Attachment 2.1_Part 1_06Nov16Final GRR+EIS.pdf

Request for Qualifications (Phase I) Lock and Dam #3 Navigation Improvements

Design‐Build Procurement

July 2009

Attachment 2.1 – GRR/EIS Document and Drawings

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

St. Paul District

W912ES‐09‐R‐0025

FINAL November 2006

FINAL INTEGRATED

GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT

AND

ENVIRONMNENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LOCK AND DAM 3 MISSISSIPPI RIVER

NAVIGATION SAFETY AND EMBANKMENTS

St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 190 Fifth Street East, Suite 401

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

FINAL INTEGRATED

GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT

AND

ENVIRONMNENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR

LOCK AND DAM 3 MISSISSIPPI RIVER

NAVIGATION SAFETY AND EMBANKMENTS

The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the St. Paul District has the lead in preparation of this Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (GRR/EIS). There are no other official cooperating agencies.

ABSTRACT

Lock and Dam 3 is a navigation dam on the Upper Mississippi River 6 miles upriver from Red Wing, Minnesota, in Pierce County, Wisconsin, and Goodhue County, Minnesota. Lock and Dam 3 is a key part of the Upper Mississippi River 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project, authorized by Congress in the River and Harbor Act of 1927. The lock and dam was completed in 1938.

Two long-standing and related problems at Lock and Dam 3 involve navigation safety and the Wisconsin embankments. Because the dam was constructed on a bend in the river with the lock on the outside of the bend, an outdraft current sweeps across the upper lock approach toward the gated part of the dam. The outdraft current makes navigation difficult and has caused many navigation accidents. Since 1963, 11 accidents have occurred when tows collided with the gated part of the dam.

Lock and Dam 3 was constructed with a unique set of embankments on the Wisconsin side to maintain water levels in two floodplain lakes. The Wisconsin embankments were not constructed to modern standards of engineering design. They consist of a series of sheet pile and rock weirs called spot dikes, natural river levees, and some segments of constructed earthen embankments. The Wisconsin embankments have deteriorated over the years and are vulnerable to failure.

Navigation accidents can result in barges blocking one or more of the four roller gates in the dam, resulting in a rise in water level in navigation Pool 3 and increased flow over the Wisconsin embankments when there is head at the dam, creating a highly erosive situation.

The Wisconsin embankments could fail rapidly because of the weak soil conditions in that area, opening up a scour channel around Lock and Dam 3 that would cause an accidental drawdown of Pool 3.

An accidental drawdown of Pool 3 would have significant adverse economic and environmental consequences. Navigation would be closed, erosion would destroy high quality wetland habitat in the Gantenbein Lakes area, 2,500 acres of shallow aquatic habitat and wetlands in Pool 3 would be dewatered, infrastructure at the Prairie Island Indian Community marina would be damaged, and two large power plants on Pool 3 would be forced to shut down.

Through a planning process with input from stakeholders, the Corps has identified a tentatively recommended plan to improve navigation safety and the Wisconsin embankments at Lock and Dam 3. The plan would include an extended guide wall with channel modifications and strengthened embankments with phased construction.

The navigation safety and embankments plan includes the following:

Extended guide wall and channel modifications:

The existing landward guide wall on the upstream side of the lock would be extended 862 feet. A pile-supported concrete wall would be constructed with a continuous concrete rubbing surface extending 3 feet below normal pool level, and a concrete panel would hang 8 feet below that to control crosscurrents along the wall. The guide wall would have bollards to tie off barges, lights, signage and access. At the upstream end of the wall, a 50-foot-diameter concrete filled steel sheet pile cell would protect the end of the wall from direct collisions. The sheet pile cell would have a navigation light, power, access, and signage. The estimated construction cost of the extended guide wall and channel modifications is $30,227,000.

As an interim measure until an extended guide wall and channel modifications are constructed, the St. Paul District will pursue complete voluntary compliance by the towing industry for helper boat use during outdraft conditions (river discharge greater than 21,000 cfs) for down bound tows approaching Lock and Dam 3 with six or more loaded barges.

Strengthened Wisconsin embankments with phased construction:

In Phase 1 of the embankments construction, the overflow weirs called spot dikes along the upper embankment would be rebuilt. New sheet pile would be driven at the spot dikes, offset about 15 feet from the old sheet pile. Rock riprap in the overflow channels of the spot dikes would be placed and keyed into the surrounding grade. Low areas that have scoured along the upper embankment would be filled. One or two additional spot dikes would be constructed in larger existing scour channels, and a 10-foot-wide access trail of crushed rock along the upper embankment would be constructed to enable access for construction and later inspections and maintenance activities. The old Marsh Lake inlet culvert at spot dike D would be replaced.

