DETROIT DISTRICT
SAME Luncheon
LTC Dennis Sugrue
Detroit District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
January 11, 2017
Detroit, MI
“The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official
Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.”
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
ISO-9001
Detroit District
Established in 1841, Detroit District has served the Great Lakes Region for 175 years
covers 82,000 square miles of land inhabited by about 14 million people
4,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline
• Workforce of approximately 400 (Civilian & Active
Military)
• 91 Commercial and Recreational Harbors
• 4 Connecting Channels
• 59 miles of structures
• 440 miles of channels
• 9 dams along the Fox River and manages water
levels on Lake Winnebago.
• Detroit District processes about 2,000 regulatory
permit applications per year.
• Established government-to-government relations
with 22 Native American Tribes in the region.
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
3
Great Lakes & Ohio River Division
One Division, Two Watersheds
• Division HQs in Cincinnati, OH
• Approximately $1B annual civil works
program
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
Primary Missions
Navigation / Hydropower
Environmental Initiatives
Flood Risk Management
Regulatory Program
Emergency Management
Recreation
International & Interagency
Support / Military Construction
Overseas Contingency Operations
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
5
Detroit District
Federal Projects on the Great Lakes
Chippewa Harbor
Grand Marais
Eagle Harbor
Two Harbors
Lac La Belle
Knife River
Grand Traverse Bay
La Pointe
DuluthSuperior
A non-linear navigation system with 60
federal commercial projects and 80 federal
shallow draft/recreational projects
Lake Superior
Taconite
Silver Bay
Keweenaw
Waterway
Bayfield
Big Bay
Little Lake
Port Wing
Presque
Isle
Marquette
Whitefish Point Harbor
Grand Marais
Soo Locks
St. Marys River
MI
Channels in Straits
of Mackinac
Detour
Manistique
Les Cheneaux Island
Grays Reef
Little Bay de noc
CANADA
Mackinac Island
Mackinac City
Cheboygan
St. James
Hammond Bay
Inland Route
Petoskey
Washington
Island
Cedar River
Charlevoix
Menominee
WI
Oconto
Pensaukee
Big Suamico
Green Bay
Ogdensburg
Alpena
Leland
Sturgeon Bay
Morristown
Greilickville
Algoma
Harrisville
Frankfort
Kewaunee
Arcadia
Cape Vincent
Au Sable Harbor
Portage Lake
Tawas Bay
Two Rivers
Manistee
Manitowoc
Sackets Harbor
Port Austin
Point Lookout
Ludington
Sheboygan
Port Ontario
Harbor Beach
Oswego
Pentwater
Saginaw
Port Sanilac
White Lake
Port Washington
Muskegon
MI
Lexington
Niagara River
Grand River
Black River
Grand Haven
Milwaukee
Pine River
Holland
Kenosha
Commercial
Recreational
Clinton River
Saugatuck
St. Clair River
Belle River
NY
Lake St. Clair
IL
South Haven
Waukegan
Rouge River
St. Joseph
Detroit River
St. Joseph River
Chicago Harbor
New Buffalo
Monroe
Bolles Harbor
Michigan City
BUILDING STRONG®
IN
and Taking Care of People!
OH
6
PA
Great Lakes Navigation
Key Challenges
 Balancing System
Requirements
Silver Bay
Lake Superior
Two Harbors
Duluth-Superior
 Dredging
 Dredged Material
Management
 Harbor Infrastructure
 Soo Locks
Presque Isle
Ontonagon
Ashland
MI
Marquette
Gladstone
>10M Ton Harbor
1-10M Ton Harbor
WI
<1M Ton Harbor
Cheboygan
Menominee
CANADA
Charlevoix
Alpena
Green Bay
Harbor Beach
Manistee
Manitowoc
Ludington
Saginaw
Muskegon
Milwaukee
Marysville
Grand Haven
MI
Buffalo
Put In Bay
St. Clair
NY
Holland
Rouge River
Waukegan
Detroit River
St. Joseph
Monroe
Chicago Harbor
PA
Calumet
IL
IN
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
7
OH
Great Lakes Navigation Team
Purpose: To develop strategies and plans for the Great Lakes Navigation System to meet current
and future needs using a system-wide approach of reducing risk and providing optimal reliability
Composition:
The three USACE Great Lakes Districts -- Buffalo, Chicago, and Detroit -- operate under
a unified, regional approach to strategic management of the Great Lakes navigation
system; Districts retain lead in executing their program.
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
8
Civil Works Transformation: Use Strong
Collaborative Relationships
Background
• Regional Team stood up in 2005
• Includes port directors, shippers, harbor masters, agencies
• Establish program priorities regionally and use risk based approach
in budgeting
Tasks related to budgeting
• Regional decisions made based on:
• Developing collaborative needs and risks with stakeholders
• Define and review functional channels – focus scarce dredging funds
• Dredging – Transportation cost savings
• Infrastructure - Asset Management risk-based needs identified
• Prepare fact sheets for each harbor
• Review system interdependency
• Prioritize based on need and risk – understanding that all needs will
not receive funding; shared philosophy of making sacrifices for benefit of system (i.e. high use vs. low use)
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
9
FY16 Dredging Funding and
Dredging Requirements
Chippewa Harbor
Grand Marais
Lake Superior
Taconite
Silver Bay
Eagle Harbor
Two Harbors
Lac La Belle
Knife River
Grand Traverse Bay
Cornucopia
La Pointe
DuluthSuperior
Keweenaw
Waterway
Bayfield
Big Bay
Port Wing
Whitefish Point Harbor
Little Lake
Presque
Isle
Marquette
Grand Marais
Soo Locks
St. Marys River
MI
Channels in Straits
of Mackinac
Manistique
Detour
Les Cheneaux Island
Grays Reef
Little Bay de noc
Mackinac Island
Mackinac City
Cheboygan
St. James
Hammond Bay
Petoskey
Cedar River
Washington
Island
Inland Route
CANADA
Charlevoix
Menominee
WI
Leland
Oconto
Alpena
Ogdensburg
Morristown
Sturgeon Bay
Pensaukee
Greilickville
Algoma
Big Suamico
Harrisville
Frankfort
Kewaunee
Green Bay
Arcadia
Cape Vincent
Au Sable Harbor
Portage Lake
Manistee
Sackets Harbor
Tawas Bay
Two Rivers
Manitowoc
Port Austin
Point Lookout
Port Ontario
Ludington
Sheboygan
Pentwater
Harbor Beach
Saginaw
Oswego
Port Sanilac
White Lake
Port Washington
Muskegon
MI
Lexington
Grand River
Black River
St. Clair River
Grand Haven
Milwaukee
Pine River
Holland
Commercial
Kenosha
Recreational
IL
Clinton River
Saugatuck
Belle River
NY
Chnls Lake St. Clair
South Haven
Waukegan
Rouge River
Detroit River
St. Joseph
St. Joseph River
FY16 Funded Dredging
FY16 Unbudgeted Dredging Need
Monroe
New Buffalo
Chicago Harbor
Chicago River
Bolles Harbor
Michigan City
Calumet
BUILDING STRONG®
IN
and Taking Care of People!
11
OH
PA
Dredging Funding Trends 2007 - 2017
Dredging Funding (millions of dollars)
$70
$60
National Provisions
ARRA (Stimulus)
$50
Annual Reqm’t
$40
Lake Superior Regional
Provisions
$30
Michigan Regional
Provisions
Commercial Regional
Provisions
$20
Energy & Water Adds
$10
President's Budget
BUILDING STRONG®
$0and Taking Care of People!
FY07
FY09
FY11
FY13
FY15
FY17
Great Lakes Dredging
Initiatives to optimize dredging
efficiencies:
Backlog Growth Under Constrained Dredging Funding 2016-2020
10,000
20,000
Annual Great Lakes Dedging 1986-2015
 Investigating the use of sediment traps
Average Annual Need
9,000
Cubic Yards Dredged (x1000)- Blue Line
8,000
16,000
7,000
6,000
12,000
5,000
4,000
8,000
3,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
Assume FY17-FY20 Ann. Dredging Equal
to FY17PB Level of 3.2M CY
0
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
13
2015
Cumulative Backlog (1,000 cu yds) - Green Line
Dredging Backlog
 Working with states on dredging windows
flexibility
 Optimizing acquisition strategies
 Partnering with local sponsors to find beneficial
use opportunities
 Reduce sediment load to harbors – making use
of 516 program developing land best
management practices models
 Maximizing the efficiencies of regional dredging
provisions – applying dredging dollars to highest
needs in the year of execution
Dredged Material Management

