlog material until the BOR site is available. We do not anticipate any significant adverse impacts with any of Lhe@above sites andconcur with- developing sites@4 and 5 as interim sites and.the State forest as the ultimate site. Les Cheneaux We have.attende@d a meeting subsequent to the.Site Selection Committee Meeting on spoil-.,disposal-at-Les Cheneaux at State Senator Davis's office in Lansing- Due.to objections.expressed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and our Agency with.regard to-the wetland area involved., we understand that Site No. 4 (adjacent-to the'Taylor Lumber Company) is.no longer under consideration. Based on our-prelialinary revi6w, we would.concur-with development Of either Sites 2a and/or 2b with final deposition at the Township dump. The final assessment of Sites No. 2a and 2b should.include impacts associated with trucking the spoil.,i.e., adequacy of local roads to accomodate erucks, spoil slippage fron.trucks, noise impacts etc. 3 It was agreed upon conclusion of the Site Selection Couunittee Meeting, that the Corps would prepare an expanded Environmental Assessment for the Sebewaing project which would be distributed to all Committee members for their review and co=ent. We believe the followin" informa- tion should be included in the expanded assessment to evaluate both the potential and the impacts of the proposed airport runway ext,@nsion and flood protection associated with development of Site A-1. 1. The feasibility as well as a need of runway extension should be thoroughly addressed. It should be determined if airport officials have initiated any steps to extend the airport runway; these steps should be explained. Would runway extension be solely a local project or would there be State or Federal monetary or licensing involvement. The probability of such Federal or State approval should be investigated. It should be determined if the project would result in any change in the nuinber of opera- tions or type of aircraft at the airport. 2. The details of flood protection potential with development of Site A-1 should be thoroughly addressed. The degree of past floodin,, and costs of damages incurred should be determined. Alternative flood protection methods (both structural. and non- structural) for areas impac 'ted should be compared with regard to effectiveness, environmental effects, costs, and benefits. 3. The feasibility of marsh construction should be discussed with specific regard to.the type of fresh water habitat typical to the study area. The quality of the existing marsh should be c@ determined and compared to that which would be constructed. Some attempt should be made to quantify comparable wetlands in the study area. If possible, a comparison should be made regarding the acreage of comparable wetland which has already been lost to development in the study area. Finally, the timing of watland construction should be discussed, i.e., would development of Site A-1 be implemented after (or before) marsh construction? 4., The feasibility of alternativeg to construction in the wetlands should be thoroughly evaluated. The potential use of dredge spoil as a beneficial resource e.g., as construction material, land fill, and/or agricultural cover should be addressed. Impacts with regard to transporting dredge material should be included. 4 Please note that our comments on each of the @bove projects are pre 1 iminary at this time and that our final position will be determined after our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on each project. If @you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Barbara J. Taylor of my staff at 312-353-2307. Sincerely yours, Gary A. Williams Chief, Environmental Review Section STATE OF MICHIUAN kTURAL REWURCSS COMIAISSION ZARL. T. JOHNSON L M. LAITAIA WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN. Govemor Dem PRIOCAOM HILARY F. SNELL DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HARRY H. WHITELEY STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. BOX 3002S. LANSING. MICHIGAN 48909 JOAN L WOLFE HOWARD A. TANNER, Director CHARLES G. YOUWaLOVE 7 May 13, 1977 Mr. Philip A. McCallister, Chief Engineering Division U. S. Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box,1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Attn: Richard Kavalar Dear Mr. McCallister: Reference is made to your February 1 letter concerning dredged material disposal sites at Frankfort, Les rCheneaux, Inland Route, Harbor Beach, St. Joseph, Port Austin, and Sebewaing. The Department Dredge Spoil Com- mittee wishes to reaffirm its earlier positions concerning these site needs as reviewed in several meetings with your staff earlier. 1) Frankfort: The Department favors filling of the BOR site and trucking excess material to State Forest properties. The Committee's second consideration for Frankfort would utilize designated Luedke properties, as an interim holding area.with trucking of all dewatered materials to State Forest properties. 2) Les Cheneaux: The Department Committee recommends permanent contain-. ment at the township dump with utilization of an interim handling site at the golf course site or lacking that capability then development of an off-loading site at the Department boat launching*facility which will be constructed as part of a project at Cedarville. 3) Inland Route: The Department favors an off-loading facility at the end of Snyder.Road with final containment on the east side of Snyder Road just south of Brutus Road on State Forest properties. 4) Harbor Beach: The Committee strongly favors the utilization of city owned property at the northern city limits as an interim handling site with trucking of material to the county owned gravel pit. 5) St. Joseph: Committee favors utilization of the Whirlpool Corporation properties as an interim handling site with final disposal at Site 7 by truck delivery on a parcel of property which has been used as an industrial dump. We understand it has not been acquired by the local government. 4RW *2 9 sn62S 10/76 Mr., Philip A. McCallister Attn: Richard Kavalar May 13, 1977 Page Two 6) Port Austin: the Committee favors construction of a near shore island facility east of the present recreational watercraft harbor facilities with a causeway connection to permit public use of this island for recreational purposes on completion. 7) Sebewaing: The Department Committee favors utilization of the land at the northern terminus of the present village airport with construction of a 30-acre littoral marsh replacement project as mitigation for the losses attendant with the airport site. If you have further questions on these views, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, BUREAU OF LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT Dale W. Granger, P.E., Chief Water Management Division DWG:cjs UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0 REGION V 0 230 SOUTH OEARBORN ST. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604 4 PROA MAY 1977 Mr. P. McCallister Chief, Engineering Division Department of the Army Detroit District, Corps of Engineers Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: Reference is made to your letter of April 15, 1977, concerning confine- men.t of polluted dredge material at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. You specifically inquired about our opinion with regard to a new interim handling site - Site #5A - adjacent to the Luedtke property (site #5). It appears from the maps you provided and from notes from our previous site visit of the project area that Site 5A and Site 5 are similar and, therefore, we believe Site 5A would also be acceptable. Sincerely yours, Ronald L. Mustard Acting Chief Environmental Review Section -C C-31 WILLIAMS WORKS ENGINEERS SUPVEYORS PLANNERS GEOLOGISTS TELEPHONE (616) 942-9000 AUGUST 9 1977 Dr. Martha Bigelow State Historic Preservation Officer Michigan History Division Lansing, MI 48923 Dear Dr. Bigelow: We are preparing an Environmental Impact Statement ahead of confined disposal of dredged materials which are unsuitable for release into open water in the area of Frankfort Harbor, Benzie County, Michigan. You have already responded to our questions concerning known and potential archaeolofical and historical values in the area of proposed confined disposal sited around Betsie Lake. Enclosed are maps related to an upland site in the Fife Lake State Forest, Section 29 and 30 of Township 25 North, Range 14 West, in Benize County. These maps are copied form the U.S.G.S. 15 minutes Frankfort QQuadrangle, and a land use map of larger scale. Please evaluate the areas marked in red, sites 1 and 3, for their known or potential archaeological or historical values. Please return your comments to us at an early date since wer are well into the draft Environmental Statement. If you might be of further help in your review, please give me a call. Yours very truly, WILLIAMS AND WORKS, INC. Jeffery C. Sutherland, Ph.D., P.E., Certified Professional Geologist, APGS enclosure JCS/be DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DiSTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 V. DETROIT. MICHIGAN 46238 NCEED-T .0 5AN* Iwo PUBLIC NOTICE DIKED DREDGE DISPOSAL AREA, FRANKFORT, MICIIIC@AN 1. The existing Federal Navigation Project at Frankfort Harbor was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1886, and modified underthe provision of Section 107 of the River and Harbor AA) of 1960. Section 123 of the River and Harbor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611) has authorized the construction, operation and naintenance of diked disposal and storage areas for the containment of dredged materials unsuitable for open lake disposal for a period not to exceed ten (10) years. @ee inclosure #1 for the locations of the proposed confinement facility. 2. The initial project study outputs include a Letter Report and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) dated September 1977, which are being reviewed under the following laws: Federal Water Pollution Control Act Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 'Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Endangered Species Act of 1973 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 3. The proposed disposal site (Site 4) is located.on the north shore of Lake Betsie between Seventh and Ninth Street in the City of Frankfort. See inclosure #2. An alternate site (Site 5A) is located on the north shore of Lake Betsie between Tenth and Eleventh Street in the City of Frankfort. See inclosure 1#3. Either of these sites would be used in conjunction with State Forest property located approximately .15 miles inland at Fife Lake State Forest. The first choice would be to use Site 4 as a permanent site with a storage capacity of 34,000 cubic yards. The excess material (approxi- mately 66,000 cubic yards) would be trucked from Site 4 to the Fife Lake State Forest for ultimate disposal. If Site 4 is not used, a second alternative.would be to use Site 5A. C-33 WCEED-T Site 5A would be used as an interim hardling site with no permanent storage capacity. Sediments would be temporarily stored at Site 5A (2-3 weeks) while awaiting transfer to trucks which would haul the entire 100,000 cubic yards to the Fife Lake State Forest. These two sites have not been previously designated by the EPA as disposal sites, but use of these sites has been supported by the EPA pending review of the Environmental Impact Statement. 4,. Site 4 would encompass an area approximately four acres in size immediately south of Main Street between Seventh and Ninth Street on the Lake Betsie shoreline. The confinement facility would require earthen dikes on the east and west side 260 and 140 feet in length, respectively. These side dikes would have an effective height of approximately 5 feet above'the existing shoreline and slope up to existing grade at Main Street. The south side of the site, adjacent to .Lake Betsie, would be enclosed with approximately 800 linear feet of earthen dike protected on the lake side by stone and 200 feet of steel sheet pile vertical wall backfilled with granular fill. The steel sheet pile would serve as a mooring area and would allow.a land based crane to unload moored scows with a relatively short working radius. The dike crest would be approximately 8 feet above Low Water Datum (approxi- mately five feet above the shoreline in July of 1977), 10 feet wide at the top and have side slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The top of the dike adjacent to the mooring area would be 24 feet wide to provide adequate working area. Approximately 9000 square feet of riprap armor and 7,000 square feet of steel sheet piling would be placed on the south face of the confinement facility. This riprap would serve to protect the disposal area from wave action. The effluent from the diked disposal area would be released to Lake Betsie through an oil skinner and weir system. S. Site 5A would serve as an interim site located on the northeast shore of Lake Betsie. The temporary confinement facility would be approximately 200 feet by 380 feet paralleling the existing shoreline. The facility would require earthen dikes with a crest four feet above the existing grade, four feet wide at the top, and having side slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The lakeside dike would be located approximately 20 feet from the existing shoreline. The existing shoreline would require-slope stabilization with approximately 150 linear feet of steel sheet pile and 200 linear feet of stone. riprap. Approximately 4000 square feet of riprap and 5000 square feet of steel sheet piling would be placed on the C-34 tj JAt* 1jib NCEED-T southern face of the shoreline at Site 5A for bank stabiliza- ti6n. Drainage from within the diked area would be released through a 20 fo@jt long section of the dike which would be equipped with a fabric filter and.graded stone to trap sedi- ment. 6. The Letter Report and the Environmental Impact Statement for Frankfort are being coordinated with the following agencies: a. Federal: (1) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (2) U.S. Department of the. Interior (3) U.S..Environmental Protection Agency (4) U.S. Department of Commerce (5) U S. Department of Agriculture (6) U.S. Department of Transportation (7) U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (8) Federal Power Commission b. State: (1) Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2) Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation (3) Michigan Department of State - Michigan'History Division (4) Michigan Department of Agriculture (5) Michigan State University - Conference of Michigan Archeology (6) Michigan Department of Commerce c. Local: (1) City of Frankfort (2) Village of Elberta C-35 NCEED-T' (3). Benzie County (4) Benzie county Planning Commission .7. In'addition: Coordination 4etings were held between local officials and the Corps beginning early in the planning stage. :These included meetings with officials representing Ilk the City of Frankfort, Village of Elberta, Benzie County, Benzie County Planning Commi@;sion, and other concerned local interests. 8. Also, a site selection committee composed of representa- tives from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the Corps of Engineers, had several meetings including a field inspection. All agencies represented on the committee have expressed support for the selected sites. A Public Workshop was held in December 1976 at Frankfort. 9. Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the placement of dredge material in the diked disposal area may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within thirty (30) days of the date of this notice and must clearly set forth the interest which may. be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by this activity. 10. This notice is being published in conformance with 33 US Code of Federal Regulations 209.145. Any interested parties desiring to express their views concerning the proposed placement of dredge material may do so by filing their comments in writing with this office not later than 4:30 P.M., 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. 1 Incl MELVYN D. REMUS As stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Notice to Postmasters: It is requested that the above notice be conspicuously and continuously posted for 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. C,36 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT.. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P. 0. BOX 1027 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 49231 3-June 1976 IN ItC041T, REFER TO NCECO-0-15-FR PUBLIC NOTICE r MAINTENANCE DREDGING .4-FRANKFORT HARBOR; MICHIGAN. 1. The U. S. Army Corps of...Engineers proposes to perform maintenance dredging of the Federal Navigation Channels in Frankfort Harbor, Michigan, in 1976 and in each subsequent year when required to remove shoaling.. The material dredged from the clean section of the project will be placed, when possible, along the 18. foot* contour of the Lake Michigan shoreline . southerly of@ the harbor. Otherwise the clean material will be disposed along the 35' contour of the Lake Michigan shoreline southerly of'.the harbor. The polluted sections, that is the sections.within Lake Be@tsie, will not-be dredged until a confined disposal area is obtained to contain this dredged material. Prior to utilizing such a confined disposal site, a notice giving the location and other details will,be issued. 2. This channel maintenance work is being reviewed under the following laws: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,-the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Marine' Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as-the various Congressional Acts authorizing construction and maintenance of the.Federal project. 3. The annual maintenance dredging of the project is vital to deep dra ft vessels whose total annual waterborne cargo for the harbor is in exces's of 1,100,000 tons. 4. The Federal project consists of a navigation channel that be-ins at the sh6re of Lake Michigan and extends into Lake Betsie to the Foot of 7th Street for a total length of approximately 5,000 feet. The material to be dredged consist of sand and silt, Average annual volume of shoaling throughout the entire project is about 40,000 cubic yards. Of this amount, about 30,000 cubic yards is the clean material which is dredged and disposed In open water as discussed in paragraph I.' The dredging is accomplished'by a Corps of Engineers hopper dredge working for a period of about 7 calendar* days, usually, during summer. In 1976 the dredging is scheduled for July. to 6 3 C-37 NCECo-o-l5-rR FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN 5. -The ope'n'water disposal sites for the clean material are located in Lake Michigan at the 18 and 35 foot contours (See Sketch). 6. This dredging, including the disposal, is part of the regular annual maintenance dredging. Copies of this notice are being sent to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior the Coast Guard, the State of Michigan, the Department of Commerce, Benzie County, City of Frankfort and other Federal, State and Local agencies, as well as to known interested groups and individuals. ,7. The maintenance dredging Envirorunen tal Impact Statement is.available upon request. 8. Any person who has an interest which may be affected by the disposal of this dredged material may request a public hearing., The request must .be submitted in writing to the District Engineer'within thirty C30) days of the date of this notice and must clearly set forth the interest whi 'ch may be affected and the manner in which the interest may be affected by this activity. 9. Designation of the proposed disposal site for dredged material associated with the Federal project shall be made through the application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator EPA in conjunction with -the Secretary of the Army. If these guidelines alone prohibit the' designation -of' these proposed disposal sites, any potential impairment to the maintenance of'navigation, including any economic impact on navigation and anchorage which would result from the failure to'use this disposal site,'will also be considered. 10. This notice is being published in conforiance with 33 IJS.Code of * Federal Regulations 209.145. Any interested parties- desiring to express their views concerning the proposed aisposal may do so by filing their comments in writing with this office not later than 4:30 P. 14., 30 days from date of issuance of this notice. JAKES E. R&YS Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Notice to F9s Masters: It is requested'that the above notice be conspicuously and continuously posted for 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. 9-38 340 i G 2 AKE.MICHIGAN wa 229 594 154 ; 69 367 ! .37 402 450 '04 570 404 ISO 270 420 384 14 726. 378 $34 456 576 294 37 \ $16 368 1:39 528 2A4 -in 726 $52 504 . R S@ CFS,,.i 598 342 1 GD6 \lr- 198 BL34 $56 333 678 604 664 636 384 550"".; 42 132 4,5R 6 308 630 702 QO ---..444 5 a 660 654 \0 141 % 59 f Goo 180 534 102 40 2 133 558, 54 40 766 115 1, sea . i Vo 174 ---- 0 VA 532 q 273 78 ... . ..... Soo 42 A3 'I 204 / . , 570 /96 78 492 1 DIS 450 642.., "1 133 SIT 235 630 1.96 'S 7'0 too SOO / ISO- S 624 174 .5se 209 234 132 7 14' I/S S70 204 528 6 576 06 252 143 $40 F IRA 7 606 09 624 5 582 ..55 1a /* THE DEPARTMENT THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48231 NCECO-O 16 February 1979 PUBLIC NOTICE REVISION NCECO-0-15-FR2 MAINTENANCE DREDGING FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN 1. This Public Notice Revision is being issued for the purpose of providing information to various Government agencies and the general public and to solicit their commentsand views relative to the proposed work. This revised notice differs from the original notice NCECO-0-15 FR of 3 June 1976 only in the changes in location of the disposal areas. 2. In order to secure the maximum practical benefit through the productive utilization of materials dredged from this harbor, the dredged-matetial will be placed, whenever possible,in two-priority disposal,-sites, as-close to the Lake Michigan shoreline as possible. Both of these sites, one beginning at a point 0.25 miles to the north of the breakwater and the other at a point 0.25 miles to the south of the breakwater, extend northward and southward, respectively,along the shoreline for a distance of approximately 1.75 mile each (see inclosed sketch). The alternate open water disposal site.has been relocated such that the S. E. corner of this2,600x2,600 site is approximately 0.7.miles west (2630 ) from the outer-end of thenorth breakwater. This notice is being published in conformance with 33US Code of Federal Regulations 209.145. Any.interested parties desiring to express their views concerning the proposed disposal may do so by filing their comments in writing with this office not later than 4:30 p.m., 30,days from date of issuance of this notice MELVYN D. REMUS Colonel Corps of Engineers District Engineer Notice to Postmasters: It is requested that the above notice be conspicuously and continuously posted for 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice. c-4o LAKE MICHIGAN 270 57 '14 1,7 % 39 FIWviuI5SI M t7f ikq RN 534 R 13. OFS "i47 33- 3; otk@ --------- '630 ------ r, e. ISO N ZT.4 556 F.A. 8 SIG !14 m !