A raised 400-foot-long embankment near the dam would be constructed to protect the gated part of the dam. A 400-foot-long Marsh Lake spillway would be constructed. The old Marsh Lake water control structures would be replaced with a new stoplog culvert water control structure. A 2,100-foot-long spillway between Gantenbein Lake and the river would be constructed, and a stoplog culvert Gantenbein Lake water control structure would be built.

The spillways would be constructed with articulated concrete mat (ACM), keyed into grade with rock on the upstream side and underwater downstream toe. The ACM spillways and areas disturbed by construction would be planted with sandbar willow and other native flood-tolerant wetland plants.

The Phase 1 embankments construction would Ieave the wider land area between the Marsh Lake and Gantenbein Lakes spillways unprotected, along with the area from downstream end of the Gantenbein Lake spillway around the south end of Gantenbein Lake to the bluff. The embankments would be inspected regularly and after overtopping events. If breaches through the unprotected areas were to occur, additional segments of the lower embankment would be built as needed in Phase 2 construction. In the event of the need for Phase 2 construction around the south end of Gantenbein Lake, an access trail for light trucks and personnel would be extended from the existing trail around the south end of Gantenbein Lake to the end of the Gantenbein Lake spillway.

The estimated cost of embankments construction is $33,644,000. Of that total, the estimated cost of Phase 2 construction, if needed in the future, would be $5,329,000.

Environmental mitigation:

Environmental mitigation features for the embankments construction include design features to avoid and minimize adverse effects of project construction. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts of construction on floodplain forest would include acquisition and restoration of 313 acres of floodplain forest habitat in Pierce County. Real estate acquisition and floodplain forest restoration costs for environmental mitigation are included as first costs of the project. The mitigation real estate acquisition and restoration work would be done before or concurrently with project construction. The estimated cost of real estate acquisition for environmental mitigation is $1,512,000. The estimated cost of floodplain forest restoration on the mitigation land is $256,000.

The combined project is estimated to cost $63,871,000 to construct. The tentatively recommended plan would contribute to the national economic development, have an annualized net benefit of $4,451,450, and would have a benefit-cost ratio of 2.09.

The project would meet the planning objectives of improving navigation safety and strengthening the Wisconsin embankments. The project would also meet the planning objective of protecting the river environment by minimizing construction impacts on river and floodplain habitats, mitigating unavoidable impacts and reducing the risk of adverse environmental effects of navigation accidents, embankment failure and accidental drawdown of Pool 3.

The cost of construction and environmental mitigation would be 100-percent Federal, paid 50 percent each from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, through the Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance budget, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

Operation and maintenance of the project and phase 2 of embankments construction, if needed, would be accomplished through the Corps of Engineers Operations and Maintenance budget.

The Draft Integrated Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement was distributed for agency and public review on August 18, 2006. The end of the comment period was October 6. This final report and EIS contains comments that we received from stakeholders and our responses to the comments. We made changes to the draft report in response to reviewer comments that are reflected in this final report and EIS. Please provide written comments by January 12, 2007, to the St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Mr. Daniel Wilcox, CEMVP-PM-E, 190 Fifth Street East, Suite 401, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, or by email: Daniel.B.Wilcox@usace.army.mil.

The St. Paul District will compile the comments, prepare written responses and will forward them and the final report and EIS to the Commander, Mississippi Valley Division, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers in Vicksburg Mississippi. The Division Commander will take the mailto:Daniel.B.Wilcox@usace.army.mil recommendations in this report under consideration and will sign a Record of Decision about the Lock and Dam 3 Navigation Safety and Embankments project.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. vii APPENDIXES....................................................................................................................viii

SUMMARY

Purpose Need for Action Study Process Proposed Actions Areas of Controversy Unresolved Issues Relationship to Environmental Protection Laws and Regulations Participating Agencies and Organizations

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Study Purpose......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Study Location......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Need for Action ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Authorities............................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Prior Studies, Reports, and Existing Water Resource Projects.............................. 1-4

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING PROCESS................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Study Management................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Study Participants................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Study Schedule and Cost........................................................................................ 2-2

2.4 Coordination and Public Involvement...................................................................... 2-2

2.4.1 Planning Meetings with Interested Agencies and Organizations...................... 2-3

2.4.2 Meetings with the USGS and Towing Industry................................................. 2-3

2.4.3 Public Meetings............................................................................................... 2-3

2.4.4 News Releases................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5 Scoping Process..................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Study Scope............................................................................................................ 2-4

2.7 Significant Resources............................................................................................. 2-4