Engage state agencies and other partners and stakeholders in developing
innovative long-term solutions to dredged material management challenges.

Foster partnership with USEPA with its Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) and
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) programs to leverage funding for
projects supporting both environmental goals and navigation benefits.

Maximize the use of fill management and facility adaptation, such as routine
raising of perimeter dikes and reworking the material within the facility to
create additional capacity.

Aggressively pursue opportunities for beneficially using dredged material to
preserve or create CDF capacity within limits of federal rules

Collaborate with partner agencies leveraging local and federal programs to
reduce the amount of material entering federal navigation channels –
sediment traps
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
14
Great Lakes Navigation Structures
Navigation structures purposes:
•
Safeguard navigation from wave and ice damage
•
Protect navigation channel from sediment shoaling
•
Protect navigation channel from wave action
•
Protect other navigation structures within harbor such as CDFs
•
Protect critical city infrastructure (buildings, roads, power plants,
water/wastewater plants)
•
Provide essential flood and storm protection
Structure Conditions
•
50% of GL coastal structures were built before WWI
•
Over 80% of all coastal structures exceed 50 years of age
•
45% have never undergone any significant repair
•
Over 30% of structures have timber crib core sections; recent low
water levels have accelerated deterioration of the wood
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
15
Navigation Structure Repair
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
16
Soo Lock Reliability
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
17
The Soo Locks
Lynch Pin of the Great Lakes Navigation System
 70% of the commercial commodities transiting the
Soo Locks are limited by size to the Poe Lock
• Aging and deteriorating infrastructure;
unscheduled outages increasing
• There is currently no redundancy for the Poe Lock
• The economic impact of a 30-day
unscheduled closure of the Soo Locks = $160M
 Two major efforts are underway to improve reliability of the Soo Locks
1. Maintain existing infrastructure through Asset Renewal Plan
2. New lock with the same dimensions as the Poe Lock – Economic reevaluation
required.
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
18
Corps Locks:
Value and Economic Consequences
Results – Ranked by Cost 30-day MAIN CHAMBER CLOSURE
mmtons
Soo Locks
71.4
Calcasieu L,GIWW 36.7
Bowman L, GIWW 36.1
Lagrange L&D
25.4
Peoria LD
22.6
Bayou Boeuf Lock 25.9
Miss River LD24
23.9
Miss River LD22
23.3
Miss River LD19
20.8
Miss River LD25
23.9
BUILDING STRONG®
and Taking Care of People!
19
Ranked by:
tons 30-day conseq
5
1
19
2
20
3
25
4
31
5
24
6
27
7
29
8
33
9
28
10