_Iq 273 66^ Fi' 570 j ...... 491- DISP 540 . ....... 528 q.3 SITE 630' A@7 r,74 1;4 23- -32 2N S28; 606 N' 143 5-,G 252 540 FIR Al' 72b 708 606 15? 624 59%2 592 5,6 U. S. AR 426 169 5401 STATE OF MICHIGAN ATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION CARL T JOHNSON E M LAItAIA WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN. Governor DEAN aroN HILARY NULL DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HARRy H WHITELEY STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING. BOX 30028 LANSING. MICHIGAN 48909 JOAN L WOLFE HOWARD A TANNER. Director CHARLES G YOUNGLOVE July 9, 1979 Mr. Phillip McCallister, Chief Engineering Division U.S. Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, MI 48231 Re: Maintenance Dredging Projects Frankfort Harbor St. Clair River Monroe Harbor Detroit Harbor Dear Mr. McCallister: The above projects have been reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources Corps Project Review Committee and determined to be projects which would not have detrimental affects to the water quality. Sediment 'removal for these projects is essential to the continued use of these waters for navigation purposes.. Shoal materials classified as polluted by U.S. EPA criteria shall be disposed of upland in accordance with procedures outlined for individual projects in a manner which will not create environmental problems. On recommendations of the Corps Project Review Committee,the State of Michigan certifies under Section 401(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) as amended, P.L. 95-217, that the above projects.will comply. with the State's water quality standards. Additionally, this document shall serve as a State of Michigan concurrence for the work and fulfill the requirements of Section 404(t) of the Federal Act. Sincerely, WATER QUALITY DIVISION Robert J.Courchaine Division,Chief RJC/JB:tkr cc: Larry Witte, Chairman Committee Members c-42 APPENDIX D Air Quality Standards D@l NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Primary Secondary Suspended Particulates (micrograms/cu. meter) annual geometric mean 75 max. 24-hr. conc. 260 Sulfur Oxides (micrograms/cu. meter) annual arith. aver. 80 (.03 ppm) max. 24-hr. conc.* 365 (.14 ppm) 1300 (.5ppm) max. 3-hr. conc.* Carbon Monoxide (milligrams/cu. meter) max. 8-hr. conc.* 10 (9 ppm) 10 max. !-hr. conc.* 40 (35ppm) 40 Photochemical Oxidants (micrograms/cu. meter). max. I-hr. conc.* 160 (.08ppm) 160 Nitrogen Oxides (micrograms/cu. meter), annual arith. aver. 100(.05ppm) 100 Hydrocarbons (micrograms/cu. meter) max. 3-hr. conc.* 160 (.24 ppm) 160 (6-9 a.m.) *not to be exceeded more than once a year per site. D-2 APPENDIX E ECONOMIC DATA, EXTRACTED AND UPDATED FROM U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LETTER REPORT AND DESIGN ANALYSIS', FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN. COMPLETE DOCUMENTSAIRE AVAILABLE AT U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, DETROIT E-1 FWIKFORT HARBOA DTSPOSA %Qj]@TTT . - L F SITE 4--!% SITE, 4 CO.ST ESTIMATE'@ ESTIMATF-P,, W IT, DESCRIPTION, QUANTITY, UNIT PRICE COST Clearing Site, L " 6.,, Q.Q.0, Fencing 116QQ -F i-Qj@ Q'Q Granular Fill 7 C;Y 61,60G '700 4;-49i Ripr4p Ston,e 2,530 Ton. 2 5 @, 9,0., Filter Cloth ..410 XO@040 Clay 4. 9'QO py- 1Z,09i Sheet Piling 0,400 4?1 Misc. Steel 12VIO00 LA Plastic Seal 164,500 SY 4Q. 3.,Z@ 9QQ. Earth Cover for Seal 121200 PT 3.@510I Aggregate Surface 700 TqR Ttqo 4. @', 9 QQ) Pile Cluster 2 EA 1.,800, 3.,.,, QQ, Access Dredging and Disposal 7,40Q. cly- 7,,,Q.Q 51-'@Ooo Weir EA LS- Access Road_, 60,04 Seeding and Mulching 4 AC- 850 1,400 Subtotal [email protected] Contingency (15%) 73.049, Subtotal 30,,'03!@ Prior Costs !@,&,,600 Engineering And Design 751@,910p, Supervision and Administratio.n.,(8Z), 44,803; Total Projeqt@ Cost. 878,442 Average Annj*j Charges. l24,34,'& *Based on June 1979 prices, 6, 7/8@ percent in.terest a4d., a 1G year projeqt@ life. APPENDIX F PUBLIC NOTICE AND FINAL SECTION 404 EVALUATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 DETROIT,MICHIGAN 48231 NCEED-T PUBLIC NOTICE AND FINAL SECTION 404 EVALUATION THE MAINTENANCE DREDGING THE DISPOSAL OF UNSUITABLE MATERIAL THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPOSAL FACILITY FRANKFORT HARBOR, MICHIGAN 1. Introduction. This document was prepared in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, and Executive, Order 11988, FLoodplain Management, issued May 24, 1977. 2. The existing Federal Navigation Project at Frankfort Harbor was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1886 and modified under the provisions of Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960. Section 123 of the River Harbor Act of 1970. Public Law 91-611) has authorized the constructio operation, and maintenance of diked disposal and storage areas for the containment of dredged materials for a' period, not to exceed, ten (10) years. See Inclosure #1 for the location of the proposed confinement facility. 3. A Letter Report, a Revised Letter Report, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated September 1977, have been issued to the public. Earlier. public notices were issued on 3 June 1976 and revised 16 February 1979, concerning dredging of that portion of Frankfort Harbor which contains material suitable for open lake water disposal. This notice addresses (1) the maintenance dredging of that part of the Frankfort Federal Harbor which is classified unsuitable for open water disposal, (2)disposal of the unsuitable material, (3) the construction of the disposal site, and (4)the dredging (initial and maintenance) of the access and maneuver area to Site.No. 4. A Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be available to the public. in December 1979 or January 1980. 4. The diked disposal site (Site No. 4) is located on the north shore of Lake Betsie in Frankfort between Seventh and Ninth Streets. This site would be used in conjunction with State Forest property located approximately 15 miles inland at Fife Lake State Forest. 5. Executive Order 11988. In compliance with Executive Order 11988, it is. noted that the Lake Betsie diked disposal facility is located within the 100, year floodplain. Location of the disposal facility as proposed would have no significant impact upon the floodplain. It would not increase flooding, in the area or be affected by flooding from Lake Betsie. The selecte site would offer maximum benefit from technical, social, economic, and environmental points of view. 6. Alternative sites were eliminated because of the presence of wetlands, interference with fishing, rejection by local authorities, and lack of the long range recreational benfits for the community. F-2 NCEED-T 7. 'The selected site would ultimately be used in the construction of the City of Frankfort's Mineral Springs Park. Completion of this resource would promote optimal use of the associated floodplain. 8. The action proposed is in conformance with applicable State and local V* floodplain protection standards. 9. Section 404 Evaluation. Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) requires that the Corps of Engineers apply to its own projects the same criteria used in evaluating projects requiring a dredge or fill permit. These criteria include evaluation under 40 CFR 230, an Environmental Protection Agency Regulation, and providing an adequate opportunity for public review and comment on projects. In 40 CFR 230 it is required that any proposed plan involving placement of fill material into navigable waters must be evaluated for effects the action will have on wetlands, water quality, benthic organisms, fisheries (including spawning and breeding areas) and shellfish beds, wildlife, recreation, municipal water supply*intakes, and threatened and endangered species. Effects of the project fill activities upon these aspects of the environment are evaluated below. 10. The fill material of concern would be dredged material deposited in the diked disposal facility, which would extend up to 10 feet into Lake Betsie. The lands adjacent to Site No. 4 are park (recreational) on the west side and sanitary treatment and boat launching facilities on the east side. The bottom materials to be removed are organic silts, sandy clay, and silty sand. Certain portions of the deposits have been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as unsuitable for open water disposal. These portions would be placed in the confined disposal facility and Fife Lake State Forest. 'Materials used in the construction of the confined disposal facility w8Ld consist of steel sheet piling, riprap, graded granular fill (sand and gravel),'clay, sand-bentonite mix and other suitable materials. No clay would be placed'in the wat er. .11. The Frankfort Federal Harbor would be dredged with either hydraulic or bucket equipment. Site No. 4 would be filled during the 1981 calendar year. Ii the harbor is dredged with bucket equipment, the material would be unloaded from scows and transferred into trucks. The trucks would unload tne contaminated dredged material at Site No. 4 or at the Fife Lake SLate Forest Site, which is approximately 15 miles from the City of Frankfort. During the construction of Site No. 4, the following approximate quantities of material would be deposited into the open waters of Lake Betsie: 900 cubic@yards of granular material 700 tubic'yards of riprap stone Should the first season dredging (1981) be accomplished by hydraulic equipment, the material will be deposited into Site No. 4. The weir structure would provide for a controlled amount of water overflow. 2 F-3 NCEED-T Applicable Laws. 12. The project has been reviewed under the following laws,: a. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act b. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 c. National Environmental Policy Act 1969 d. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 e. Marine Protection Research and Sanctuary Act of 1972 f. Endangered Species Act of 1973 g. Clean Water Act of 1977 13. Both disposal sites (Site No. 4 and Fife Lake State Forest) are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated sites. Furthermore the disposal of contaminated dredge material into Site No.4 and Fife Lake State Forest has been coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. fish and Wildlife Service, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the City of Frankfort. Wetlands. 14. No wetlands, occur at Site 4 along the shore of Lake Betsie. Water Quality. 15. Scow unloading by crane and clamshell near the shoreline may involve some accidental spillage. The impact of spillage is expected to have only local significance as a stress on biota, because the nearshore ambient water is turbid. An oil skimmer and weir Would be used to control the return of water to the lake, and splash pads and other necessary devices would be used to minimize erosion. Contractors would be instructed to perform in compliance with appropriate portions of the Mi d Lakes And ichigan Inlan Streams Act 346 of 1972, and the Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act 347 of 1972, in all phases of construction and operation. These Acts limit increases in sediment load and other adverse water quality effects from construction. 16. The sediments to be dredged contain excessive quantities of volatile solids, chemical oxygen demand, phenol, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, plus excessive levels of lead and zinc. Site 4 would be lined with clay and/or other suitable materials to prevent seepage of separated water. The skimmer placed in the containment area would remove oil and grease from the surface so that clear water with insignificant amounts of deleterious substances would be returned to the lake. The overflow would be monitored at control points to be certain that no excessive concentrations go undetected, Should concentrations be found to be unsafe or unsuitable for release into Lake Betsie, operations would cease and material within the containment area would be subjected to greater retention times until concentrations reach suitable levels. 3 F-4 NCEED-T Benthos, Including Shellfish. 17. Lake Betsie receives large amounts of nutrients from adjacent urban areas andlas a result is biologically very productive. The benthic environment is dominated by tubificid worms and highly organic sediments. Waters in the area would bedom-e"@*more turbid, during construction of the disposal facility resulting in a temporary local depletion and simplification of the' food chain. A small area of habitat would be filled in by the south dike wall of.the facility. No commercial shellfish beds exist in either of the disposal areas. Fishery Resources. 18. A small amount of panfish spawning, rearing, and feeding habitat would be destroyed from construction of the south wall of the facility. Since the nearshore bottom sediments are highly organic, and only marginally suitable as nesting habitat for such fish, the loss of suitable habitat would be minimal. Other fish utilizing the surrounding area for feeding or cover would be displaced during construction and from any spillage which occurs during operation. 19. Increased turbidity and reduced oxygen'levels associated with an increase in silt and suspended solids in the water column due to construction and disposal could have short term adverse effects on sight feeding species. Construction of the facility could be expected to drive fish away from the immediate area. There would be no significant water quality effect on fish pop:ulations in the lake, however. 20" Migration patterns of fish which'spawn in the Betsie River are not ex;ected to be affected by habitat displacement or water quality effects of construction, as they would take place in shallow nearshore water aside from the main'flow through Lake Betsie. Lake trout are mainly cold water spawning species; they require a rock substrate for successful reproduction; they would not be likely to utilize Lake Betsie for spawning. Brown trout and steelnead, which are respectively, late fall and early spring spawners, would be expected to utilize areas of fine gravel and rocks upstream in the Betsie-River. Wildlife. 21. There would be no significant impact on wildlife. Recreation. 22. Public fishing in Lake Betsie could be poor in the immediate project vicinity during construction of Site 4. 4 F-5 NCEED-T 23. No permanent detrimental effect on the potenial recreational use of the area would occur; rather, following the first 2 years of the 10-year operation period, Site 4 would become part of the City of Frankfort's shoreline development project. It would enhAnce the recreational value of the land for the city and its visitors. hin the project area is in a ditubed 24. The shoreline of Lake Betsie wit condition. The scenic quality of this part of the shoreline would be improved by the action Proposed at Site 4 following the filling of the disposal area. Commercial Fishing. 