2.8 Planning Objectives................................................................................................ 2-5

2.9 Planning Assumptions............................................................................................. 2-6

2.10 Planning Constraints............................................................................................. 2-7

CHAPTER 3. PROBLEMS, NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES............................................ 3-1

3.1 Problems................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.1 Problem: Navigation Safety.............................................................................. 3-1

3.2.2 Problem: Wisconsin Embankments.................................................................. 3-7

3.2.3 Existing Conditions - River Ecosystem............................................................. 3-14

3.3 Future Without-Project Conditions........................................................................... 3-14

3.3.1 Future Without-Project Operation and Maintenance of the Navigation System 3-15

3.3.2 Future Without-Project Navigation Traffic......................................................... 3-15

3.3.3 Future Without-Project Outdraft Conditions................................................. 3-17 ii

3.3.4 Future Without-Project Helper Boat Use.......................................................... 3-17

3.3.5 Future Without-Project Industry Navigation Safety Initiatives........................... 3-19

3.3 6 Future Without-Project Navigation Accidents................................................... 3-20

3.3.7 Future Without-Project Conditions - Embankments.......................................... 3-21

3.3.8 Future Without-Project Conditions - River Ecosystem...................................... 3-25

CHAPTER 4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................4-1

4.1 Social and Economic Conditions..............................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Prairie Island Indian Community....................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Red Wing......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.3 Commercial Navigation.................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.4 Power Plants.................................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.5 Recreational Resources................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.6 Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.7 Natural Resources............................................................................................ 4-4

4.1.7.1 Floodplain Habitat...................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.7.2 Aquatic Habitat.......................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.7.3 Wetland Habitat......................................................................................... 4-6

4.1.7.4 Water Quality............................................................................................ 4-7

4.1.7.5 Contaminants ............................................................................................ 4-8

4.1.7.6 Fish............................................................................................................4-8

4.1.7.7 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates....................................................................... 4-9

4.1.7.8 Mussels..................................................................................................... 4-9

4.1.7.9 Wildlife...................................................................................................... 4-12

4.1.7.10 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species........................... 4-13

4.1.7.11 State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species................................ 4-13

CHAPTER 5. PLAN FORMULATION................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Identification and Screening of Alternative Measures.............................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Navigation Safety Improvement Alternative Measures...................................... 5-1

5.1.1.1 Nonstructural Measures............................................................................. 5-2

5.1.1.2 Hydraulic Modifications.............................................................................. 5-6

5.1.1.3 Barrier Alternatives.................................................................................... 5-8

5.1.1.4 Other Alternative Measures....................................................................... 5-11

5.1.1.5 Additional Hydraulic Analyses and Alternative Measures.......................... 5-12

5.1.2 Embankments Alternative Measures................................................................ 5-15

5.1.2.1 Nonstructural Measures............................................................................ 5-16

5.1.2.2 Structural Measures. ................................................................................ 5-18

5.1.2.3 Refinement of Embankment Alternative Measures.................................... 5-22

5.1.2.4 Mitigation for Embankment Alternative Measures...................................... 5-30

5.1.3 Summary of Alternative Measures Screening................................................... 5-30

5.2 Formulation of Alternative Plans.............................................................................. 5-31

5.3 Evaluation of Alternative Plans................................................................................ 5-31

5.3.1 Without-Project Condition................................................................................. 5-32

5.3.2 Alternative Measures and Project Costs........................................................... 5-33

5.3.3 Risk and Benefit-Cost Assessment...................................................................5-34

5.4 Comparison of Alternative Plans..............................................................................5-34

5.5 Plan Selection..........................................................................................................5-38

CHAPTER 6. RECOMMENDED PLAN.............................................................................. 6-1 iii

6.1 Navigation Safety Improvements-Extended Guide Wall & Channel Modifications....6-1

6.1.1 Monitoring......................................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.2 Construction......................................................................................................6-5

6.1.3 Operation and Maintenance............................................................................. 6-5

6.2 Strengthen Embankments with Phased Construction.............................................. 6-5

6.2.1 Phase 1............................................................................................................ 6-5

6.2.2 Phase 2............................................................................................................ 6-16

6.2.3 Operation and Maintenance............................................................................. 6-17

6.2.4 Monitoring......................................................................................................... 6-17

6.2.5 Decision Process for Initiating Phase 2.............................................................6-17

6.2.6 Phase 2 Construction........................................................................................6-17

6.3 Environmental Mitigation......................................................................................... 6-17

6.4 Design and Construction..........................................................................................6-18

6.4.1 Detailed Design................................................................................................ 6-18

6.4.2 Construction Sequence.................................................................................... 6-18

6.5 Real Estate.............................................................................................................. 6-18

CHAPTER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS..................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Effects of Alternative Plans...................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Environmentally Preferred Plan........................................................................ 7-3

7.1.2 Effects on Lock and Dam 3...............................................................................7-3

7.1.3 Effects on the Navigation Channel....................................................................7-3

7.1.4 Effects on the Prairie Island Resort, Casino and Marina................................... 7-4

7.1.5 Effects on the Prairie Island Indian Community.................................................7-4

7.1.6 Effects on Power Plants................................................................................... 7-4

7.1.7 Effects on Scenic Beauty of the River............................................................... 7-5

7.1.8 Effects on Cultural Resources...........................................................................7-5

7.1.9 Effects on Floodplain Forest and Wetland Habitats...........................................7-6

7.1.10 Effects on Fish Community and the Sport Fishery...........................................7-6

7.1.11 Effects on Mussels..........................................................................................7-7

7.1.12 Effects on Migratory Birds.............................................................................. 7-7

7.1.13 Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species............................................7-8

7.2 Effects on Other Important Resources.....................................................................7-9

7.2.1 Water Quality....................................................................................................7-9

7.2.2 Noise................................................................................................................ 7-14

7.2.3 Air Pollution...................................................................................................... 7-14

7.2.4 Changes to Land Cover and Terrestrial Habitats ............................................. 7-14

7.2.5 Changes to Aquatic Habitats............................................................................ 7-15

7.2.6 Effects on Aquatic Biota................................................................................... 7-16

7.2.7 Effects on Wildlife............................................................................................. 7-16

7.2.8 Effects on Recreational Use............................................................................. 7-17

7.2.9 Effects on Scenic Qualities............................................................................... 7-17

7.2.10 Effects on Cultural Resources........................................................................ 7-17

7.2.11 Economic Effects........................................................................................... 7-18

7.3 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................. 7-19

7.4 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources by Proposed Action................................. 7-21

7.5 Mitigation for Impacts of Proposed Action................................................................7-21

7.6 Potential Conflicts Arising from Proposed Action..................................................... 7-21

CHAPTER 8. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND REVIEW...................................... 8-1

8.1 Applicable Environmental Laws and Executive Orders............................................ 8-1 iv

8.2 Comments on Draft EIS......................................................................................... 8-3

8.3 Required Coordination............................................................................................. 8-3

8.4 Statement of Recipients...........................................................................................8-4

CHAPTER 9. COST SHARING..........................................................................................9-1

CHAPTER 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................10-1

10.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 Recommendation...................................................................................................10-1

CHAPTER 11. LIST OF PREPARERS...............................................................................11-1

CHAPTER 12. REFERENCES...........................................................................................12-1

12.1 Bibliography........................................................................................................... 12-1

12.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................12-4

CHAPTER 13. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INTEGRATED GENERAL..............13-1

REEVALUATION REPORT AND EIS AND RESPONSES BY THE ST. PAUL

DISTRICT

Comments and Responses, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Letter, ..... 13-2 October 5, 2008 Comments and Responses, Minnesota Department of natural Resources Letter,....... 13-20 October 6, 2006 Comments and Responses, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Letter, .....................13-42 September 28, 2006 Comments and Responses, Department of the Interior Letter, October 11, 2006 .........13-49 Comments and Responses, American Rivers Email, October 13, 2006 ........................13-60 Comments and Responses, Upper Mississippi River Waterway Association ................13-80 Letter, October 6, 2006

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

1-1 Location of Lock and Dam 3, Upper Mississippi River 1-2

3-1 August 1, 1993, navigation accident at Lock and Dam 3 with barge 3-2 sunk in dam gate

3-2 Average daily river discharge for the period January 1959 through 3-3 December 2005 and occurrence of outdraft conditions during the navigation season

3-3 Helper Boat MV Little Charlie assisting a down bound tow to align with 3-6 the upper guide wall at Lock and Dam 3

3-4 Outdraft-related navigation accidents at Lock and Dam 3 by level of 3-7 river discharge v

3-5 Lock and Dam 3 and Wisconsin embankment alignments 3-8

3-6 Diagram of the Wisconsin embankments at Lock and Dam 3 3-9

3-7 Deteriorating spot dike in upper embankment at Lock and Dam 3 3-12

3-8 Deteriorating lower embankment at Lock and Dam 3, one site of 3-12 emergency repairs

3-9 Erosion along Lock and Dam 3 lower embankment alignment 1939 3-13 to 2002

3-10 Lock and Dam 3 lower embankment overtopped during a navigation 3-14 accident in August 1993