25. No commercial fishery exists in Frankfort Harbor. Threatened or Endangered species. 26. No endangered or threatened plant or animal species listed in the Federal Register 17 January 1979 or thereafter has been reported for this shoreline area or for Fife Lake State Forest. The extensive And intensive disturbance of the area would limit use by those shorelie and raptorial bird species which frequent the shorelands of the Great Lakes. Municipal Water Supplies. 27. The nearest public water supply sources in the project area are one-quarter mile north of the Lake Betsie northern shoreline. The public water supply is obtained from two wells in a location protected by overlying clay and by the natural gradient of groundwater flow, which is lakeward. The distance, gradient, And ground materials would isolate dredged materials from the aquifer. Therefore, there would be no impact Upon municipal water supplies. The neatest private water supplies Are All obtained from the isolated from the project by the prevailing groundwater and are adequately movement of groundwater in the region. No Project effects would be expected on private wells. The liner (clay and/or other suitable materials) for the disposal facility would provide additional protection. 28. Conclusions and Determinations. An ecological evaluation has been made following the evaluation guidance in 40 CFR 230.4, in conjuction with the evaluation considerations in 40 CFR 230.5. Appropriate measures have been identified and incorporated in the proposed plan to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic environment as A result of the dischArges. Consideration has been given to the need for the proposed activity, the Availability of alternative sites, and methods of disposal that are less damaging to the environment, and such water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law. 29. Findings. Based on the above determinations, it is found that the discharge sites for Frankfort Harbor,Michigan,Maintenance Dredging And Confined Disposal, have been specified through the application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. 5 F-6 I- A 7u it f, t2 R B., 26' @Hz 23 Fr A4Ay 19 75 t G 7'19S,m @'R -,O.As- 17 FT MA Y "9 75 --E H 24 fr 4 r fC)' t @0;;.N C r, PFO.IEC 7' DEPTH /S jrT r4 y 7 F? -38 31 United States Department of the Interior in reply refer to: FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE EAST LANSING FIELD OFFICE(ES) Room 301, Manly Miles Building 1405 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823 January 23, 1980 A Colonel Robert V. Vermillion U.S. Army Engineer Detroit District P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Vermillion: We have reviewed the Public Notice and Section 404 Preliminary Evaluation for the maintenance dredging, the disposal of unsuitable materials, and the construction of the confined disposal facility at Frankfort Harbor,Benzie County, Michigan. The following comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401 As amended; U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and in compliance with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Under Fishery Resources, paragraph 20, incorrect information has been presented, and we believe a correction should be published. On November 28, 1978 we forwarded a letter to Colonel Remus (copy attached) detailing current fishery information. As requested, an additional letter was ding detailed fishery forwarded on December 12, 1978 (copy attached) provi information to Mr. McCallister on the waters adjacent to the proposed disposal site number 4. As you can note, we collected eighteen lake trout, two steelhead, and two brown trout at the Project site. Your report indicated no use of the area. Several of the lake trout Were in a prespawning or postspawning spawning condition (ripe, grAvid, or spent), as were the brown trout. We are not suggesting that these fish were utilizing this area as a spawning site, but we wish to point out that they were definitely present in the shallow neArshore waters at the site, and were actively feeding. This was evidenced by the fact that an angler casting from shore caught a lake trout in the project area while personnell from our office were present. Periods of dredging activity, as proposed, will need to be adjusted so as not to interfere with the migration and spawning activities of these fish species. F-8 ,Tf there are any questionsg or you require additional informationg please Icontact our office. Sin rely yoursq e- R. din Supervisor Attachments November: 28, 1978 Colonel Melvin D.Remus U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P.O. Box 1027 Detroit,, Michigan 48231 Attention: Mr. Rich Gutleber Dear Colonel Remus: Personnel from our East Lansing Field Office conducted limited fish sampling at the proposed modified confined disposal site on Lake Betsie, Frankfoart, Michigan on, October 30,1978 per your environmental sections request. The fish sampling was conducted in, water from two. to. four feet deep within 100 feet of the shore- line. Water temperature was: 47". In. 52 minutes of electro- fishing. with, the R/V Killfish,we were able to successfully net 60 fish representing 10 species: 18 Lake Trout 1 Smallmouth Bass, 2 Steelhead 1, Burbot 2 Brown Trout 3 Redhorse 4 Rock Bass 20 Carp I Northern Pike 8 White Sucker Many additional fish were seen but not collected. No additionaL species were noted. Sincerely, Clyde R. Odin,. Supervisor F-10 December 12, 1978 Mr. P. McCallister Chief Engineering Division U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit P.O. Box 1027 Detroit,Michigan 48231 Dear Mr. McCallister: Reference is made to your letter of November 22, 1978, which requested our comments or approval on extending the presently approved diked disposal fAcility an Additional 100 feet into Lake Betsie at Frankfort, Michigan. After recently conducting preliminary fish sampling at the proposed expansion site (data attached), the Fish and Wildlife Service has found the proposed project to be an unacceptable encroachment upon the bottom- land of Lake Betsie. Our reasons are as follows: 1. The extension of the disposal structure would result in the loss of two and one half acres of Lake Betsie bottomland. 2. The water quality at the site appeared to be good and supported a diverse population of fish species at the tire sampled. 3. Forage fish species were encountered during the sampling. The occurrence of forage species indicates the presence of benthic and/or zooplankton organisms on which they feed. 4. The shallowe waters provide potential spawning areas and needed nursery areas for fish fry. 5. It is the policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service to support upland disposal of dredged materials as opposed to the filling Of bottomlands or wetlands. 6. Executive order 11988 directs governmental agencies "to avoid direct or indirect support of flood plain development wherever there is a practicable alternative." Other alternatives do exist to filling in the bottomlands. Paragraph G (2.22) of the draft Environmental Statement (Sept., 1977) lists site 5A as being within a flood hazard area. Attached for your review are fishery data collected on October 30, 1978 at the proposed fill area along with a map showing the approximate sampling locations. If additional data is deemed necessary to support F-11 our objection to the filling of the additional lake bottomlAnds. a four season sampling program should be undertAken. Extended sampling would augment the seasonal fish, species utilization data; develop zooplankton densities charts; Identify potential fry utilization areas and species composition; and identify waterfowl utilization And feeding activities for the area. Four season sampling would most likely verify the findings indicated by our electrofishing efforts. However, there would be a much greater fish mortality due to the use of gill nets. Inasmuch as the Corps of engineers has not developed an Acceptable plan for the creation of new lake bottomlands as mitigation for the proposed bottomland encroachment And have also found it unacceptAble to develop a new wetland area at an upland. site as a reciprocative measure, we cannot agree with the proposed expansion. We cannot con- done the further erosion of our valuable coastal shoreline for unneces- sary confined disposal structures. If the originally agreed upon disposal plan is' not Acceptable at this time, we suggest that the problem be turned over to the Site Selection Committee for further consideration. Sincerely yours, Ray C. Williams Acting Supervisor Attachments cc: U.S. EPA FLAO F-12 TABLE. I Frankfort Harbor/Lake Betsie. 10/30/78 (Proposed CDF Expa*nslon) Method: Electrofish Vessel: R/V!U.'Ii i4h Water-Temperaturet 47*F 'Timet 9,:,00" @Vlfl'.' EST Depth: [email protected] 4-feet Cbllect:ioa.'. Time: 52. minutes, Length. 'Weight Fia Species (MM) Sex. Gonad. Cli Lake Trout 746 R -NC Lake@Trout 7,11 AdRV- Lake-Trout 707: F @G RV Lake Trout 706 RV .Lake.,Trout 740. F G: RV LaV.e Trout 739 M NC Lake Trout 750 AdRV Lake-Trout 68& Ad 'Lake Trout, -735. :G RV Lake-Trout 732, LV Lake,Trout 799 R AdRV Lake Trout 742. Lake.Trout 705 G RV Lake Trout 716 rlvl Lake Trout 778 'RV' Lake Trout 7291. X R RV take Trout 690 RV LakeTrout 75.7 M. R LV Rock Bass- 190 :Rock. Bass 215 Rock.Bass 172' Rock Bass 157 O=illriouth Bass 78 I-Tortliern Pike 1010 Brown Trout 669 -4850* .'F G 11C Brovm Trout 572, - -F G NC Steelbead 709 3300 Steelhead 672 UlAte Sucker 507 Vh i t e Sucker 112 Ili i t eSucker 382 L"hite Sucker 403 ,hi.te Sucker' 408 VJ'h i t eSucker 381 White Sucker .401 'Uhite Sucker 428 F-13 TABLE I CONTINUED Length Weight Fin Species (mm)- Sex Conad. cite Redh6rse Sp 559 Redhorse Sp 445 .Redhorse Sp 434 Burbot 279 'Carp 629 Carp 616 Carp 592 Carp 713 Carp 824 Carp 573 Carp 662 Carp 664 Carp 688 Carp 565 Carp .572 Carp 572, Carp 525 Carp 585 Carp 765 8500 Carp 552 Carp 492 Carp 521 Carp 557 Carp 507 F-14 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V 230 SOUTH DEARBORN, ST CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: 31 JAN 1980 Colonel Robert V. Vermillion District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers., Detroit Box 1027 Detroit, Michigan 48231 Dear Colonel Vermillion: We have reviewed the Public Notice for the proposed maintenance dredging, disposal of unsuitable material, and the, construction of a confined dis- posal facility at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan., Based on our review of the. subject notice and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pre- pared for this project, we offer the following comments for your considera- tion. It is noted in paragraph 11 of the Public Notice that dredging would take place during two periods, spring and autumn.. These are periods when dredg- ing. could have it's greatest impact on fisheries;. therefore, we recommend that specific dredging activities at Frankfort Harbor be' coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Natural- Resources in order to minimize potential impacts. We will defer any other comments until 'we have had an opportunity to review the Final EIS. Sincerely yours, Barbara J. Taylor, Chief Environmental Impact Review Staff. Office of Environmental Review F-15 MUCC Conservation through Education MICHIGAN UNITED CONSERVATION CLUBS 2101 Wood St. P.O. Box 30235 Lansing, M1 48909 517-371-1041 January 24,1980 Robert V. Vermillion Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer P.O. Box 1027 Detroit, MI 48231 Dear Colonel Vermillion: RE: NCEED-T - Public Notice and Section 404 Preliminary Evaluation. The Maintenance Dredging; The Disposal of Unsuitable Material; The Construction of the Disposal Facility Frankfort Harbor, Michigan, The Michigan United Conservation Clubs is very concerned about the above referenced project and its impacts. Perhaps the most important concern we have is the containment of spoils adjacent to and in the waters of Betsie Lake. We are perplexed at how this site has been determined to "offer maximum benefit from... environmental points of view". We question how this can offer maximum environmental benefits when the sediments to be placed in this site contain "excessive quantities of volatile solids,..oil, grease, lead and zinc." Further, we do not feel that the impacts to the project area have. been accurately portrayed. As we understand, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a census in October 1978 within the proposed project area. In this census 60 fish of various species were collected including 18 lake trout, 2 steelhead and 4 brown trout. In lieu of this, we do not understand how under Paragraph PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENTS GLENN CORBETT, 20647 Country Club, THOMAS L. WASHINGTON, P 0. Box 30235 WENDELL BRIGGS, 3747 Hardyk N.E. Harper Woods, MI 48236 Lansing, MI 48909 Grand Rapids, MI 49505 VICE PRESIDENTS TREASURER F-16 GERADL GOODMAN, Rt. 1 Box 32 GLENN GEERLINGS, 9531 New Holland. OWEN C.(Chuck)BURNS,12210 MAC Drive N.E. Rt. 3. Iron River,MI 49935 Zeeland. MI 49464 JOHN B. EICHiNGER, 203 S. Case St. Bolding, MI 48609 ROBERT SLINGERLEND. 3201 Lake George Rd.. Marion, MI 49665 Lake Orion, MI 43035 BOARD REP. JOHN WHITMORE, 32024 Hull DwiGHT ULMAN, 2745 E.Dexter, Saginaw, MI 48603 GORDON ROY,Rapid River, MI 49878 Farmington Hills,MI 48018 Northem Michigan Office, Rt. 1, Box 1509, Grayling MI 49738, 517/348-2316 Page 2. 20-such statements as "migrations of fish which spawn in the-Betsie River are not expected to be affected by habitat development or water qUality effects". can be made. It would seem that a project such, as this could have significant impacts on fish using the area, especially if the project is conducted during the spawning periods. Finally, we would like to know if the maneuver and access area is specifically designed to be used in conjunction with disposal site No. 4. If this is the intent and other alterhatives exist, would the dredging this not negate the need for of this area? With these concerns expressed by our organization,we can find no alternative but to ask that this permit not be issued at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to have commented on this proposal and will be waiting for your response. Very truly yours, Raymond Rustem Northern Michigan Field-Representative cc: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land Resource Programs Division U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V F-17 ZF,T7ERBERC; F6 ZETTERBERC; STEPHEN 1. ZETTERBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE CHAPLES L. ZETTERBERG 319 HARVARO AVENUE (7141 621-2971 THERESA C. SHAW CLAREMONT,CALIFORNIA 91711 FUNGLAN PERSfMMON IC. r4 dc -!Z- F 44 0 4.( vt '7 LA Ott 4n CJ -C P, C I "., @z * , C4 .--p-7A r a-&," 4f Ar DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 DETROIT.MICHIGAN 48231 NCEED-ER 22 FEB 1980 Mr. Clyde R. Odin, Supervisor. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office Room 301, Manly Miles Building 1405 S.Harrison Road E. Lansing, MI 48823 Dear Mr. Odin: Thank you for your comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act on the Public Notice and 404 Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging. Disposal of Unsuitable Material, and Construction of the Disposal Facility At Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. The 404 Preliminary Evaluatton did not include the detailed fish data which your office had provided. This information is included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which is to be released in February 1980. It was not intended in the 404 Evaluation to indicate that fish 'do not use the project area, only that no impacts to fish. spawning or migration are anticipated. The last sentence in paragraph 20 has been deleted from the Final 40.4 Evaluation, which is included in the FEIS. The environmental effects of dredging and disposal are evaluated in the Final. Environmental, Impact Statement. The FEIS contains the information provided on fishes present. near the disposal site and evaluates. the potential Adverse environmental effects of the projecton fish spawning and migration. Dredging schedules for each harbor are coordinated on an annual basis with your office, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dredging for Frankfort Harbor would be scheduled to minimize interference with fish migration or spawning. Sincerely, ALLISTER P. McC Chief, Engineering Division: F-19 DEPARTMENT of THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48231 28 FEB 1980 NCEED-ER Ms.Barbara Taylor, Chief Environmental Impact Review Staff Office of Environmental Review U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Dear Ms. Taylor: Thank you for your, review of the Public Notice and Preliminary 404, Evaluation for maintenance dredging, disposal and construction of a confined disposal site at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. Dredging schedules are reviewed on an annual basis with your office, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. At the time of review, the dredging schedule would be determined and adjusted, if necessary, to minimize adverse impacts on fisheries as well as recreational use. Sincerely, P. McCALLISTER Chief, Engineering Division F-20 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O.BOX 1027 DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48231 IN REPLY REFER TO NCEED-ER Mr. Raymond Rustem Michigan United Conservation Clubs 2101 Wood Street P.O. Box 30235 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Mr. Rustem: Thank you for your comments concerning the Public Notice and Section 404 Preliminary Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging, Disposal of Unsuitable Material and Construction of the Disposal Facility at Frankfort Harbor, Michigan. The site for containment of contaminated,dredged,materials was selected from among eleven considered. To quote the entire sentence from which you excerpted,"The selected site would offer Maximum benefit from technical, social, economic, and environmental points of view." Thus all of these aspects were part of the selection process.. On the basis of these criteria the selected site offered maximum benefit relative to the other sites. In addition to social, technical and economic, it would have the following environmental advantages: Its use would. not involve filling of wetlands;. itwould have no long term envir- onmental effects; it would not require hauling of dredged material through the Frankfort business district; and it would provide recre- ational benefits from its ultimate use in the City's Mineral Springs.. Park. It would have some adverse water quality effects during con- struction of the facility and during the dredging process,but these would be temporary and minor and did not disqualify the site as the best among the eleven from an overall point of view. The facility would be built to avoid disposing the potentially contaminated materials in the open waters of Lake Michigan. The materials would be confined by a six inch, layer, of bentonite or othet suitable material to prevent their seepage into the surface or ground,water of the area. F-21 0 FE8 MO NCEED-FR Mr. Rustem it should be clarified that the Section 464 Evaluation does not address the effects of the entire project. It addresses only the effects of project fill activities (see paragraph 9, page 2, Public Notice and 404 Evaluation). The effects of the entire project h,-..ve been evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of September 1977 and will be reevaluated in the Final EIS to be released this month. You will be sent a copy of the FEIS for review. The placement of fill material used in construction of the facility (see Evaluation, page 2, paragraph 11) would not be expected to have a significant effect on migration of fish through Lake Betsie because of the limited size of the construction involved and the relative width of Lake Betsie. Dredging schedules are reviewed on an annual basis by the Michigan Department of'Natural Re- sources, U.S. Fish and i4ildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. At time of review, a schedule for frankfort would be set-tip to avoid disturbance of possible mi-ration or spawning of fish. The maneuver,and access area is specifically designed to be used in conjunction with the disposal facility proposed on Site .4. Since Site 4 proved to be the best site based on effects on water quality, biota, recreation, esthetics, social well-being, economics, and land use plans, it is the only alternative which would be appropriate,to implement. The selection has taken into consideration the water quality effects of access channel dredging. A discussion of the alternative disposal methods will be included in the Final EIS. As discussed in your conversation with Mr. Nicholson of'our Environ- mental Resources Branch on 14 February, the dredger would be required to protect against spillage it transferring the dredged ma@erialsfrom the barge to the trucks. This operation has been field tested 'and has proven to be very satisfactory, If you have any further questions, please get in touch with-me or Mr..Abram gicholson of MY staff at (313),226-6752. Sincerely, P McCALLISTER Cbie -.ngineerin f 17- g Division. F-22. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 C DETROIT. MI HIGAN48231 1@, 4, NCEED-ER FLb 1'JbU Mr. Steven I. Zetterberg 319 Harvard Avenue Claremont, California 91711 Dear Mr. Zetterberg: Thank you for your letter regarding the 404 Preliminary Evaluation on maintenance dredging at Frankfort Harbor. Investigations have shown that the Federal navigation structures at Frankfort were responsible for about 45% of the erosion in the beach between 1/4 mile and 2 miles north of the northerly breakwater. A non-structural measure for mitigation of this erosion was discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Mitigation of Shore Damage of September 1976. One of the measures of the non-structural plan is the establishment of maintenance dredging guidelines which place priority on dredged material deposition along eroding shorelines. The priority for diposal of clean materials is "disposal of the dredged materials... as cloqe as practicable along the Lake Michigan shoreline beginning about 0.25 miles (0.4 km) north of the brpakwater and extending northerly for a distance of about 1.75 miles (2.8 km)." Unsuitable materials must be placed in a confined disposal facility, as addressed in the 404 Evaluation. The depth at which the dredge can dispose the material at Frankfort Harbor has noc been determined.4 The time period of dredging would be based on environmental considerations, including effects of waves and currents on the material for beach nourishment. It is anticipated, however, that disposal would occur near the 18 foot contour, and that deposited sands would enter the beach zone by wave, action. The time period is subject to approval of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and.Wildlife Service. Sincerely, P. McCALLISTER Chief, Engineering Division F-23 h, kw w to A,M, Am, -j,