3-11 Number of down bound tows passing through Lock and Dam 3, number 3-15 of days of outdraft current, and length of the navigation season from 1991 through 2005

3-12 Helper boat use by down bound tows at Lock and Dam 3 during outdraft 3-18 conditions from 1991 through 2005

3-13 Outdraft-related navigation accidents at Lock and Dam 3 and outdraft related accidents that occurred when a helper boat was being used during the years 1963 through 2005 3-18

3-14 Helper boat use by down bound tows with hazardous cargoes at Lock 3-19 and Dam 3 during outdraft conditions from 1991 thorough 2005

3-15 Factors contributing to commercial navigation accidents at Lock and Dam 3 3-21

3-16 Factors contributing to embankments failure at Lock and Dam 3 3-22

3-17 Potential area scoured by an embankment failure around Lock and Dam 3 3-22

3-18 Another potential area scoured by an embankment failure around Lock 3-23 and Dam 3

3-19 Approximate area that would be dewatered by a 5-foot accidental 3-24 drawdown of Pool 3

4-1 Substrate types in the tailwater of Lock and Dam 3, 2003. Dark dots are 4-6 mussel sampling locations.

4-2 Mussel sampling locations during 1999 and 200 surveys in the tailwater 4-10 of Lock and Dam 3

4-3 Location of mussel transect surveys to determine landward boundary 4-11 of the mussel bed vi

4-4 Mussel dredge sampling locations in Pool 3 above Lock and Dam 3 4-12 in 2000 and 2001

5-1 Alternative measure NB2 Ported guard wall 5-9

5-2 Alternative measure N6 extended guide wall with channel modifications 5-14

5-3 Alternative measure E2 strengthen embankments 5-23

5-4 Alternative measure E3 reconstruct lower embankment 5-25

5-5 Alternative measure E4 States/USFWS proposal 5-27

5-6 Alternative E5 strengthen embankments with phased construction, 5-28 Phase 1

5-7 Alternative E5 strengthen embankments with phased construction, 5-29 Phase 2

6-1 Recommended plan for navigation safety improvements at Lock and Dam 3 6-1

6-2 Extended guide wall design with concrete cap on pilings 6-2

6-3 Photograph of the existing upper guide wall at Lock and Dam 3 6-3

6-4 Simulated image of an extended upper guide wall at Lock and Dam 3 6-4

6-5 Alternative E5 strengthen embankments with phased construction, 6-6 Phase 1

6-6 Part of the upper embankment and Marsh Lake looking southeast 6-7

6-7 Simulated illustration of part of the upper embankment and Marsh Lake 6-8 with rebuilt spot dikes and Marsh Lake spillway

6-8 An example ACM-capped spillway planted with native vegetation 6-10

6-9 Cross section of Marsh and Gantenbein Lakes spillways with ACM 6-11

6-10 Lock and Dam 3 on left, Mississippi River in foreground, Marsh Lake 6-12 at upper right and the upstream part of the lower embankment

6-11 Simulated illustration of Lock and Dam 3 and the with-project condition 6-13

6-12 Lock and Dam 3 looking upriver, Gantenbein Lake and lower 6-14 embankment at right center 6-13 Simulated illustration of Lock and Dam 3 and the lower embankment 6-15 with-project conditions

6-14 Phase 2 construction features 6-16 vii

7-1 Location of randomly located sediment sample cores taken from the 7-9 proposed dredge cut upstream from Lock and Dam 3

7-2 Particle size gradation of material to be dredged from the main channel 7-10 above Lock and Dam 3

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

1-1 Pertinent data about Lock and Dam 3 1-5

3-1 Record of navigation accidents at Lock and Dam 3, April 1963 3-4 through November 2005

3-2 History of Repairs to the Wisconsin embankments at Lock and Dam 3, 3-11 1964 to present

3-3 Future forecast of down bound tows through Lock and Dam 3, from the 3-16

Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study

3-4 Summary and analysis of Lock and Dam 3 navigation data reported for 3-17 the 1985 through 2005 period

3-5 Estimated costs of forced shutdown of the Prairie Island Nuclear Power 3-25 Plant and the Alan S. King Generating Plant

4-1 Wetland types in the Gantenbein Lakes area near Lock and Dam 3 4-7

4-2 Wisconsin threatened and endangered species that may occur in the 4-14 project area

4-3 Minnesota threatened and endangered species that may occur in the 4-15 project area

5-1 Alternative measures to improve navigation safety at Lock and Dam 3 5-2

5-2 Alternative measures for improving the Wisconsin embankments 5-15 at Lock and Dam 3

5-3 Refined set of alternative measures to strengthen the Wisconsin 5-23 embankments at Lock and Dam 3

5-4 Alternative navigation safety and embankments improvement 5-31 measures retained for further consideration 5-5 Alternative plans for Lock and Dam 3, combining navigation 5-31 safety and embankments improvements

5-6 Average annual life cycle cost summary – without project condition 5-33 viii

5-7 Summary of costs of alternatives 5-34

5-8 Average annual life cycle cost – with-project condition 5-35

5-9 Average annual life cycle costs by category 5-36

7-1 Effects of the alternative plans on significant resources in the Lock 7-2 and Dam 3 study area and identification of the environmentally preferred plan

7-2 Construction footprint of the Lock and Dam 3 alternative plans on 7-6 habitat area classes

7-3 Results of bulk chemical analyses from a proposed dredge cut upstream 7-12 of Lock and Dam 3

7-4 Area (acres) of land cover types affected by the proposed navigation 7-14 safety and embankments project at Lock and Dam 3

8-1 Federal environmental laws and executive orders applicable to the 8-1 Lock and Dam 3 project

8-2 Effects of the proposed action on natural resources and historic 8-2 properties

10-1 Estimated cost of the tentatively selected plan for Lock and Dam 3 10-4

11-1 Lock and Dam 3 project team members and list of preparers for 11-1 this report

APPENDIXES

Appendix A Coordination Correspondence Appendix B Endangered Species Act Documentation Appendix C Section 404(b) Clean Water Act Evaluation Appendix D Cultural Resources Appendix E Economics Appendix F Phase 1 HTRW Assessment Appendix G Geotechnical and Geology Appendix H Hydraulics Appendix I Structures Appendix J Environmental Mitigation Plan Appendix K Real Estate Design Memorandum Appendix L Cost Engineering Appendix M Preliminary Project Management Plan for Construction

SUMMARY

Purpose

This Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is about a proposed project to reduce related navigation safety and embankment problems at Lock and Dam 3, a navigation dam on the Upper Mississippi River near Red Wing, Minnesota. This report integrates the Corps of Engineers decision document and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act documents to avoid duplication and to consolidate information for reviewers.

Need for Action

Lock and Dam 3 was constructed on a bend in the river and with an experimental set of embankments on the Wisconsin side to avoid inundating areas of high quality floodplain wetland habitat. The location on a bend in the river resulted in a severe outdraft current that flows across the upstream lock approach toward the gated part of the dam. This outdraft current makes down bound navigation difficult for commercial tows. Many navigation accidents have occurred with barges colliding with the dam.

The Wisconsin embankments are a combination of natural river levee low ground, constructed sheet pile weirs called spot dikes, and constructed embankments. The Wisconsin embankments are deteriorating and are vulnerable to failure. Most were not constructed to modern engineering design standards. A navigation accident could result in overtopping of the Wisconsin embankments when a head exists at the dam, leading to embankment failure, a new channel forming around the dam and an accidental drawdown of Pool 3. Such a drawdown would have severe environmental and economic consequences, including closing navigation and forcing the shutdown of two large power plants. Lock and Dam 3 is the most physically vulnerable navigation dam of the Upper Mississippi River 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project.

The need is to improve navigation safety and strengthen the Wisconsin embankments at Lock and Dam 3.

Study Process

This general reevaluation study followed the standard Corps of Engineers six-step planning process:

1. Identify problems, needs, opportunities and constraints.

2. Inventory and forecast future conditions.

3. Formulate alternatives.

4. Evaluate alternatives.

5. Compare alternatives.

6. Select a recommended plan.

This study has also followed the substantive and procedural requirements of the NEPA guidelines for an EIS.

Proposed Actions

A combination project is proposed to address the related navigation safety and embankment problems at Lock and Dam 3. An extended landward guide wall and channel modifications are proposed to reduce the outdraft problem and improve navigation safety. The Wisconsin embankments are also proposed to be strengthened. The first phase of embankment construction would include rebuilding the spot dikes, raising the embankments near the gated part of the dam and constructing two low overflow spillways. The second phase of embankment construction would be to construct a low embankment between the overflow spillways and extending to high ground downstream of Lock and Dam 3. This second phase of embankment construction would be done if the areas remaining unprotected following Phase 1 construction were breached.

Environmental mitigation is proposed to compensate for both Phase 1 and future Phase 2 embankment construction impacts on floodplain forest wetlands and channel border aquatic habitat. The mitigation plan calls for purchase of 313 acres of floodplain wetland area that is presently in agricultural use in Pierce County, Wisconsin, and planting native floodplain forest trees. The environmental mitigation land acquisition and floodplain forest restoration work would be done concurrently with project construction. Cost of the environmental mitigation is included in the total project cost. The mitigation land would remain in Federal ownership. If the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is willing to manage the property, the St.

Paul District and the WDNR would enter into a real estate outgrant agreement for use of the mitigation property as a wildlife management area.

The proposed project would cost $63,871,000. The estimated benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is

2.10. The project would be constructed in 3 years.

Areas of Controversy

Controversy existed about a plan proposed in 1999 for strengthening the Wisconsin embankments. That project would have had adverse impacts on a species-rich mussel bed in the tailwater downstream of Lock and Dam 3 and would have had a relatively large construction footprint in an area of floodplain forest. The tentatively recommended plan described in this report for strengthening the Wisconsin embankments would avoid disturbing the mussel bed in the tailwater area and would have a smaller construction footprint than the project proposed in 1999. The phased construction of the Wisconsin embankments in the current plan would also reduce construction impacts by leaving parts of the lower embankment area undisturbed until it becomes necessary to complete construction.

Unresolved Issues

Opportunity exists to construct a fishway to allow passage of native migratory fish through Lock and Dam 3. Construction of a fishway in conjunction with an embankments project could result in cost savings over constructing a fishway separately. This general reevaluation study and the tentatively recommended project to improve navigation safety and embankments are being cost-shared on a 50-50 basis with the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, which was designated by Congress for navigation system improvements, not for ecosystem restoration measures. The St. Paul District does not currently have authority or a funding source for an ecosystem restoration project at Lock and Dam 3. For these reasons, a fishway is not included as part of this lock and dam rehabilitation project.

It may be possible to incorporate a fishway into the embankments construction at Lock and Dam 3 if it can be funded under new congressional authorization with appropriations to implement ecosystem restoration recommendations of the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study.

Relationship to Environmental Protection Laws and Regulations

This general reevaluation of an existing project has been conducted according to Corps of Engineers planning guidance (ER 1105-2-100) and NEPA regulation (ER 200-2-2) in compliance with Federal and State laws and regulations. Section 7 of this report and EIS provides a detailed description of the relationship of the planning process and proposed action to environmental protection laws and regulations.

Participating Agencies and Organizations

A number of agencies and organizations have participated in the reevaluation study, including:

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) River Industry Action Committee (RIAC) Upper Mississippi River Waterways Association (UMRWA) Prairie Island Indian Community Xcel Energy, Inc.

Audubon Society Sierra Club Isaak Walton League Red Wing Wildlife League Trimbelle Sportsmans Club Diamond Bluff Associates

This page intentionally left blank.

1-1

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Study Purpose

This Final Integrated General Reevaluation Report and EIS documents a planning process to address related navigation safety and embankment problems at a navigation dam on the Upper Mississippi River. This report integrates the Corps of Engineers decision document and the NEPA and Clean Water Act documents to avoid duplication and to consolidate information for reviewers.

1.2 Study Location

Lock and Dam 3 is at Upper Mississippi River mile 797, about 41 miles downriver from St. Paul, Minnesota, and 6 miles upriver from Red Wing, Minnesota (Figure 1-1). The navigation pool formed by the lock and dam (Pool 3) extends 18.3 miles upstream to Lock and Dam 2 at Hastings, Minnesota, and approximately 24.5 miles up the St. Croix River, which is the only major tributary entering the pool. The section of Pool 3 that extends up to Lock and Dam 2 provides waterway access to St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota. Lock and Dam 3 is in Goodhue County, Minnesota, and Pierce County, Wisconsin.

1.3 Need for Action

Lock and Dam 3 was constructed on a bend in the river and with an experimental set of embankments on the Wisconsin side to avoid inundating areas of high quality floodplain wetland habitat in the Cannon River Bottoms in Minnesota and the Gantenbein Lakes area in Wisconsin.

The location on a bend in the river resulted in an outdraft current that flows across the upstream lock approach toward the gated part of the dam. The outdraft current makes down bound navigation difficult for commercial tows. Many navigation accidents have occurred when barges have collided with the dam.

The Wisconsin embankments are a combination of natural river levee low ground, sheet pile weirs called spot dikes, and filled areas. Most of the embankment system was not built to modern standards of engineering design and has been deteriorating since the dam was completed in 1938 despite a series of repairs. As the embankments deteriorated over time, the frequency and size of emergency repairs have increased. In the 1990s, erosion of the embankments reached a critical point where the land mass that once separated Marsh and Gantenbein Lakes from the river eroded away, and breaches formed in the remaining narrow land mass. Some parts of the lower embankment are now only a few feet wide; other parts consist only of rock that was placed during emergency repairs.

1-2

Figure 1-1. Location of Lock and Dam 3, Upper Mississippi River

If a barge collides with the dam, the upstream edge of a pier can damage the barge causing it to sink, resulting in high local velocities that can put the movable dam itself at risk unless the roller gates for the affected bays are closed. Lock and Dam 3 has only four roller gates; closing even one or two roller gates can have a significant effect on water levels in the navigation pool. During a navigation accident in 1993 when barges collided with the gated part of the dam and sank, closing the roller gates resulted in significant stage increase in the upstream pool. Navigation accidents can cause overtopping of the Wisconsin embankments

1-3 when a head exists at the dam, leading to failure of the earthen embankments, development of a scour channel around the gated part of Lock and Dam 3, and an accidental drawdown of Pool 3. An accidental drawdown of Pool 3 would have severe environmental and economic consequences, including closing navigation and forcing the shutdown of two large power plants.

Lock and Dam 3 is the most physically vulnerable navigation dam of the Upper Mississippi River 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project. The need is to improve navigation safety and to strengthen the Wisconsin embankments at Lock and Dam 3.

1.4 Authorities

The River and Harbor Act of January 21, 1927, authorized a survey of the Mississippi

River between the Missouri River and Minneapolis to determine the feasibility of a 9-foot navigation channel. The Secretary of War transmitted a report from the Chief of Engineers to Congress about this survey in House Document 290, 71st Congress, 2nd session. The report served as a basis for authorization for construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of Lock and Dam 3 in the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930. The portion of the act authorizing the Upper Mississippi River 9-Foot Channel Navigation Project follows:

Mississippi River between mouth of Illinois River and Minneapolis: The existing project is hereby modified so as to provide a channel depth of nine feet at low water with widths suitable for long-haul common-carrier service, to be prosecuted in accordance with the plan for a comprehensive project to procure a channel of nine-foot depth, submitted in House Document 290, Seventy-first Congress, second session; and the sum of $7,500,000 in addition to the amounts authorized under existing projects is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the prosecution of initial works under the modified project: Provided, That all locks below the Twin City Dam shall be of not less than the Ohio River standard dimensions.

Corps of Engineers regulation ER-1165-2-119 states that it is the general policy of the Chief of Engineers that completed Corps projects be observed and monitored by the Corps to ascertain whether they continue to function in a satisfactory manner and whether potential exists for better serving the public interest…Whenever reporting officers find that changes in a completed project may be desirable, investigations should be undertaken to document the need for and feasibility of project modification. To the extent possible, modifications to completed projects should be accomplished under existing authorities. Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611) states:

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to review the operation of projects the construction of which has been completed and which were constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the interest of navigation, flood control, water supply, and related purposes, when found advisable due to significantly changed physical or economic conditions, and to report thereon to Congress with recommendations on the advisability of modifying the structures or their operation, and for improving the quality of the environment in the overall public interest.

1-4

This study and any modifications to improve navigation safety and the integrity of the embankments at Lock and Dam 3 are authorized under the original project authorization and Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. The authorizing documents contain no local cooperation or non-Federal cost share requirements. Cost of this general reevaluation and improvements to Lock and Dam 3 will be cost-shared 50-50 with the Inland Waterway Trust Fund as required by Title 33 USC, Chapter 32.

Corps of Engineers regulation ER 1105-2-100, Appendix G, Amendment No.1, 30 June 2004, defines the project approval authority delegated to the Division Commander. Division commanders may approve changes to authorized projects, or elements thereof, if such changes meet certain criteria. The modifications recommended for Lock and Dam 3 would be done under the original project authorization and Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. The recommended modifications would not increase or decrease the scope of the project (for example, storage capacity, outputs, environmental impacts) originally authorized by Congress.

The recommended modifications would not change the location or substantially change the design of the project. The environmental impacts of the recommended modifications would be minor in comparison to the impacts of original project construction, and the recommended modifications would not add or delete a project purpose.

1.5 Prior Studies, Reports, and Existing Water Resource Projects

Lock and Dam 3 was constructed between August 1935 and March 1938. The project was placed in operation on July 21, 1938. Pertinent data about Lock and Dam 3 are shown in Table 1-1.

Lock and Dam 3 underwent major rehabilitation from 1988 through 1991. About 900 commercial tows and 20,000 recreational boats pass through the lock each year.

A guide wall extension was designed in the 1940s, presumably to address an outdraft problem that was apparent soon after the lock and dam was placed in operation. The St. Paul District has been studying the related problems with navigation safety and the Wisconsin embankments at Lock and Dam 3 since the 1970’s.

The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways…