EPA-660/3-74-029
DECEMBER 1974
Ecological Research Series
Future Dredging Quantities
in the Great Lakes
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into
five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in
related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Sodoeconcmic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH STUDIES
series. This series describes research on the effects of pollution
on humans, plant and animal species, and materials. Problems
are assessed for their long- and short-term influences. Investigations
include formation, transport, and pathway studies to determine
the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides
the technical basis for setting standards to minimize undesirable
changes in living organisms in the aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric
envi ronments.
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-660/3-74-029
December 1974
FUTURE DREDGING QUANTITIES
IN THE GREAT LAKES
By
C. Nicholas Raphael
Eugene Jaworski
Carl F. Ojala
Daniel S. Turner
Grant Number R-801062
Program Element 1BA026
ROAP/Task No. 25ADX/03
Project Officer
Michael D. Mullin
Grosse lie Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Grosse He, Michigan 48138
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
ABSTRACT
Based on historical records, an overview and projection of U.S. and
Canadian dredging quantities in the Great Lakes are presented. Using
current pollution criteria, future quantities of polluted maintenance
dredging are estimated for each lake. Recent environmental policies
have influenced dredging and particularly disposal practices. These
policies, as well as sedimentation, lake levels, and economics are dis-
cussed in relation to dredging.
During the next decade, maintenance and private dredging volumes will
not change significantly, whereas new work will decrease. As in the
past, most maintenance dredging will occur in U.S. projects, particu-
larly in Lake Erie.
A factor which will determine future U.S. maintenance dredging is the
availability of confined disposal sites. If the 62 sites are completed
for commercial harbors as planned, 300,000 of the 6.45 million cubic
yards of annual projected polluted spoil will not have disposal facili-
ties. Where pollution elimination systems are in use, shoaling in some
industrial harbors may be decreasing. Although long-term lake levels
are not predictable, an inverse relationship between maintenance dredg-
ing and lake levels is evident.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number R-801062 and
Grant Number R-801062 by Eastern Michigan University under the sponsor-
ship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of
July 1974.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vi
Acknowledgments xi
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 5
III Dredging Quantities in the Great Lakes 7
IV Pollution of Spoil Dredged from the Great Lakes . . 120
V Dredging and Disposal Policies 179
VI Factors Related to Dredging 191
VII References 215
VIII List of Abbreviations 219
iii
-------
FIGURES
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Principal Dredging Projects in Lake Ontario
Average Annual Maintenance Dredging Volumes in Lake Ontario,
1961-1970
Maintenance Dredging Volumes in Lake Ontario, 1951-1972 . .
Average Annual Maintenance Dredging Volumes in Lake Erie,
1961-1972
Maintenance Dredging Volumes in Lake Erie, 1951-1972 . . .
Principal Dredging Projects in Lakes Huron and St. Clair
Annual Maintenance Dredging Volumes in Lakes Huron and
St. Clair, 1930-1972
Private Commercial and Public Harbors and C.E. Districts in
Classification and Project Depths of Harbors in Lake
Superior
Pollution Status of Harbors in Lake Ontario
Projected Annual Polluted and Unpolluted Maintenance
Dredging Volumes in Lake Ontario
Page
11
12
15
31
33
37
57
61
78
103
124
128
131
iv
-------
No. Page
14 Projected Annual Polluted and Unpolluted Maintenance
Dredging Volumes in Lake Erie 136
15 Pollution Status of Harbors in Lakes Huron and St. Clair . 140
16 Projected Annual Polluted and Unpolluted Maintenance
Dredging Volumes in Lakes Huron and St. Clair 147
17 Polluted Quantity of Future Average Annual Maintenance
Dredgings and Location of Open-lake Disposal Sites in
Lake Michigan 156
18 Projected Annual Dredging Volumes in Lake Superior and
Percent Polluted (Harbors Without Volumetric Circles
Indicate No Projected Dredging in the Next Decade). . . . 169
19 Areas of Sedimentation in Racine Harbor, Wisconsin 201
20 Selected Cross Sections of the Root River at Racine,
Wisconsin 202
-------
TABLES
No.
1 Conversion Factors to Place Measure
Page
2 Historical Dredging in Lake Ontario by Harbor/Waterway,
1951-1972 13
3 Annual Maintenance Dredging in Lake Ontario, 1951-1972 . . 15
4 New Work Dredging in Lake Ontario, 1951-1972 ....... 17
5 Private Dredging in Lake Ontario, 1963-1972 19
6 Dredging History in Canadian Projects in Lake Ontario,
1961-1972 19
7 Historical Dredging: Canadian Projects in Lake Ontario,
1961-1970 21
8 C.E. Projections and Annual Maintenance Dredging Volumes,
Lake Ontario 22
9 Frequency of Dredging by the C.E., Lake Ontario Projects,
1961-1970 24
10 Frequency of Dredging and Volume of Spoil Removed by the
C.E., Lake Ontario, 1961-1970 25
11 Canadian Dredging Frequencies, Lake Ontario Projects,
1961-1970 27
12 Future Dredging in Canada 1973-1977, Lake Ontario .... 28
13 Estimates of Future Average Annual Dredging Volumes in
Lake Ontario 30
vi
-------
No. Page
14 Historical Dredging in Lake Erie by Harbor/Waterway and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
C.E. District, 1951-1972
Annual Maintenance Dredging in Lake Erie, 1951-1972 . . .
New Work Dredging in Lake Erie, 1951-1972
Private Dredging in Lake Erie, 1963-1972
Dredging History in Canadian Projects in Lake Erie,
1961-1972
Historical Dredging: Canadian Projects in Lake Erie,
1961-1970
C.E. Projections and Annual Maintenance Dredging Volumes,
Lake Erie
Frequency of Dredging by the C.E., Lake Erie Projects,
1961-1970
Frequency of Dredging and Volume of Spoil Removed by the
C.E. Lake Erie, 1961-1970
Future New Work Dredging in Lake Erie Scheduled by the
C.E. as of 1973
Canadian Dredging Frequencies, Lake Erie Projects,
1961-1970
Future Maintenance Dredging in Canada 1973-1977, Lake
Erie
Estimates of Future Average Annual Dredging Volumes in
Lake Erie
Historical Dredging Totals of C.E. Projects in Lake Huron/
St. Glair, 1920-1972
Annual Dredging Volumes in Lake Huron/St. Clair, 1930-1972
C.E. Maintenance Dredging by Decades in Lake Huron/St.
Clair, 1930-1970
Total Dredging Volumes in Lake Huron/St. Clair, 1971-1973.
35
36
39
40
42
43
45
47
49
50
52
53
54
56
59
62
63
vii
-------
No. Page
31 Maintenance Dredging Frequencies of C.E. Projects in
Lake Huron/St. Clair, 1961-1973 65
32 C.E. Projected Future Maintenance Dredging in Lake Huron/
St. Clair 67
33 Past, Present, and Future Maintenance Dredging of Major
Projects, Lake Huron/St. Clair 68
34 Annual Maintenance Dredging of Major C.E. Projects, Lake
Huron/St. Clair 69
35 Future Estimated Maintenance Dredging by Harbor of C.E.
Projects
36 Future New Work in Lake Huron/St. Clair, 1973-1983 .... 73
37 Future Dredging in Canadian Projects in Lake Huron/St.
Clair, 1973-1977 75
38 Future Dredging Estimates in Lake Huron/St. Clair .... 77
39 Economic Status and 1972 Commerce of Harbors by C.E.
District, Lake Michigan 80
40 Private Dredging Volumes in Lake Michigan by C.E. District,
1957-1973 82
41 Annual Maintenance and New Work Dredging Volumes in Public
Harbors of Lake Michigan by C.E. District, 1918-1973 . . 84
42 Total Maintenance and New Work Dredging Volumes by Harbor
in Lake Michigan by C.E. District, 1918-1973 89
43 Average Annual Private, Maintenance, and New Work Dredging
in Lake Michigan by C.E. District, 1961-1970 91
44 Average Annual Private, Maintenance, and New Work Dredging
in Lake Michigan by Harbor, 1961-1970 92
45 Future Average Annual Private and Maintenance Dredging
Volumes in Lake Michigan by C.E. District 95
46 Future New Work Dredging Projects in Public Harbors of
Lake Michigan by C.E. District 100
viii
-------
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Historical Annual Maintenance and New Work Dredging in
Lake Superior, 1937-1972
Dredging Quantities in Lake Superior Projects
Canadian Dredging in Lake Superior: Historic Totals by
Harbor, Ten-Year Totals, and Average Volume Predictions.
Future Average Annual Dredging Volumes in the Great Lakes.
Pollution Criteria of Harbor /Waterway Sediments
Volume of Polluted Dredged Spoil C.E. Projects in Lake
Ontario, 1961-1970
Sampling of Projects on Lake Erie
Volume of Polluted Dredged Spoil: C.E. Projects in Lake
Erie, 1961-1970
1974 Status of Lake Erie Diked Disposal Program
C.E. Projected Maintenance Dredging and Polluted Volumes,
Lake Huron/St. Clair
Volume of Polluted Dredged Spoil: C.E. Projects in Lake
Huron/St. Clair, 1961-1970
Disposal of Spoil in Lake Huron/St. Clair Projects, 1972
and 1973
Estimated Polluted Dredged Spoil in Major C.E. Projects in
Lake Huron/St. Clair
Estimated Volume of Future Polluted Dredged Spoil in Lake
Huron/St. Clair
Future Dredging by D.P.W. in Lake Huron/St. Clair and
Projected Volume of Polluted Spoil, 1973-1977
Pollution of Public Harbors in Lake Michigan by Parameter
by C.E. District
Page
107
113
114
118
121
125
127
133
134
137
142
143
144
145
146
148
150
153
ix
-------
No. Page
65 Future Average Annual Quantity of Polluted Maintenance
Dredging by Harbor, by C.E. District in Lake Michigan . 159
66 Planning of Confined Disposal Sites for Polluted Public
Harbors by C.E. District in Lake Michigan 161
67 U.S. Dredging in Lake Superior: Ten Year Average Annual
Polluted Spoil and Average Volume Predictions, 1961-
1970 171
68 Confined Disposal Sites for Public Harbors in Lake
Superior 175
69 Future Average Annual Quantity of Polluted Dredged Spoil
in the Great Lakes 177
70 Land Use in the Great Lakes Basin 192
71 Estimated Sediment Sources for the Great Lakes Basin . . . 193
72 A Comparison of River Sedimentation and Maintenance Dredg-
ing in Selected Projects 194
73 Comparison of Littoral Drift and Maintenance Dredging . . 197
74 Total and Suspended Solids in Selected Projects 198
75 Sedimentation in Racine Harbor, 1968-1973 203
76 Datums for the Great Lakes 205
77 Correlations between Lake Levels and Maintenance/Private
Dredging Volumes, 1940-1970 in the Great Lakes 206
78 Dredging Trends in the Great Lakes, 1951-1983 209
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Data for this study were made available by numerous agencies to which
the investigators are grateful. Dredging statistics were obtained from
the Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, and St. Paul Districts of the Corps of
Engineers, Operations and Maintenance Branch, as well as the Division
office in Chicago. In Canada, the D.P.W. and M.O.T. regional offices
furnished us with comparable data. The E.P.A. and M.O.E. made their
respective pollution information available. Other agencies deserving
our thanks include National Biocentrics Inc., St. Paul, The Great Lakes
Commission, Ann Arbor, and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, Ottawa.
The investigators are particularly appreciative for the assistance pro-
vided by many individuals too numerous to mention specifically. But to
David Kraus, E.P.A., Chicago, and Peter Logan, D.P.W., Ottawa, we
extend special thanks for their many hours of fruitful input.
xi
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions have been
reached:
1. Future private, maintenance, and new work dredging quantities in the
Great Lakes are projected to average 15.56 million cubic yards (CY)
annually. Of this total, 78 percent will be removed from American
harbors and connecting channels.
2. Of the future annual volume to be removed from United States1 public
dredging projects, 64 percent involves maintenance dredging, 19 percent
consists of new work, and 17 percent involves private dredging. In
Canada, these percentages are 31, 54, and 15, respectively.
3. Based on data of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.),
80 of the 117 American harbors and connecting channels sampled are pol-
luted or partially polluted. According to the Ministry of Environment
of Ontario (M.O.E.), 21 of the 31 Canadian navigation projects sampled
contained polluted bottom sediments. Total polluted volumes for both
countries are 6.45 and 1.01 million CY, respectively.
4. In the U.S. during the next decade, private dredging of non-federal
projects is anticipated to average 2.01 million CY. Private spoil,
routinely considered polluted by the E.P.A., is usually confined on the
permitee's own land. In the future, private interests may dispose some
of their spoil in federal disposal sites.
-------
5. Maintenance dredging of public projects in the U.S. is projected to
amount to 7.78 million CY annually. Approximately 83 percent of this
total, i.e., 6.45 million CY, will involve polluted spoil which must be
confined. Nearly 62 percent of this polluted volume will be derived
from Lake Erie, including the Detroit River.
6. During periods of relatively low lake levels, as in the middle
1960's, annual maintenance dredging volumes are above average, particu-
larly in Lakes Huron and Michigan.
7. New work projects scheduled for public harbors and waterways in the
U.S. are expected to yield 2.25 million CY of dredging annually. Most
of these projects involve new recreational harbors, not commercial har-
bors. Compared to the past decade, future new work will decline sharply.
Because most new work dredgings consist of glacial till and/or bedrock,
these materials usually need not be disposed in confined sites.
8. As of July 1974, there are 62 public harbors and waterways in the 10-
year confined disposal program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (C.E.).
Eighteen other public harbors with polluted spoil were either dropped
from the program or were not among the 73 projects initially selected.
However, the total annual volume of polluted spoil from these 18 harbors
averages only approximately 110,000 CY. A few heavily polluted projects,
such as Toledo Harbor and Rouge River, have had confined disposal sites
in operation prior to Public Law 91-611.
9. For 34 of the 62 navigation projects in the confined disposal pro-
gram, selection of disposal sites has been completed and design of the
confined facilities is progressing. Most of these projects involve large
commercial harbors (e.g., Buffalo, Lorain, Milwaukee).
10. Some delays in the confined disposal program of the C.E. have been
caused by the reluctance of local interests to provide land for disposal
sites and by site approval difficulties. For 20 of the 62 navigation
projects, there are neither existing confined disposal facilities, nor
-------
has site selection been accomplished for the 10-year program. However,
the polluted volume of these projects totals only about 300,000 CY
annually, which is 5 percent of the total polluted volume (6.45 million
CY). Recent high lake levels have reduced the problem of groundings at
those harbors where maintenance dredging has been temporarily postponed
while confined facilities are being designed.
11. Even though there is a trend toward larger lake carriers and exten-
sion of the navigation season, future maintenance dredging volumes are
projected to increase only slightly, while new work volumes will decline.
12. Since the enactment of PL 91-611, disposal of polluted spoil in
open-water sites has generally been discontinued in Lakes Superior,
Michigan, Huron, and St. Glair. In the Buffalo District of the C.E.,
small quantities of polluted spoil are being open-lake disposed from har-
bors requiring maintenance dredging for which confined disposal sites
have not yet been constructed.
13. At present, there is no specific legislation in the U.S. which pro-
hibits the open-lake disposal of polluted spoil during times of economic
stress. The governors of the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York
have indicated to the C.E. that they will not object to open-lake dump-
ing of polluted dredgings when suspension of maintenance dredging opera-
tions would jeopardize commercial navigation.
14. Dredging policies of Ontario, Canada, do not restrict the use of
private land for confined disposal sites. In many instances, as in
Toronto Harbor, the confined polluted spoil is utilized as a resource.
15. Where pollution elimination systems (under PL 92-500) have reduced
artificial sedimentation, as in Calumet and Chicago Harbors, future main-
tenance and private dredging volumes may be lower than that of the past
decade.
16. Although a very small increase in future average annual maintenance
dredging is projected over the past decade, the proportion of polluted
-------
spoil is expected to decrease slightly.
17. New guidelines by the E.P.A., governing the disposal of dredged
materials in inland waters, will probably broaden the criteria for deter-
mining the eligibility of spoil for open-lake disposal. Although these
guidelines may change the pollution status of several small recreational
harbors currently classified as partially polluted, the future volume of
polluted spoil which must be confined will not change significantly.
18. In partially polluted harbors, generally the inner harbor is pol-
luted, whereas the outer harbor near the jetties and/or breakwater is
unpolluted.
19. In rivermouth harbors, annual maintenance dredging volumes cannot
be predicted on the basis of the sediment load being transported by the
stream. For most harbors in the Great Lakes, the primary sources of the
dredged sediments are industrial-municipal effluents, littoral drift,
and alluvial deposition.
20. Wetlands, specifically coastal marshes, appear to be threatened
less by C.E. spoil disposal than by high lake levels, filling by utili-
ties and industries as well as by residential and recreational encroach-
ment.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on data obtained and analyzed in this report, the following recom-
mendations are presented:
1. Because of the relatively high cost of confined disposal, open-lake
disposal of unpolluted dredged spoil should not be discontinued.
2. As in the Detroit District, other C.E. districts should distinguish,
in their dredging records, between polluted and unpolluted maintenance
dredging quantities.
3. Private dredging records, i.e., Section 10 and NWPA permit files,
could be improved through standardization and higher priority.
4. The Department of Public Works of Canada (D.P.W,) should clearly dis-
tinguish, in their records, between maintenance and capital dredging.
5. As a first step in sediment abatement, the primary sources of sedi-
ment accumulation in each dredging project should be identified.
6. To reduce the future volume of polluted maintenance dredging, abate-
ment of industrial and sewage inputs should be expanded.
7. Because pollution elimination systems have begun to reduce man-made
sedimentation in some harbors, i.e., Calumet Harbor and River, the 10-
year confined disposal program of the C.E. warrants continued support.
8. To improve the sampling of maintenance dredging projects, the D.P.W.
and the C.E. should provide harbor shoaling maps to the M.O.E. and to
-------
the E.P.A. In return, on the basis of their analyses, the M.O.E. and
the E.P.A. should subdivide dredging projects into polluted and unpol-
luted sections. The M.O.E. should sample all public harbors which
require maintenance dredging.
9. Practical uses of dredged spoil and of filled disposal sites should
be emphasized in the U.S. as in Canada.
10. To facilitate the confinement of polluted spoil in the United
States, disposal on private land should be further encouraged.
11. The filling of coastal wetlands with industrial wastes, and to some
extent by dredged spoil, appears to be significant. These Great Lakes
wetlands should be identified, mapped, and zoned to better facilitate
future confined disposal site selection.
12. Because the cost of dredging operations in the Great Lakes'
projects has increased considerably over the past decade, the C.E.
should continue to perform public maintenance dredging so that competi-
tive bidding with private dredgers may continue.
-------
SECTION III
DREDGING QUANTITIES IN THE GREAT LAKES
INTRODUCTION
Objectives of this section are to inventory the historical and current
dredging volumes and to project future dredging quantities to be removed
from private and public waterways of the Great Lakes in the United
States and Canada. Dredging volume data were obtained from the district
offices of the C.E., to include Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit and St. Paul,
from the D.P.W. in Ottawa, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and
London, and from district offices of the Ministry of Transport (M.O.T.)
at Prescott and Parry Sound. In the Buffalo District, some data were
derived through a review of private dredgers' field records. Finally,
the E.P.A., Region V, Chicago, furnished some information regarding
private dredging quantities.
In the Great Lakes, dredging operations are subdivided into three cate-
gories. New work, or capital dredging as it is referred to in Canada,
involves deepening and/or widening of a pre-existing project, or the
initiation of a new harbor or waterway. Maintenance dredging involves
the removal of unconsolidated sediments which have been deposited in a
navigation project since the last dredging operation. The D.P.W. of
Canada does not always distinguish between capital dredging and mainte-
nance dredging which, in some cases, may account for high maintenance
dredging volumes in Canadian projects. Both new work and maintenance
dredging operations in federal harbors and waterways are regulated by
-------
the C.E. and the D.P.W. In Canada, all dredging in the Great Lakes is
contracted out by the D.P.W. to public tenders, whereas in the United
States the C.E. does perform some of the maintenance and new work
dredging.
A third category of dredging is private, or permit dredging, which is
done by private contractors in private harbors and in private approach
channels and docks adjacent to federally-maintained channels of public
harbors. Private dredging is regulated through the issuance of Section
10 and NWPA permits by the district offices of the C.E. and the M.O.T.,
respectively. In most districts, private dredging records are incom-
plete or were retained only for a few years before being destroyed. It
was estimated that Section 10 files in the Chicago District of the C.E.
are only 40 percent complete. In the past, high priority was not
assigned to private dredging permits, especially with regard to remote
areas of the Great Lakes. Thus, it was not possible to accurately deter-
mine the quality of spoil removed by private interests in the past.
Therefore, all private dredging volumes in this section represent mini-
mum quantities.
To present a uniform appraisal of dredging volumes for all the Great
Lakes, this study presents all dredging quantities, however originally
recorded, as place measure volumes. Because private and new work dredg-
ing volumes were generally recorded in place measure, conversion factors
apply primarily to maintenance dredging volumes. Most Canadian data
were recorded in place measure and few conversions were necessary. From
the Corps of Engineers' Districts, conversion factors were obtained as
indicated in Table 1. Based on their own specific operational function
and dredging plant type, each Corps of Engineers' District uses a conver-
sion factor which best represents the equivalent place measure volume.
Bin measures are applicable to hydraulic and hopper dredge plants, where-
as scow measures refer to dipper and clam shell dredges. Because of con-
version to place measure, spoil volumes for individual harbors, projects
8
-------
Table 1. CONVERSION FACTORS TO PLACE MEASURE (46)
Lake Bin measure Scow measure
Ontario 1 p.m. = 1.20 b.m. 1 p.m. = 1.20 s.m.
Erie l.p.m. = 1.20 b.m. 1 p.m. = 1.20 s.m.
Huron 1 p.m. = 1.20 b.m. 1 p.m. = 1.20 s.m.
Michigan 1 p.m. = 1.50 b.m. 1 p.m. = 1.20 s.m.
Superior 1 p.m. = 1.05 b.m. 1 p.m. = 1.05 s.m.
or districts may not agree with the raw data available in the records of
the C.E.
Estimates of future new work dredging quantities represent maximum vol-
umes as all scheduled new work projects were tabulated. Projections of
private and maintenance dredging quantities were based on dredging his-
tories during the past decade. Although the effect of new work projects
on the future maintenance dredging requirements of a given harbor was
incorporated into projections of maintenance dredging volumes, other
relevant factors such as federal funding, scheduling of dredging plants,
lake levels, and availability of disposal sites were not. Because of
the uniqueness of each dredging project and the affects of unknown vari-
ables such as future lake levels and federal funding, a single projec-
tion equation could not be applied to all harbors and waterways of the
Great Lakes. Projections of future maintenance dredging by harbor has
also been estimated by the C.E. for federal harbors in the United States
(1). Both projections were compared and significant differences between
the two are discussed below in the subsections on the individual lakes.
-------
DREDGING QUANTITIES IN LAKE ONTARIO
Lake Ontario is unique in its dredging requirements in that more material
is removed from Canadian projects than from American projects. From
1961 to 1970, of the total amount of spoil dredged from Lake Ontario, 58
percent came from Canadian projects and 42 percent from projects com-
pleted by the C.E. The dredging demand for Canadian projects is greater;
7 projects required removal of a total of more than 100,000 cubic yards
of spoil from 1961 to 1970. Only 4 American projects were dredged of at
least 100,000 cubic yards of material in that period. The highest vol-
umes on the Canadian side are generated primarily by the large commer-
cial projects of Toronto and Hamilton, each with an annual average of
more than 100,000 cubic yards of spoil removed. The only U.S. project
with a comparable volume of spoil is Rochester. In addition to maintain-
ing these and other smaller commercial harbors, a number of recreational/
harbor refuge facilities on Lake Ontario are dredged. Nine projects on
the Canadian side and 6 American harbors require dredging, at least
periodically (Figure 1).
Average annual commerce at 3 American harbors on Lake Ontario is substan-
tial enough so that the cost of their maintenance is unequivocally justi-
fied by the C.E. (2) (Figure 1) . However, no American harbor on the lake
is dredged to maintain the 27-foot St. Lawrence Seaway channel depth.
Three Canadian harbors are dredged to Seaway depth. Other harbors with
less commercial traffic, i.e., those with lower benefit/cost ratios,
have frequently been dredged in the past. However, reductions in money
allocations or port status changes could cause cessation of dredging
operations at more marginal harbors such as Wilson, Olcott, or Little
Sodus.
s of dredging volume, the most important American maintenance
dredging projects are at Rochester and Oswego, which require removal of
f 9^7 nnO and 54,000 cubic yards of spoil every year respec-
an average or /o/, uuu »*
ivel (Figure 2). The Canadian volume leaders are Toronto, Hamilton,
10
-------
CANADA
A OTHER HARBORS
O COMMERCIAL
• 27 FOOT PROJECT VEPTH
BELLEl/ILLE<
COBOUW
0SWAPM
MITBV
LAKEONTARIO
TORONTO
PORT CREPIT
OSWEGO
LITTLE SOVUS
GREAT SOVUS
(IN MILES)
25
50
75
Figure 1. PRINCIPAL DREDGING PROJECTS IN LAKE ONTARIO
-------
10 yEAR PREPGINO 1/0LUME 7967-7970 (IW 1,000'S C V )
O 0-9
Q 10-24
25-99
PORT CREPIT
OSWEGO
LITTLE SOPUS
GREAT SOVUS
(IW MILES)
25
75
Figure 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE ONTARIO, 1961-1970
-------
Oshawa, and Port Credit, all requiring annual removal of more than
34,000 cubic yards of material. From 1961 to 1970, Rochester was the
dredging volume leader, averaging 15,000 cubic yards more per year than
Toronto.
United States Dredging History
in Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario has been dredged for decades, but complete, meaningful, and
comparable volume data for Buffalo District C.E. projects are available
only from 1951. Prior to that time, records on actual volumes dredged
become sketchy to non-existent for some harbors, even in C.E. Annual
Reports. In many cases, dollar cost figures were reported in lieu of
volume data. Because of differences in types of material being removed,
types and cost of dredging operations, accurate conversion of cost
figures to volume figures was not possible for many of those earlier
years. However, complete and meaningful maintenance and new work dredg-
ing data since 1951 were collected and collated (Table 2).
Table 2. HISTORICAL DREDGING IN LAKE ONTARIO BY HARBOR/WATERWAY,
1951-1972 (47)
(cubic yards)
Harb or /waterway
Great Sodus
Little Sodus
Ogdensburg
Oswego
Rochester
Wilson
Olcott
Totals
Maintenance
459,910
262,723
22,151
1,113,538
5,582,985
16,139
29,490
7,486,936
New work
0
0
0
355,561
852,500
0
0
1,208,061
Total
459,910
262,723
22,151
1,469,099
6,435,485
16,139
29,490
8,694,997
13
-------
Since 1951 approximately 8.7 million cubic yards of spoil has been
removed from Lake Ontario by the C.E. (Table 2). About 85 percent of
the total was removed in maintenance dredging and 15 percent in new work
projects. Of all material removed in maintenance projects since 1951,
about nine-tenths came from Rochester and Oswego combined. In fact,
almost three-fourths came from Rochester alone. The only new work
dredging accomplished during the same period occurred at these two
harbors.
Maintenance Dredging—
In the past decade, maintenance dredging has accounted for approximately
65 percent of all dredging on the American side of Lake Ontario. In
terms of volume removed over a longer period, i.e., 1951 to 1972, the
C.E. dredged an average of approximately 340,000 cubic yards of spoil
from Lake Ontario projects annually. Absolute amounts ranged from a low
of 182,000 cubic yards in 1971 to a high of 567,000 cubic yards in 1967
(Table 3). Thus, volumes of spoil removed from the American side of
Lake Ontario have been fairly constant in recent years (Figure 3).
Since 1951, the C.E. has been responsible for removing more than 7 mil-
lion cubic yards of spoil from the lake in maintenance dredging projects.
New Work Dredging—
In the past decade, new work dredging has accounted for approximately
25 percent of all dredging activity on the American side of Lake Ontario.
Over the longer term, i.e., 1951 to 1972, only about 1.2 million cubic
yards of spoil were removed in new work dredging projects. However,
unlike maintenance dredging, new work volumes display very little regu-
larity from year to year. They range from a low of no new work in most
years since 1951 to a high of more than 400,000 cubic yards of spoil
removed in new work projects in 1963 (Table 4). No new work has
occurred on the American side of Lake Ontario since 1966. For the most
14
-------
UNITED STATES
CANADA
- 1,500
- 1,250
- 1,000
- 750
-500
- 250
O
G
cn
O
w
O
o
G
w
M
O
O
cn
51 '52 '53
55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 ' 63 ' 64 ' 65 ' 66 ' 67 ' 68 ' 69 ' 70 ' 71 ' 72
YEAR
Figure 3. MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE ONTARIO, 1951-1972
-------
Table 3. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN LAKE ONTARIO, 1951-1972 (47)
(cubic yards)
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
Total
Total volume
439,803
182,019
364,488
256,050
214,610
567,766
253,800
188,273
353,912
376,429
515,741
548,480
390,660
366,636
333,309
343,114
444,870
186,885
324,927
245,879
274,522
314,763
7,486,936
16
-------
Table 4. NEW WORK DREDGING IN LAKE ONTARIO, 1951-1972 (47)
(cubic yards)
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
Total volume
0
0
0
0
0
0
284,860
28,618
278,583
439,751
134,166
0
0
0
35,416
0
6,667
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1,208,061
17
-------
part, this was due to the deepening and widening of harbors and water-
ways to accommodate new commerce generated by the 1959 completion of the
St. Lawrence Seaway.
The largest new work project since 1951 occurred at Rochester in 1963,
when more than one-half a million cubic yards of spoil were generated.
Permit Dredging—
Dredging by non-federal interests may only be undertaken when authoriza-
tion of the C.E. is obtained through permits. Data were gathered from
the C.E. District Office in Buffalo, from the E.P.A., Chicago, and from
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in Albany.
Permit dredging in Lake Ontario has been traced thoroughly to 1963. It
is felt that compilation of permit dredging volume data is as complete
as possible, considering certain restrictions such as missing permit
files, unreported volumes of spoil removed, and files lacking job com-
pletion notices. Therefore, the volumes presented in this report
represent minimum figures.
Approximately 10 percent of all dredging on the American side of Lake
Ontario is permit dredging. From 1963 to 1972, such projects resulted
in the removal of about 480,000 cubic yards of spoil from the lake
(Table 5). On the average, about 48,000 cubic yards of material are
dredged from Lake Ontario ports by permittees each year. The volumes
removed ranged from a low of only 3,000 cubic yards in 1968 to a high of
268,000 cubic yards in 1971. No apparent pattern has been established
in the past decade.
Canadian Dredging History in Lake Ontario
Dredging data for Canadian harbors on Lake Ontario have been collected
and presented in Table 6. Since 1961, almost 5.5 million cubic yards of
spoil has been removed in maintaining Canadian channels on the lake
18
-------
Table 5. PRIVATE DREDGING IN LAKE ONTARIO, 1963-1972 (47)
(cubic yards)
Year Total volume
1972 40,093
1971 268,395
1970 62,100
1969 5,750
1968 3,080
1967 13,750
1966 18,875
1965 12,600
1964 47,770
1963 8,494
Total 480,907
Table 6. DREDGING HISTORY IN CANADIAN PROJECTS IN LAKE ONTARIO,
1961-1972 (48, 49)
(cubic yards)
Year Maintenance New work Permit
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
48,031
29,032
51,221
52,251
100,100
686,453
523,610
216,505
499,938
1,500,819
667,864
1,059,383
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,612,925
248,000
4,088
3,023,000
1,130,500
25
15
2,000
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Total 5,435,207 1,865,013 4,155,540
N.A. Data not available.
19
-------
(Figure 3). The volume removed ranged from a low of 29,000 cubic yards
in 1971 to a high of 1.5 million cubic yards in 1963. However, volumes
have significantly decreased in the 1970's.
New work (capital) dredging in Canadian projects of Lake Ontario was
most important during the early 1960's. Adjustments in harbors and
waterways were made for accommodation of deeper drafts generated by
completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Most new work dredging occurred
in 1963, when approximately 1.6 million cubic yards were removed. The
largest new work projects in that year were dredged at Port Credit and
Toronto, where one million cubic yards and 549,000 cubic yards were
removed respectively.
Although data on historical private dredging are particularly sketchy
for Canadian harbors, statistics for Lake Ontario were complete from
1968 to 1972. During that period, about 4 million cubic yards of
material were removed by permittees. Since the sample period is short,
no reliable pattern of permit dredging activity for Canadian Lake
Ontario is discernible.
In terms of volume, the most significant maintenance dredging projects
on the Canadian side of Lake Ontario have historically been at Toronto,
Hamilton, Oshawa, Port Credit, and Cobourg (Table 7). Each of these
harbors average at least 20,000 cubic yards of maintenance dredging
annually. The volume leader, of course, is Toronto, with an average of
approximately 250,000 cubic yards per year.
Projections of Future Dredging Volumes
on the United States Side
Maintenance—
Estimations of the volume of material to be removed from Lake Ontario in
maintenance dredging in the next decade have become possible based on
knowledge gained through this research project. Three projections are
20
-------
Table 7. HISTORICAL DREDGING: CANADIAN PROJECTS IN LAKE ONTARIO,
1961-1970 (48)
(cubic yards)
Project
Toronto
Oshawa
Port Credit
Cobourg
Hamilton
Port Hope
Cataraqul Bay
Total
Total maintenance
2,521,940
475,391
347,000
238,146
l,524,079a
195,332
56,256
5,358,144
Total new work
549,000
63,925
1,048,000
0
200,000
0
4,088
1,865,013
Includes 155,615 cubic yards for Burlington.
determined:
(1) a figure based on C.E. estimates made in 1968 (3),
(2) a figure based on relatively recent environmental effects
on dredging in the Great Lakes, and
(3) a median figure projected in this report.
The latter will be based primarily on the dredging histories of the
various projects in Lake Ontario and on developments anticipated in the
near future, i.e., a drop in the present high lake levels, completion of
confined disposal sites, and easing of present environmental constraints.
Changes in shipping needs in the next decade and the potential of year-
round navigation are not expected to affect dredging in Lake Ontario in
the next 10 years.
In 1968, the C.E. projected dredging volumes in the major harbors and
waterways of Lake Ontario, i.e., Rochester and Oswego (3). Where projec-
tions were not provided in 1968, data on annual average maintenance
21
-------
dredging have been provided by the C.E. in 1973. Utilizing these data,
it is projected that approximately 3.7 million cubic yards of material
will be removed from U.S. projects in Lake Ontario in the next decade
(Table 8). Based on other projections of Lake Ontario, this figure
represents a high estimate.
In the past few years, certain environmental policies (Section V) have
occurred which may cause dredging volumes in Lake Ontario to decline in
the next decade, particularly on the American side. It is generally
felt by most environmental interests, that polluted spoil should be con-
fined. Approximately 92 percent of the dredgings removed from U.S.
projects of Lake Ontario are classed as polluted by the E.P.A. Confined
disposal sites have been in use at major harbors in the Great Lakes for
some time, but many more sites are necessary if polluted spoil is to be
confined. Such sites are in various stages of development, from planning
to actual construction. If a sufficient number of confined disposal
Table 8. C.E. PROJECTIONS AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES,
LAKE ONTARIO (3, 47)
(cubic yards)
Project
Great Sodus
Little Sodus
Oswego
Rochester
Wilson
Olcott
Total
Average annual dredging,
1960-1968
35,686
18,724
64,000
264,000
1,423
3,174
Projection,
1969
8,000a
8,000a
64,000
288,000
l,600a
l,600a
371,000
a
'Reported as average annual dredging by the C.E. in 1970; used as
projections for these smaller harbors.
22
-------
sites become available, then dredging volumes may increase in the next
decade. However, difficulty is being experienced in some areas for find-
ing and developing suitable sites which are mutually agreeable to all
concerned groups. In some cases, the cost to local parties is considered
too great. Unless waivers of costs to local groups are obtained, site
agreements are reached, and/or the E.P.A. modifies its pollution criteria,
dredging at many harbors in the future may decline to some extent. In
the interest of the regional and national economy, most major harbors and
waterways will probably be dredged at any environmental cost, even if at
a reduced scale. However, the smaller and more marginal commercial
projects and all recreational and harbors of refuge would probably be
downgraded. Thus, under these considerations, a lower figure for the
C.E.'s dredging volume in Lake Ontario in the next decade is about 2.2
million cubic yards. This figure represents a decline in dredging vol-
umes of approximately one standard deviation from the norm in the past
decade.
Based primarily on the dredging history of Lake Ontario, a median esti-
mate of the volume of material to be removed in the next decade is possi-
ble. The decade of the 1960's, i.e., 1960 to 1970, has been chosen as
typical for the purposes of this project. The St. Lawrence Seaway was
completed in 1959, and only in recent years higher than average lake
levels and the E.P.A. constraints have had effects on dredging. In
estimating future volumes then, the frequency at which individual
projects were dredged during the 1960's has been utilized. Some harbors
and waterways are dredged annually while others are maintained relatively
infrequently (Table 9).
Between 1961 and 1970 the C.E. dredged only one of 5 projects every year
in Lake Erie: the average per year was 3. During that decade the vol-
ume of material removed each year ranged from 188,000 cubic yards to
568,000 cubic yards: the average was 364,000 cubic yards per year. No
significant correlation exists between number of jobs completed per year
23
-------
Table 9. FREQUENCY OF DREDGING BY THE C.E., LAKE ONTARIO PROJECTS,
1961-1970 (47)
Project 1961
Great Sodus x
Little Sodus
Oswego x
Rochester x
Wilson
Olcott
Total projects
per year 3
1962
x
x
X
X
X
5
1963 1964 1965 1966 1967
X X X X X
X X
XX XX
X X X X X
34333
1968 1969
x
X X
X
X X
2 4
1970
x
1
and the volume of spoil removed. Six projects were maintained on Lake
Ontario between 1961 and 1970. Only Rochester was dredged a total of at
least one million cubic yards of material during that time (Table 10).
If the probable fall in lake levels actually occurs in the near future,
if environmental constraints are relaxed in consideration of economics
in the Great Lakes region, and/or if confined disposal sites under con-
sideration at present actually become available, then dredging in the
next decade may be slightly higher than normal. Volumes would be above
average for a few years to allow for the removal of material which has
accumulated during the past 3 years, a period of relatively lower than
normal dredging activity. A return to average dredging volumes would
probably occur within 3 or 4 years thereafter. Thus, a median estimate
of the total volume of U.S. maintenance dredging in the next decade is
approximately 3.6 million cubic yards of material. This figure, only
slightly lower than the C.E. projection of 3.7 million for Lake Ontario,
should be considered the projection provided by this report.
24
-------
Table 10. FREQUENCY OF DREDGING AND VOLTTME OF SPOIL REMOVED BY THE C.E.,
1961-1970 (47)
(cubic yards)
Project
Great Sodus
Little Sodus
Oswego
Rochester
Wilson
Olcott
Total
Frequency dredged,
1961-1970
8
4
7
10
1
1
Maintenance
volume
237,630
150,747
546,830
2,670,289
9,484
21,157
3,636,137
Permit—
If permit dredging activity in the past decade can be considered typical
of Lake Ontario, and if recent dredging cutbacks are balanced by greater
volumes removed after disposal sites become available in the next few
years, then it is estimated that a total of 300,000 cubic yards of
material will be removed by permittees in the next decade. This projec-
tion, however, is based on minimal data. Dredging in some years may
show many small volume permits approved, and the total may be signifi-
cantly less than the projection. In other years, only a few permits may
be approved, but because the jobs are large, volumes may be consider-
ably greater than the projection posed herein.
Future New Work by the Corps of
Engineers in Lake Ontario
Only Oak Orchard Harbor is scheduled for new work dredging in Lake
Ontario in the next 10 years. The total amount of material to be
25
-------
removed is 61,000 cubic yards. However, actual completion of the
project may be considered to be only reasonably certain. In fact, the
possibility exists that any project presently scheduled may never develop
beyond the planning stage. Completion of new work dredging is particu-
larly difficult to determine due to economic and environmental feasibil-
ity factors. Money allocations and environmental impact must be
appraised before any future new work projects are actually accomplished.
Projects considered important at present may be delayed and even can-
celled because they lose significance during processes of approval by
various governmental agencies and other interest groups.
Projections of Canadian Dredging Volumes
Maintenance—
In the decade 1961 to 1970, a range of 2 to 7 maintenance dredging
projects occurred annually in Canadian waters of Lake Ontario.. The
average annual number of jobs per year was 5. The total volume of
material removed ranged from about 51,000 cubic yards to 1.5 million
cubic yards: the average annual volume removed in that decade was
536,000 cubic yards (Table 11).
In terms of future spoil removal on the Canadian side of Lake Ontario,
projections of maintenance dredging volumes from 1973 to 1977 were made
available by the D.P.W. A total of approximately 435,000 cubic yards of
spoil are scheduled to be dredged in maintaining Canadian harbors on
Lake Ontario in the next 3 to 4 years (Table 12). Approximately half of
the total in this time is expected to be removed from the harbor at
Toronto.
Obviously, Canadian projections for maintenance dredging in the near
future are lower than the average dredging volumes which occurred during
the 1960's. However, expansion in the Toronto Harbor, involving about 8
million cubic yards of new work dredging, is expected to be completed
26
-------
Table 11. CANADIAN DREDGING FREQUENCIES, LAKE ONTARIO PROJECTS,
1961-1970 (48)
Project
Toronto
Oshawa
Port Credit
Burlington
Cob our g
Hamilton
Port Hope
Cataraqui
Total
projects
per year
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
XXXXXXXX X
XX X X X X X
X X
X
XXXX XX XX
xxxx xxxxx
XXXXXXXX X
X
7556355424
27
-------
Table 12. FUTURE DREDGING IN CANADA 1973-1977, LAKE ONTARIO
(cubic yards) (48)
Volume
Maintenance projects
Bronte 15,000
Cobourg 50,000
Oshawa 140,000
Whitby 10,000
Toronto 220,000
Total maintenance volume 435,000
Private projects
Port Weller (by S.L.S.A.) 85,000
Bowmanville (by Ontario Hydro) 221,000
Total private volume 306,000
New work projects
Toronto 8,010,000
Total new work volume 8,010,000
28
-------
within two years. This will increase maintenance dredging somewhat
after 1975. Thus, considering Canadian projections primarily, it is
estimated that an average of 500,000 cubic yards of material will be
removed from the Canadian side of Lake Ontario every year for the next
decade in maintenance dredging projects.
Private—
Permit dredging has fluctuated widely in terms of volumes on the
Canadian side of Lake Ontario in recent years. More than 4 million
cubic yards were removed by permit since 1968. In some years very
little permit dredging activity has occurred. However, other projects
have resulted in the removal of hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of
spoil. Canadian data reveal that at least 306,000 cubic yards of spoil
are already scheduled to be removed by private interests in Lake Ontario
projects by 1977 (Table 12). Thus, in an attempt to generalize a projec-
tion on permit dredging in Canadian waters of Lake Ontario, it is postu-
lated that an average of 100,000 cubic yards of material will be removed
by permit every year in the next decade.
New Work—
In the decade of the 1960's about 1.9 million cubic yards of material
were dredged in Canadian new work projects in Lake Ontario. All new
work in the lake occurred in the early 1960's; none has occurred since
1963. In the research for this project, only one capital dredging
project was projected by any Canadian authorities for Lake Ontario. At
Toronto, port expansion is expected to result in the removal of approxi-
mately 8 million cubic yards of spoil by 1975. No other new work
projects are scheduled for Canadian harbors on Lake Ontario.
Summary
The total volume of maintenance and permit dredging to occur in Lake
29
-------
Ontario to 1983 is estimated to be almost 1.0 million cubic yards per
year (Table 13). About 60 percent will occur on the Canadian side and
40 percent on the American side. Since most confined disposal sites
planned for American projects in Lake Ontario will not be completed
until 1975, 1976, or 1977, American volumes in the next few years will
remain relatively low. However, after confined sites are ready to
receive polluted spoil, all dredging activities may increase. By 1983
the average volumes being removed from Lake Ontario should be similar to
those which were removed during the decade of the 1960fs.
Table 13. ESTIMATES OF FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL DREDGING VOLUMES
IN LAKE ONTARIO
(cubic yards)
Annual total
Total for Lake Ontario
Future new work
U.S. projects
Canadian projects
Maintenance
Permit
360,000
30,000
500,000
100,000
390,000 600,000
990,000
61,000 8,100,000
DREDGING QUANTITIES IN LAKE ERIE
More dredging occurs in Lake Erie (including the Detroit and Rouge
Rivers) than in any other part of the Great Lakes. High dredging volumes
here are generated primarily at large commercial projects such as Buffalo,
Cleveland, Toledo, and the Detroit River. In addition to maintaining
these and other smaller commercial harbors, a few recreational and
harbors of refuge on the lake are dredged. Twenty-one U.S. projects and
15 Canadian harbors in Lake Erie require dredging, at least periodically
(Figur 4).
30
-------
A OTHER f/ARBORS
COMMERCIAL
27 FOOT PROJECT PEPTH
MICHIGAN
£• ^L
\
-------
Average annual commerce at 14 American harbors is substantial enough so
that the cost of their maintenance is classed as unequivocally justified
by the C.E. (2). In fact, 8 American harbors and waterways on Lake Erie
are dredged to maintain the 27-foot St. Lawrence Seaway channel depth
(Figure 4). Other harbors with less commercial traffic, i.e., those
with lower benefit/cost ratios, have continually been dredged in the
past. However, reductions in money allocations or port status changes
may cause cessation of dredging operations at the more marginal harbors
such as Dunkirk, Barcelona, or Rocky River.
In terms of volume, the most important American maintenance dredging
projects in Lake Erie are at Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Sandusky.
All of these require removal of more than 400,000 cubic yards of spoil
annually (Figure 5). Of the Canadian harbors, the volume leader has been
Port Burwell, which averaged approximately 180,000 cubic yards per year
until recently. However, a status change has occurred at Port Burwell,
resulting in a reduction in project depth from 22 feet to 10 feet. Port
Stanley, with an average of less than 90,000 cubic yards of spoil
removed each year, is now the most important dredging project on Lake
Erie. No Canadian harbor on the lake is dredged to the 27-foot St.
Lawrence Seaway depth.
United States Dredging History
in Lake Erie
Lake Erie has been dredged for decades, but complete, meaningful, and
comparable volume data for C.E. projects are available only from 1951.
Prior to that time, records on actual volumes dredged become sketchy to
non-existent for some harbors, even in C.E. Annual Reports. In many
cases, dollar cost figures were reported in lieu of spoil volumes.
Because of differences in types of material being removed, types of
dredging operations, and in value of the dollar over time, accurate con-
version of cost figures to volume figures was not possible for many of
32
-------
CO
u>
WEAR PREPGING 1/0LUME 1961-1970 (IN ?(000'S C
O 0-24
25-99
MICHIHAN
PETROIT RIl/ER
100-199
200-399
LAKE ST, CLAIP
PUNKIRK
BARCELOWA
NB' YORK
COWMEAUT
ASf/TABtlLA
PENNSYLVANIA
FAIRPORT
t
CLEl/ELAMP
(IN MILES)
10 0 50
ROUGE RII/ER
MONROE
BOLLES
TOLEVO
Figure 5. AVERAGE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE ERIE, 1961-1970
-------
those earlier years. However, complete and meaningful maintenance and
new work dredging data since 1951 were collected and are presented in
Table 14.
Since 1951, approximately 134 million cubic yards of spoil has been
removed from Lake Erie and the Detroit and Rouge Rivers by the C.E.
About 56 percent has been derived from Buffalo District projects and 44
percent from Detroit District projects. Seventy percent of the total
volume involved was removed in maintenance dredging and 30 percent in
new work projects. Of all material removed in maintenance projects
since 1951, more than three-fifths came from Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo,
and Sandusky combined. Most new work dredging quantities during the
same period were extracted from the Detroit River, Toledo, and Buffalo.
Maintenance Dredging—
In the past decade, maintenance dredging has accounted for approximately
55 percent of all dredging on the American side of Lake Erie. In terms
of volume removed over a longer period, i.e., 1951 to 1972, the Buffalo
District C.E. dredged an average of 2.64 million cubic yards of spoil
from Lake Erie projects annually in maintenance projects. Absolute
amounts for the Buffalo District ranged from a low of 1.98 million cubic
yards in 1954 to a high of 3.89 million cubic yards in 1967 (Table 15).
In the same period the Detroit District C.E. dredged an average of 1.60
million cubic yards of material annually from Lake Erie projects includ-
ing the Detroit and Rouge Rivers. Absolute amounts for the Detroit
District ranged from a low of 0.87 million cubic yards in 1963 to a high
of 3.28 million cubic yards in 1968. Thus, an average of 4.23 million
cubic yards of spoil has been removed in maintaining projects in Lake
Erie every year from 1951 to 1972. The range was from a low of 3.14
million cubic yards in 1953 to a high of 6.52 million yards in 1967
(Figure 6). A relatively consistent volume of spoil has been dredged
from Lake Erie in recent decades. Since 1951, the Buffalo District C.E.
34
-------
Table 14. HISTORICAL DREDGING IN LAKE ERIE BY HARBOR/WATERWAY
AND C.E. DISTRICT, 1951-1972 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Harb or / Wa t erway
Buffalo District
Ashtabula
Black Rock Channel and
Tonawanda Harbor
Buffalo
Cleveland
Conneaut
Dunkirk
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Lor a in
Rocky River
Sandusky
Totals
Detroit District
Bolles
Detroit River
Monroe
Port Clinton
Rouge River
Toledo
Totals
Grand totals
Maintenance
2,817,792
1,342,475
9,561,490
19,065,831
1,560,227
333,320
2,990,890
6,534,780
3,236,320
3,791,160
7,083
7,090,207
58,331,575
87,371
5,396,005
4,475,423
57,934
4,493,577
20,789,930
35,300,240
93,631,815
New work
2,584,469
122,511
6,640,455
2,709,006
1,437,458
195,166
656,715
11,666
0
1,327,271
0
1,253,936
16,938,653
157,898
12,273,460
0
0
0
11,411,931
23,843,289
40,781,942
Total
5,402,261
1,464,986
16,201,945
21,774,837
2,997,685
528,486
3,647,605
6,546,446
3,236,320
5,118,431
7,083
8,344,143
75,270,228
245,269
17,669,465
4,475,423
57,934
4,493,577
32,201,861
59,143,529
134,413,757
35
-------
Table 15. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN LAKE ERIE, 1951-1972 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
Totals
Buffalo District
2,112,555
2,321,135
2,478,930
2,996,703
2,869,449
3,892,150
2,784,952
2,141,659
2,739,205
2,799,863
2,636,714
3,053,721
2,911,955
3,097,801
2,942,716
2,880,035
2,178,527
2,195,340
1,980,695
2,082,365
2,938,146
2,296,959
58,331,575
Detroit District
1,366,336
1,080,472
1,804,690
2,396,727
3,278,175
2,636,984
1,693,665
1,636,712
707,539
874,275
943,132
2,126,050
2,586,735
1,648,815
1,675,957
1,437,262
1,129,870
1,424,229
1,596,869
1,062,251
874,808
1,318,687
35,300,240
Total
Volume
3,478,891
3,401,607
4,283,620
5,393,430
6,147,624
6,529,134
4,478,617
3,778,371
3,446,744
3,674,138
3,579,846
5,179,771
5,498,890
4,746,616
4,618,673
4,317,297
3,308,397
3,619,569
3,577,564
3,144,616
3,812,954
3,615,646
93,631,815
36
-------
UNITED STATES
CANADA
Co
- 6
.4
.3
_2
-I
51 '52 '53 '54 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 71
YEAR
Figure 6. MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE ERIE, 1951-1972
-------
has been responsible for removing more than 58 million cubic yards of
spoil and the Detroit District approximately 35 million cubic yards.
New Work Dredging—
In the past decade, new work has accounted for approximately 35 percent
of all dredging activity on the American side of Lake Erie. Over the
longer term, i.e., 1951 to 1972, more than 40 million cubic yards of
spoil was removed in new work projects. However, unlike average main-
tenance volumes, new work volume totals display very little regularity
from year to year. New work volumes range from a low of no new work in
1971 and 1972 to a high of more than 12 million cubic yards in 1963
(Table 16). During the late 1950's and the early 1960's new work dredg-
ing became highly important. In fact, more than 90 percent of the new
work dredging in Lake Erie waters since 1951 occurred between 1958 and
1967. For the most part, this was due to the deepening and widening of
harbors and waterways to accommodate commerce generated by the St.
Lawrence Seaway, which was completed in 1959.
The largest new work project in Lake Erie since 1951 occurred at Toledo.
In 1963 almost 7 million cubic yards of spoil were dredged in that
project. Of all new work dredging since 1951, 58 percent occurred in
Detroit District C.E. projects and 42 percent in Buffalo District
projects.
Permit Dredging—
Dredging by non-federal interests may only be undertaken when authoriza-
tion of the C.E. is obtained through permits. Permit dredging data in
Lake Erie has been traced thoroughly from 1963 to the present. Data
were gathered from C.E. in Buffalo and Detroit, from the E.P.A. in
Chicago, and from New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion in Albany. This compilation of permit dredging volume data is as
complete as possible, considering certain restrictions such as missing
38
-------
Table 16. NEW WORK DREDGING IN LAKE ERIE, 1951-1972 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
Totals
Buffalo District
0
0
86,836
0
387,466
1,150,721
3,186,485
2,441,336
1,361,080
3,239,048
491,966
294,663
1,167,686
736,545
0
395,503
720,000
250,000
227,083
193,750
291,958
316,527
16,938,653
Detroit District
0
0
51,449
46,464
0
79,854
399,467
1,297,268
3,103,642
9,494,166
2,015,771
3,499,913
906,416
1,284,498
1,664,381
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,843,289
Total
0
0
138,285
46,464
387,466
1,230,575
3,585,952
3,738,604
4,464,722
12,733,214
2,507,737a
3,794,576
2,074,102
2,021,043
1,664,381
395,503
720,000
250,000
227,083
193,750
291,958
316,527
40,781,941
Plus two more jobs of unreported and unknown quantity,
39
-------
permit files, unreported volumes of spoil removed, and files lacking job
completion notices. Compilation of complete and comparable volume data
for permit dredging prior to 1963 is actually impossible in Lake Erie
projects for such reasons. Therefore, the private dredging volumes pre-
sented in this report represent minimum figures.
Approximately 10 percent of all U.S. dredging in Lake Erie is permit
dredging. From 1963 to 1972, such projects resulted in the removal of
more than 8 million cubic yards of spoil from the lake (Table 17). On
the average, approximately 800,000 cubic yards of material are dredged
from the lake by permittees each year. The volumes removed ranged from
a low of 156,000 cubic yards in 1968 to a high of 2.2 million cubic
yards in 1970. No apparent pattern has been established in the past
decade. Of all permit dredging, 80 percent of the volume is removed
under the jurisdiction of the Detroit District C.E. and 20 percent under
the Buffalo District.
Table 17. PRIVATE DREDGING IN LAKE ERIE, 1963-1972 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
Totals
Buffalo District
71,484
141,774
213,637
130,858
106,660
160,512
163,660
60,765
277,641
254V190
1,581,181
Detroit District
409,000
393,499
2,010,000
435,067
49,800
478,860
868,010
624,845
795,902
471,719
6,536,702
Total
480,484
535,273
2,223,637
565,925
156,460
639,372
1,031,670
685,610
1,073,543
725,909
8,117,883
40
-------
Canadian Dredging History in Lake Erie
Dredging data for Canadian harbors on Lake Erie have been collected and
collated from 1961 to the present (Figure 6). In those 11 years, more
than 3.5 million cubic yards of spoil has been removed in maintaining
several comparatively small Canadian harbors. Amounts of material
removed ranged from a low of about 120,000 cubic yards in 1971 to a high
of approximately 710,000 cubic yards in 1968 (Table 18). Essentially no
new work dredging has been done on the Canadian side of Lake Erie for
more than a decade.
Data on permit dredging are particularly sketchy for Canadian harbors.
since statistics for Lake Erie were available only from 1969 to 1972.
In that period, an approximate total of a one-half million cubic yards
of spoil were removed by permittees. Because the sample period is short,
no pattern of permit dredging activity for Canadian Lake Erie can be
determined.
In terms of volume, the most significant Canadian maintenance dredging
projects have historically been at Port Burwell, Port Stanley, Kings-
ville, and Leamington (Table 19). With the recent phasing out of Port
Burwell as a coal port, dredging there has ceased. Port Stanley has
become the volume leader with an average of only about 90,000 cubic yards
per year.
Projections of Future Dredging Quantities
on the United States Side
Maintenance—
Estimations of the quantities of material to be removed from Lake Erie
in maintenance dredging in the next decade is possible based on the
information available. Three projections will be provided, as follows:
(1) a figure based on C.E. estimates made in 1968 (3,4).
(2) a figure based on relatively recent environmental effects on
41
-------
Table 18. DREDGING HISTORY IN CANADIAN PROJECTS IN LAKE ERIE,
1961-1972 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
Totals
Maintenance
N.A.
119,789
171,753
157,233
710,791
247,831
535,982
236,877
287,226
199,825
512,946
466,026
3,619,847
New work
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
Permit
5,800
430,000
500
2,000
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A,
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
438,300
N.A. Data not available.
42
-------
Table 19. HISTORICAL DREDGING: CANADIAN PROJECTS IN LAKE ERIE,
1961-1970 (48)
(cubic yards)
Project
Kings ville
Pelee Island
Port Dover
Port Maitland
Port Stanley
Ambers tburg
Leamington
Port Burwell
St. Williams
Wheatley
Rondeau
Windsor
Colchester
Port Bruce
Port Rowan
Totals
Total maintenance
258,434
15,092
32,035
51,692
865,646
6,365
207,808
1,827,159
3,867
69,918
135,172
1,023
11,974
300
13,573
3,500,058
Total new work
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
43
-------
dredging in the Great Lakes, and
(3) a median figure projected in this report.
The latter will be based primarily on the past dredging histories in
Lake Erie and on developments expected in the near future, i.e., a drop
in the present high lake levels, completion of confined disposal sites,
and easing of present environmental constraints. Changes in shipping
needs in the next decade and the potential of year-round navigation are
not expected to affect dredging significantly in Lake Erie.
In 1968 the C.E. projected dredging volumes for most of the major harbors
and waterways of Lake Erie (3,4). For a few harbors for which projec-
tions were not provided, data on annual average maintenance dredging
have been made available by the Buffalo District. Utilizing these data,
it is projected that approximately 5.4 million cubic yards of material
will be removed annually from American waters of Lake Erie in the next
decade (Table 20). This figure is a high estimate compared to other
projections in this subsection.
In the past few years, environmental policies have developed which may
cause dredging volumes in Lake Erie to decline somewhat in the next
decade. It is generally felt by most environmental interests that
polluted spoil should be confined. Approximately 95 percent of the
material removed from U.S. projects in Lake Erie is classed as polluted
by the E.P.A. Confined disposal sites have been in use at high volume
such as Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, and the Detroit River for some time,
but many more sites are necessary. Such sites are in various stages of
development, from selection and planning to actual construction. If a
sufficient number of confined disposal sites become available, then
dredging volumes may continue high in the next decade. However, diffi-
culty is being experienced in some areas in finding and developing suit-
able sites which are mutually agreeable to all concerned agencies. In
some cases, the cost to local interests may be considerable. In others,
actual site selection has thus far not been agreeable to all parties.
44
-------
Table 20. C.E. PROJECTIONS AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES,
LAKE ERIE (3, 47, 50, 51)
(cubic yards)
Project
Ashtabula
Black Rock Channel
Tonawanda Harbor
Buffalo
Cleveland
Conneaut
Dunkirk
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Lorain
Rocky River
Sandusky
Bolles
Detroit River
Monroe
Port Clinton
Rouge River
Toledo
Total
Average annual dredging
1960-1968
104,000
and 105,776
464,800
976,000
60,000
15,448
145,600
296,000
150,000
150,000
1,062
316,000
10,921
640,000
192,000
4,043
240,000
1,120,000
1969
projection
176,000
80,000
420,000
976,000
80,000
16,000
240,000
320,000
160,000
240,000
12,000a
480,000
20,000a
640,000
192,000
8,000a
240,000
1,120,000
5,420,000
Reported as average annual dredging by the C.E. in 1970; used as pro-
jections for these harbors.
45
-------
Unless waivers of costs to local groups are obtained, site agreements
are reached, and/or the E.P.A. relaxes some of its pollution criteria,
maintenance dredging in the future will decline to some extent. As of
July, 1974, a waiver was granted to Toledo and additional waivers are
pending for Fairport, Conneaut, Cleveland, Lorain, and Ashtabula. How-
ever, polluted spoil is being dumped in the open lake in the Buffalo
District. Thus, in the interest of the regional and national economy,
most major harbors and waterways will probably be dredged at any environ-
mental cost, even if at a reduced scale. But the smaller and more
marginal commercial projects and many recreational and harbors of refuge
would probably be eliminated entirely. Thus, under these considerations,
a lower figure for the C.E. dredging volume in Lake Erie in the next
decade is about 35 million cubic yards. This figure represents a
decline in dredging volumes of approximately one standard deviation from
the norm in the past decade.
Based primarily on the recent dredging history of Lake Erie, a median
estimate of the volume of material to be removed in the next decade is
possible. The decade of the 1960's, i.e., 1961 to 1970, has been chosen
as typical. The St. Lawrence Seaway was completed in 1959, and in the
early 1970's higher than average lake levels and E.P.A. pollution cri-
teria have had effects on dredging. In estimating future volumes then,
the frequency at which individual projects were dredged during the 1960's
has been utilized. Some harbors and waterways are dredged annually while
others are maintained less frequently (Table 21).
Between 1961 and 1970 the C.E. dredged 13 to 16 maintenance projects
annually: the average per year was 14. During that decade, the volume
of material removed each year ranged from 3.4 million cubic yards to 6.5
million cubic yards: the average was 4.6 million cubic yards annually.
No significant correlation existed between number of jobs completed per
year and volume of spoil removed. Eighteen projects were maintained on
Lake Erie between 1961 and 1970. Twelve were dredged a total of at
46
-------
Table 21. FREQUENCY OF DREDGING BY THE C.E., LAKE ERIE PROJECTS,
1961-1970 (47, 50)
Project
Ashtabula
Black Rock
Channel and
Tonawanda
Harbor
Buffalo
Cleveland
Conneaut
Dunkirk
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Lorain
Rocky River
Sandusky
Bolles
Detroit River
Monroe
Port Clinton
Rouge River
Toledo
Totals
1961
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
1962
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
1963
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
1964
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
1965
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
1966
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
1967
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
13
1968
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
1969
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
1970
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
47
-------
least one million cubic yards of material during that time (Table 22).
If the probable fall in lake levels actually occurs in the near future,
if pollution criteria are relaxed in consideration of economics in the
Great Lakes region, and/or if confined disposal sites planned become
available, then dredging in the next decade may be slightly higher than
normal. Volumes would be somewhat greater than normal for a few years
to allow for the removal of material which has accumulated during the
past 3 years, a period of relatively lower than normal dredging activity.
A return to average dredging volumes would probably occur within 3 or 4
years. Thus, a median projection of U.S. maintenance dredging in Lake
Erie is approximately 4.8 million cubic yards of spoil annually.
Fermi t—
If permit dredging activity in the past decade can be considered typical
of Lake Erie, and if recent decreases in dredging are balanced by
greater volumes removed after disposal sites become available in the
next few years, then it is estimated that an average of 900,000 cubic
yards of material will be removed each year by permittees in the next
decade. This projection may be quite low or quite high because permit
dredging data, as discussed previously, are not complete. Many small-
volume permits may be approved in some years, and the total may be sig-
nificantly less than the projection. In other years, only a few permits
may be approved. However, because the jobs are large, volumes may be
considerably greater than the projection posed herein.
Future New Work by the Corps of
Engineers in Lake Erie—
Nine projects are in the schedule for new work dredging in Lake Erie at
this time. Combined, the total amount of material to be removed is more
than 4 million cubic yards (Table 23). However, actual completion of
these projects may be considered to be only reasonably certain. In fact,
the possibility exists that few of the projects scheduled at present may
48
-------
Table 22. FREQUENCY OF DREDGING AND VOLUME OF SPOIL REMOVED
BY THE C.E. LAKE ERIE, 1961-1970 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Project
Ashtabula
Black Rock Channel and
Tonawanda Harbor
Buffalo
Cleveland
Conneaut
Dunkirk
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Lor a in
Rocky River
Sandusky
Bolles
Detroit River
Monroe
Port Clinton
Rouge River
Toledo
Total
Frequency
dredged
10
10
10
10
8
6
9
10
10
8
2
10
1
7
9
2
10
9
Maintenance
volume
1,257,691
834,980
4,488,244
8,756,299
687,035
121,091
1,620,327
3,026,874
1,519,345
1,201,993
7,083
4,397,040
87,371
3,245,073
1,846,288
59,605
2,021,209
10,837,905
46,015,453
49
-------
Table 23. FUTURE NEW WORK DREDGING IN LAKE ERIE SCHEDULED BY THE C.E.
AS OF 1973 (47, 50)
(cubic yards)
Project Volume
Huron 840,000
Fairport 1,100,000
Lorain 70,000
Sterling State Park 186,000
Cattaraugus Creek 140,000
Kelley's Island 2,400
East Harbor (Ohio) 478,000
Ottawa River 1,281,000
West Harbor (Ohio) 299,000
Total 4,396,400
never develop beyond the planning stage. Future new work dredging is
particularly difficult to determine due to economic and environmental
factors. Money allocations and environmental impacts must be appraised
before any future new work projects are actually accomplished. Projects
considered important may be delayed and even cancelled in the future
because they lose significance during processes of approval by various
governmental agencies and other local interest groups.
One aspect of future dredging may provide a unique situation in Lake
Erie. There is a possibility that a new offshore airport complex will
be constructed adjacent to Cleveland, in Lake Erie. Such an undertak-
ing would obviously involve development of an offshore land surface. If
this project expands beyond planning the stages and construction begins
in the next decade, tremendous volumes of material would be needed. At
least part of the construction would probably involve great quantities
of dredged material from Cleveland Harbor.
50
-------
Projections of Canadian Dredging Volumes
Maintenance—
The decade 1961 to 1970 may be considered typical of Canadian dredging
for purposes of this report for the same reasons considered on the
American side. In that decade, a range of 3 to 9 maintenance dredging
projects occurred annually in Canadian waters of Lake Erie. The average
annual number of projects per year was 6. The total dredged volume
ranged from about 160,000 cubic yards to 710,000 cubic yards: the
average annual volume removed in that decade was 351,000 cubic yards
(Table 24).
In terms of future spoil, projections of maintenance dredging volumes to
1977 were made available by the D.P.W. of Canada. A total of approxi-
mately one-half million cubic yards of spoil are anticipated to be
dredged in maintaining Canadian harbors on Lake Erie in the next 3 to 4
years. About one-half of the total is expected to be removed from Port
Stanley (Table 25).
Obviously, Canadian projections for the near future are lower than the
average dredging volumes which occurred during the 1960's. This is due
primarily to the loss of Port Burwell volumes, which will be much lower
in the future than they were during that decade. Thus, considering
Canadian projections, it is anticipated that approximately 150,000 to
200,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from Lake Erie annually
in maintenance dredging projects.
Permit—
Permit dredging has fluctuated widely in terms of volumes on the
Canadian side of Lake Erie in recent years. In some years very little
private dredging activity has occurred. But in others, only a few jobs
have resulted in the removal of hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of
spoil. Thus to generalize a projection on permit dredging in Canadian
51
-------
Table 24. CANADIAN DREDGING FREQUENCIES, LAKE ERIE PROJKPTc;
1961-1970 (48) '
Project 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
Klngsville x
Pelee Island
Port Dover
x
x
x
xxx x
X
Port Maltland x x
Port Stanley xxxxxx
Amherstburg x x
Leamington x x x x
Port Burwell xxxxxx
St. Williams x
Wheat ley x x x
Rondeau x x x x
Windsor x
Colchester x
Port Bruce x
Port Rowan
Total 695*96
projects
per year
52
-------
Table 25. FUTURE MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN CANADA 1973-1977, LAKE ERIE
(cubic yards) (48)
Project Volume
Port Burwell 26,400
Rondeau 55,000
Amherstburg 12,000
Cedar Beach 7,000
Colchester 9,200
Kingsville 39,000
Leamington 25,000
Pelee Island 15,000
Port Bruce 4,000
Port Dover 20,000
Port Maitland 10,000
Port Rowan 30,000
Port Stanley 250,000
Wheatley 40,000
Total 542,600
projects, it is postulated that an average of 100,000 cubic yards of
material will be removed by permit annually in the next decade.
New Work—
In the decade of the 1960's only one new work job occurred in Canadian
waters of Lake Erie, and the volume of material removed was only 10
cubic yards. No capital dredging projects are projected or anticipated
by the D.P.W. or the M.O.T. for Lake Erie.
53
-------
Summary
The total anticipated volume of maintenance and permit dredging in Lake
Erie is estimated to be almost 6 million cubic yards per year (Table 26)
About 95 percent will occur on the American side and 5 percent on the
Canadian side. Since all confined disposal sites planned for the U.S.
projects will not be completed until 1977, volumes in the next few years
will remain relatively low. However, after disposal sites are prepared
all dredging activities are expected to increase, with volumes being
relatively low.. By 1983, the average or normal volumes being removed
from Lake Erie should be similar to those which were removed during the
decade of the 1960's.
Table 26. ESTIMATES OF FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL DREDGING VOLUMES
IN LAKE ERIE
(cubic yards)
Maintenance
Permit
U.S. projects
4,800,000
900,000
Canadian projects
175,000
100,000
Annual totals 5,700,000 275,000
Total for Lake Erie 5,975,000
Future new work 4,400,000 None expected
DREDGING QUANTITIES IN LAKES HURON
AND ST. GLAIR
The principal economic function of Lakes Huron and St. Clair is intra-
lake navigation and recreation. Based on unpublished C.E. data, Saginaw
is the only U.S. harbor on Lake Huron which is unequivocally justified
and had over 4,000,000 short tons of commerce in 1972 (5). However,
other projects which were similarly justified in 1972 are the connecting
waterways of the St. Marys River (80.2 million short tons), the
54
-------
St. Glair River (105.3 million short tons), and Lake St. Clair (106.4
million short tons). All remaining C.E. projects have benefit/cost
ratios between 1.1 to 1 and 8.13 to 1. Many harbors, such as Port
Austin and Port Sanilac, have recreational benefits or are harbors of
refuge, and are difficult to justify in terms of commerce. Thus,
projects of greatest concern to the C.E. and commercial marine interests
are Saginaw and the connecting waterways.
Except for southeastern Michigan, the Lake Huron shoreline is not
heavily industrialized and most navigation projects do not require chan-
nels at Seaway depth. The most significant dredging activities in the
past have occurred at the commercial projects of Alpena, Lake St. Clair
and the St. Clair River, Cheyboygan, Black River, and the St. Marys
River at Sault Ste. Marie (Table 27). Most harbors on the Canadian
shore are infrequently dredged, which accounts for the low volume
reflected on many tables of the lake. In Ontario, 50 projects are main-
tained by the D.P.W. Based on the 1973 Canadian Ports and Seaway Direc-
tory, 16 of these harbors and waterways have commercial status (5)^ How-
ever, only 3 (Sarnia, St. Clair Cut-off, and Killarney) are maintained to
the 27-foot Seaway depth. The distribution of the principal projects in
Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair are illustrated on Figure 7.
Maintenance and new work dredging data of the C.E. are sufficiently com-
plete and accurate to reconstruct past dredging activities in Lake Huron,
principally from the Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army
on Civil Works. In Canada, the D.P.W. furnished maintenance dredging
volumes from 1951-72 and capital dredging data from 1951-72. Private
dredging, volumes, which were obtained from the Navigable Waters Protec-
tion Act (NWPA) files of the M.O.T., date back to 1960.
55
-------
Table 27. HISTORICAL DREDGING TOTALS OF C.E. PROJECTS
IN LAKE HURON/ST. GLAIR, 1920-1972 (50)
(cubic yards)
Project
Alpena
Au Sable
Bay Port
Black River
Ch. Lake St. Clair
Clinton River
Caseville
Cheboygan
Hammond Bay
Harbor Beach
Harrisville
Inland Route
Les Cheneaux
Mackinaw
Point Lookout
Port Sanilac
Saginaw River
St. Clair River
St. Marys River
Sebewaing
Totals
Maintenance
290,036
273,671
0
563,348
3,808,457
312,404
25,889
410,757
0
228,249
27,625
113,055
102,270
0
0
80,702
6,999,798a
4,112,237
5,418,514
169,120
22,936,132
New work
259,877
25,407
29,089
57,940
17,940,248
127,520
62,929
173,240
142,760
260,840
263,016
Ob
66,990
9,869
334,872
Ob
12,938,358a
27,472,621
32,151,557
Ob
92,317,133
Total
549,913
299,078
29,089
621,288
21,748,705
439,924
88,818
583,997
142,760
489,089
290,641
113,055
169,260
9,869
334,872
80,702
19,938,156
31,584,858
37,570,071
169,120
115,253,265
1924 volumes are not known.
No new work reported.
56
-------
kSAULT SAINT MARIE
1ST. MARVS RII/EP
Figure 7.
PRINCIPAL DREDGING PROJECTS
IN LAKES HURON AND ST. CLAIR
/—NDLJ/W KXVL-K
O V^
O
INLAN0 ROUTE
STONEPOKr
ALPEWA
HARRISl/ILLE
MEAFORP
Of.'EW SOUNV&
TOIMT LOOKOUT
TORT AU5TIW \
CAr,lADA
GODERICW
RIl/ER
ST. CLAIR RIl/ER
CLINTON RIfERrT Z^fiT^WALLACEBURO
(IN MILES)
PUBLIC COMMERCIAL
A PRI I/ATE
f ^rf^cT DAT?? fUT-OFF «**"•
LAKE ST. CLAIR £*) ST,' CLAIR L JO 0
SO
57
-------
Past Dredging Activity in Lake Huron
and Lake St. Glair
Annual dredging data from 1930 to the present of the C.E. activities in
Lake Huron and Lake St. Glair are illustrated in Table 28. Also
included are private dredging quantities from 1960 through 1972 and
volumes obtained from the D.P.W, and the M.O.T. Over a 42-year period,
the C.E. dredging totaled 115,253,275 cubic yards which averages to
approximately 2.7 million cubic yards per year. Annual maintenance
dredging during this period was approximately 546, 000 cubic yards. As
noted in Figure 8 maintenance dredging follows no predictable pattern
and great extremes can occur over short intervals. In 1960, for example,
dredging volumes were the lowest since 1930 (31,239 CY) and 8 years
later, 1969, was a record high dredging year (1.9 million CY). If dredg-
ing totals and averages are determined over 4 decades (Table 29), the
great range of maintenance dredging is evident. Furthermore, this table
reveals that an increase in maintenance dredging over time, as one may
expect with an increase in the number of projects and an increase in
economic development, is not evident.
A comparison of Canadian and American data from 1961-70 reveals that in
these two lakes, 94 percent of all maintenance, new work, and dredging
activities by private interests occurred in Michigan. Most of the main-
tenance dredging (6 million CY) was at Saginaw and the connecting chan-
nels of St. Marys and St. Clair Rivers, and Lake St. Glair. A correla-
tion (-0.52) between lake levels and maintenance dredging may account in
part for the increased maintenance dredging during the 1960's. However,
the high volumes projects may have also been influenced by the high new
work projects between 1959 and 1963 which totaled over 29 million cubic
yards and have required maintenance. In Ontario, the general dredging
pattern is similar to that in Michigan. In the early 1960's, mainte-
nance dredging by the D.P.W. was the highest in a 21-year period
(Table 28). New work dredging quantities from 1961-70 by the C.E. was
the highest of any Great Lake (3.4 million CY). The ratio between
58
-------
Table 28. ANNUAL DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR, 1930-1972 (48, 49, 50)
T (cubic yards)
Fiscal year
Michigan
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
1949
1948
1947
1946
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
1936
1935
1934
1933
Maintenance
215,815
355,205
361,750
833,370
1,903,985
407,765
1,153,184
923,356
1,156,097
128,900
212,975
206,379
31,239
282,453
214,751
161,089
390,197
245,607
91,910
72,460
107,835
671,919
556,243
277,857
164,855
162,278
107,712
207,487
399,449
408,838
393,442
354,681
1,439,037
1,137,374
477,981
133,801
241,860
358,606
61,620
711,160
New work
197,662
305,951
559,108
5,491,599
444,057
1,159,580
127,520
752,735
199,572
2,297,624
6,056,132
17,115,099
1,502,466
2,018,647
0
2,675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,093,204
451,762
556,683
41,667
539,996
925,574
3,881,839
5,276,934
8,098,716
9,281,574
Private
1,250
309,000
60,293
109,438
133,050
134,260
696,319
536,655
308,359
369,125
264,160
75,500
26,025
59
-------
Table 28. (continued)
Fiscal year
1934
1933
1932
1931
1930
Maintenance
61,620
711,160
201,146
1,242,867
413,913
New work
8,098,716
9,281,574
9,431,151
1,054,414
1,466,660
Private
Totals
19,580,448
80,330,602
3,023,434
Ontario
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
Totals
109,816
23,303
0
43,911
37,459
210,797
192,907
771,681
765,132
439,548
182,079
65,667
97,168
215,870
88,535
82,907
24,752
130,233
78,213
159,487
131,276
305,855
4,156,596
73,550
50,500
30,000
700
700
40,453
63,885
26,894
52,313
572
2,024
0
0
142
5,200
1,000
7,000
0
0
500
500
10,000
341,733
24,200
60
-------
1 . 4 _.
1.3
1.2
] .1 _
1.0
0.9
t
(0.8
uO.7
H
DO.6
u
o
CO
"f^
o
0.5
H0.4
gO.3
0.2
0.1
0 .70
n
MICHIGAN
ONTARIO
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1972
Figure 8. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKES HURON AND ST. GLAIR, 1930-1972
-------
Table 29. C.E. MAINTENANCE DREDGING BY DECADES IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR,
1930-1970 (50)
(cubic yards)
Years
1960-1969
1950-1959
1940-1949
1930-1939
Total
6,957,250
2,794,464
3,915,636
4,980,328
Average/Year
695,725
279,446
391,564
498,033
maintenance and new work dredging in Michigan from 1961-70 reveals that
a year by year comparison (Table 28), with only 2 exceptions, new work
dredging exceeds maintenance. As with maintenance dredging, the great-
est dredging activity was confined to the connecting channels and
Saginaw Harbor. In these 4 projects, approximately 34 million cubic
yards of spoil were removed in the 10-year period. Capital dredging in
Ontario is difficult to determine because the D.P.W. does not always
distinguish it from maintenance dredging. However, as best as could be
determined, 217,500 cubic yards of dredgings over the 1961-70 period
were removed from 5 projects (i.e., Blind River, Collingwood, Inside
Steamer Channel, Midland, and Sault Ste. Marie). Permit dredging in
Lake Huron is generally characterized by the excavation of small boat
slips associated with recreational marine activity. This is most evi-
dent in Lake St. Clair and the lower St. Glair River adjacent to metro-
politan Detroit and Windsor. Here projects generally average less than
5,000 cubic yards.
Compared to most other Great Lakes, the private dredging volumes are low
and are not necessarily associated with power companies or industry.
Only 25 percent of the dredging in Lake Huron is related to industry,
which reflects the recreational character of this lake. A similar
62
-------
pattern is evident in Ontario. The total permit dredging in Michigan
from 1960 through 1972 is 3,023,434 cubic yards. In Canada, a minimum
24,200 cubic yards of spoil were removed by private interests from 1965
through 1972. As illustrated in Table 28, the average permit dredging
volume in Michigan is 232,572 cubic yards annually. Three large private
harbors with project depths of 26 feet are located in Michigan. These
are Calcite, Port Dolomite, and Stoneport. Of the 3, only Calcite
reported dredging activity since 1960. In a 2-year period, 1964 and
1965, 50,500 cubic yards were removed from that harbor. At Saginaw, the
major industrialized project on Lake Huron, private dredging averages
about 55,000 cubic yards annually.
Present dredging patterns (1972 through 1973) in terms of geographic
distribution are similar to those of the past except that volumes have
decreased. Table 30 reflects the dredging activities in the past 3
years of harbors in Michigan and Ontario.
Table 30. TOTAL DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE HURON/ST. GLAIR,
1971-1973 (48 50)
(cubic yards)
Year
1973
1972
1971
U.S.
175,589
414,727
970,156
Canada
not
available
188,566
74,803
Total
at least
175,589
603,293
1,044,959
The average maintenance, new work, and permit dredging in the last
decade in Michigan has averaged well over one million cubic yards
annually. However, with environmental concerns discussed in Section V
and perhaps record high lake levels since 1970, dredging volumes includ-
ing permit dredging have declined to a total of 175, 589 cubic yards in
63
-------
1973. In Canada, total dredging volumes in the past 2 years have also
decreased.
Future Dredging in Lake Huron and
Lake St. Glair—Michigan
Although future dredging is difficult to predict accurately, estimates
can be made based on past and present dredging activities. Basically,
the volume of spoil to be removed is the sum of projected maintenance
dredging, projected new work, and private dredging. How policies, such
as PL 91-611, will affect dredging in the next decade cannot be totally
or accurately assessed at this point. In the past 2 years maintenance
and permit dredging volumes in Michigan have declined, indicating that
federal and state policy does play a role in dredging activity. There-
fore, a maximum and minimum dredging figure is determined for Lake Huron
and Lake St. Clair. Also, based on the historical data, a probable
dredging estimate is presented for the next decade.
Future maintenance dredging in Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair is basically
related to the projected dredging frequency and volume of spoil removed.
Table 31 illustrates the maintenance dredging frequencies of the C.E.
projects over the past 13 years. This table reveals that the more com-
mercially significant waterways and harbors, such as Saginaw and the St.
Clair River are dredged consistently. Other projects which are economi-
cally less important, such as Cheboygan and Alpena are not dredged as
often. Most remaining harbors, such as Port Sanilac and Harbor Beach
have recreational status and the dredging frequency is low.
In Lake Huron, the dredging period 1961 to 1970 may be selected to obtain
a dredging frequency. During the early part of that decade the St. Law-
rence Seaway was completed and 27-foot project depths now occur at
Saginaw and all Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair connecting channels except
Inland Route. Smaller projects, such as Inland Route and Clinton River
were actively dredged during the late 1960's and into the 1970's.
64
-------
Table 31. MAINTENANCE DREDGING FREQUENCIES OF C-E. PROJECTS
IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR (50)
1961-1973
Project 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
Alpena x x x x x
Au Sable x x x x x x x
Bay Port
Black River
Ch. of Lake x x x x x x x
St. Clair
Caseville
Cheboygan x x x x
Clinton River x x
Hammond
Harbor Beach x x
Harrisville x
Inland Route
Les Cheneaux x
Point Lookout
Port Sanilac x x x
Saginaw xxxxxx xx
St. Clair R. xxxxxxx
St. Marys R. x x
Sebewaing x
1970 1971 1972 1973
x
X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X
X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X
X
-------
During most of the 1960's environmental policies such as PL 91-611 and
PL 92-500 were not instituted to prohibit dumping or cause dredging to
take place in localities where confined sites were available for
polluted spoil. Therefore, the decade 1961-70 may be a representative
dredging decade since economic stability was reached and environmental
policy was less effective in controlling dredging and disposal practices.
As illustrated in Table 31, from 1961 to 1970 the average dredging fre-
quency in Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair was 6 projects per year. The
total volume generated during maintenance dredging operations by the
C.E. was 7.28 million cubic yards. Therefore in an average year during
that decade, 0.73 million yards were removed by an average of 6 projects.
Assuming that the status quo is to be maintained in the 1970's and 1980fe,
an annual projection of about 0.73 million cubic yards may be realistic.
However, such a projection does not consider new work projects of the
late 1960fs and the early 1970's such as at Saginaw and at Sault Ste.
Marie. In addition, the more significant environmental policies
directly affecting Great Lakes' dredging, such as PL 92-500, were legis-
lated in the 1970"s. Thus, a 0.73 million cubic yard projection is some-
what biased since current operational and legislative variables are not
considered.
Table 32 represents the dredging the C.E. feels is necessary to maintain
harbors and waterways at their project depths over the next decade.
Based on this projection, 1.2 million cubic yards are to be removed
annually. When compared to Table 28 a record decade is anticipated.
Since this projection is almost twice what has been dredged in any of
the past 4 decades (1960 to 1969 saw the removal of 6.9 million CY) and
most anticipated new work projects are recreational, this projection
represents a maximum volume to be removed from Lake Huron/St. Clair in
the next decade.
A more accurate estimate of future maintenance dredging is based on
projects which have high frequencies and high volumes. Traditionally,
66
-------
Table 32. C.E. PROJECTED FUTURE MAINTENANCE DREDGING
IN LAKE HURON/ST. GLAIR (50)
(cubic yards)
Project C.E. annual projection
Alpena 8,000
Au Sable 30,000
Bay Port 6,000
Black River 3,000
Caseville 12,000
Channels of Lake St. Clair 200,000
Cheboygan 10,000
Clinton River 21,000
Hammond 10,000
Harbor Beach 5,000
Harrisville 12,000
Inland Route 10,000
Les Cheneaux 10,000
Mackinaw City 4,000
Port Austin 4,000
Port Sanilac 7,200
Saginaw 700,000
Sebewaing 20,000
St. Clair River 75,000
St. Marys River 65,000
Total 1,212,200 per year
67
-------
the most significant projects in Lake Huron are Saginaw and the connect-
ing waterways which reflect high dredging frequencies and high volumes
because of their commercial significance. Saginaw, the St. Glair River,
Lake St. Glair and Au Sable, based on the last decade, have frequencies
of 7 or higher (Table 31). These 4 projects and Sault Ste. Marie
account for most of the maintenance dredging which occurs in Lake Huron/
St. Clair. Table 33 reveals that these projects, on a short term basis
(1961-70) and on a long time basis (1920-72), have accounted for 86 and
90 percent respectively of all C.E. maintenance dredging in these lakes.
Furthermore, the C.E. would like to maintain the same ratio in the
future. Based on the C.E. future maintenance dredging (Table 32), 88
percent of the spoil will be removed from these projects. Therefore, it
may be concluded that about 88 percent of all C.E. maintenance dredging
in the past and future was and will continue to be from the 5 most sig-
nificant projects. The volume removed from all remaining projects will
account for approximately 12 percent of the dredging volume.
Table 33. PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE DREDGING
OF MAJOR PROJECTS IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR (50)
(cubic yards)
1920-1972
1961-1970
1973-1983
Au Sable
Ch. Lake St. Clair
Saginaw
St. Clair R.
273,671
3,808,457
6,999,798
4,112,237
97,680
1,068,280
2,947,350
919,150
30,000
200,000
700,000
75,000
Totals
Sault Ste. Marie
Percent from
above projects
15,194,163(66%)
5,418,514(24%)
90%
5,032,460(69%)
1,219,120(17%)
86%
1,005,000(83%)
65,000 (5%)
88%
68
-------
To obtain mean maintenance dredging quantities for the 5 major projects
in Lake Huron and Lake St. Glair, the dredging volumes since the last
new work were determined. It is felt that at least 5 years of mainte-
nance dredging would be required to obtain a representative average quan-
tity. At Saginaw, for example, the last new work project occurred in
1970, however, the average maintenance dredging volume was determined
from 1964 to 1972. The table below (Table 34) represents the average
maintenance dredging of the 5 major C.E. projects.
Table 34. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF MAJOR C.E. PROJECTS,
LAKE HURON/ST. GLAIR
(cubic yards)
Project Base period Volume
Au Sable
Ch. Lake
St. Glair
Saginaw
St. Glair R.
Sault Ste. Marie
1961-1972
1964-1972
1964-1972
1965-1972
1968-1972
20,828
117,677
334,872
108,513
243,824
Total 825,714
The total of the projects in Table 34 is 825,714 cubic yards which
represents annual maintenance dredging for the next decade. An addi-
tional 12 percent, or 99,085 cubic yards is an approximate dredging quan-
tity for the remaining C.E. projects. Therefore, the anticipated mainte-
nance dredging for the C.E. projects in Lake Huron and Lake St. Glair
over the next decade, will average 9,247,990 cubic yards, or approxi-
mately 925,000 cubic yards annually.
The above technique for obtaining averages may also be applied to individ-
ual projects in Michigan since in every case new work is recorded separ-
ately from maintenance dredging. In some projects, such as at Alpena,
Inland Route, and Port Sanilac, no new work was recorded for 10 to 15
69
-------
years. In such projects maintenance dredging occurred fairly consist-
ently for several years in the recent past (Table 31). At Alpena, for
example, maintenance dredging occurred 6 times from 1963 to 1972. These
data were tabulated and a future average calculated. Table 35 is the
result of that calculation. The projections by harbor reveal that the 5
principal projects (Au Sable, St. Glair River, Lake St. Clair, Saginaw
and the St. Marys River) represent 85 percent of the total quantity to
be removed. This compares favorably with the 86 to 90 percent figure
indicated on Table 34. Also, the total annual maintenance dredging vol-
ume (967,758 cubic yards) is comparable to the 925,000 cubic yards
derived from clustering the 5 principal projects. Although, in some
instances compared with the C.E. projection, differences occur (e.g.,
Saginaw) based upon maintenance dredging histories over the past few
years the projection reflects modern harbor conditions in Lakes Huron
and St. Clair.
With the recent introduction and enforcement of environmental con-
straints (PL 91-611) maintenance dredging activities in the past few
years have decreased. This pattern is reflected in all the Great Lakes
including Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair. Corps of Engineers dredging
activity in FY 1972 and FY 1973 was 379,314 and 165,549 cubic yards
respectively. These figures include new work as well as maintenance
dredging. Assuming that: (1) 10-year disposed sites in areas of pol-
luted sediments are not constructed; (2) E.P.A. upholds the present pol-
lution criteria and that local interests at Saginaw cannot meet the cost
of a containment area as specified in PL 91-611 Sec. 123 (C) (2) or the
request for a waiver is not recommended by the E.P.A.; and (3) no econom-
ic stress occurs, the average maintenance dredging volume will remain at
about 250,000 cubic yards per year. Thus, the figure of 250,000 cubic
yards represents a minimum annual average for Lake Huron based principal-
ly on events over the last 3 or 4 years.
70
-------
Table 35. FUTURE ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE DREDGING BY HARBOR
OF C.E. PROJECTS (50)
(cubic yards)
Project
Alpena
Au Sable
Bay Port
Black River
Caseville
Channels of Lake
St. Glair
Cheboygan
Clinton River
Hammond Bay
Harbor Beach
Harrisville
Inland Route
Les Cheneaux
Mackinaw
Point Lookout
Port Austin
Port Sanilac
Saginaw
St. Clair River
St. Marys River
Sebewaing
Totals
Base period
1963-1972
1961-1972
—
—
1965-1972
1964-1972
1962-1972
1968-1972
—
1967-1972
1965-1972
1968-1972
1968-1972
—
—
—
1962-1972
1964-1972
1965-1972
1968-1972
1966-1972
Average annual
maintenance
dredging
9,768
20,828
0
0
3,236
117,677
11,614
7,602
0
32,083
3,453
22,611
20,545
0
0
0
6,973
334,871
108,513
243,824
24,160
967,758
C.E.
projection
8,000
30,000
6,000
3,000
12,000
200,000
10,000
21,000
10,000
5,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
4,000
0
4,000
7,200
700,000
75,000
65,000
20,000
1,212,200
71
-------
Several factors suggest that more than the minimum yardage will be
removed from Lake Huron. Of the 4 principal harbors and waterways,
Sault Ste. Marie, Saginaw, Lake St. Glair and the St. Glair River,
sediment pollution is identified as a problem at only 2 projects
(Saginaw and Lake St. Glair). Confined disposal sites are planned for
Saginaw and Lake St. Glair and are to be completed in June, 1977 and
June 1975 respectively. Saginaw has requested the E.P.A. to recommend
a waiver (PL 91-611) which, if recommended and granted, will alleviate
25 percent of the construction costs to Saginaw of a confined disposal
site. Also, constructive criticism of the E.P.A. pollution criteria for
dredged material is being evaluated and may be modified in the near
future. Lake levels in the next decade, which are of some significance,
will probably drop from their record highs of the early 1970's requiring
more maintenance dredging to alleviate the problems of economic stress
to industrial and shipping firms.
Future Permit Dredging in Michigan
Permit dredging over the next decade is difficult to predict. This is
especially the case in Lake Huron where some 25 percent of the private
dredging is from industrial areas such as Saginaw. Such private dredg-
ing is dictated by the same policy as C.E. maintenance dredging. If the
spoil is polluted it must be confined. Since a confined site is sched-
uled for Saginaw, it may be expected that permit dredging volumes in
that area will be low until the site is constructed. Permit dredging
(Table 28) in 1972 was at a record low (1,250 CY) suggesting again that
environmental policies (Section V), and perhaps high lake levels
influence private dredging volumes. The C.E., however, suggests that
200,000 cubic yards of permit dredging will occur annually in Lake
Huron and Lake St. Glair. Based on a 10-year period (1961-70), 268,000
cubic yards were removed annually. Since the C.E. does not anticipate
expanding any commercial harbors in the next decade and no significant
72
-------
private expansion is expected, permit dredging will remain between
200,000 and 268,000 cubic yards or about 235,000 yards annually.
Scheduled New Work Dredging in Lake Huron
and Lake St. Glair
Table 36 illustrates new work or capital dredging in Lake Huron and Lake
St. Clair over the next decade. New work must be justified and it
normally takes several years before a project is authorized and com-
pleted. Quite possibly some projects may be curtailed or delayed
because of environmental, economic, and/or feasibility factors. A capi-
tal dredging project at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario was proposed in the
Table 36. FUTURE NEW WORK IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR,
1973-1983 (48, 50)
(cubic yards)
Project
Sault Ste. Marie
a) Angle Courses
b) Point Iroquois
c) Ontario
De Tour
Black River, Alcona Co.
Fores tville
Middle Island Harbor
Grindstone City
Lexington
Black River, Port Huron
Middle Channel St. Clair
River, Michigan
Lake St. Clair, Ontario
Total
Volume
893,500
3,995,000
1,150,000
4,000
110,000
73,400
40,000
75,000
4,700
140,000
60,000
60,000
6,605,000
Date of completion
1976
1973
1975
1979
1980
1979
1983
1979
1976
1974
1976
1974
73
-------
late 1950's and is yet to be initiated in the field. Therefore, the new
work dredging, which totals 6,605,600 cubic yards, represents a maximum
anticipated value over the next decade.
With few exceptions such as at Sault Ste. Marie, most new work does not
involve expansion of established commercial projects. These new proj-
ects are to accommodate shallow watercraft (8-12 feet) and are designed
for recreational use. Future economic and industrial expansion of
American and Canadian harbors on Lake Huron is not anticipated by the
C.E. or the Ministry of Transport (M.O.T.). Therefore, expansion to 27-
foot channels is not expected over the next decade. The new work dredg-
ing data suggest, that an economic plateau in terms of project depths
will occur, and that dredging in Lake Huron will level off with the com-
pletion of the high volume projects at Sault Ste. Marie in 1975 and 1976.
Future Dredging in Lake Huron and
Lake St. Glair, Ontario
As in the U.S., most of the 50 Canadian projects dredged by the D.P.W.
are recreational and are not dredged frequently or with any consistency.
However, based on a 10-year average, approximately 27 percent of all
Lake Huron maintenance dredging occurs in Canada. If the 924,799 future
annual average is maintained in the U.S. projects in Lake Huron/St.
Clair, it may be expected that 250,000 cubic yards will be removed during
maintenance dredging activities from Ontario ports in Lake Huron/St.
Clair. The annual average maintenance dredging in the past 22 years
(1951-1972) was 188,934 (Table 28). However, based on future plans both
figures appear to be low. The D.P.W.-scheduled maintenance dredging
activity on Table 37 includes the period from 1973 through 1977. Accord-
ing to these data, an average of 317,575 cubic yards will be removed by
1977 which is a substantial increase over the past 2 decades. Although
future new work is presented in Table 36, some new work may be incor-
porated in Table 37 since capital dredging is often difficult to
74
-------
Table 37. FUTURE DREDGING IN CANADIAN PROJECTS IN LAKE HURON/ST. GLAIR,
1973-1977 (48, 49)
(cubic yards)
Project Volume
Belle River 26,000
Byng Inlet 48,874
Cedar Beach 7,000
Collingwood 70,000
Coderich 70,000
Grand Bend 40,000
Kincardine 15,000
Midland 5,000
Oliphant 10,000
Pike Creek 16,000
St. Glair Cut-off 1,200,000
Sault Ste. Marie 12,500 (1973) and
13,500 (1976)
Sarnia 26,000
Sydenham 28,000
Total 1,587,874
separate from Canadian maintenance dredging. This being the case,
317,575 cubic yards represents a maximum annual figure.
Permit dredging in Lake Huron and Lake St. Glair is presented in Table
28. Permit dredging, administered by the M.O.T., averages about 2,000
cubic yards annually. Most projects on Lake Huron are for small private
boat slips which may require the removal of 300 to 500 CY per project. The
M.O.T. expects private dredging to level off to 8 to 10 projects on Lake
Superior and Lake Huron over the next few years. The future permit
75
-------
dredging under the NWPA is anticipated to remain at about 2,000 cubic
yards per year.
In summary, future maintenance dredging on the Ontario shore of Lake
Huron and Lake St. Glair will probably range between 250,000 to 318,000
cubic yards per year. Most D.P.W. personnel believe that all scheduled
dredging will occur. Thus, the latter figure is probably more accurate
based in part on the following: (1) dredging projects are dispersed,
the volumes are generally small, and few disposal problems occurred thus
far; (2) although some projects exceed the M.O.E. pollution parameters,
few harbors have been sampled and open-lake disposal is occurring;
(3) by 1977, 1.2 million cubic yards will have been dredged from the
economically important St. Glair Cut-off channel. Although the sediment
exceeds the M.O.E. pollution criteria, confined facilities are currently
being tested at Mitchell Bay in Lake St. Glair; it appears that the
D.P.W. and the M.O.T. (as in Toronto Harbor) are anticipating a confined
disposal program for polluted spoil in the future; (4) lake levels will
probably drop in the next few years and commercial projects particularly
at Collingwood, Midland, and St. Clair Cut-off will have to be main-
tained if economic stress is to be avoided.
Summary
Future maintenance and permit dredging in Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair
is estimated to be approximately 1.5 million yards per year (Table 38).
Since most of the confined disposal sites will not completed until 1976
or 1977, it can be expected that maintenance and private dredging vol-
umes will remain low for the next 2 to 3 years. By the end of the
decade, confined disposal sites are to be available for polluted dredg-
ings and with anticipated lower lake levels, maintenance and permit
dredging activity will increase.
In addition to the above, the following trends are anticipated in Lake
Huron and Lake St. Clair:
76
-------
Table 38. FUTURE DREDGING ESTIMATES IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR
(cubic yards)
Michigan Ontario
Maintenance
Permit
Annual totals
Total for Lake Huron
925,000
235,000
1,160,000
1,480,000
annually
318,000
2,000
320,000
New work 5,395,600 1,210,000
1. Maintenance dredging will increase. The C.E. projects 1.2 million
cubic yards of annual maintenance dredging in the next decade. Our
projection (0.9 million cubic yards) is about 25 percent or 300,000
cubic yards lower than the C.E. projection.
2. Scheduled new work dredging will remain high (0.6 million cubic
yards annually). With the completion of new work projects at Sault
Ste. Marie in 1976, most new work will occur at recreational or
shallow draft harbors.
3. High maintenance dredging will remain at the St. Clair River, Lake
St. Clair, Sault Ste. Marie, and Saginaw. These projects will
account for approximately 88 percent of future maintenance dredging.
DREDGING QUANTITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN
For the benefit of commercial navigation, recreation, and fishing in
Lake Michigan, 6 private harbors and 42 public harbors and waterways
must be dredged (Figure 9). Although private recreational harbors have
not been mapped in Figure 9, quantities dredged from these harbors have
been incorporated into the private dredging data. Private commercial
harbors are few in number and require relatively little dredging. Of
77
-------
GLADSTONE & KIPLING "ANISTIPUE
(LITTLE BAi' VE NOC)
PEWSAUKEE
BIG SUAMICO
GREEN BAK
WISOTNSIN
TORT TWLAW
•e
M&tOMlNEE
OCONTO
CHARLEI/OIX
LELAWP
STURGEON
I
RAl/ERSE CITy
FRANKFORT
ARCAPIA
PORTAGE LAKE
TWO RII/ER5
fMNITOWC
PEWTWATER
WHITE LAKE
MUSKEGOW
GRAWP HAl/EW
HOLLMW
SAUGATUCK
SOUTH HAl/EW
ST. JOSEPH
MICHIGAN
WATERWAY
(IN MILES)
SHEBO^GAW
PORT WASHINGTON
MILWAUKEE
OAK CREEK
RACINE
KENOSHA
WAUKEGAN
CHICAGO .
CALUMET
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
PENH PIXIE
HARBOR SYT1BOLS
PUBLIC RECREATIONAL
O PUBLIC COMTCRCIAL
PRIVATE COftlERCIAL
27 FOOT CHANNELS
50
INDIANA
Figure 9. PRIVATE COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC HARBORS AND C.E. DISTRICTS
IN LAKE MICHIGAN
78
-------
the public commercial and recreational harbors and waterways, which are
maintained by the C.E., 22 are located in the Chicago District and 20
are part of the Detroit District.
The economic status and commerce of the private and public harbors are
presented by C.E. district in Table 39. Public harbors and waterways
which can accommodate vessels with Seaway drafts of 27 feet include
Burns Waterway, Calumet, Chicago, Grays Reef, Indiana, Milwaukee, and
Muskegon. In the Chicago District, those commercial harbors which are
declining in commerce are Kenosha, Michigan City, Racine, Sheboygan, and
Two Rivers. In the Detroit District, harbors which are declining in com-
mercial importance include Charlevoix, Manistique, Pentwater, Saugatuck,
South Haven, and White Lake.
Dredging operations by private interests probably were initiated soon
after white settlement of the territories, but records of dredging quan-
tities are available only to 1957. Many of the public harbors, such as
Holland Harbor which was constructed in 1852, have long been in exist-
ence. Though the removal of sediments from public harbors began after
the mid-1800's, records maintained by the C.E. are available only from
1918.
Private Dredging Quantities
Available data regarding volumes of spoil dredged by private interests
in the Chicago and Detroit Districts are presented in Table 40. Because
of the low priority of Section 10 permit records, these data are incom-
plete and available only from 1957. In the past, especially in northern
Wisconsin and upper Michigan, private interests, such as operators of
marinas, frequently dredged boat slips and other facilities without
applying for a Section 10 permit. In addition, the C.E. lacks the man-
power to field check permittees to ensure compliance with the permit,
including the yardage actually dredged. Private dredging is considered
to be reported in place measure.
79
-------
Table 39. ECONOMIC STATUS AND 1972 COMMERCE OF HARBORS
BY C.E. DISTRICT, LAKE MICHIGAN (5)
Public Harbors
Economic status
Tons of commerce
Chicago District
Algoma
Big Suamico
a
Burns Waterway
Calumet H. & R.a
Chicago H. & R.a
Gladstone-Kipling
Green Bay
Indiana
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Michigan City
a
Milwaukee
Oconto
Pensaukee
Port Washington
Racine
Sheboygan
Sturgeon Bay/Ship Canal
Two Rivers
Waukegan
Total
Private harbors
Buffington
Escanaba
Gary
Oak Creek
District total
Recreational/Fishing
Recreational/Fishing
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial
Recreational/Fishing
Recreational/Fishing
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
80
826
0
4,759,827
25,431,158
4,516,892
292,031
2,823,604
17,610,662
103,648
1,205,791
1,818,313
152,568
371
5,373,630
1,041
2,943
717,312
100,192
221,128
216,650
99,447
436,710
65,884,744
1,731,519
10,954,237
8,751,620
920,766
88,242,886
-------
Table 39. (continued)
Public harbors
Economic status
Tons of commerce
Detroit District
Arcadia
Charlevoix
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Q
Grays Reef
Holland
Leland
Ludington
Manistee
Manistique
Muskegon
Pentwater
Petoskey
Portage Lake
Saugatuck
South Haven
St. James (Beaver Island)
St. Joseph
Traverse City
White Lake
Total
Private harbors
Petoskey Penn Dixie
Port Inland
Total
District total
Totals for lake
Recreational
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial (Passageway)
Commercial/Recreational
Recreational
Commercial
Commercial/Recreational
Recreational/Fishing
Commercial
Recreational/Fishing
Recreational
Recreational
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial
Recreational
Commercial
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial/Recreational
Commercial
Commercial
0
185,523
1,353,101
2,977,109
6,080,391
261,738
1,134
3,368,015
522,741
135
2,835,823
0
0
0
212
45,915
2,559
475,139
446,244
3,615
18,559,394
473,074
4,199,020
4,672,094
23,231,488
111,474,374
aHarbors with project depths of 27 feet.
81
-------
Table 40. PRIVATE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BY C.E. DISTRICT,
1957-1973 (51, 52)
(cubic yards)
Fiscal year
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
Totals
Chicago District
193,425
336,278
400,727
602,700
160,237
787,087
468,245
399,982
1,053,598
390,971
279,677
437,039
1,567,196
1,047,411
1,050,156
1,149,827
969,982
11,294,538
Detroit District
80,000
762,505
72,000
29,560
41,000
57,288
842,500
31,450
41,000
24,800
0
50,200
8,345
a
a
a
a
2,040,648
Total
273,425
1,098,783
472,727
632,260
201,237
844,375
1,310,745
431,432
1,094,598
415,771
279,677
487,239
1,575,541
1,047,411
1,050,156
1,149,827
969,982
13,335,186
^ata not available.
82
-------
Based on the period 1957 through 1973, private dredging in Lake Michigan
averaged 784,420 cubic yards annually; this quantity is approximately 18
percent of the total average annual dredging volume. Private dredging
operations include the excavation and maintenance of private harbors and
marinas as well as private boat slips and berthing facilities in public
harbors. However, most of the spoil is derived from private docking
facilities in public harbors, and not from private harbors. Volumes
derived from dredging for bulkhead construction and fill operations were
not considered herein to constitute private dredging. In addition,
inland dredging, i.e., dredging upstream from a rivermouth harbor, was
not included in the private dredging volumes.
Large volumes, i.e., over 100,000 cubic yards per permit, were frequently
dredged by Inland Steel, U.S. Steel, and Youngstown Sheet and Tube from
Indiana and Calumet Harbors. Municipalities and power companies, e.g.,
Commonwealth Edison, occasionally generate moderately large dredging
projects. Conversely, smaller industries and firms, such as yacht clubs,
make numerous permit applications, but these projects usually involve
less than 25,000 cubic yards of spoil per permit.
In most instances the sediment removed by private interests was dumped
on the permittee's property. During its review of Section 10 permit
applications, the E.P.A. generally recommends that spoil be confined and
not returned to the waters of the Great Lakes or rivers, nor disposed on
nearshore environments where it may be washed or leached into the lakes
or rivers. A few large industries and municipalities have requested per-
mission to dump spoil in federal disposal sites. At present the C.E.
must allow some capacity in their confined disposal sites for such
requests.
The C.E. does not dredge private navigational facilities. In the Chica-
go District, 3 large industries were recently assessed, pro rata, the
cost of dredging by the C.E. for causing sedimentation in federal
harbors. Sloughing of sediment from privately-maintained channels into
83
-------
Table 41. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND NEW WORK DREDGING VOLUMES IN PUBLIC
HARBORS OF LAKE MICHIGAN BY C.E. DISTRICT, 1918-1973 (50, 52)
(cubic yards)
Fiscal
year
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
1949
1948
1947
1946
Chicago
Maintenance
811,274
545,018
217,621
495,926
695,696
956,687
669,262
319,693
1,387,892
1,344,556
1,195,469
876,049
810,417
742,389
909,232
658,950
1,117,768
618,085
411,044
279,379
556,525
296,630
618,396
892,748
493,557
939,100
257,096
578,888
District
New work
624,296
1,410,831
908,056
1,631,174
1,089,236
1,865,902
2,197,681
6,187,987
3,257,264
1,698,138
958,784
458,764
94,103
64,581
0
87,791
491,654
91,643
45,133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
191,184
5,238
Detroit
Maintenance
597,360
391,552
461,161
799,890
594,515
613,856
702,797
667,606
618,952
800,215
436,261
535,996
226,756
597,183
322,048
459,770
377,273
365,309
370,839
400,509
287,084
320,206
595,548
553,092
642,085
549,827
333,118
257,218
District
New work
0
44,378
15,650
4,524
145,701
61,300
16,524
10,571
190,837
387,412
72,211
0
263,325
0
0
47,610
256,148
0
0
0
0
0
0
245,772
208,909
0
0
0
Totals
2,032,930
2,391,779
1,602,488
2,931,514
2,525,148
3,497,745
3,586,264
7,185,857
5,454,945
4,230,321
2,662,725
1,870,809
1,394,601
1,404,153
1,231,280
1,254,121
2,242,843
1,075,037
827,016
679,888
843,609
616,836
1,213,944
1,691,612
1,344,551
1,488,927
781,398
841,344
84
-------
Table 41. (continued)
Fiscal
year
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
1936
1935
1934
1933
1932
1931
1930
1929
1928
1927
1926
1925
1924
1923
1922
1921
1920
1919
1918
Totals
Chicago
District
Maintenance New work
784,955
1,009,934
1,051,572
582,444
593,480
675,885
862,944
428,347
900,210
648,157
920,479
589,964
889,403
374,907
1,499,869
914,778
343,903
623,858
907,814
495,986
418,326
388,279
396,709
471,070
329,809
166,142
268,422
165,267
37,398,260
0
152,360
318,153
347,400
468,854
523,716
1,836,835
343,079
3,817,223
4,114,580
2,623,095
328,448
319,542
1,037,174
379,111
233,214
335,837
0
411,300
0
366,957
185,120
0
0
0
201,019
0
88,610
41,791,067
Detroit District
Maintenance
376,412
362,951
436,976
433,912
396,607
550,216
523,709
540,722
517,811
491,037
578,589
589,307
473,431
520,757
256,889
499,284
228,847
305,393
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147,555
153,400
124,997
22,386,828
New work
0
0
0
0
0
189,154
671,072
54,136
16,137
0
0
0
282,727
156,320
350,213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,046
117,514
3,825,191
Totals
1,161,367
1,525,245
1,806,701
1,363,756
1,458,941
1,938,971
3,894,560
1,366,284
5,251,381
5,253,774
4,122,163
1,507,719
1,965,103
2,089,158
2,486,082
1,647,276
908,587
929,251
1,319,114
495,986
785,283
573,399
396,709
471,070
329,809
514,716
438,868
496,388
105,401,346
85
-------
public channels maintained by the C.E. slightly reduces the quantity of
private dredging in the public harbors. In several harbors, especially
in Calumet, Chicago and Indiana Harbors, both public and private dredg-
ing volumes are decreasing due to reduced industrial sedimentation and
sewage deposits. The federal project limit in Calumet Harbor was
recently extended inland, resulting in a reduction of some private
dredging.
Public Dredging Quantities
Since 1918, 105 million cubic yards of sediment have been dredged from
the public harbors and waterways of Lake Michigan (Table 41). Of the
total quantity dredged, 57 percent, or 60 million cubic yards, was de-
rived from maintenance dredging operations, whereas the remainder in-
volved new work dredging. When the dredging quantities are compared by
district, the larger volumes in the Chicago District are obvious. In
the Detroit District, maintenance dredging quantities are moderate.
Relatively little new work dredging has been done. Historical dredging
records in Chicago for years prior to 1935 are incomplete. In the
Detroit District records, there is a hiatus from 1920 through 1927.
The period 1935 through 1973 may be selected as a base for the calcula-
tion of long-term dredging averages or means. In the Chicago District
the long-term mean for annual maintenance and new work dredging volumes
are 721,900 and 971,900 cubic yards, respectively. In the Detroit Dis-
trict the average annual maintenance is 489,400 cubic yards, while new
work dredging quantities average 74,400 cubic yards. With regard to all
of Lake Michigan, the mean annual maintenance dredging quantity is
1,211,300 cubic yards and the mean new work dredging volume is 1,046,300
cubic yards. Even though the project depths in most harbors have in-
creased over the years, the historical maintenance dredging does not
exhibit a steady upward trend.
86
-------
The volume of annual maintenance dredging in the Chicago District has
been more variable than that of the Detroit District. Years with above
average maintenance dredging are characterized by the coincidence of 2
or more very large dredging projects within the same fiscal year. Much
of the dredged spoil from the Chicago District is derived from indus-
trial sediments and municipal sewage as well as from littoral and
fluvial (stream) transport processes. In the Detroit District, the
source of harbor sediments is primarily the result of littoral drift
which apparently is fairly constant from year to year.
Shoaling within the harbors, lake levels below mean low datum, and avail-
ability of federal funds appear to be positively correlated with the
scheduling of maintenance dredging projects. Based on the period 1935-
1973, an annual average of 22 harbors underwent maintenance dredging in
Lake Michigan. In the Chicago District, fewer harbors than usual were
scheduled for maintenance dredging during the period 1970 through 1973
as the open-lake disposal of dredged spoil was being re-evaluated.
During the low lake level years of 1963 to 1965, the C.E. maintained
harbors at maximum project depths to avoid groundings. The Korean War
effort in the early 1950's was accompanied by a reduction in the funding
of federal projects. During this period, the C.E. dredged fewer proj-
ects, and very few projects were contracted to private dredgers.
Unlike maintenance dredging, most of the new work dredging was performed
in 3 time periods. First, stimulated by shipping needs of the lumber
industry as well as by demands for ferry and excursion boats, a number
of public harbors were constructed in the late 1800's. The second
period, the 1930's, was characterized by the deepening and widening of
many harbors. During this time harbor depths commonly ranged from 18 to
25 feet. Finally, the period with the largest volume of new work dredg-
ing was the 1960's and early 1970's when many industrial harbors were
deepened to meet the 27-foot draft requirement of the St. Lawrence Sea-
way system. New work was carried out in Burns Waterway, Calumet Harbor
87
-------
and River, Chicago Harbor and River, Green Bay, Indiana, and Milwaukee
Harbors. Between these 3 periods, as in the 1920's as well as in the
1940's and 1950's, few new work projects were scheduled.
As indicated by Table 42, the total quantity of spoil dredged varies
tremendously from harbor to harbor. In general, public harbors with
heavy industries and 27-foot project depths have the largest dredging
requirements. Conversely, small quantities are extracted from recrea-
tional harbors wherein project depths usually range from 12 to 14 feet.
In this study, Chicago Harbor and River are separated into 2 areas. No
dredging quantities were indicated in the Corps of Engineers' records
for Arcadia, Petoskey, St. James, and Traverse City Harbors.
The maintenance/new work ratio (M/NW) may be employed to identify those
harbors which have undergone little expansion or those which are costly
to maintain because of high maintenance dredging requirements. It is
obtained by dividing the total new work dredging quantity into the total
maintenance dredging volume for each harbor. The M/NW ratio for all
public harbors of Lake Michigan is 1.3, whereas the Chicago District
averages 0.9 and the Detroit District mean is 5.9 (Table 42). In
general, harbors in the Detroit District exhibit relatively high mainte-
nance dredging requirements and little harbor expansion or deepening has
occurred in that area.
Present Dredging Quantities
The quantity of sediment currently being dredged in Lake Michigan is
based on a 10-year average from the period 1961 through 1970. The years
1971 through 1973 were not included in the average because maintenance
dredging volumes were below normal, especially in the Chicago District,
due to the temporary ban on open-lake disposal of dredged spoil.
Table 43 shows the average annual private, maintenance, and new work
dredging quantities by C.E. district. The average annual private
88
-------
Table 42. TOTAL MAINTENANCE AND NEW WORK DREDGING VOLUMES BY HARBOR
IN LAKE MICHIGAN BY C.E. DISTRICT, 1918-1973 (50, 52)
(cubic yards)
Public harbors
Chicago District
Algoma
Big Suamico
Burns Waterway
Calumet H. & R.
Chicago Harbor
Chicago River
Gladstone- Kipling
Green Bay
Indiana
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Michigan City
Milwaukee
Oconto
Pensaukee
Port Washington
Racine
Sheboygan
Sturgeon Bay/
Ship Canal
Two Rivers
Waukegan
District totals
Maintenance
200,210
64,525
0
7,241,529
299,192
2,616,419
0
5,361,078
5,286,346
977,292
1,514,248
1,311,635
1,197,664
1,247,349
1,376,628
189,818
43,548
402,561
1,185,448
1,636,601
2,071,014
2,176,515
1,099,636
37,499,254
New work
0
46,905
4,282,503
14,113,323
302,687
0
238,782
9,918,981
3,708,074
305,723
419,429
501,802
246,421
302,673
4,399,995
0
82,795
288,836
174,755
810,860
1,393,348
149,460
40,274
41,727,626
Totals
200,210
111,430
4,282,530
21,354,852
601,879
2,616,419
238,782
15,280,057
8,994,420
1,283,015
1,933,677
1,813,437
1,444,085
1,550,022
5,776,623
189,818
126,343
691,397
1,360,203
2,447,461
3,464,362
2,325,975
1,139,910
79,226,880
M/NW ratio
1.4
-
0.5
1.0
-
-
0.5
1.4
3.2
3.6
2.6
4.9
4.1
0.3
-
0.5
1.4
6.8
2.0
1.5
14.6
27.3
89
-------
Table 42. (continued)
Public harbors
Detroit District
Arcadia
Charlevoix
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Grays Reef
Holland
Leland
Ludington
Manistee
Manistique
Muskegon
Pentwater
Petoskey
Portage Lake
Saugatuck
South Haven
St. James
St. Joseph
Traverse City
White Lake
District totals
Totals for lake
Maintenance
0
230,165
680,400
7,101,322
306,060
2,131,571
68,884
954,219
1,551,017
399,839
1,408,822
912,020
0
196,374
1,255,141
1,812,306
0
2,487,957
0
936,494
22,432,591
59,931,845
New work
0
4,505
379,529
989,464
0
841,492
33,744
93,510
386,293
255,967
572,925
0
0
0
0
52,025
0
234,484
0
0
3,822,938
45,550,564
Totals
0
234,670
1,059,929
8,090,786
306,060
2,973,063
102,628
1,047,729
1,937,310
625,806
1,981,747
912,020
0
196,374
1,255,141
1,864,331
0
2,731,441
0
936,494
26,255,529
105,482,409
M/NW ratio
-
51.1
1.8
7.2
-
2.5
2.0
10.0
4.0
1.8
2.5
-
-
-
-
34.8
-
10.2
-
-
90
-------
Table 43. AVERAGE ANNUAL PRIVATE, MAINTENANCE, AND NEW WORK DREDGING
IN LAKE MICHIGAN BY C.E. DISTRICT, 1961-1970 (50, 52)
(cubic yards)
Private
Maintenance
New work
Totals
Chicago
District
636,200
878,800
1,878,500
3,393,500
Detroit
District
114,600
602,600
115,200
832,400
Total
750,800
1,481,400
1,993,700
4,225,900
Percent of
grand total
18
35
47
100
dredging volume, 18 percent of the grand total, is relatively large due
to the high permit dredging during the early 1960's in Calumet, Chicago,
and Indiana Harbors. However, the C.E. reported that Section 10 permit
dredging accounts for only 10 percent of the total annual volume in the
Great Lakes (1).
During the base period (1961-1970), maintenance dredging has averaged
1.5 million cubic yards, whereas new work dredging has average 2.0 mil-
lion cubic yards. Approximately 60 percent of the maintenance and 94
percent of the new work dredging took place in the Chicago District.
The average new work dredging volume was relatively high, reflecting the
construction of Burns Waterway Harbor and the deepening and/or expansion
of Calumet, Chicago, Green Bay, Indiana, Kenosha, and Milwaukee Harbors.
In Table 44, the average annual private, maintenance, and new work dredg-
ing quantities are listed by harbor for each C.E. district. Although
the private dredging data are not complete, the table does indicate
those harbors with high permit dredging. Dredging quantities from pri-
vate recreational harbors, such as Wilmette Harbor, Illinois, and quan-
tities removed by power generating companies, for example Consumer's
Power in the Detroit District, are included in the 'Miscellaneous sites'
data.
91
-------
Table 44. AVERAGE ANNUAL PRIVATE, MAINTENANCE, AND NEW WORK DREDGING
IN LAKE MICHIGAN BY HARBOR 1961-1970 (50, 52)
(cubic yards)
Chicago District
Public harbor
Algoma
Big Suamico
Burns Waterway
Calumet H. & R.
Chicago Harbor
Chicago River
Glad s tone- Kip li ng
Green Bay
Indiana
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Michigan City
Milwaukee
Oconto
Pensaukee
Port Washington
Racine
Sheboygan
Sturgeon Bay/
Ship Canal
Two Rivers
Waukegan
Totals
Private harbor
Buffington
Escanaba
Gary
Oak Creek
Miscellaneous sites
Totals
District totals
Private
0
0
0
187,880
97,910
10,800
0
620
221,930
1,180
1,350
1,200
490
0
34,830
0
0
5,400
0
0
3,410
0
6,810
573,810
0
0
11,000
5,000
46,400
62,400
636,210
Maintenance
830
2,130
0
198,680
830
68,590
0
117,150
137,180
15,360
39,590
35,950
8,910
40,930
41,800
3,530
2,030
7,720
17,510
33,090
42,230
43,490
21,280
878,810
-
-
-
—
878,810
New work
0
0
428,250
737,280
29,640
0
23,880
140,220
78,570
23,870
13,250
0
1,860
2,260
394,830
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,070
3,480
1,878,460
^
-
-
-
-
1,878,460
Totals
830
2,130
428,250
1,123,840
128,380
79,390
23,880
257,990
437,680
40,410
54,190
37,150
11,260
43,190
471,460
3,530
2,030
13,120
17,510
33,090
45,640
44,560
51,970
3,351,480
0
0
11,000
5,000
46,400
62,400
3,413,880
92
-------
Table 44. (continued)
Detroit District
Public harbors
Arcadia
Charlevoix
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Grays Reef
Holland
Leland
Ludington
Manistee
Manistique
Muskegon
Pentwater
Petoskey
Portage Lake
Saugatuck
South Haven
St. James
St. Joseph
Traverse City
White Lake
Totals
Private harbors
Petoskey Penn Dixie
Port Inland
Miscellaneous sites
Totals
District totals
Totals for lake
Private
6,300
0
0
4,860
0
0
0
5,550
0
0
2,140
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
19,470
0
0
95,080
95,080
114,550
750,760
Maintenance
0
6,410
18,690
146,390
30,610
74,560
570
24,210
27,450
9,950
38,820
37,420
0
8,920
48,220
46,320
0
59,450
0
24,580
602,570
—
-
-
602,570
1,481,380
New work
0
0
15,020
0
0
0
3,370
0
21,880
21,130
48,630
0
0
0
0
5,200
0
0
0
0
115,230
_
-
-
115,230
1,993,690
Totals
6,300
6,410
33,710
151,250
30,610
74,560
3,940
29,760
49,330
31,080
89,590
37,420
0
8,920
48,220
51,520
620
59,450
0
24,580
737,270
0
0
95,080
95,080
832,350
4,225,830
93
-------
Harbors with over 100,000 cubic yards of average annual maintenance
dredging include Calumet, Grand Haven, Green Bay, and Indiana. The
average annual maintenance dredging quantities listed in this study are
19 percent lower than averages calculated by the C.E. Part of this dif-
ference is accounted for in the conversion of all dredging volume data
in this report to place measure. The remainder may be explained by a
safety margin allowed for by the C.E. in their data.
Average annual new work dredging quantities are not useful statistics
except to indicate the quantity of new work that took place during the
base period. Moreover, future new work dredging quantities cannot be
predicted on the basis of previous new work dredging.
Future Dredging Quantities
Future private and maintenance dredging quantities have been projected
by harbor in each Corps of Engineers' district as indicated in Table 45.
Future annual private dredging volumes are based on averages of the 1963
through 1973 dredging records for each harbor. In the Chicago District,
only Calumet and Indiana Harbors should require relatively high average
annual private dredging, while moderate permit dredging will probably
take place in Manitowoc, Milwaukee, and Racine Harbors. In the Detroit
District, little permit dredging, except for miscellaneous areas, is
anticipated. Miscellaneous permit dredging sites include private recrea-
tional harbors and coastal areas where municipalities, power generating
companies, and others may have dredging performed.
Future average annual maintenance dredging projections were determined
by averaging the maintenance dredging quantities of the past several
years, then modified by consideration of special circumstances. For
example, in Indiana Harbor the project depth was extended to 27 feet in
1963, therefore the projection of future average annual maintenance
dredging was based on the period 1964 to the present. Some harbors,
such as Sheboygan, did not undergo new work dredging during the past
94
-------
Table 45. FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL PRIVATE AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING
VOLUMES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BY C.E. DISTRICT (1, 50, S2)
(cubic yards)
Chicago District
Public harbor
Algoma
Big Suamico
Burns Waterway
Calumet H. & R.
Chicago Harbor
Chicago River
Glads tone- Kipling
Green Bay
Indiana
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Michigan City
Milwaukee
New Buffalo3
Oconto
Pensaukee
Port Washington
Racine
Sheboygan
Sturgeon Bay/Ship Canal
Two Rivers
Waukegan
Washington Island
Totals
Private harbor
Buff ington
Escanaba
Gary
Oak Creek
Miscellaneous sites
Total
District totals
Private Maintenance
dredging dredging
0
0
0
193,800
400
5,100
0
7,000
187,500
0
2,800
8,200
500
0
19,600
600
0
0
5,400
12,100
0
6,800
0
6,800
1,300
447,900
1,500
0
3,500
5,000
76,200
86,200
534,100
1,400
2,700
30,000
113,800
6,900
77,500
3,000
156,100
97,200
20,000
38,000
36,900
7,900
36,100
53,200
10,000
2,200
1,400
5,900
21,900
33,100
42,200
40,100
25,000
0
862,500
862,500
Base period
for
maintenance
1945-1964
1959-1966
By C.E.
1967-1973
1951-1961
1958-1967
By C.E.
1967-1973
1964-1973
1966-1970
1965-1970
1963-1970
1956-1966
1964-1973
1965-1969
By C.E.
1949-1964
1952-1966
1962-1972
1961-1968
1961-1970
1961-1970
1964-1973
1961-1969
-
C.E.
maintenance
dredging
3,000
5,000
30,000
200,000
59,000
49,000
3,000
137,000
151,000
29,000
28,000
35,000
15,000
48,000
70,000
10,000
3,000
2,100
15,000
30,000
23,000
50,000
51,000
32,000
0
1,078,100
1,078,100
95
-------
Table 45. (continued)
Detroit District
Public harbors
Arcadia
Charlevoix
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Grays Reef
Holland
Leland
Ludington
Manistee
Manistique
Muskegon
Pentwater
Petoskey
Portage Lake
Saugatuck
South Haven
St. James
St. Joseph
Traverse City
White Lake
Totals
Private harbors
Petoskey Perm Dixie
Port Inland
Miscellaneous sites
Private
dredging
6,300
0
0
5,000
0
0
0
7,000
0
0
1,300
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
20,600
0
0
180,000
Maintenance
dredging
0
6,100
23,100
130,800
21,900
73,700
12,600
31,600
34,800
11,900
49,200
42,500
0
16,000
50,300
40,000
1,500
54,900
1,500
26,500
628,900
Base period
for
maintenance
_
1963-1972
1963-1973
1964-1973
1960-1973
1964-1973
1969-1973
1966-1973
1965-1973
1965-1972
1966-1973
1964-1973
-
1963-1973
1964-1973
1964-1973
By C.E.
1964-1973
By C.E.
1964-1973
C.E.
maintenance
dredging
None
required
30,000
32,000
100,000
16,000
105,000
15,000
55,000
55,000
40,000
105,000
70,0000
None
required
40,000
55,000
74,000
1,500
80,000
1,500
60,000
935,000
Total
District totals
Totals for lake
180,000
200,600 628,900
734,700 1,491,400
935,000
2,013,100
aNew harbor to be constructed.
96
-------
decade. Their projection was based on a 10-year period beginning with
the year of the last maintenance dredging project. Since some of the
smaller harbors, for example, Oconto Harbor, were not dredged for
several years, the base period for the projection had to be extended
back beyond the past decade. Projected volumes for Green Bay, Ludington
and Milwaukee include an additional 10 percent because of new work
projects scheduled for these harbors.
Since no historical maintenance dredging quantities were indicated in
the C.E. records for Burns Waterway, Gladstone-Kipling, New Buffalo, St.
James, and Traverse City, projections made by the C.E. were accepted for
these harbors. Some shoaling is projected to occur in New Buffalo
Harbor even though it has not yet been expanded into a new public
recreational harbor. Shoaling problems in Burns Waterway are not
expected to develop for another 3 to 4 years.
Although a correlation factor between annual maintenance dredging
volumes and mean annual lake levels of Lake Michigan was determined to
be -0.58, this relationship was not built into the projection because
lake levels are unpredictable (see Section VI). When lake levels are
low, to prevent groundings, the C.E. stringently maintains the commer-
cial harbors at project depths plus 1 to 2 feet of subgrade. Because
dredging is performed with regard to the mean low-water datum, during
high lake levels maintenance dredging in some harbors may be temporarily
postponed, even though some shoaling has occurred.
The future average annual maintenance dredging volume for Lake Michigan
has been projected to be 1,491,400 cubic yards place measure, or nearly
equal to the average of the 1961 through 1970 period (Table 43). Com-
pared to the long-term average (1935-1973), which was calculated to be
1,211,300 cubic yards, future maintenance dredging quantities should
increase by 280,000 cubic yards annually. Thus, a small future annual
increase is projected. Several new harbors, for example Burns Waterway,
will require maintenance dredging. A few harbors, such as Green Bay and
97
-------
Milwaukee, may have slightly larger dredging requirements due to new
work projects. This increase should be partially offset by a reduction
of dredging in some industrialized harbors, such as Indiana and Calumet
Harbors, where man-made sedimentation is decreasing.
Drawing on their experience with individual harbors, the C.E. has esti-
mated future average annual maintenance dredging volume in Lake Michigan
to be 2,013,100 cubic yards (Table 45). These projected quantities
represent maximum dredging volumes, which would be dredged provided that
no funding limitations, disposal site availability, or other constraints
are imposed. Compared to the Corps of Engineers' projection, future
average annual maintenance dredging volume calculated in this study is
525,100 cubic yards less or 26 percent lower. However, a Chi-square
analysis revealed no significant difference, at the .01 level, between
the two projections.
In the Chicago District, with the exception of Calumet, Indiana, Menom-
inee, and Port Washington Harbors, there is only general correspondence
between the two projections. Because dredging volumes are small in
Menominee and Port Washington, differences between the two projections
are insignificant. Big Suamico Harbor may not undergo maintenance
dredging in the future as this project is no longer economically justi-
fied. Due to the effect of pollution elimination systems on industrial
and municipal sedimentation (Public Law 92-500), harbors such as Calumet
Chicago, and Indiana will probably exhibit slightly lower maintenance
dredging requirements than that projected by the C.E. As much as 75 per-
cent of the spoil volume dredged from Calumet Harbor and River may be
comprised of industrial wastes.
With regard to the Detroit District, less correspondence exists between
the projection of this study and that of the C.E. for future average
annual maintenance dredging. Specifically, large differences are noted
for Charlevoix, Manistique, Portage Lake and White Lake, with moderate
disparities for Ludington, Muskegon and South Haven Harbors. Conversion
98
-------
of the dredging volumes from bin measure to place measure probably
accounts for some of the difference. At Muskegon Harbor the breakwater
is relatively new; thus, sediments from littoral transport may not accu-
mulate in the outer harbor for a couple of years. Therefore, future
annual maintenance dredging at Muskegon may exceed the average of the
past decade.
Conversely, recent dredging histories of Charlevoix, Manistique, and
Portage Lake do not substantiate the Corps of Engineers' projection for
these harbors. Moreover, due to a long-term decline in commerce and
increasing recreational activities, some small harbors such as Pentwater,
Portage Lake, Saugatuck and White Lake may, in the future, be dredged
only to a depth of 12 to 14 feet instead of being maintained at their
present project depth of 18 to 24 feet.
New work dredging projects currently planned by the C.E. for Lake Michi-
gan are listed in Table 46. Because all 9 of these federal projects may
not receive final authorization and funding, the list should be regarded
as a maximum new work projection. Construction of the New Buffalo
Harbor was scheduled to begin September, 1973 with completion in 1974-75.
No data were collected regarding construction of new private harbors,
however there is a trend away from private harbors.
All of the new public harbors scheduled for construction will be recrea-
tional harbors and as such should generate small volumes of additional
future maintenance dredging. New work projects in Green Bay, Ludington
and Milwaukee harbors are expected to cause a small increase in annual
maintenance dredging. Usually, this increase in maintenance dredging
occurs during the first few years following channel deepening or widen-
ing as the walls of these new channels slough in due to vessel traffic
and effect of bow thrusters.
Summary
In summary, a historical total of 118.7 million cubic yards have been
99
-------
Table 46. FUTURE NEW WORK DREDGING PROJECTS IN PUBLIC HARBORS
OF LAKE MICHIGAN BY C.E. DISTRICT (50, 52)
(cubic yards)
Project
Chicago District
a
Cedar River
Green Bay
Illinois Beach
State Park3
Milwaukee
a
New Buffalo
Northport
Port Washington
Total
Detroit District
Cross Village3
Ludington
Total
Total for lake
Volume to be
dredged
50,600
603 , 000
100,000
1,535,000
67,000
1,310,000
20,000
3,685,600
42,200
695,000
737,200
4,422,800
Completion date
of project
1976
1976-77
1976-77
1977
1974-75
1977-79
1975-76
1979
1977
*New public harbor to be constructed.
100
-------
dredged from private and public harbors of Lake Michigan. During the
past decade (1961-1970), an annual average of 3,042,000 cubic yards were
removed from these harbors. Private dredging volumes accounted for 18
percent of this average total, while maintenance and new work dredging
amounted to 35 and 47 percent, respectively. The largest quantities of
spoil are derived from Calumet, Chicago Harbor and River, Grand Haven,
Green Bay, and Indiana Harbors. Excluding Grand Haven, these public com-
mercial harbors with high maintenance dredging requirements are charac-
terized by 27-foot seaway channels and are part of industrial-urban
complexes.
For the next decade, the future average annual dredging volume in Lake
Michigan has been estimated to be 2,963,200 cubic yards. Private dredg-
ing volumes will probably continue to be quite high, i.e., about 735,000
cubic yards, which is 25 percent of the total annual quantity. The pro-
jected volume of average annual maintenance dredging is 1.5 million
cubic yards, a quantity similar to that of the 1961-1970 period. Should
the water level of Lake Michigan drop suddenly during the next decade,
the annual maintenance dredging volume may slightly exceed this projec-
tion. Conversely, if confined disposal sites are not available for
those public harbors which are considered polluted, maintenance dredging
may have to be postponed in some harbors until acceptable methods of dis-
posal are found. Future new work dredging volumes are expected to
average 737,100 cubic yards annually, a relatively low figure when com-
pared to the 1961-1970 period or to the long-term average (1935-1973).
Six of the 9 new work projects scheduled by the C.E. concern the con-
struction of new recreational harbors while only 3 projects involve deep-
ening of existing commercial harbors.
DREDGING QUANTITIES IN LAKE SUPERIOR
Dredging activity in Lake Superior dates from the early 1900's. In the
early days harbor improvement projects were largely expediency projects,
101
-------
assigned to those harbors where shoaling restricted the free movement of
ships. Few detailed records were kept and dredge spoils were dumped in
the open lake. The Canadian harbors were primarily opened and developed
to serve the lumbering industry and later the paper industry. As the
steel industry placed more and more demand upon shipping, ship drafts
increased requiring deeper harbors and waterways. Ship lengths and
beams increased, which required more adequate berthing space as well as
enlarged turning basin and anchorage facilities. Parallel developments
of harbor facilities can be traced in the ports of the "copper country."
As copper mining declined and the lumbering industry closed down, the
harbors of Lake Superior have consolidated activities. Some of the
smaller ports have been relegated to recreational use and some still
maintain a small fishing trade (Figure 10).
Changes in principal use and trade patterns of the upper Great Lakes
dictated alterations in the dredging requirements and frequencies. Dur-
ing the earlier years of Lake Superior's waterborne trade and harbor
maintenance, the C.E. operated from an office in Duluth, Minnesota. In
1955, the Duluth office was closed and moved to a consolidated operation
in the St. Paul District at St. Paul. In preparation for the consolida-
tion of activities in St. Paul some of the old records of the Duluth
office were destroyed. Therefore, historic dredging records, in particu-
lar the permit files, are generally not available prior to 1955. The
history of dredging activity can be gleaned with increasing detail and
accuracy primarily from the annual reports of the C.E. Early reports
cited only the total expenditures of the district without regard to
activity. During the 1930's the annual reports began to itemize expen-
ditures for certain activities, however, dredging if listed was commonly
shown only as a lump dollar sum. During the 1940's, dredge activities
began to be reported in cubic yards and in the middle 1950 period a dis-
tinction was being made between maintenance and new work dredging
volumes. Annual reports of the C.E. Districts have never recorded the
volume of permit dredging, inasmuch as these activities are privately
102
-------
CANADA
NIPIGON 27'
(REP ROCK)
THUMPER KM 60'
(PORT ARTHUR)
(KAM RIl/ER AWP
MISSION CHANNEL)
(LAKEHEAP HARBOR)
PENINSULA HARBOR J91
(MARATHON)
SILVER BAV 27*
BEAVER BAV 16'
S TWO HARBORS 27'
w (AGATE BAV)
KNIFE RIl/ER
MICHIPICOTEW 20'
GRANP M4RAIS
TACONITE 27'
LUTSEW
KEWEENAM
HARBOR 12'
25
LAC LA BELLE 10'-12'
I
'GRANP TRAVERSE
10'-12'
• MONTREAL RIVER HARBOR 5'
P
X^. /MAAiAINSE 6'
GRAA/P^AIS 79'^SAULT SAINT MARIE
MUNISING 20'
COMMERCIAL HARBORS VITH PROJECT DEPTHS
O RECREATIONAL HARBORS
A PRIVATE
(IW MILES)
70
50
Figure 10. CLASSIFICATION AND PROJECT DEPTHS OF HARBORS IN LAKE SUPERIOR
-------
funded and are not the fiscal responsibility of the C.E. Inasmuch as
private dredging in the navigable waters of the Great Lakes requires the
approval of the C.E., applications to dredge are filed in the C.E.
office after approval. These are available for scrutiny, however all
types of permit work in navigable waters are filed together in accession
number order by year. In general, current policy of the St. Paul Dis-
trict indicates that the permit files may be destroyed 2 years after
date of application. Although the files of the St. Paul District are
reasonably intact since 1955, space limitations may dictate their
destruction at any time.
Dredging problems in Lake Superior are somewhat unique to the other
Great Lakes. Bottom gradients are generally steep within the nearshore
area and commonly bedrock based or composed of unsorted glacial till.
Dredging is almost universally limited to dipper or clam shell work for
boulder and bedrock removal. For this reason of bottom configuration
longshore drift or littoral current transfer is of little consequence to
harbor maintenance.
The major dredging problem in the Lake Superior harbors is tied directly
to ice-shove and ice rafting during winter storms. Bottom profiles show
submarine benching of sands caused by storms of different intensity.
Soundings made by the C.E. show that the development of benches at var-
ious depths are directly caused by the winter storms. This is particu-
larly true of the "long fetch harbors" exposed to the prevailing NW
winter storms. The sheltered harbors show virtually no effect. These
can be roughly summarized as:
LONG FETCH—NW Protected of Lee Harbors
Port Wing Marquette All north shore harbors
Cornucopia Munising Duluth—Superior
Saxon Grand Marais, Bayfield
Black River Michigan LaPointe
Ontonagon All Whitefish Bay Ashland
West Keweenaw (Sault entry) Lac La Belle
Entry Grand Traverse
Eagle Chippewa
104
-------
Occasional NE storms in winter are very severe and, with a frequency of
one in 10 years, very easily upset ALL THE PLANNING OF TEN YEARS for
harbor maintenance. No dredging frequency can even be attempted in most
exposed harbors because they are at the mercy of the storms. Those
harbors most susceptible to NE severe storms are those opening to the NE,
such as: L'Anse, Marquette, Grand Marais (Michigan), Duluth-Superior,
Big Bay and Bayfield.
Dredging frequency is directly related to:
1. Storm azimuth
2. Wind velocity
3. Thickness of ice
Low mean winter temperatures
4. Bottom gradient
5. Nature of bottom sediments vs. azimuth
6. Nature of harbor basement
7. Stream mouth harbor vs. "pocket harbor"
8. Stream flow regimen in harbor
9. Storm frequency by azimuth
Alternatively, an off-azimuth storm of high intensity may clean-out 10
years of sediment accumulation in a period of a few hours in a summer
storm and completely negate all dredging plans. Bayfield and North
Coast Harbors are good examples of the effects of freak SE storms of
high intensity.
The C.E. finds that seiche patterns in the harbors are more critical in
sediment control and in shipping hazards than stream flows and normal
winds. Most of the larger harbors have seiche reporting services for
the pilots and use seiche-lights at the entries and breakwaters. They
show by colored lights the state of the 'tide' and current velocities.
Harbor pilot advisories notify skippers and pilots of dangerous ebb and
flow conditions. Normal seiches on the long fetch coastline combined
with wide barometric differences over Lake Superior cause more sediment
transfer than any other factors except severe storms.
A Reach Map of Lake Superior (7) , shows the Reaches of the shorelines
set into categories determined by fetch, storm frequencies and littoral
105
-------
current direction. Each category essentially presents a similar set of
conditions for all harbors within the Reach. In Lake Superior the
Reaches are numbered in the 9000 series. All other lakes have been like-
wise subdivided with appropriate Reach numbers. Using that map in con-
junction with the Fetch Chart of wind directions (Table 11-28) (7) for
the 9000 series Reaches, it is possible to determine the wind azimuths
which provide the significant sediment transfer effects. Deep Water
Wave Forecasting Curves (Fig. 11-39) (7) give a concept of wave inten-
sity—height values possible at harbors within each Reach. These obser-
vations combined with a wind rose analysis at stations around the Great
Lakes demonstrates the effect of prevailing and storm winds on harbor
maintenance problems. Charts #54 and 55 from the Canadian Climatologi-
cal Studies report (8) illustrate the frequency, direction and inten-
sity of winds as they may be correlated with the fetch data. January
and April are used here to illustrate winds which most effect the move-
ment of ice. January represents the early ice forming period when shore
ice is most mobile and has local effect. April wind rose charts show
the period of average ice decay when the shore effect is expected to be
the greatest. The predominance of westerlies in winter and an increase
in easterlies in spring is a notable feature.
United States Maintenance Dredging History
Based upon dredging records since 1937, a total of 30 U.S. harbors have
been dredged at least once. During the 36 years of record, an average
of 4.1 harbors are dredged each year for maintenance. In the represen-
tative sample period of 10 years (1961-1970), maintenance dredging was
performed on an average of 4.8 harbors per year. The number of projects
per year ranged from 2 to 6 during the 36-year period, and from 3 to 6
during the 10-year sample period. Peak maintenance years appeared in
1939, 1945, 1948, 1951, 1961, 1966 and 1970-1972 (Table 47).
106
-------
Table 47. HISTORICAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND NEW WORK DREDGING
IN LAKE SUPERIOR, 1937-1972 (48, 49, 53)
(cuDic yards)
Fiscal
year
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
1949
1948
1947
1946
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
Prior
Totals
Maintenance
97,830
132,280
304,115
250,684
196,077
152,860
164,688
168,649
77,085
69,794
228,745
144,190
115,456
225,507
180,184
423,774
250,664
326,345
248,314
335,498
319,738
450,916
238,155
246,924
285,646
285,112
278,919
452,602
68,920
111,073
12,935
328,556
396,372
7,658,554
0
1,931,122
92,237
17,250,520
U.S. grand total:
Canadian
Total for
grand total:
lake:
No.
harbors
5
4
4
5
3
4
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
3
2
4
4
5
4
4
6
5
3
5
2
3
1
3
3
6
0
1
2
89,842,321
3,888,718
93,731,039
New work
290,548
142,035
20,575
5,985
40,000
275,661
12,675
417,080
1,902,164
3,208,387
292,919
129,520
289,121
50,300
85,571
32,850
555,058
480,932
0
32,732
18,774
87,281
150,022
14,214
52,182
0
0
0
0
0
0
33,585
1,898,825
5,236,617
29,910
285,977
53,676,746
69,749,246
No.
harbors
8
9
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
6
4
3
5
1
5
1
2
1
0
1
2
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
8
1
1
4
Private
63,500
7,850
6,000
76,000
1,165,610
63 , 000
0
22,800
780,000
0
0
200,000
40,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
420,795
0
0
0
2,842,555
107
-------
Maintenance dredging in Lake Superior by the C.E. throughout the
historic period of dredging records (1937-1972) totals 17,250,520 CY.
This represents 19.1 percent of all U.S. dredging during the period and
18.3 percent of the total dredging in Lake Superior (Canada included)
in all categories.
During the 10-year sample period (1961-1970) maintenance dredging within
U.S. harbors in Lake Superior totaled 1,594,742 CY. This represents 15
percent of the total (10,611,464 CY) in all categories. On the basis of
the 10-year representative sample, annual maintenance dredging may be
projected to be approximately 160,000 CY annually for the next 10 years.
It is recognized that dredging volumes have decreased materially in the
last 10 to 15 year period, as explained elsewhere in this report. There-
fore, an analysis of annual maintenance dredging volumes of Lake
Superior from 1940 to the present may provide a viable average annual
figure. The starting year 1940 is selected in order to eliminate the
unusually high volume year of 1939, in which 7,658,554 CY were removed
from U.S. harbors. Average annual dredging volume in the 33-year period
is 238,268 CY.
A reasonable prediction for the next 10 years would then range from
160,000 to 238,000 CY or approximately 200,000 CY annually. This figure
of course does not consider the constraints of pollution abatement, dis-
posal site problems, commerce patterns and lake levels.
United States New Work—
During the 36-year record period an average of 2.3 harbors were com-
mitted to new work development, whereas in the 10-year sample period an
average of 2.5 harbors were expanded or deepened. New work frequencies
range from 0 to 9 harbors per year over the historical sequence and from
0 to 6 during the 10-year sample period. Years showing no new work
included the World War II period of 1942 to 1944, and 1946, 1947, 1954,
108
-------
and 1966. Peak years of new work activity occurred in 1939, 1962 and
1963, and in 1971 and 1972 (Table 47).
New work dredging during the historic period (1937-1972), by the C.E.
totals 69,749,246 CY. This represents 74 percent of all historic U.S.
dredging. This figure, however, includes a "prior years" total of
53,676,746 CY, representing the early years of development of the Lake
Superior projects. The largest individual "new work year" was 1939,
when 5,236,617 CY were dredged. Eliminating the "prior years" total,
new work dredging since 1937 is indicated as 16,072,500 CY or'an average
annual rate of 446,458 CY for 36 years.
The representative 10-year total of new work is 6,304,966 CY, which is
an annual average rate of 630,496 CY. This figure, however, includes 2
very high volume years. In 1963 and 1964, approximately 5.1 million
cubic yards were extracted in development work. A more realistic mean
value can be determined for this 10-year period by adding the 8 other
years, dividing by 8, to yield 149,301 CY/year. Averages during this
test period of 10 years are of little significance, inasmuch as the low
volume of 5,985 CY (1969), for example, averages in with 3,209,387 CY
(1963). The most realistic predictions can probably be made by compar-
ing long term averages over 36 years of record with this erratic activ-
ity period of 10 years. The 36-year average of approximately 446,000 CY
is close to a mean value between the adjusted 10 years (150,000 CY) and
the unadjusted same average (630,000 CY). The mean of these 2 values is
390,000 CY.
A 10-year prediction for average annual new work should range between
390,000 CY and 446,000 CY, depending upon plans and budget appropria-
tions for new facilities. An average of these 2 values is 418,000 CY
per year. Such a figure is strictly a statistical average of long term
performance. No new work is scheduled for Lake Superior at this time.
A potential project in Duluth-Superior Harbor has been publicized to
develop 225 acres on St. Louis Bay as a coal loading facility, costing
109
-------
$25,000,000 (9). Plans call for the filling of existing slips west of
the Burlington Northern grain elevators. Although no comment has been
made regarding the source of fill material, it is presumed that some
will be dredge spoil. As of February 1974, no application for a Section
10 permit had been filed with the E.P.A. in Chicago or the C.E. in St.
Paul.
United States Permit Work—
The paucity of records on permit dredging limits interpretation of
patterns of activity during the 36-year term. More complete records
for the later part of the 10-year sample, suggest that at least one
permit is issued per year with 1968 showing the issuance of 4 permits.
These were granted for Baraga, Duluth-Superior, Keweenaw Waterway, and
Presque Isle. In 1972, private interests received permits to dredge in
Duluth-Superior, Oman's Creek, Presque Isle and Two Harbors. Volumetric
averages and totals have been determined using those years of record
available in the C.E. St. Paul District files.
During the historic period of 1937 to the present, private operators
moved a minimum of 2,842,555 CY. Considerably more than this may have
been dredged. From 1940 to 1960, no private dredging is recorded, which
appears to be an unlikely operational fact. The 2.8 million cubic yards
of record is 3 percent of the total volume of dredge spoils handled
during the historic period.
The 10-year sample period (1961-1970) probably reveals a more complete
record of activity, volume and frequency for projection purposes. The
volume of spoil moved by private interests between 1961 and 1970 totaled
2,313,410 CY or 22 percent of the dredging in this period (10,375,263 CY)
(Table 47).
An annual average projection for the next 10 years, amounting to 231,000
CY appears to be unrealistic, inasmuch as this figure includes a 1.6 mil-
lion CY year averaged with 3 years of no activity. A selected-year
110
-------
grouping may be more representative of this 10-year sample. Elimination
of the 1968 high volume year (1.16 million CY) and the "no activity"
years of 1962, 1963 and 1966, an average of the remaining 6 years
volumes indicates 191,300 CY annually. It is recognized that no individ-
ual year will probably ever meet this volume, but that over a 10-year
period variations in demand and activity may well call for this magni-
tude of spoil removal.
The validity of this projection may be enhanced during the next 10 years
by demands upon higher rates of coal consumption in the current energy
crisis. It seems plausible that port cities, which only a few years ago
switched from coal to natural gas and fuel oil for electric power genera-
tion and general heating, may have to revert to coal. Harbor facilities,
which were downgraded and allowed to shoal to recreational boating
depths and fishing boat drafts, etc. may have to be reopened to project
depths for the larger coal freighters. Docking facilities, including
"alongside" draft depth, are usually the responsibility of the dock owner
and/or the other private interests who use it. Examples of downgraded
harbors in Lake Superior include Ashland, Bayfield, Big Bay, Black River,
Cornucopia, Eagle Harbor, Grand Traverse, Knife River, Lac La Belle, and
Saxon. Most of these harbors are now open to boats of 1 to 6 foot
drafts.
Canadian Maintenance Dredging History
Canadian harbors represent a relatively small percent of the dredging
activity in Lake Superior. Within the 13-year period of record examined,
5 of the 9 Canadian harbors have been serviced by maintenance dredging.
These are, Kara River, Mission Channel, Montreal River, Nipigon, and Port
Arthur (Thunder Bay). It should be noted that, "In 1970, the cities of
Fort William and Port Arthur were amalgamated into one new city called
the city of Thunder Bay. The harbor of the city of Thunder Bay is
officially known as the Lakehead Harbour, and is administered by the
111
-------
Lakehead Harbour Commission" (10). Dredging areas in the Thunder Bay
area are historically listed under Kam River, Mission Channel, Port
Arthur, Fort William and Lakehead. In this study, activity is consoli-
dated under the heading of Thunder Bay. During the record period, Kam
River has been dredged almost annually, Mission Channel has been main-
tained 8 out of the 13 years, Montreal River's last 2 years of mainte-
nance occurred in 1960 and 1961. Nipigon (Red Rock) has been dredged
for maintenance purposes 4 out of the last 13 years and Thunder Bay has
been worked 9 years.
During the sample decade, maintenance dredging has been performed from
one to 4 projects per year. The years 1961, 1965 and 1966 were peak
activity years, showing 4 projects annually. Thunder Bay was the only
harbor serviced in 1969.
Five Canadian harbors are maintained with some regularity. Historic
records indicate that 3,827,872 CY have been removed during maintenance
work, representing 98 percent of all historic Canadian dredging. Vir-
tually all of the significant volume of maintenance dredging has taken
place in the Thunder Bay area. Nipigon Harbor is dredged occasionally
to relieve minor shoaling problems.
On a 10-year average basis, only 86,000 CY are moved per year.
Canadian New Work—
Most Canadian harbors were first opened during the logging days and have
required very little new work or capital dredging since the initial
development. New work was performed in 2 of the 9 harbors during the
record period. These were Michipicoten and Mission Channel which were
dredged in 1971 and 1962-1963 respectively.
Canadian historic records indicate new work volumetric data for Michi-
picoten and Mission Channel. Their total of 59,551 CY represents 1.5
percent of historic dredging in the Canadian ports. This figure is
112
-------
Table 48. DREDGING QUANTITIES IN LAKE SUPERIOR PROJECTS3
(1000's cubic yards)
Project of more than Annual total
30,000 CY/yr. volume
Ashland, Wisconsin 60
Duluth-Superior, Minnesota-Wisconsin 796
Keweenaw Waterway, Michigan 30
Little Lake, Michigan 32
Marquette, Michigan 34
Ontonagon, Michigan 46
Kam River, Ontario 129
Mission Channel, Ontario 70
Port Arthur, Ontario 116
*a
Includes maintenance, private, and new work.
113
-------
Table 49. CANADIAN DREDGING IN LAKE SUPERIOR: HISTORIC TOTALS BY HARBOR, TEN-YEAR TOTALS,
AND AVERAGE VOLUME PREDICTIONS (48, 54)
(annual cubic yaedage)
Harbor
Kam River a
Maimainse
Michipicoten
Mission
Channel
Montreal R.
Nipigon
(Red Rock)
Peninsula
Port Arthur
Port Arthur-
Reefer Term.
Sault Ste. Marie
Nipigon R.
Historic
1951-1970
per D.P.W.
6,290,900
4,040
—
(see
Kam R.)
—
34,360
—
3,660,680
357,000
108,200
56,560
Totals
this
study
1,640,541
—
6,500
1,016,278
3,000
34,353
0
1,188,068
—
0
—
Total
from Annual
1961-1970 projection
1,294,747 220,000b
129,747°
—
l,400b
697,540 69,754°
1,500 130°
12,783 l,000b
1,278C
0 0
1,163,538 80,000b
116,353C
d
0 6,800C
— —
Pollution
% Class
100 P
0 U
0 U
U
U
100 P
0 U
0 U
P
0 U
U
Disposal
Vol./Yr. area
129,747 LF
—
R
OL
0 OL
1,278 LF
0
0 OL
LF
LFD
OL
OC
-------
Table 49. (continued)
Annual volume projections: 302,400b Polluted: 130,752
323,789°
If Leigh Harbor capital project is completed,
the total D.P.W. projection is: 587,400
—~~———^_^—^——.^——__——.__^__^_________^_^_^^_
a
Includes Mission Channel.
Department of Public Works (D.P.W.).
CIn this study.
Future work to be included with Port Arthur data.
eSee Leigh Harbor
R river; OL open lake; LF landfill; OC overcast; LFD diked.
-------
undoubtedly not representative of Canadian activity in harbor develop-
ment and therefore cannot be used for projections.
Canadian Private Dredging—
Although there is considerably less government surveillance of private
dredging in Canada than in the United States, Canadian records reveal
that only Mission Channel has been dredged by private interests. Pri-
vate operators have performed work in 1965-1967 and in 1970, removing
1295 CY. Three harbors, i.e., Mamainse, Peninsula and Sault Ste. Marie
show no record of dredging for navigational purposes. However, an esti-
mate of 1000 CY per year would cover usual minimal activity.
Private interests have dredged commercial sand and gravel at the rate of
about 42,000 CY per year from the St. Marys River entrance channel.
Approximately 100,000 CY of sand and gravel have been dredged in the
last 10 years from the Algoma Steel approach channels. In any event,
the impact of private operations in Canada cannot be considered signifi-
cant to dredge volume totals or disposal problems. With the figures
available it appears that private work is less than 0.5 percent of the
Canadian volume.
Summary
Tables 47 and 49 present details of U.S. and Canadian dredging activity
in Lake Superior. However, the principal dredging activity is summa-
rized in Table 48 below.
116
-------
SUMMARY OF FUTURE DREDGING VOLUMES IN THE
IN THE GREAT LAKES
An average of 15.56 million CY of sediment will be dredged annually from
the harbors and connecting channels of the Great Lakes during the next
decade. Approximately 78 percent of this total will be removed from the
American harbors and waterways. Of the future annual volume to be
removed from United States' dredging projects, 64 percent involves main-
tenance dredging, 19 percent consists of new work, and 17 percent
involves private dredging. In Canada, these percentages are 31, 54, and
15, respectively. Estimates of future dredging volumes are summarized
by lake as follows:
1. With regard to maintenance dredging, an annual average of 8.85
million CY of spoil will be dredged from public harbors and connecting
channels by the C.E. and the D.P.W. combined (Table 50). About 88 per-
cent of this volume will be dredged from American projects and 12 per-
cent from Canadian projects. As in the past, Lake Erie will be the
center of the maintenance dredging activity. About 56 percent of the
total volume will be removed from projects on this lake, including the
Detroit River. Compared to the past decade, future maintenance dredging
in the Great Lakes is expected to exhibit little change.
2. It is projected that private interests will dredge an average of
2.59 million CY annually during the next decade. Approximately 80 per-
cent of this quantity will be removed in dredging American projects,
while 20 percent will involve Canadian projects. Nearly 40 percent is
anticipated from Lake Erie, while 27 percent will be derived from Lake
Michigan. The number of private dredging permits is expected to increase
in the future, and the quantity dredged from Canadian harbors may
increase to about 0.5 million CY.
3. An annual average of 4.1 million CY of new work dredging is antici-
pated during the next 10 years. If all scheduled new work projects are
completed, then much of this new work will be accomplished in Lake
117
-------
Table 50. FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL DREDGING VOLUMES IN THE GREAT LAKES
(cubic yards)
Huron/St. Clair
Maintenance
Private
New work
Michigan
Maintenance
Private
New work
Erie
Maintenance
Private
New work
Ontario
Maintenance
Private
New work
Superior
Maintenance
Private
New work
Totals
Maintenance
Private
New work
United States
925,000
235,000
539,500
1,491,400
734,700
737,100
4,800,000
900,000
550,000
360,000
30,000
7,625
200,000
191,000
418,000
7,776,400
2,090,700
2,252,225
12,119,325
Canada
318,000
2,000
242,000
—
—
—
175,000
100,000
0
500,000
400,000
1,620,000
86,000
1,000
0
1,079,000
503,000
1,862,000
3,444,000
Total
1,243,000
237,000
781,500
1,491,400
734,700
737,100
4,975,000
1,000,000
550,000
860,000
430,000
1,627,625
286,000
192,000
418,000
8,855,400
2,593,700
4,114,225
15,563,325
118
-------
Ontario. New work scheduled for Toronto Harbor comprises 40 percent of
all scheduled new work dredging. As compared to the 1961-1970 period,
when an annual average of 9.79 million CY of dredging was performed,
future new work dredging will decline sharply. Moreover, most of the
projects scheduled involve the construction of new recreational harbors,
or the deepening and/or expansion of existing commercial harbors.
4. The 5 harbors and connecting channels with the largest maintenance
dredging requirements, in descending order, are: Toledo, Cleveland,
Detroit River, Buffalo, and Saginaw. These commercial waterways are
characterized by industrial-urban complexes and have 27-foot Seaway
channels.
5. If water levels in the Great Lakes drop considerably during the next
few years, annual maintenance dredging volumes may somewhat exceed our
projections. Conversely, if disposal sites are not available for those
public projects which are classified as polluted, maintenance dredging
may have to be temporarily postponed until acceptable methods of dispos-
al are found.
119
-------
SECTION IV
POLLUTION OF SPOIL DREDGED FROM THE GREAT LAKES
INTRODUCTION
In recent years national and provincial policies have been enacted which
determine the quality of spoil which can be disposed in the open waters
of the Great Lakes. In many dredging projects, particularly in heavily
industrialized harbors, these policies may determine the scheduling of
future maintenance dredging and the disposal method of the dredged spoil.
These policies, which include pollution criteria, apply to federal
dredging agencies as well as to private contractors.
In the United States, the eligibility of dredged spoil for open-lake
disposal in the waters of the Great Lakes is basically determined by the
Criteria for Determining Acceptability of Dredged Spoil Disposal to the
Nation's Waters (11). These criteria were developed by the E.P.A.
Region V, Chicago, for the Great Lakes and have since been applied
nationally. Since 1967, nearly all the federal harbors and waterways
maintained by the C.E. have been sampled by the E.P.A. Although private
harbors and private channels are not routinely sampled, the pollution
criteria are applicable. Surface grab samples of bottom sediments are
usually taken throughout the dredging area of each harbor with a Peter-
son dredge sampler. In Canada, the M.O.E. has developed Water Quality
Guidelines for the Review of Proposed Dredging and Spoil Operations (12).
The Canadian guidelines are similar to the E.P.A. criteria (Table 51).
Sampling by the M.O.E. compares to that of the E.P.A., except that
120
-------
Table 51. POLLUTION CRITERIA OF HARBOR/WATERWAY SEDIMENTS (54, 55)
(percent)
Parameter
Volatile solids
Chemical oxygen demand
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Oil and grease
Mercury
Zinc
Lead
Canadian guidelines
(Maximum allowable
% dry weight
6.0
5.0
0.2
0.15
0.00003
0.005
0.005
E.P.A. criteria
concentration,
basis)
6.0
5.0
0.1
0.15
0.0001
0.005
0.005
frequently more samples are taken and occasionally short sediment cores
are analyzed.
Both sets of pollution criteria comprise seven mandatory parameters. In
Canada, sediments having concentrations of pollutants lower than the
acceptable limits may still be deemed unsuitable for open-lake disposal
on the basis of one or more of the following tests:
Total phosphorus
Settleability measured in Jackson Turbidity Units
Sulfides
Trace metals including cadmium, copper, chromium, arsenic and nickel
Pesticides
Bioassay for toxicity
In the United States the following additional tests are recommended
where appropriate and pertinent:
Total phosphorus
121
-------
Total organic carbon
Immediate oxygen demand
Settleability
Sulfides
Trace metals including cadmium, copper, chromium, arsenic and nickel
Although sediment quality is a primary determinant of the eligibility of
dredged spoil for open-lake disposal, other factors may influence the
selection of a disposal method in Canada and the United States including:
Volume of dredged material
Existing and potential quality and the use of the water in the
disposal area
Other lake conditions at the disposal site such as depth and
currents
Time of the year disposal
Method of disposal
Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the
dredged spoil
Duration of disposal operations
In Section III, projections of future annual maintenance dredging
volumes were presented. In this section, where data are available, the
public harbors in the United States are classified as unpolluted, par-
tially polluted, and polluted. The classification was based on the dis-
tribution of polluted bottom samples, as analyzed by the E.P.A., taken
from each of the dredging projects. A dredging project is considered
polluted if the analyses reveal that at least one pollution parameter
exceeds the acceptable limits in all of the samples taken. In some
harbors, only a portion of the total dredging area was deemed polluted
by the bottom sediment analyses. Such harbors are considered partially
polluted. In Canada, projects have not been formally classified in this
manner. However, for the purpose of arriving at an overview of the pol-
luted and unpolluted volumes of maintenance dredgings, harbors which
exceed the M.O.E. pollution criteria are considered polluted, while
those that do not exceed the criteria are classified as unpolluted.
122
-------
Sampling by the E.P.A. and the M.O.E. is continually occurring, usually
prior to maintenance dredging. Several high volume and economically
significant projects such as Sandusky, Toledo, Duluth, Milwaukee, and
Lake St. Clair have been sampled since the completion of this report.
As the analyses were not available before February, 1973, the data pre-
sented in this section are through mid-1973.
QUANTITY OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN LAKE ONTARIO
Projects in Lake Ontario exhibit a high correlation between industrial/
commercial port activities and sediment pollution. Of the 5 U.S.
harbors which were sampled by the E.P.A., only Rochester and Oswego are
classed as entirely polluted. These are the major ports of commercial
activity on the lake. One other American harbor, Great Sodus, is
classed as partially polluted. Wilson and Little Sodus, both small and
with no commercial traffic, are classed as unpolluted. Of the 6
Canadian harbors on Lake Ontario which were sampled by the M.O.E., all
exceed the maximum allowable concentration of some pollutant in at least
a few samples (Figure 11). For the purposes of this report, these
harbors are classed as polluted. Thus, of 11 sampled harbors in Lake
Ontario, American and Canadian combined, 9 are at least partially
polluted.
A total of 27 sediment samples have been taken from American dredging
projects in Lake Ontario. The average number of samples analyzed per
harbor is 5 (Table 52). The range in number of samples is from 4 at
harbors such as Wilson and Little Sodus to 5 at Rochester and Great Sodus
and 9 at Oswego. All samples were taken from 1968 to 1971. The most
commonly occurring pollutants in American dredging projects are phos-
phorus, oil and grease, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and volatile solids. All of
these, particularly phosphorus, were excessive in most samples tested.
123
-------
O M0T POLLUTE?
POLLUTED
O PARTLY POLLUTED
V WOT SAMPLED
/ v/ SACKETS HARBOR
S 0,
LITTLE SOPUS
GREAT SOPUS
TORONTO
Figure 11. POLLUTION STATUS OF HARBORS IN LAKE ONTARIO
-------
Table 52. SAMPLING OF PROJECTS ON LAKE ONTARIO (54, 55)
Number exceeded
Harbor
Year
sampled
No. of
samples P
sol.
COD
Kjel. Oil &
N grease
Fe Hg Pb Zn
U.S. samples
Great
Sodus
Little
Sodus
Oswego
Rochester
Wilson
Olcott
Totals
Canadian
Cobourg
Hamilton
Oshawa
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
No data
samples
'71, '72
'70, '72
'70, '72
Port Hope 1972
Toronto
Whitby
Totals
'72, '73
1971
5
4
9
5
4
27
8
24
34
4
181
11
262
5
4
9
5
2
25
7
19
17
4
90
nt
137
3
1
4
0
2
10
1
14
5
0
2
10
32
0
2
4
0
3
9
3
24
6
4
65
11
113
nt
2
5
1
3
11
6
21
15
4
90
nt
136
nt
1
6
5
0
12
3
17
16
1
20
nt
57
nt nt nt nt
nt nt nt nt
nt nt nt nt
0 nt nt nt
0 nt nt nt
0 - - -
nt nt nt 5
nt 4 9 11
nt nt 1 19
nt nt 1 1
nt 2 49 50
nt nt nt 11
— 6 60 97
nt Not tested.
125
-------
A total of 262 samples have been analyzed for Canadian harbors on Lake
Ontario. Canadian samples average about 44 per harbor; but this average
is skewed by 181 samples taken from Toronto Harbor. The range is from 4
at Port Hope and 8 at Cobourg to 34 at Oshawa and 181 at Toronto. All
samples were taken during the years 1970 to 1973. Phosphorus, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, zinc, and chemical oxygen demand are the most commonly sur-
passed pollution parameters in Canadian waters of Lake Ontario. Appar-
ently, zinc tests are considered more important by the M.O.E. than by the
E.P.A. Of the 6 Canadian harbors samples, all were tested for zinc.
Zinc tests were not made at any of the 5 American harbors sampled.
Future Quantity of Polluted Spoil
U.S. Projects;—
Since most spoil dredged by permit is presently being confined and since
most new work dredging involves unpolluted material, the projections of
future polluted spoil in this report involve only maintenance dredging
over the next decade. From 1961 to 1970, an average of approximately
363,000 cubic yards of spoil were removed from U.S. projects annually in
maintenance dredging. Of this volume, about 334,000 cubic yards (92 per-
cent) involved polluted spoil (Table 53). The volume of polluted spoil
was calculated on the basis of the E.P.A. classification of harbors and
detailed analysis of their sediment sample maps.
Maintenance dredging in the next decade should result in the removal of
approximately the same total volume of spoil that was removed during the
1960's. Most of the material to be dredged in the future will be pol-
luted spoil from Rochester and Oswego, the major commercial harbors in
Lake Ontario (Figure 12). Thus, it is projected that unless unlimited
open-lake disposal is permitted to resume as a result of severe economic
stress or relaxation of pollution standards, confinement of more than 90
percent of the material to be dredged in the next decade will be neces-
sary. This means that 3.3 million cubic yards of dredged spoil will
126
-------
Table 53. VOLUME OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL, C.E. PROJECTS
IN LAKE ONTARIO, 1961-1970
(cubic yards)
Project
Great Sodus
Little Sodus
Oswego
Rochester
Wilson
Olcott
Totals
Year
E.P.A.
sampled
68
69
69
69
70
no data
Pollution
class
P/U
U
P
P
U
Average
annual
maintenance
dredging
23,763
15,075
54,683
267,029
948
2,116
363,614
Percent
polluted
50
0
100
100
0
Volume
of
polluted
spoil
11,882
0
54,683
267,029
0
—
333,594
have to be confined in diked sites in the Lake Ontario region during the
next 10 years.
As of July, 1974, the only Lake Ontario projects in the C.E.'s confined
disposal program were at Rochester and Oswego. At Rochester, a site
has been selected, and construction is planned for 1976. Oswego had no
site agreement as of July, 1974, but construction is scheduled for 1975.
Thus, for most dredging in the lake, confined disposal facilities are
expected to be available by 1977. Volumes of material removed in the
past few years have been slightly lower than the average removed during
the 1960's; they should increase in the latter 1970's and remain higher
than average into the early 1980's.
Canadian Projects—
From 1961 to 1970 an average of approximately 536,000 cubic yards of
spoil were removed from Canadian waters of Lake Ontario every year in
127
-------
PROJECTED DREDGING VOLUME (IN 1,000'S C.V )
O °-9
r\ 10-24
25-100
PERCENT POLLUTED
oo
OSWEGO
LITTLE S0DUS
GREAT SOPHS
NEW YORK
(IN MILES)
25
50
75
Figure 12. PROJECTED ANNUAL POLLUTED AND UNPOLLUTED MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE ONTARIO
-------
maintenance dredging projects. However, maintenance dredging volumes
are anticipated to decline slightly in the next decade. Projections
made available by the D.P.W. indicate that only approximately 435,000
cubic yards of spoil are expected to be dredged in maintaining harbors
on Lake Ontario by 1977. About 97 percent of this volume is to be
removed from Toronto, Whitby, Oshawa, and Cobourg Harbors, all of which
have been sampled by the M.O.E. (Table 52). All harbors had some sam-
ples which exceeded at least some pollution parameters and, for the
purposes of this report, are considered polluted. Assuming that the
Canadian projects which have not been sampled are not polluted, then
approximately 420,000 cubic yards of polluted spoil will be dredged by
1977 from Canadian harbors. This represents about 97 percent of the
total volume of material scheduled for dredging in Canadian waters of
the lake in the near future.
Four of the 5 harbors scheduled for maintenance dredging in the near
future have been sampled to date. Four other harbors (Hamilton, Port
Hope, Port Credit, and Cataraqui) are dredged at least occasionally.
Thus, the percentage of polluted spoil to be removed in the future is,
at best, a rough estimate. More accuracy in estimating future polluted
volumes in Canada will only be possible when all projects are sampled
and more test results become available.
Summary
1. Of a total of 11 sampled American and Canadian harbors in Lake
Ontario, 9 are polluted or partially polluted.
2. Most commonly occurring pollutants in U.S. projects are phosphorus,
oil and grease, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and volatile solids. Phosphorus,
Kjeldahl nitrogen, zinc, and chemical oxygen demand are the most common-
ly surpassed pollution parameters in Canadian waters.
3. Approximately 92 percent of the spoil dredged from American projects
during the 1960's was polluted.
129
-------
4. Approximately 3.3 million cubic yards of polluted spoil dredged from
U.S. projects in Lake Ontario are anticipated during the next decade.
5. Major maintenance dredging projects, i.e., Rochester, Toronto,
Hamilton, Oswego and Oshawa, have high volumes of polluted spoil.
6. Two Lake Ontario projects, Rochester and Oswego, are in the C.E.
diked disposal program; confined facilities are expected to be avail-
able at both by 1977.
7. Approximately 435,000 cubic yards of material are scheduled to be
removed from Canadian projects on Lake Ontario by 1977. An estimated
97 percent of this material will be polluted.
8. Because many Canadian harbors have not been sampled, future polluted
spoil volumes cannot be accurately determined.
QUANTITY OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN LAKE ERIE
According to present operational guidelines drafted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the Ontario Ministry of Environment,
sediment dredged from Lake Erie is highly polluted. Every harbor or
waterway sampled by either agency is at least partially polluted, i.e.,
some samples in a harbor exceed established pollution criteria. In some
cases, such as Bolles, Huron, Fairport, and Ashtabula, samples from
inner portions of harbors are classed as polluted whereas those taken
from outer portions (usually outside breakwaters) are not. Of 21 U.S.
harbors sampled, 15 are classified as entirely polluted and 6 as par-
tially polluted. In Canada, of the 5 harbors sampled, all exceed the
maximum allowable concentration of some pollutant in at least a few
samples (Figure 13). Thus, all harbors and waterways sampled in Lake
Erie exceed pollution criteria established for both United States and
Canadian projects.
As of late 1973, a total of 165 samples have been taken from U.S.
projects in Lake Erie. The average number of samples analyzed per
130
-------
POLLUTE?
^ POLLUTED
O PARTLY POLLUTED
V NOT SAMPLED
HCHirAfl
BUFFALO
DUNKIRK
BARCELONA
ASHTABULA
FAIRPORT
DETROIT RIVER
*
p
ROUGE RIVER m*ftvWDSOR
MONROE^/ \
BOLLES
TOLEDO
t
PORT CLINTON
OHIO
(IN MILES)
Figure 13. POLLUTION STATUS OF HARBORS IN LAKE ERIE
-------
harbor is 8 (Table 54). The range in number of samples is from 3 at
small harbors such as Rocky River, Barcelona, and Dunkirk to 17 at
Buffalo and 26 from the Rouge River. All sampling was done prior to
1972. Some sampling has occurred since then, but testing has not been
completed. The most commonly occurring pollutants in U.S. projects are
phosphorus, oil and grease, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and volatile solids. All
of these were excessive in almost every sample tested.
A total of 48 samples have been analyzed for Canadian harbors on Lake
Erie. Canadian samples average about 10 per harbor. The range is from
3 at Colchester and Rondeau to 21 at Port Stanley. Phosphorus, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, zinc, and COD are the most commonly surpassed pollution para-
meters in the Canadian projects. Apparently, testing for zinc has been
considered more important by the M.O.E. than by the E.P.A. Of the 5
Canadian harbors sampled, 3 were tested for zinc. Of the 21 American
harbors and waterways sampled, zinc tests were made at Cleveland and
Fairport. In both projects zinc surpassed the E.P.A. criteria.
Future Quantity of Polluted Spoil
United States Projects—
Basically polluted dredged spoil is a problem associated with mainte-
nance work. Most spoil dredged by permit is presently being confined
and most new work dredging involves unpolluted material. Therefore, the
projection of future polluted spoil in this report involves maintenance
dredging over the next decade. From 1961 to 1970, an average of approxi-
mately 4.6 million cubic yards of spoil were removed from the American
waters of Lake Erie every year in maintenance dredging projects. Of
this volume, approximately 4.4 million cubic yards, about 95 percent of
the total involved polluted material (Table 55). The volume of polluted
spoil was calculated on the basis of the E.P.A. latest pollution classi-
fication of harbors and detailed analysis of their sediment sample maps.
132
-------
Table 54. SAMPLING OF PROJECTS ON LAKE ERIE (54, 55)
(number of samples exceeded)
Number
Date of No. of
Harbor samples samples P
U.S. samples
Detroit R.
Rouge River
Monroe
Bolles
Toledo
Port Clinton
Sandusky
Huron
Vermilion
Lorain
Rocky River
Cleveland
Fairport
Ashtabula
Conneaut
Erie
Barcelona
Dunkirk
Buffalo H&R
Black Rk. Ch.
Little River
Tonawanda Hbr.
Totals
Canadian samples
Port Stanley
Rondeau
Leamington
Kingsville
Colchester
Totals
70
67
69
72
68
68
68
68
68
68
70
72
72
68
68
68
70
68
67
67
No
No
70
71
70
70
71
15
26
3
5
11
4
7
5
4
7
3
15
6
7
10
6
3
3
17
8
data, but
data, but
165
,71 21
3
6
,72 15
3
48"
12
23
2
3
11
4
7
4
4
7
3
15
6
7
10
6
2
3
17
8
Vol.
sol. COD
10
25
3
1
11
4
7
5
4
7
3
15
6
1
10
6
1
3
17
8
classed
classed
154
21
3
6
15
nt
45
147
0
2
0
0
2
4~
5
nt
3
1
11
4
7
5
4
7
3
15
6
0
10
6
1
3
17
8
polluted
polluted
116
13
nt
6
12
3
34
Kjel
N
10
21
2
1
11
4
7
5
4
7
3
15
5
6
10
6
2
3
17
8
by
by
147
21
3
6
11
3
44
exceeded
. Oil &
grease Fe
10
24
2
1
9
4
7
5
4
7
3
15
5
3
10
6
3
3
17
8
E.P.A.
E.P.A.
146
nt
nt
nt
1
nt
~T
7
10
1
nt
11
4
7
5
4
7
3
nt
nt
5
10
6
2
3
17
8
110
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
Hg
15
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
15
0
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
30
0
nt
0
10
nt
To
Pb
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
15
6
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
21
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
Zn
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
15
6
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
21
19
nt
4
12
nt
35
nt Not tested
133
-------
Table 55. VOLUME OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL:
IN LAKE ERIE, 1961-1970
(cubic yards)
C.E. PROJECTS
Project
Detroit District
Bolles
Detroit River
Monroe
Port Clinton
Rouge River
Toledo
District totals
Buffalo District3
Ashtabula
Black Rk. Ch./
Tonawanda Hbr.
Buffalo
Cleveland
Conneaut
Dunkirk
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Lorain
Rocky River
Sandusky
District totals
Year
E.P.A.
sampled
1972
1970
1969
1968
1967
1973
1968
1967
1967
1972
1968
1968
1968
1972
1973
1968
1970
1973
Pollution
class
P/U
P
P
P
P
P
P/U
P
P
P
P
P
P
P/U
P/U
P/U
P
P
Totals for Lake Erie
Ave. annual
maintenance
dredging
8,737
324,507
184,629
5,961
202,121
1,083,791
1,809,746
125,769
83,498
448,824
875,629
68,704
12,109
162,033
302,687
151,935
120,199
708
439,704
2,791,799
4,601,545
Percent
polluted
75
100
100
100
100
100
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
80
75
80
100
100
Volume of
polluted
spoil
6,553
324,507
184,629
5,961
202,121
1,083,791
1,807,562
94,327
83,498
448,824
875,629
68,704
12,109
162,033
242,150
151,935
96,159
708
439,704
2,637,796
4,445,358
Vermilion, Barcelona, and Little River are rarely dredged.
134
-------
As determined in Section III, maintenance dredging in the next decade
should result in the removal of approximately the same total volume of
spoil that was removed during the 1960's. Most of the material to be
dredged in the future will be polluted spoil from the large commercial
harbors in Lake Erie (Figure 14). Thus, it is projected that unless
unlimited open-lake disposal is permitted to resume as a result of
severe economic stress or relaxation of pollution standards, confinement
of more than 90 percent of the material to be dredged in the next decade
will be necessary. This means that 40 to 45 million cubic yards of
dredged spoil will have to be confined during the next 10 years.
As of July, 1974, 19 projects were in the diked disposal program for
Lake Erie. They were at various degrees of completion, from planning to
actual construction. For most dredging projects in the lake, confined
disposal facilities are expected to be available by 1977 (Table 56).
Thus, confined disposal should occur by that time. Volumes of material
removed in the past few years have been slightly lower than the average
removed during the 1960's. However, they should increase in the latter
1970's and remain higher than average into the early 1980's.
Canadian Projects—
From 1961 to 1970, an average of approximately 351,000 cubic yards of
spoil were removed from Canadian projects in Lake Erie annually in main-
tenance dredging projects. But due to the loss of Port Burwell's
volumes with a change in status as previously discussed, maintenance
dredging in the next decade is expected to decline and average between
150,000 and 200,000 cubic yards annaully.
Projections made available by the D.P.W. indicate that about 542,000
cubic yards of spoil are expected to be dredged from public harbors on
Lake Erie by 1977. About 70 percent of this volume is to be removed
from Port Stanley, Rondeau, Leamington, Kingsville, and Colchester,
harbors which have been sampled by the M.O.E. (Table 54). These
135
-------
HCHIPAN
DETROIT RIVER
ROUGE RIVER
MONROE
BOLLES
TOLEDO
PROJECTED PREYING VOLUME (W 1,000'S C V }
>j
^c-
.£ J£
DUNKIRK
BARCELONA
PENNSYLVANIA
(IN MILES)
JO 0 50
Figure
Ik. PROJECTED ANNUAL POLLUTED AND UNPOLLUTED MAINTENANCE DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE ERIE
-------
Table 56. 1974 STATUS OF LAKE ERIE DIKED DISPOSAL PROGRAM (52)
Project
Rouge River
Detroit River
Toledo
Port Clinton
Monroe
Bolles
Ashtabula
Buffalo
Black Rock/Tonawanda
Cleveland
Conneaut
Erie
Fairport
Huron
Lorain
Sandusky
Dunkirk
Vermilion
Little River
Rocky River
On Site being
program used now
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
x
X X
X X
X X
X -
X
X -
X -
X -
x -
X
X
X -
X -
Site
selected
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
_
Construction
date
1975
1975
1974
—
—
1974
1976
1974
1974
1974-75
1974
1975
1975
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
137
-------
harbors yielded some samples which exceeded at least some pollution para-
meters and, for the purpose of this report, are considered polluted.
Assuming that the Canadian projects which have not been sampled are not
polluted, then approximately 380,000 cubic yards of polluted spoil will
be dredged by 1977. This represents about 70 percent of the total vol-
ume of material scheduled for dredging in Canadian waters of the lake in
the near future.
Only 5 of the 14 harbors scheduled for maintenance dredging in the
future have been sampled to date by the M.O.E. Thus, the percentage of
polluted spoil to be removed in the future, as projected above, is only
an estimate. More accuracy in estimating future polluted volumes on the
Canadian side of Lake Erie will only be possible when all projects are
sampled and more test results completed.
Summary
1. Of the 21 sampled American harbors on Lake Erie, 15 are entirely
polluted and 6 are partially polluted. All 5 Canadian harbors sampled
exceeded the maximum allowable concentration of at least one pollutant.
2. Most commonly occurring pollutants in U.S. harbors are phosphorus,
oil and grease, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and volatile solids. Phosphorus,
Kjeldahl nitrogen, zinc, and COD are the most commonly surpassed para-
meters in Canadian projects.
3. Approximately 95 percent of the spoil dredged from American projects
in Lake Erie during the 1960's was polluted.
4. Forty to 45 million cubic yards of polluted dredged spoil from
American projects are anticipated during the next decade.
5. Major maintenance dredging projects, i.e., Toledo, Cleveland,
Sandusky, Buffalo, and the Detroit River, have high volumes of polluted
spoil.
6. A few large dredging projects, such as Fairport, Ashtabula, Lorain,
138
-------
and Huron (with 100,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of material removed
annually) are classified as partially polluted.
7. Twenty Lake Erie projects are in the C.E. diked disposal program.
Confined facilities for these projects are expected to be available by
1977.
8. About one-half million cubic yards of material are scheduled to be
removed from Canadian projects on Lake Erie by 1977. An estimated 70
percent of this material will be polluted.
9. Most Canadian harbors on Lake Erie have not been sampled by the
M.O.E. Only when they are sampled are accurate estimates of future
polluted spoil volumes possible.
QUANTITY OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN LAKE HURON AND LAKE ST. CLAIR
In Lake Huron and Lake St. Glair a project design cannot always be asso-
ciated with polluted or unpolluted dredged spoil. Generally, where long
approach channels serve river harbors such as Saginaw, the channel sedi-
ments are unpolluted whereas the river sediments are polluted. Polluted
spoil, however, is not entirely confined to such harbors. Many lake-
front harbors, deriving their sediments from the nearshore environment,
such as Harrisville and Harbor Beach, have polluted sediments. Figure 15
reveals that in Lake Huron only 10 out of the 30 harbors and waterways
sampled do not exceed the principal E.P.A. or the M.O.E. criteria. As
mentioned in the introduction of this section, sampling by the M.O.E. is
confined to few localities. However, D.P.W. projects have been sampled
more thoroughly than C.E. projects. Waterways such as the St. Clair
River present significant problems. According to the E.P.A., the St.
Clair River sediments are not polluted whereas samples retrieved by
the M.O.E. at Sarnia and the St. Clair Cut-off exceed their criteria.
Similar problems arise at Sault Ste. Marie. In many instances,
139
-------
SAULT SAINT MARIE
JM.fl.E.
ST. HARVS RIVER
Figure 15. POLLUTION STATUS OF HARBORS
IN LAKES HURON AND ST. GLAIR
LES CHEt!EAUX\
Q -HAMM0WP BA/
ROUTE
PORT AUSTIN
ASEl/ILLE
BA/PORT
SEBEWAING
BAVFIELP
GRAWP 8EWP
PORT 5AMILAC
LEXINGTON
BLACK RIVER
ST. CLAIR RIl/ER
CUT-OFF
MITCHELL MY
(IN MILES)
POIWT
SAGIWAW
CLINTON
LAKE ST. CLAIR
POLLUTEP
PARTLY POLLUTEP
O MOT POLLUTEP
V WOT SAMPLEP
=1
50
FBELLE RIl/ER
140
-------
therefore, it is not possible to classify a harbor or waterway in Lake
Huron as completely polluted or unpolluted. There are areas of a dredg-
ing project which may be unpolluted whereas other areas are polluted.
In Lake Huron, harbors such as Alpena, Caseville, and Sebewaing are
therefore categorized as partially polluted (P/U).
In many sediment samples, several parameters have been exceeded and are
noted in Table 57. Of the 7 mandatory parameters tabulated for the C.E.
projects, COD is the most commonly occurring pollutant followed by vola-
tile solids, and oil and grease. In the D.P.W. projects, Kjeldahl nitro-
gen and COD are the most common pollution parameters which exceed the
M.O.E. criteria. Both environmental agencies confirm the high occur-
rence of mercury in Lake St. Glair. In Michigan, most C.E. projects
have been sampled since 1967 whereas in Ontario only 10 projects have
been assessed through 1973. Therefore, based on the number of projects
sampled, a more accurate estimate of future polluted dredging volumes
may be determined for the C.E. dredging projects.
Projects where sediments were classified as polluted and unpolluted by
the E.P.A. were mapped on the Project Maps of the C.E. and the ratio of
polluted sediment volume to the unpolluted sediment volume determined.
When possible this ratio was confirmed by the C.E. Detroit District.
Table 58 represents, by project, future annual maintenance dredging that
the C.E. feels necessary to maintain all projects in Lake Huron and Lake
St. Glair at project depth and the percent of polluted sediment within
each project. Based on these data, 874,650 of the 1.2 million cubic
yards or 72 percent of the spoil would not be suitable for open-lake
disposal. Table 59 represents a decade (1961-70) of C.E. maintenance
dredging in the 2 lakes by project. During the 1960's, 728,776 cubic
yards were removed annually from C.E. projects. Assuming that the sedi-
ment quality did not change in the past decade, 426,186 cubic yards or
58 percent of these dredgings would have exceeded E.P.A.'s criteria.
Therefore, if the C.E. were to meet their projection in the next decade,
141
-------
Table 57. SAMPLING OF PROJECTS ON LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR (54, 55)
Number exceeded
Harbor
Michigan
Alpena
Inner
Outer
Au Sable
Bay Port
Caseville
Cheboygan
Clinton R.
Hammond Bay
Harbor Beach
Harrisville
Inland Route
L. St. Clair
Les Cheneaux
Lexington
Mackinaw City
Point Lookout
Port Austin
Port Sanilac
Saginaw
Inner
Outer
Sebewaing
Straits of
Mackinaw
St. Clair R.
St. Marys R.
Totals
Ontario
Bayfield
Grand Bend
Goderich
Mitchell Bay
Ru scorn R.
St. Clair R.
Sarnia
South Bay M.
Tobermory
Sault Ste. Marie
N. of Locks
Pt. aux Pins
Totals
Year
sampled
1972
1972
1967
1972
1972
1967
1970
1970
1972
1970
1970
1970
1970
No. of Vol.
samples sol .
5
3
3
9
4
3
4
2
5
4
5
8
3
Not sampled
1970
&.
Not sampled
1972 2
1972 7
1972
1972
1972
1970
1970
1972
1973
1973
1973
1971
1971
1972
1971
1972
1972
1971
1972
10
5
4
4
7
15
114
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
4
0
3
1
3
n
\j
0
0
8
2
3
0
0
0
29
COD
2
1
nt
0
2
nt
3
0
5
1
4
0
2
3
8
4
4
0
0
0
44
Kjel. Oil &
N grease Hg
0
1
0
0
2
nt
3
nt
5
nt
nt
n f-
11 i.
nt
nt
5
2
4
4
nt
0
0
29
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
9
4
3
0
0
0
24
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
0
0
nt
0
0
6
0
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
0
1
nt
7
Pb
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
—
Zn
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
-
Visual inspection
3
1
2
8
38
7
None
1
8
27
97
Organics
0
0
3
0
1
, COD,
0
nt
nt
30
6
exceed M.O.E.
0
2
4
10
0
0
0
36
Zn
0
0
2
37
1
exceed M.
nt
nt
nt
0
7
O.E.
nt
2
nt
29
nt
criteria
1
0
nt
0
nt
0
0
nt
2
nt
criteria
0
nt
4
44
nt
3
4
14
nt
nt
nt
31
nt
nt
0
1
nt
nt
2
4
ant Not tested
142
-------
Table 58. C.E. PROJECTED MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND POLLUTED VOLUMES,
LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR (50)
(cubic yards)
C.E. Percent
Project projection polluted
Alpena
Au Sablea
Bay Port
Black Rivera
Caseville
Ch. Lake St.
Clair
Cheboygan3
Clinton River
Hammond
Harbor Beach
Harrisville3
Inland Route
Les Cheneaux
o
Mackinaw City
Port Austin3
Port Sanilac
Saginaw
Sebewaing
St. Clair R.a
St. Marys R.a
Totals 1
8,000
30,000
6,000
3,000
12,000
200,000
10,000
21,000
10,000
5,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
4,000
4,000
7,200
700,000
20,000
75,000
65,000
,212,200
90
0
0
Not sampled
40
100
0
85
0
100
100
50
100
0
100
100
85
33
0
0
Ann. ave.
polluted
spoil
7,200
0
0
4,800
200,000
0
17,850
0
5,000
12,000
5,000
10,000
0
4,000
7,200
595,000
6,600
0
0
874,650 (72%)
class
P/U
U
U
P/U
p
U
P/U
U
p
p
P/U
p
U
p
p
p
P/U
U
P/U
10-year site
completed
June, 1976
—
June, 1976
—
October, 1976
June, 1975
—
June, 1976
—
December, 1976
—
December, 1976
December, 1976
—
—
June, 1976
June, 1976
October, 1976
—
*Not on the 10-year confined disposal program (PL 91-611).
143
-------
Table 59. VOLUME OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL: C.E, PROJECTS
IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR, 1961-1970
(cubic yards)
Project
Alpena
Au Sable
Bay Port
Caseville
Black River
Channels of
Lake St. Glair
Cheboygan
Clinton River
Hammond Bay
Harbor Beach
Harrisville
Inland Route
Les Cheneaux
Lexington
Mackinaw
Point Lookout
Port Sanilac
Saginaw
St. Glair River
St. Marys River
Sebewaing
Totals
Year
sampled
1972
1967
1972
1972
Not sampled
1970
1967
1970
1970
1972
1970
1970
1970
Not sampled
1970
Not sampled
1972
1972
1970
1972
1972
Average
annual
maintenance
dredging
9,768
20,775
0
0
0
106,828
9,123
15,350
0
22,825
600
90
10,273
0
0
0
7,670
294,735
91,915
121,912
16,912
728,776
Percent
polluted
90
0
0
30
0
100
0
85
0
100
100
50
100
0
0
0
100
85
0
0
33
Polluted
volume
8,791
0
0
0
0
106,828
0
13,050
0
22,825
600
45
10,273
0
0
0
7,670
250,524
0
0
5,580
426,186 (58%)
Port Austin, sampled in 1972, is 100 percent polluted. However, it has
not been dredged in two decades, and no confined disposal site is
planned.
144
-------
a 14 percent increase of polluted dredged spoil over the 1961-1970
decade may be anticipated.
As mentioned in the previous section, the C.E. projection of future main-
tenance dredging represents a maximum projected figure. Based on dredg-
ing frequencies in the recent past, projects such as Port Austin,
although classified as polluted, have not been dredged in several years.
Thus, the percent of polluted dredged spoil associated with the C.E.
dredging projection (Table 58) may indeed be high.
Table 60 illustrates new work and maintenance dredging totals of the C.E.
in 1972 and 1973. If it is assumed that dredgings disposed on land are
polluted and dredgings disposed in open water are not polluted, it may
be concluded that in 1972 about 43 percent of the dredging volume is not
suitable for open-lake disposal. In 1973, approximately 53 percent of
the spoil did not qualify for open-lake disposal. Based on actual field
data over the past 2 years less than one half of the spoils removed from
C.E. projects were polluted.
Perhaps the greatest concern of polluted dredged spoil is in projects
which have the highest maintenance dredging volumes. Approximately 88
Table 60. DISPOSAL OF SPOIL IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR PROJECTS,
1972 AND 1973 (50)
(cubic yards)
Project
Au Sable
Harrisville
Inland Route
Saginaw
St. Clair R.
St. Marys R.
On land
0
0
76,259
86,994
0
0
1972
Open lake
41,625
25,950
0
0
26,337
122,099
1973
On land
0
0
0
87,943
0
0
Open lake
7,420
0
0
21,263
8,800
40,123
Totals
163,253(43%) 216,011(57%) 87,943(53%) 77,606(47%)
145
-------
percent of the past and future dredging has and will occur in Au Sable,
Lake St. Clair, Saginaw, the St. Glair River, and the St. Marys River
(Table 33). Assuming that past and future sediment quality is represent-
ative of the present sediment quality, 57 percent of the dredgings from
these harbors will be polluted (Table 61).
Table 61. ESTIMATED POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL IN MAJOR C.E. PROJECTS
IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR
(cubic yards)
Annual maintenance
Project dredging— 1961-1970
Au Sable
Saginaw
Lake St. Clair
St. Clair River
St. Marys River
Totals
9,768
294,735
106,828
91,915
121,912
625,158
Percent
polluted
0
85
100
0
0
Polluted
volume
0
250,524
106,828
0
0
357,352
(57%)
Based on a harbor by harbor projection determined in Section III, the
percent of polluted sediment to be dredged may be estimated (Figure 16).
As noted in Table 62, the greatest volume of polluted dredged spoil will
be derived from Saginaw and Lake St. Clair. Other areas where relative-
ly high volumes of polluted sediments occur are Inland Route, Harbor
Beach, Les Cheneaux, Alpena, and Sebewaing. Of the above mentioned proj-
ects, Saginaw faces the most serious problem in terms of confined dis-
posal. Dow Chemical Company withdrew their site offer and the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources is opposed to filling bottom land near
the shoreline (13). The C.E. has estimated that there is a backlog of
2.5 million cubic yards of sediment which is increasing at a rate of
approximately 600,000 cubic yards annually. The channel depth has been
reduced from between 4 to 7 feet above project depth. To our knowledge
an Environmental Impact Statement has not been prepared for this project.
146
-------
Figure 16.
, -
^MACKINAW
'V^
QfCHEBOyGAN
HAMMOND
X
INLAND ROUTE
ALPENA
HAKRISt/ILLE
AU SABLE
POINT LOOKOUT
PORT
'EBEft/AIWG
fARBOR BEACH
i
\
I
ISAGIA/AW
PORT 5ANILAC
LEXINGTON
BLACK RIVER
ST. CLAIR PJl/tK
CLINTON RIl/ER
LAKE ST. CLAIR
PROJECTED ANNUAL POLLUTED AND
UNPOLLUTED MAINTENANCE DREDGING
VOLUMES IN LAKES HURON AND
ST. CLAIR
OREPGING VOLUME
(IN 1,000'S C V ]
51-150
. CLAIR CUT-OFF
151-350
PERCENT POLLUTED
(IN MILES)
JO 0
50
147
-------
Table 62. ESTIMATED VOLUME OF FUTURE POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN LAKE HURON/ST. CLAIR
(cubic yards)
Project
Alpena
Au Sable
Bay Port
Black River
Caseville
Ch. Lake St. Clair
Cheboygan
Clinton R.
Hammond Bay
Harbor Beach
Harrisville
Inland Route
Les Cheneaux
Lexington
Mackinaw
Point Lookout
Port Sanilac
Saginaw
St. Clair R.
St. Marys R.
Sebewaing
Totals
Maintenance
dredging
9,768
20,828
0
0
3,236
177,677
11,614
7,602
0
32,083
3,453
22,611
20,545
-
0
0
6,973
334,871
108,513
243,824
24,160
967,758
Percent
polluted
90
0
0
0
40
100
0
85
0
100
100
50
100
Not sampled
0
100
100
85
0
0
33
Polluted
volume
8,791
0
0
0
1,294
177,677
0
6,462
0
32,083
3,453
11,306
20,545
-
0
0
6,973
284,640
0
0
8,053
501,277 (52%)
148
-------
The confined disposal site for dredgings from Lake St. Clair is firm and
a final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in April 1974.
No foreseeable problems, other than the property purchase for the con-
fined site on the St. Clair delta, are anticipated there at this time.
It may be expected that, based on an annual maintenance dredging projec-
tion of 967,768 cubic yards in Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair, 52 percent
of the volume will not meet the sediment quality criteria of the E.P.A.
Future annual maintenance dredging is anticipated to increase by 200,000
cubic yards over the 1961-1970 decade, however the volume of polluted
spoil will increase by 85,000 cubic yards. If no sediment abatement pro-
grams are initiated and the E.P.A. upholds its present sediment quality
criteria, it may be expected that between 45 and 72 percent of future
maintenance dredging will not qualify for open-lake disposal. However,
based on a projection of the principal projects (Table 61) and individ-
ual projects (Table 62) it appears that approximately 55 percent of the
spoil to be removed in the future will be polluted. In most projects
confined disposal facilities under PL 91-611 are to be constructed in
the next 2 to 3 years (Table 58), suggesting that polluted sediments
will be confined in the prepared sites by 1977 and dredging activity and
hence volumes will increase at that time.
In Ontario, investigations by the M.O.E. are not as complete in terms of
the number of harbors sampled as in Michigan. However, of the 14 sam-
pled projects in Lake Huron, 7 exceed the recommended criteria of the
M.O.E. (Figure 15). Although the M.O.E. as yet does not classify naviga-
tion projects as polluted and unpolluted, in this lake, it is assumed
that if the criteria are exceeded the project is polluted. Between 1961
and 1970 maintenance dredging averaged 278,000 cubic yards annually.
Assuming that the D.P.W. projects sampled exceeded the M.O.E. criteria,
then as now, and the remaining projects did not exceed the criteria,
approximately 135,000 cubic yards or 49 percent of the dredgings were
polluted. Table 63 represents the future maintenance dredging in Lake
149
-------
Table 63. FUTURE DREDGING BY D.P.W. IN LAKE HURON/ST, GLAIR
AND PROJECTED VOLUME OF POLLUTED SPOIL (48, 54)
1973-1977
(cubic yards)
Project
Belle River
Byng Inlet
Cedar Beach
Collingwood
Coder ich
Grand Bend
Kincardine
Midland
Oliphant
Pike Creek
St. Clair Cut-off
Sault Ste. Marie
Sarnia
Sydenham
Total
Total volume
26,000
48,874
7,000
70,000
70,000
40,000
15,000
5,000
10,000
16,000
1,200,000
26,000
26,000
28,000
1,587,874 of
Sediment quality
n.s.a
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Polluted
Polluted
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Polluted
Polluted
Polluted
n.s.
which 1,362,000 (85%)
exceed M.O.E. criteria
n.s. not sampled.
Huron and the sediment quality of sampled areas. If the projects which
are not sampled do not exceed the M.O.E. criteria, it may be concluded
that 85 percent of the dredgings in Canadian projects are polluted.
Approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of polluted sediment is located at
Sault Ste. Marie and in the St. Clair Waterway. The D.P.W. is presently
constructing and testing a diked disposal area at Mitchell Bay in Lake
St. Clair. It is therefore anticipated that a confined site will be
150
-------
prepared to receive dredgings from the St. Glair Cut-off in the near
future.
As can be seen from the data above, an unbiased estimate of polluted
dredged spoil cannot be determined for Canadian projects in Lake Huron/
St. Glair. If the M.O.E. criteria are exceeded, confinement of spoil
does not necessarily follow. At Sault Ste. Marie open-lake disposal has
recently occurred at Gros Cap. Very few of the approximately 50 proj-
ects in Ontario have been sampled. Only when all the projects are
sampled can accurate assessments of polluted volumes be made. However,
based on available data, thus far, it appears that the percent polluted
spoil in Ontario is comparable to that of Michigan.
Summary
Based on data in this section and Section III the following have been
determined:
1. Of the 30 sampled harbors in Lake Huron, 10 are not polluted.
2. Pollution parameters most often exceeded in C.E. dredging projects
are COD, volatile solids, and Kjeldahl nitrogen. In D.P.W. projects,
Kjeldahl nitrogen and COD are the most commonly exceeded parameters.
3. Polluted sediments are not exclusively limited to river harbors.
Harbors on the lake front (e.g., Harrisville, Port Sanilac) are also
polluted.
A. Polluted dredged spoil in C.E. projects in 1972 and 1973 was 42 and
53 percent respectively.
5. The quantity of polluted dredged spoil in the last decade is approxi-
mately the same as the volume to be dredged in the future (57% vs. 52%).
6. If the C.E. were to dredge 1.2 million cubic yards annually, as they
have projected, 72 percent of the dredgings would be polluted.
151
-------
7. Based on an annual projection of 0.9 million cubic yards, approxi-
mately 52 percent of the spoil would be polluted.
8. Although future annual maintenance dredging is anticipated to
increase by about 200,000 cubic yards over the past decade, the quantity
of polluted sediments will increase by only 85,000 cubic yards.
9. High maintenance dredging projects, such as the St. Glair River, Au
Sable and St. Marys River, are not necessarily equated with high volumes
of polluted spoil.
10. The largest volume of polluted spoil (90%) in the next decade will
be dredged from Lake St. Glair and from Saginaw.
11. Saginaw, where dredging of polluted spoil has been delayed, faces
the most serious problem in terms of confined disposal. A site for Lake
St. Glair's polluted spoil is firm at this time. Confined sites for all
polluted projects under PL 91-611, with the exception of Port Austin, are
also firm.
12. Based on available data, 85 percent of the future dredging volumes
in Ontario will be polluted. Most of this quantity (1.2 million cubic
yards) will be removed from the St. Clair Cut-off.
QUANTITY OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN LAKE MICHIGAN
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency's 7 mandatory pollution
parameters, the current pollution analyses of public harbor sediments in
the dredging areas are indicated in Table 64. Sediments of private har-
bors have not been routinely sampled, therefore private harbors are not
treated herein. The E.P.A. usually samples the public harbors prior to
the scheduling of maintenance dredging. A total of 327 bottom samples
were taken, for an average of 7.4 samples per public harbor. Though
Milwaukee Harbor was re-sampled in 1973 and St. Joseph in 1974, the
analyses data were not available.
152
-------
Table 64. POLLUTION OF
PUBLIC HARBORS IN LAKE MICHIGAN BY PARAMETER
BY C.E. DISTRICT (55)
Criteria limits exceeded
Harbor
Algoma
Big Suamico
Burns Waterway
Calumet H. & R.
Chicago Hbr.
Chicago River
Gladstone-
Kipling
Green Bay
Indiana
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Michigan City
Milwaukee
New Buffalo3
Oconto
Pensaukee
Port Washington
Racine
Sheboygan
Sturgeon Bay/
Ship Canal
Two Rivers
Waukegan
Total samples
Year
sampled
1969
1970
1970
1968
1971
1968
1970
1969
1967
1973
1969
1969
1969
1970
1968
1968
1968
1968
1971
1973
1969
1969
1969
1973
No. of
samples
8
5
5
4
6
5
5
36
11
8
15
23
17
7
9
4
2
4
8
13
18
16
15
9
253
Percent of harbors
Vol.
sol.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
79
COD
X
X
X
X
X
nt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
75
Kjel.
N
X
X
X
nt
nt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
75
Oil &
grease
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
70
Hg
nt
nt
nt
nt
nt
X
nt
nt
nt
X
nt
nt
nt
nt
X
nt
nt
nt
X
-
Pb
X
X
X
nt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
67
Zn
X
X
X
X
nt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
75
polluted by each
parameter
153
-------
Table 64. (continued)
Criteria limits exceeded
Harbor
Arcadia
Charlevoix
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Grays Reef
Holland
Leland
Ludington
Manistee
Manistique
Muskegon
Pentwater
Petoskey
Portage Lake
Saugatuck
South Haven
S t . James
St. Joseph
Traverse City
White Lake
Total samples
Year No. of Vol. Kjel.
sampled samples sol. COD N
Not
1971
1972
1972
Not
1972
1971
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
Not
1971
1967
1972
Not
1972
1972
1967
sampled
3 nt
6 xxx
7 xxx
sampled
7 xxx
2 nt
4 nt
4 nt
3 x nt
3 nt
15 nt
sampled
2 nt
1 nt nt
7 xxx
sampled
6 xx
2 x nt
2 nt
74
Oil &
grease Hg Pb Zn
x nt nt nt
x nt nt nt
x nt nt nt
nt nt nt
nt nt nt
x nt nt nt
nt nt nt
nt nt nt
nt nt nt nt
x nt nt nt
x nt nt nt
x
nt nt nt
Percent of harbors polluted
by each parameter
Total for lake
Percent of harbors polluted
by each parameter
35
25
59 52
20
50
30
52
Q
New public harbor.
nt Not tested; x Parameter exceeded limits
154
-------
Pollution classifications for each harbor are presented in Table 65.
Of the 42 public harbors in Lake Michigan, 15 are classified as unpol-
luted, 10 are polluted, while the remaining 17 have been designated as
partially polluted (P/U). In addition, New Buffalo, a project which is
to be expanded soon into a new public recreational harbor, has already
been sampled and is classified herein as partially polluted. Arcadia,
Grays Reef, Petoskey, and St. James have not been sampled, but these
harbors are not regarded as polluted.
The P/U classification is employed when the inner harbor contains pol-
luted sediments while the outer harbor area is 'clean.1 In some harbors
such as Frankfurt and South Haven, the boundary between the polluted and
unpolluted portions is located well inside the inner harbor. Other par-
tially polluted harbors, for example, Sheboygan, Kenosha, and Waukegan,
are polluted throughout except near the jetty and/or breakwater. Stur-
geon Bay Harbor, which has an unusual design due to the ship canal, is
polluted only in the vicinity of the city.
The most seriously polluted harbors are located in the Chicago District
and include Calumet, Chicago Harbor and River, Green Bay, Indiana,
Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, and Racine. Pollution of these harbors
(Figure 17) is promoted by the large industrial and urban complexes adja-
cent to the navigation facilities. Conversely, most of the recreational
harbors, as in the Detroit District, are not polluted. Based on the
data available, parameters that most frequently exceeded the criteria
limits included volatile solids and COD. In Kenosha, Michigan City,
Racine, and Waukegan Harbors mercury was found in excess of its limits.
Prior to 1970-1971, mercury was not considered to pose a problem, hence
it was not routinely tested until after that. time.
As indicated in Table 64, analyses of the harbor sediments are not com-
plete, especially for the Detroit District. In this district many sam-
ples were not analyzed for mercury, lead or zinc concentrations. Sauga-
tuck was classified on the basis of one sample from which only one
155
-------
OPEN LAKE
PISPOSAL SITE
I/OLUME
(ZW 1,000'S C V }
ST. JA/'ES
CHWLEV01X.
STUKGEON KM
I
ALGOMA /
PEHSMIKEE
SUAMZCO
APCAUIA
PORTAGE LAKE
MAA/ZSTEE
I'M MVEPS
* /
PEA/TWATER
WtfZTE LAKE
'iUSKEGON
PORT WASHINGTON
MZLWAUKEE
RACIWE
KEW05HA
SOUTH HA I/EN
ST. JOSEPH
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN CTTV
(ZM MILES]
101-200
,,PERCE/JT POLLt/TEP
CHICAGO HARBOR £
50
Figure 17,
INDIANA
POLLUTED QUANTITY OF FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
DREDGINGS AND LOCATION OF OPEN-LAKE DISPOSAL SITES IN
LAKE MICHIGAN
156
-------
parameter was analyzed. In addition, COD and total Kjeldahl nitrogen
were frequently omitted in the analyses of samples from this district.
With the exception of mercury, analyses in the Chicago District are more
complete. Pollution data for Ludington, Manistee, Muskegon, Pentwater,
Saugatuck, Sheboygan, and White Lake Harbors are several years old,
hence resampling may be in order.
At the specific request of the C.E., Waukegan Harbor was resampled in
1973. The analyses revealed that the outer harbor sediments near the
breakwater were unpolluted. The resampling of Waukegan Harbor has empha-
sized the fact that many harbors are unpolluted in the outer harbor
areas near the jetties and breakwaters where littoral currents are the
main source of sediments. It is also being recognized that pollutants
have a horizontal, vertical and seasonal distribution, and that back-
ground pollution can be produced by tree leaves and marsh drainage.
Future Quantity of Polluted Harbor
Sediments
As illustrated in Table 65, a total of 28 harbors in Lake Michigan have
been classified asvpolluted or partially polluted. Although New Buffalo
Harbor has already been sampled, construction of this new recreational
facility has not been completed. In an effort to determine the future
average annual quantity of polluted dredged sediments, each partially
polluted harbor was subdivided into unpolluted and polluted sections.
This subdivision was based on the distribution of polluted samples with-
in the dredging areas analyzed by the E.P.A. If all bottom samples
taken from a given harbor, such as Indiana, exceeded one or more of the
pollution parameter limits, then all spoil (i.e., 100 percent) dredged
from that harbor was considered polluted.
Because maintenance dredging operations, as compared to new work, fre-
quently involved polluted sediments, only the percentage of the average
annual maintenance dredgings that may be polluted was estimated for each
157
-------
Table 65. FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTITY OF POLLUTED MAINTENANCE
DREDGING BY HARBOR BY C.E. DISTRICT IN LAKE MICHIGAN
(cubic yards)
Pollution
Harbor class
Chicago District
Algoma
Big Suamico
Burns Waterway
Calumet H. & R.
Chicago Hbr. & R.
Glads tone-Kipling
Green Bay
Indiana
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Menominee
Michigan City
Milwaukee
New Buffalo3
Oconto
Pensaukee
Port Washington
Racine
Sheboygan
Sturgeon Bay/
Ship Canal
Two Rivers
Waukegan
Totals
P/U
P/U
P
P
P
U
P
P
P/U
P
P
P/U
P/U
P
P/U
U
P/U
P/U
P
P/U
P/U
P/U
P/U
Percent of
maintenance
spoil
polluted
50
50
100
100
100
0
100
100
75
100
100
60
25
100
20
0
50
75
100
75
50
25
40
Future
annual
maintenance
dredging
1,400
2,700
30,000
113,800
84,400
3,000
156,100
97,200
20,000
38,000
36,900
7,900
36,100
53,200
10,000
2,200
1,400
5,900
21,900
33,100
42,200
40,100
25,000
862,500
Future
annual
polluted
spoil
700
1,400
30,000
113,800
84,400
0
156,100
97,200
15,000
38,000
36,900
4,700
9,000
53,200
2,000
0
700
4,400
21,900
24,800
21,100
10,000
10,000
716,300
138
-------
Table 65. (continued)
Pollution
Harbor class
Detroit District
Arcadia
Charlevoix
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Grays Reef
Holland
Lei and
Ludington
Manistee
Manistique
Muskegon
Pentwater
Petoskey
Portage Lake
Saugatuck
South Haven
St. James
(Beaver Island)
St. Joseph
Traverse City
White Lake
Totals for District
Totals for lake
U
U
P/U
P/U
U
P/U
U
U
U
P/U
U
U
U
U
U
P/U
U
P/U
P
U
Percent of
maintenance
spoil/
polluted
0
0
25
45
0
45
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
30
100
0
Future
annual
maintenance
dredging
0
6,100
23,100
130,800
21,900
73,700
12,600
31,600
34,800
11,900
49,200
42,500
0
16,000
50,300
40,000
1,500
54,900
1,500
26,500
628,900
1,491,400
Future
annual
polluted
spoil
0
0
5,800
58,900
0
33,200
0
0
0
6,000
0
0
0
0
0
10,000
0
16,500
1,500
0
131,900
848,200
°New harbor to be constructed.
U Harbor unpolluted, P/U Harbor partially polluted, P Harbor polluted.
159
-------
harbor. These estimations, which are preliminary, are presented in
Table 65. The percentages were derived by comparing the spatial dis-
tribution of polluted harbor bottom samples with the volumes of main-
tenance dredging that are extracted from the various areas of the harbor.
Since the Corps of Engineers' dredging records do not reflect the quanti-
ties dredged from the various harbor areas, the percentages must be
regarded as first-order approximations.
In the Chicago District the total future average annual quantity of pol-
luted maintenance dredgings has been estimated to be 716,300 cubic yards
place measure. This volume, which is 83 percent of the total projected
quantity of maintenance dredging (i.e., 862,500 CY), reflects the rela-
tively large number of polluted and partially polluted harbors in that
district. Calumet Harbor and River, Chicago Harbor and River, Green Bay,
Indiana, and Milwaukee Harbors are all projected to yield over 50,000
cubic yards annually of polluted spoil (Figure 17). Because of the rela-
tively long flow-through time of water in the Lake Michigan basin, dis-
posal of large quantities of polluted spoil in the open lake may have an
unacceptable impact on the water quality and algal growth in southern
Lake Michigan. In the Detroit District, only 21 percent of the total
projected quantity of maintenance dredging (i.e., 628,900 CY) is esti-
mated to involve polluted spoil. Grand Haven is the only harbor in that
district which is anticipated to generate over 50,000 cubic yards
annually of polluted spoil.
In accordance with Public Law 91-611, the C.E. is authorized to design
and construct confined disposal facilities for the polluted public
harbors in the Great Lakes. A summary of developments in the confined
disposal program regarding the 27 polluted harbors in Lake Michigan is
contained in Table 66. With the exception of Algoma, Big Suamico, Burns
Waterway, Pensaukee, and Manistique, all the harbors listed are included
in the Corps of Engineers' confined disposal program. Although the
E.P.A. informed the C.E. that Algoma was unpolluted, one of the 2 bottom
160
-------
Table 66. PLANNING OF CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES FOR POLLUTED PUBLIC
HARBORS BY C.E. DISTRICT IN LAKE MICHIGAN (50, 52)
Harbor
Waiver
granted
Diked
disposal
site selected
Completion
date of
diked site
Confined
site now
in use
Chicago District
•a
Algoma
Big Suamico
Burns Waterway
Calumet Harbor & R.
Chicago Harbor & R.
Green Bay x
Indiana x
Kenosha x x
Kewaunee x x
Manitowoc x x
Menominee tentative
Michigan City x
Milwaukee x x
Pensaukeea
Port Washington pending x
Racine x x
Sheboygan x
Sturgeon Bay
Two Rivers pending x
Waukegan x x
1975
1975-76
1975
1975
1975
unknown
1974-75
1974-75
1975
1975
1975-76
1975
1975
x
x
X
Detroit District
Frankfurt
Grand Haven
Holland
Q
Manistique
South Haven
St. Joseph
Traverse City
1976
x x 1974-75
x x 1976
1976
pending 1976
1976
x
X
Harbor not initially selected for the confined disposal program.
Harbor dropped from the confined disposal program.
161
-------
samples taken from the harbor Is polluted. Big Suamico should be
deleted from the table because it will not be maintenance dredged in the
future by the C.E. Burns Waterway may not undergo maintenance dredging
yet for another 3 to 4 years. Pensaukee and Manistique are small,
recreational harbors with little dredging.
Seventeen of the 27 harbor projects listed in Table 66 have at least
temporary solutions for the confinement of polluted dredged spoil.
Calumet, Grand Haven, Green Bay, Big Suamico, Holland, Indiana, and
Menominee all have confined land sites which have been or are presently
in use. However, at Calumet Harbor and River, the site currently in use
has been partially filled and only a year or so of capacity remains. A
single 10-year confined site has been designed for Milwaukee and Port
Washington, Kenosha and Racine, and for Manitowoc and Two Rivers. Small
10-year sites have already been built at Grand Haven and Holland. Con-
struction of other facilities is currently underway at Grand Haven,
Holland, Kenosha-Racine, and Milwaukee-Port Washington.
For a number of harbors with polluted sediments, only the preliminary
stages of planning for 10-year confined sites has been completed. Some
delays in the program appear to be the result of the reluctance of
local interests to provide land to the C.E. for disposal sites. Local
interest groups generally are not anxious to provide such land until
waivers of the shared construction costs of the confined sites are
granted. In most instances, site selection focuses on the immediate
vicinity of the outer harbor areas. If land disposal sites are avail-
able and in operation, waivers and 10-year confined sites may not be
required.
In the Chicago District, little progress has been made with regard to
Algoma, Burns Waterway, Chicago Harbor and River, Pensaukee, and
Sturgeon Bay Harbors. In the Detroit District, solutions have not been
found for Frankfurt, Manistique, South Haven, St. Joseph, and Traverse
City. Most of the confined disposal facilities are scheduled to be
162
-------
constructed by 1975 and 1976. This construction schedule suggests that
if open-lake disposal of polluted spoil is not adopted as an acceptable
alternative, then maintenance dredging may be postponed in a number of
harbors until other solutions are implemented.
Unpolluted sediments derived from maintenance dredging are currently
being used for beach nourishment by the C.E. at Holland, Manistee, Michi-
gan City, and Muskegon Harbors. Maintenance dredging of harbors receiv-
ing sediment from littoral drift may be reduced by redesigning the break-
water and/or by artificial bypassing with sand pumps.
Summary
Of the 42 public harbors in Lake Michigan, 27 are classified as polluted
or partially polluted. Only 15 public harbors do not contain polluted
bottom sediments in the dredging areas, hence are unpolluted. An
average of 7 bottom samples were taken per harbor. Of the 7 mandatory
pollution parameters, volatile solids, COD and oil and grease most fre-
quently exceeded the acceptable limits. In a small number of harbors
there is a need for resampling as the pollution analyses are several
years old. Also, in several harbors the pollution analyses were not
complete, especially with regard to the testing of mercury, lead, and
zinc concentrations.
For the next decade, the total average annual volume of polluted main-
tenance dredging in Lake Michigan has been estimated to be 848,200 cubic
yards. This figure is 57 percent of the total average annual mainte-
nance dredging quantity. However, in the Chicago District, 83 percent
of the maintenance dredgings are polluted. Private dredging quantities
were not included in this projection because this spoil is usually con-
fined on the permittee's land. New work dredgings were also excluded
because new work materials usually consist of relatively clean glacial
till and bedrock. Most of the polluted spoil is derived from industrial-
ized-urbanized harbors, especially inner harbor areas, and not from
163
-------
small, recreational harbors. If pollution elimination systems regarding
municipal and industrial wastes continue to reduce artificial sedimenta-
tion, as in Calumet Harbor, then the future annual quantity of polluted
maintenance dredgings is expected to decrease slightly.
With the exception of 5 harbors, all 27 of the polluted and partially
polluted public harbors have been included in the C.E. confined disposal
program. At present, 17 of the harbors with polluted bottom sediments
have at least temporary solutions to the problem of confining polluted
dredged spoil. As scheduled by the C.E., many of the confined disposal
sites are to be built during the period 1974-1976. This schedule
appears to be optimistic. Unless polluted spoil can be open-lake dumped
or disposed in ways alternate to diked confinement, then future mainte-
nance dredging of some harbors may have to be temporarily postponed.
Because of the relatively large annual polluted maintenance dredging
volumes in Calumet, Chicago Harbor and River, South Haven, St. Joseph
and Sturgeon Bay Harbors, the lack of confined sites for these harbors
is most serious. New E.P.A. guidelines regarding the disposal of
dredged materials in inland waters (14), to be promulgated in 1975, may
result in the re-evaluation of some harbor pollution classifications and
in the resumption of open-lake disposal of small quantities of lightly
polluted dredged spoil. If so, confined disposal sites may not be
required for Algoma, Manistique, Pensaukee, and Traverse City Harbors.
QUANTITY OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN LAKE SUPERIOR
The geological setting and the nature of the shoreline environment of
Lake Superior is unique to all of the other Great Lakes. The Lake
Superior drainage basin encompasses the "iron country" and the "copper
country" along the western and southern shores. The northern shoreline
and its contributing drainage system is heavily forested. Natural
effluent drainage from the mineralized bedrock areas contributes materi-
ally to the metallic ion concentration of river mouth harbor waters and
164
-------
sediments (15). Discharge of these ions into Lake Superior raises the
metallic ion concentration to anomalously high values as compared to the
other Great Lakes. The well known counterclockwise gyre in Lake
Superior tends to 'stream' the metalliferous constituents eastward along
the United States coastline to cause a plume of metallic solution within
the otherwise pristine waters of the lake. Although these natural con-
taminants are not quantitatively high, they are detectable in water and
sediment analysis (16). It has been noted that zinc values, as well as
copper values, in water analyses are ubiquitous and in some cases anoma-
lously high. Zinc minerals are associated with the copper of the
Keewenaw Region (17). Therefore, both elements can be expected from
natural weathering, drainage and mine effluent. Several hundred square
miles of copper and zinc bearing rock units underlie the glacial drift
or are exposed at the surface throughout the south shore. This so
called contamination or pollution by surface waters (and from the water
table) is a natural phenomenon and should be recognized as such in set-
ting the criteria of pollution for Lake Superior. It is recognized that
a base level of metallic ion concentration in the waters of the south
shore of Lake Superior probably exists and is beyond the control of man
to alter. Pollution criteria for Lake Superior should be established
independently of the other lakes, based upon norms determined from open-
lake waters along the south shore.
The drainage systems of the north shore harbors, both United States and
Canadian, discharge quite universally from heavily forested areas, pre-
dominantly coniferous. Normal stream waters in these systems are acidic
(high pH) and often brown tinted with tannic acid and stains leached
from the forest duff. Large quantities of leaves and conifer needles
are transported to river mouth harbors where this organic matter becomes
waterlogged and settles to bottom. During the halcyon days of logging
and widespread fluming and booming of saw logs in these rivers and
harbors, considerable quantities of saw logs, bark, natural pulp and saw-
dust were deposited in the quiet waters of north shore harbors.
165
-------
Characteristically, most of the north shore harbors were dredged the
first time as new work development to remove the accumulation of organic
debris and whatever inorganic sediments were required to reach project
depth. Most of the older and smaller harbors have not been dredged
since their initial development work was completed. Removal of paper
mill wastes, pulp and bark continues in those harbors where large mills
have developed. A few examples are: Thunder Bay, Nipigon, Peninsula,
and Michipicoten. Maintenance dredging in these harbors is sporadic.
The dredging frequency is a function of the level of industrial produc-
tion of paper products, and natural stream flushing action.
Decaying organic matter produces a high oxygen demand (COD value) and is
typical of all of the north shore harbors. Again, a high COD value is a
normal expectancy for these conditions and is one which can be little
altered by the efforts of man. Sediment pollution criteria, specifically
citing COD values should consider the norm of natural effluent in the
streams of the north shore.
Natural inorganic sedimentation (clay, sand, silt and gravel) is virtual-
ly nonexistent in the north shore harbors by virtue of the fact that the
drainage area is blanketed with a complete vegetative cover. Many north
shore harbors have insufficient sediment covering bedrock to make a sedi-
ment sampling program possible (16).
Pollution of Sediments—Introduction
The C.E. in 1969 reported that 12 of the principal U.S. harbors of Lake
Superior were considered unpolluted (1). Two were considered polluted
on the basis of criteria then in use (Table 19, Sec. 6.9). The classifi-
cation at that time listed the following harbors:
166
-------
Lake Superior (1)
Unpolluted Polluted
Big Bay Harbor Duluth
Black River Harbor Superior
Cornucopia Harbor
Grand Traverse
Keweenaw Waterway
Lac La Belle
Little Lake
Ontonogan
Port Wing
Presque Isle
Saxon
Whitefish Point Harbor
Classification based upon E.P.A. parameters (Table 17, Sec. 6.6)
Under the heading of "Magnitude of the Problem" (page 9.19, Sec. 9.6.1)
of the C.E. report, a total annual volume of dredging is predicted to be
about 11 million cubic yards (all lakes) per year, of which approximate-
ly 84 percent (9.24 million CY) is polluted. This volume was tabulated
from 39 harbors which were considered polluted at that time. Six of
these polluted harbors accounted for one half of the total volume of
polluted spoils.
It should be noted that the 1969 C.E. study worked primarily with main-
tenance and new work dredge volumes. The report also observes that
private dredging was not compiled, but could be estimated at about 10
percent of the total.
Pollution in Lake Superior Harbors
--U.S.
With the enactment of Public Law 91-611 and the establishment of E.P.A.
criteria of pollution, harbors in all lakes have been undergoing exten-
sive sampling and reclassification. The St. Paul District, for instance,
has contracted with independent laboratories for investigations of
167
-------
harbors in their jurisdiction. National Biocentrics Inc. has been work-
ing on most of the harbors in the district for 2 years. Reclassif Na-
tion, based upon the E.P.A. studies and those of independent laborato-
ries, now indicates that 17 U.S. harbors show at least one parameter of
pollution in excess of the tolerable limit. Thirteen harbors are
currently classed as unpolluted (Figure 18).
It should be noted, however, that the total volume of sediment removed
from each of the "polluted" harbors is not necessarily all polluted.
Many of the Lake Superior harbor volumes are composed largely of lake
bottom sediments, sand and gravel which have been transported by lit-
toral drift, ice-shove and violent onshore wind storms. These materials
are, for the most part, clean and eligible for open-lake dumping, where-
as the classification of the harbor may be "Polluted," as determined,
from sampling of the inner harbor reaches. Expanded studies are now
underway, with more extensive sampling programs, to delineate the vol-
umes of polluted spoil from the unpolluted. Several field seasons and
several additional samples will be required to draw lines of demarcation
between polluted areas and unpolluted areas of most harbors. Once this
isolation of polluted sediment has been accomplished, then a far more
accurate determination of spoil volume and disposal area capacity can be
made.
Under present policy, open-lake dumping of polluted spoil is restricted.
Constraints may be lifted for sediments from those parts of Lake
Superior harbors which can be proven to be clean and free of deleterious
contaminants.
Assuming that restrictions are relaxed and using sediment analyses avail-
able for known sampling locations in Lake Superior harbors, this report
attempts to estimate the percentage of total dredge quantity of each
harbor which must be committed to diked or on-land disposal areas.
Based upon activities in the 10-year representative period (1961-1970)
and the average annual volume predictions derived from that history,
168
-------
S
VREVGIHG t'OLUME (IN 1000'S C y j
O 0-10
O
26-50
N1PIGON
(REV ROCK)
PENINSULA
MICHIPICOTEM
KAAf RZt/ER
^ CHIPTEUA.
KEWEEMAW WATERCMy
LE BELLE
TPAVEPSE BAY
TUO HARBORS
RIl/ER
ONTONMON
BLACK RIVER
OfWIS CREEK
V'ISCnNSIN
MW/TP.EAL RIVER
M1AIHSE
MUTEflSH POINT
SMILT SAINT MARIE
(IM MILES)
Figure 18. PROJECTED ANNUAL DREDGING VOLUMES IN LAKE SUPERIOR AND PERCENT POLLUTED (HARBORS WITHOUT
VOLUMETRIC CIRCLES INDICATE NO PROJECTED DREDGING IN THE NEXT DECADE)
-------
Table 67 is presented as a summary of this study and for comparison with
the predictions of the C.E.
This study indicates a total annual average volume of 1,964,759 CY of
spoil will be removed from United States harbors. Estimates of the per-
cent of this volume which will be polluted and assigned to confined
disposal are presented by harbor in the summary. Using data assembled,
it appears that 236,883 CY or about 12 percent of the total spoil volume
will require confinement (column 5). On March 15, 1973, the C.E. esti-
mate of polluted spoil was reported as 206,100 CY, or approximately 1.5
percent less than this study found (column 4). The C.E. volume of
206,100 CY of polluted spoil is 10.5 percent of the total volume of
sediment to be dredged (Table 67, column 4).
Using the estimates of the percent of sediment polluted in each harbor
as determined in this study (column 7) and applying these values to the
C.E. total annual volume projections, it is found that 159,430 CY may
require confinement (column 3).
The discrepancy in polluted volumes, cited above, is apparently caused
by differences in the appraisal of the size of areas of pollution within
each harbor as identified by the C.E. and by this study, rather than in
the total volume of sediment to be removed. It is recognized that under
the present E.P.A. pollution policy, any harbor with one or more para-
meters showing an excess of contaminant, must be considered polluted.
Many such determinations have been made, which require the C.E. to clas-
sify entire harbors polluted. Analyses assembled since 1969, extensive
sampling projects and more detailed sediment mapping of harbors have
made it possible to more accurately delineate polluted segments of
harbors. This study has attempted to apply the current state of knowl-
edge of polluted harbor areas, which was not available at the time of
the last report of the C.E. As the sampling and testing program conti-
nues, it is anticipated that more and more realistic pollution volumes
can be derived. These are expected to be considerably less than the
initial estimates of polluted spoil volumes, made in 1970 and 1971.
170
-------
Table 67. U.S. DREDGING IN LAKE SUPERIOR: TEN YEAR AVERAGE ANNUAL
POLLUTED SPOIL AND AVERAGE VOLUME PREDICTIONS, 1961-1970
(cubic yards)
Harbor
(1)
Angle Inlet
Ashland
Baraga
Baudette
Bay field
Big Bay
Black River
Chippewa
Cornucopia
Duluth-
Superior
Eagle Harbor
Grand Marais
(Minn.)
Grand
Traverse
Keweenaw
Waterway
Knife River
Lac La Belle
L'Anse
La Pointe
Little Lake
Marquette
Oman's Creek
Ontonagon
Port Wing
Presque Isle
Saxon Harbor
Silver Creek
Taconite
Two Harbors
War road
Whitefish Pt.
Annual
totals
Date
sampled
inclu-
sive
(2)
'69
'71, '72
'70-'73
'71- '73
'71-'73
'70-'73
'68/69
'70- '73
'71
'70-'73
'70--72
'69, '72
'70
'70-'71
'71
'68- '73
'69-'73
'70-'73
'71-'73
'70- '73
'70, '71
Polluted
% X
C.E.
vol.
(3)
2,000
1,000
110
1,000
2,000
27,540
3,000
3,750
13,750
500
750
72,000
3,750
850
440
20,000
6,000
159,430
spoil predicted — U.S.
C.E.
estimate
(4)
2,000
None
1,000
3,000
800
150,000
600
2,000-2^00
800
25,000
None
2,000
700
200-600
6,000
206,100
This
study
(5)
2,000
1,150
1,826
1,498
143,408
600
3,697
7,621
151
25,752
41,197
2,926
2,000
700
767
1.590
236,883
Annual %
average poll.
(6) (7)
60,619
500
4,597
2,435
1,997
796,710
600
4,930
30,486
302
2,630
800
32,709
34,337
30
45,775
3,902
11,810
6,291
6,500
200
767
11,224
1,590
1,964,759
0
100
0
0
100
25
75
0
75
18
0
100
75
25
50
0
0
0
0
75
0
90
75
17
11
0
0
100
0
100
Pol.
class
(8)
U
P
U
U
P
P/U
P/U
U
P/U
P
P
P/U
P/U
P/U
U
U
U
U
P/U
U
P/U
P/U
P/U
P/U
U
U
P
U
P/U
5 P
12 P/U
13 U
P Polluted; P/U Part polluted; U Unpolluted Harbor
171
-------
Pollution of Lake Superior Harbors
— Canadian
Canadian harbors on Lake Superior are unusually clean as compared with
U.S. harbors. Most of the pollution problem in Canada lies with the
accumulation of wood pulp and the waste products of the paper industry
in 2 harbors, namely Thunder Bay and Nipigon (Red Rock). The Public
Works Commission of Canada (now D.P.W.) finds that inorganic sediments
offer no particular pollution problem except in the aesthetics of dis-
posal areas where clay and silt remain as suspensoids and tend to cloud
the water for a short time after dumping in the open lake (18). The
concern of the public and ecological interests in Ontario is more promi-
nently directed toward the destruction of fish spawning areas and
aquatic-life foraging areas than to the deleterious chemical effect of
pollutants.
Inspection of Table 49 suggests that, of the average annual dredge vol-
ume in Canadian harbors (323,789 CY) some 40 percent or 130,752 CY will
be polluted. On a 5-year projection, the D.P.W. suggests that 302,400
CY will be removed annually. Using the estimated total volume of pol-
luted sediment from this study, per year, approximately 43 percent of
the D.P.W. spoils will require confinement; a reasonably close agreement.
Canadian port directors appear to have less of a problem with acquisi-
tion of land reclamation sites and diked disposal sites than their col-
leagues in the U.S., because of the differences between Canadian and U.S.
real estate law (18).
Of the 10 principal harbors in Canada, as listed in Table 49, 3 are
considered polluted by the M.O.E. Spoils from these are assigned to
landfill projects. Canadian authorities have not yet delineated por-
tions of harbors as polluted and unpolluted through extensive sampling
programs. It is expected, however, that a large proportion of the cur-
rent Canadian polluted sediments will be reclassified to unpolluted,
with extensive sampling and analysis projects which are currently
und erway.
172
-------
One of the reasons for the probable reclassification rests in the curi-
ous discovery that the dumping of organic wastes (pulp, bark, etc.) in
the open lake, consistently improves the fishing, both commercial and
recreational, in the dump area. This is probably a reflection of the
increase in plankton and microbenthonic food supplies in the dump areas.
Table 49 shows an additional volume projected for Leigh Harbor, if pro-
posed construction is consummated. This volume of sediment is not
included in projections at this time since the project is still pending.
Statements of the D.P.W. in 1970, regarding the pollution of Canadian
harbors, are quoted from the Dredging Inventory.
"THUNDER BAY (KAM RIVER):
At present, the O.W.R.C. has stated that all dredged material
removed from that portion of the Kam River between the Westfort
Turning Basin and Saskatchewan Pool Elevator #11, is unacceptable
for open lake disposal because of high organic content and mercury
contamination. A recent local newspaper report states that the
lower extremity of the Kam is low in oxygen content and on the
verge of being polluted. On the strength of this information, it
is therefore necessary that for any future dredging in the Kam
River, that all dredged material be deposited on a suitable land
site.
SAULT STE. MARIE:
The 1,150,000 cu. yd. of sand and silt from the proposed deep
water harbour at Leigh's Bay will be contained in an enclosed berm.
The dredging will be done by hydraulic means which will cause some
turbidity but proper engineered controls will be implemented.
MICHIPICOTEN RIVER:
In front of the public wharf is a silt island which if not suffi-
ciently cleared out by the spring freshets will require dredging
to maintain access to the wharf. The properties of this silt is
not known, but it would cause considerable turbidity if dumped."
These quotations emphasize the nature of concerns of the Canadian dredg-
ing interests. Oxygen demand and turbidity (an aesthetic interest) are
the principal deficiencies in most Canadian harbors.
173
-------
Summary
1. Of 30 harbors sampled in the U.S. side of Lake Superior, 17 are
classed as polluted or partially polluted and 13 are clean. In 9
Canadian harbors 3 are polluted and 6 are clean.
2. The most commonly occurring pollutants in U.S. projects are COD,
Kjeldahl nitrogen, copper and zinc. In Canadian harbors, the pollutants
are primarily COD and Kjeldahl nitrogen.
3. Approximately 10.5 percent of the total volume of dredge spoil in
the U.S. harbors is polluted, according to predictions of the C.E.
About 12 percent is polluted, as determined in this study.
4. Some 40 percent of the Canadian dredge spoils will be polluted in
the next 10 years.
5. In the past decade, maintenance dredging removed 1,594,742 CY from
U.S. harbors in Lake Superior. This is 15 percent of the 10,611,464 CY
dredged from all Lake Superior harbors in all categories.
6. An adjusted average of new work volume for the 10-year period will
be about 425,000 CY, in the U.S. annually
7. Permit dredging in Lake Superior during the historic period of
record is 2.8 million CY or about 3 percent of the total for the same
period. Adjusted averages, based on the 10-year sample period indicate
about 191,000 CY will be removed annually.
8. Canadian maintenance is expected to average about 86,000 CY Per
year.
9. Canadian new work and private dredging in the next decade is
expected to be minimal, and thus insignificant to total volume figures.
10. Duluth-Superior dredging is predicted to be about 796,000 CY per
year (41% of U.S. total) and the Thunder Bay area of Ontario, 315,482
CY (96% of total Canadian). These 2 projects are expected to produce
the major percentage of all Lake Superior spoil volume.
174
-------
11. Confined disposal sites in Lake Superior include 3 in Canada and 4
in the U.S. Fifteen U.S. projects were initially selected by the C.E.
for their confined disposal program. However, as of July, 1974, only
Ashland, Duluth-Superior, and Keweenaw remain in that program (Table 68)
Table 68. CONFINED DISPOSAL SITES FOR PUBLIC HARBORS IN LAKE SUPERIOR
Harbor
Disposal site
completion date
Status
Ashland
Bayfield
Big Bay
Black River
Cornucopia
Duluth-Superior
Grand Marais (Minn.)
Grand Traverse
Keweenaw Waterway
Knife River
Marquette
Ontonagon
Start May 1974
Start April, 1974
new site
Fill of old slips,
225 acres. 1975(?)
Spring 1975
Trucked inland
Port Wing
Presque lie —
Saxon
Two Harbors —
Whitefish Pt.3
Kara River Operating landfill
Nipigon Operating landfill
Port Arthur (Thunder Bay) Operating landfill
(Keefer Terminal) Landfill diked
Pending litigation
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
To award contract for
1,500,000 CY capacity
Possible new coal dock
facility. See dredging
section
Dropped from program
Pending
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
Disposed by local
interests
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
Dropped from program
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
^Never selected for confined site program (PL 91-611).
175
-------
SUMMARY OF POLLUTED DREDGED QUANTITIES
As of July, 1974, there were 62 public harbors and waterways in the
C.E.'s 10-year confined disposal program (Tables 56, 58, 66 and 68).
In Lake Ontario, Oswego and Rochester are also in the confined program.
Site selection has been completed for 34 of these harbors and waterways.
Although 16 harbors are utilizing existing disposal facilities, most are
also going through site selection for the 10-year program. For 20 of
the 62 projects, site selection has not been completed, nor are there
existing disposal facilities. Among these harbors are Chicago Harbor &
River, Clinton River, Oswego, St. Joseph, and Sturgeon Bay. However,
the polluted quantity for these harbors totals only 300,000 CY annually,
which is 5 percent of the total (6.45 CY).
Data in this report indicate that there are 80 public harbors and water-
ways on the American side of the Great Lakes with polluted bottom sedi-
ments. E.P.A. bottom sediment analyses reveal that, in addition to the
62 harbors already in the confined disposal program, the following also
have polluted sediments: Algoma, Barcelona, Burns Waterway, Great Sodus,
Harrisville, Manistique, Pensaukee, and Port Austin Harbors. In addi-
tion, the following harbors in Lake Superior as of July, 1974 have been
dropped from the C.E. program: Big Bay, Black River, Cornucopia, Grand
Marais (Minn.), Grand Traverse, Knife, Marquette, Port Wing, Saxon and
Two Harbors. The total average annual volume of polluted spoil from
these 18 additional harbors is only approximately 110,000 CY. With the
exception of Burns Waterway, Great Sodus, and Marquette Harbors, these
are small, partially polluted harbors which are infrequently dredged.
The new pollution guidelines for dredged spoil currently being drafted
by the E.P.A. will probably result in the reclassification of the
pollution status of many of these smaller harbors.
Table 69 summarizes the polluted volume of average annual maintenance
and private dredged spoil to be removed from harbors and waterways in
the Great Lakes in the future.
176
-------
Table 69. FUTURE AVERAGE ANNUAL QUANTITY OF POLLUTED DREDGED SPOIL
IN THE GREAT LAKES
(cubic yards)
Number of projects
Lake
Ontario
Erie
Huron/St.
Clair
Michigan
Superior
Totals
Percent
of
total
Total
5/6a
21/5
20/10
41
30/10
117/31
Polluted
3/6
21/5
13/7
26
17/3
80/21
Unpolluted
2/0
0/0
7/3
15
13/7
37/10
Volumes of polluted
United States
330,000
4,500,000
532,400
848,200
236,883
6,447,483
86%
Canada
475,000
125,000
276,000
—
130,752
1,006,752
14%
spoil
Total
805,000
4,625,000
808,400
848,200
367,635
7,454,235
r*
American harbors on left side of slash, Canadian on right.
1. The E.P.A. and the M.O.E. have determined the sediment quality of
148 navigation projects in the Great Lakes. This study reveals that 101,
or 68 percent of the projects sampled are polluted or partially polluted.
2. It is estimated that future average annual maintenance dredging
will involve the removal of 7,454,000 cubic yards of polluted spoil.
Lake Erie, including the Detroit River, will account for about 62 per-
cent of this total.
3. Of the 26 public harbors in Lake Erie, all are polluted or partial-
ly polluted. When considering volumes, the problem of polluted dredged
spoil is basically an American one focused on Lake Erie, including the
Detroit River.
4. The pollutants most frequently exceeded in United States harbors
are volatile solids, COD, and oil and grease. In Canada, the principal
parameters exceeding the M.O.E. criteria are COD and Kjeldahl nitrogen.
177
-------
5. Based on the parameters most frequently exceeded, the principal
sources of pollutants in the United States are from industrial and muni-
cipal effluents and agricultural fields. In Canada, pollutants are
derived from lumber and paper industries, agricultural fields, as well
as industrial and municipal effluents.
6. Where a harbor is divided into an inner and outer section, such as
at Saginaw, usually the inner section is polluted whereas the outer sec-
tion is clean.
7. In the United States, the 10-year confined site program of the C.E.
(PL 91-611) involves 62 public harbors. At present, only for 34 harbors
have disposal sites firmly selected. However, the E.P.A. analyses
reveal that there are 80 U.S. public harbors and waterways in the Great
Lakes with polluted bottom sediments.
8. Problems with the disposal of polluted dredged spoil may occur at
Calumet, Chicago River and Harbor, Cleveland, Saginaw, South Haven, St.
Joseph, and Sturgeon Bay Harbors.
9. Although sampling of bottom sediments is more thorough in Canadian
navigation projects, less than one half of the harbors there have been
sampled.
10. At present, the pollution criteria concerning dredged spoil in the
United States and Canada are similar. However, the E.P.A. is currently
drafting new pollution guidelines which may broaden the criteria for
determining the eligibility of dredged spoil for open-lake disposal.
178
-------
SECTION V
DREDGING AND DISPOSAL POLICIES
UNITED STATES' POLICIES
The United States Army Corps of Engineers has been delegated the respon-
sibility of maintaining the nation's federal waterways for approximately
the last 150 years. The River and Harbor Act of 1899 authorizes the C.E.
to develop, maintain, and improve the waterways and harbors of the
United States in the interest of navigation. Since navigation may be
obstructed in those waterways, no dredging or disposal of spoil may take
place without approval by the C.E.
Non-federal interests who dredge and dispose of spoil must obtain a per-
mit from the C.E. as specified in Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act.
The initial purpose of Section 10 was to prevent obstructions to naviga-
tion, including dredging and disposal of spoil as well as construction
projects like marinas, sea walls, power lines and submarine pipelines in
navigable waters. Before approving a Section 10 dredging permit, the
C.E. has the application reviewed by concerned state and federal agen-
cies, such as state pollution control agencies, and the E.P.A. In its
review of the Section 10 permits, the E.P.A. usually recommends approval
provided that the applicant will confine the dredged spoil.
The original purpose of the River and Harbor Act concerned navigation.
However, since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act
179
-------
(NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), effects on environmental quality
have been given more attention. Section 102 of the NEPA act directs all
federal agencies to prepare statements of environmental impact on all
major actions, such as confined disposal sites, which may have a signifi-
cant impact on the quality of the human environment. The act also speci-
fied, as national policy, additional guidelines of environmental quality
and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Execu-
tive Office of the President.
Perhaps the most comprehensive policy for improving the quality of the
nation's waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control (FWPC) Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). This new law mandates a federal-
state campaign to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution by
restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integ-
rity of the nation's waters. The primary goals of the law are: (1) by
July 1, 1983, to have, wherever possible, water clean enough for swim-
ming and other recreational uses, and clean enough for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and (2) by 1985, to
have no discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. Whether "zero
discharge" can become a reality by 1985 has been seriously questioned by
the National Water Commission (19). However, the C.E. and local munici-
palities in the Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland areas are presently
assessing the problem of wastewater management (20). In southeastern
Michigan, for example, a survey is being made to identify and evaluate:
(1) different ways to collect and treat wastewater to help clean up the
streams in an eight-county study area and hence reduce the amount of
pollution entering Lakes Erie and St. Clair (Figure 5); and (2) differ-
ent uses for treated wastewater and the material removed from this waste-
water. The objectives are consistent with the goals and objectives of
the FWPC Act Amendments of 1972.
180
-------
Section 404 (a) and (b) of the FWPC Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)
authorize the C.E. to issue permits, after public notice and opportunity
for public hearings, for discharge of spoil into navigable waters at
specified disposal sites. Section 404 (c) gives the Administrator of
the E.P.A. the authority to approve such disposal sites in accordance
•with new guidelines regarding disposal of dredged materials in inland
waters. These are presently being developed by the E.P.A. in conjunc-
tion with the C.E. However, if economic stress is to be avoided, the
C.E., acting through the Chief of Engineers, may issue permits for dis-
posal in any case where the new guidelines alone would prohibit the
specification of a disposal site. This policy is reinforced by the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law
92-532). The latter authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate
those areas of the Great Lakes which have conservation, recreational,
ecological or esthetic values as marine sanctuaries.
In 1969, the C.E. recommended legislation for the construction of diked
disposal facilities for confinement of polluted spoil. This legisla-
tion, Public Law 91-611 of the River and Harbor Act, was enacted in 1970.
Section 123 of this law is unique, as it is specifically designed for
confinement of polluted spoil in a specific region, i.e., the Great
Lakes. At that time, the Great Lakes region was the only area of the
country where specific legislation had been enacted in the interest of
pollution abatement in terms of confining spoil (21) . At present, 62
federal harbors and waterways are in the confined disposal program of
the C.E. Before a confined disposal site can be constructed, the C.E.
is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to submit
an Environmental Impact Statement to the E.P.A. This policy has caused
some delays in the selection and construction of many confined disposal
sites.
181
-------
Although Section 123 (C) of Public Law 91-611 provides for the construc-
tion and financing of 10-year containment sites for disposing of pol-
luted dredged materials, it also specifies that non-federal interests:
(1) furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the
construction, operation and maintenance of the facility; and (2) contrib-
ute 25 percent of the construction costs. The 25 percent shared cost
may be waived by the C.E. if the E.P.A. determines that the municipali-
ties and industries in the drainage basin are making satisfactory prog-
ress toward improving their waste treatment facilities. At present only
11 waivers of the shared construction costs have been granted while 8
others are pending by the C.E. Cost sharing has caused delays in the
diked disposal program. Local interests, such as port commissions, are
reluctant to provide land to the C.E. for diked disposal sites if
waivers are not first granted. The Great Lakes Commission recommended to
Congress in August, 1973, that waiver requirements be deleted because of
possible economic stress in harbors such as Saginaw and Calumet (13).
Basically, Public Law 91-611 is a temporary solution to the problem of
the disposal of polluted dredged spoil. Whether open-lake disposal can
take place is determined, in part, on the state level. The governors of
the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan have
objected to open-lake disposal of polluted spoil dredged by the C.E. and
by private dredging firms (22). However, the governors of Ohio, Pennsyl-
vania and New York did not request that open-lake disposal of polluted
spoil be discontinued in the Great Lakes. In the Buffalo District, open-
lake dumping of polluted spoil is continuing at harbors where confined
disposal sites are not yet available.
During the past three years the C.E. has expanded its role in the environ-
mental field. The C.E. has recognized that coastal marshes and wetlands
constitute productive and valuable public resources. Thus, no permit
will be granted for work in wetlands unless the District Engineer, in the
182
-------
public interest, concludes that the benefits of the proposed alteration
outweigh the potential damage to the wetland resources. In addition,
permits for non-federal dredging operations require the permitee to com-
ply with the same standards as federal dredging operations with respect
to turbidity, nature and location of approved spoil disposal areas, and
other factors relating to protection of the environment.
CANADIAN POLICIES
Under terms of the British North America Act (BNA), the federal govern-
ment of Canada can legislate for the enforcement of water quality stan-
dards and control of pollution. Also, under Section 108 of the BNA Act,
transfer of dredges and authority for river and lake improvements at the
time of confederation seemed to emphasize that dredging was specifically
intended to fall under federal jurisdiction. However, with the excep-
tion of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), dredging and dispo-
sal policies are basically legislated on the provincial level. The
Ontario Water Resources Act, ammended in 1972, is administered by the
Ministry of the Environment of Ontario (formerly the Ontario Water
Resources Commission) and prohibits the discharge of any material, which
may impair water quality, into or near any lake, stream, or other water
body.
Under the Environmental Protection Act of 1971, the discharge of any con-
taminant into the natural environment in an amount, concentration, or
level in excess of that prescribed by regulations is prohibited. These
regulations in the case of dredging are the Water Quality Guidelines for
the Review of Proposed Dredging and Spoils Disposal Operation and are
specified in Section IV. The Environmental Protection Act of 1971 also
concerns disposal of dredged spoil. The Ministry of Environment (M.O.E.)
prohibits spoil disposal on land or in water without a certificate of
approval or a provisional certificate of approval. Both of these
183
-------
instruments of legislation do not use explicit terms such as dredged
spoil or dredgings. This implies that dredged spoil policies have not
reached, until recently, the level of concern as in the United States.
Based upon the present Canadian policies, quality of the environment and
associated ecosystems are of primary concern. Economic stress on naviga-
tion and regional commerce, or its consequences, are not emphasized.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), R.S.C., 1970, is a federal
statute instituted in October, 1969, and parallels the function of
Section 10 of the United States' River and Harbor Act of 1899. It is
designed to protect the public right to navigation by prohibiting the
modification of navigable waters without the approval of the Ministry of
Transport (M.O.T.). Thus, the NWPA protects navigation, not the environ-
ment. When a dredging permit is secured, additional approval must be
obtained from the provincial M.O.E. and other interested provincial or
municipal agencies. Although 'dredging' is not specified as such, one
may presume that under Section 3, Part I, the term 'work,' defined as
"any dumping of fill or excavation of materials from the bed of a navi-
gable water," includes dredging. The M.O.E, does not issue permits, but
it advises applicants as to what is considered acceptable within the
terms of the Ontario Water Resources Act.
The federal government has delegated the administration of the federal
Fisheries Act (Section 91 (12) of the BNA Act) to Ontario and several
other provinces. Within this act, a general provision states that no
person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of
any type in water frequented by fish. Deleterious substance, in this
case, may conceivably include polluted and unpolluted dredged spoil.
Ancillary policies to the Canadian legislation include:
a. The Beds of Navigable Waters Act
b. Public Lands Act
c. The Conservation Authorities Act
d. The Beach Protection Act
e. Public Health Act
184
-------
In an unpublished report, John MacLatchy of Environment Canada presented
the following overview:
"It is important to note that in the above mentioned provincial
Acts there is no attempt to control the dredging itself, but
rather the removal and disposal of the dredged material as it is
related to water pollution and land use which are clearly matters
of provincial jurisdiction. None of these statutes specifically
refer to dredging, but rather refer to the disposal of any
material regardless of its origin or the removal of material from
beaches." (23).
It may be concluded that a lack of a single group of laws and regula-
tions exists concerning Canadian dredging policies per se. However,
many, if not all of the acts cited above, reveal that there are policies
to control environmental effects of dredging and disposal in harbors and
navigable waterways.
CANADIAN-AMERICAN POLICIES
In 1970 the International Joint Commission voiced concern over the grave
deterioration of water quality on both sides of the international bound-
ary (24). An attempt to establish a unified effort to prevent further
deterioration of water quality in the Great Lakes led, in 1972, to the
Agreement between the United States of American and Canada on Great
Lakes Water Quality. Annex 6, "Identification and Disposal of Polluted
Dredged Spoil," of this agreement specifically draws attention to dredg-
ing activities in the Great Lakes. A United States-Canadian Task Force
was established to review the existing dredging practices, including
laws and regulations. This group has the specific objectives of develop-
ing compatible criteria for the characterization of polluted dredged
spoil and recommending compatible programs governing the disposal of pol-
luted spoil in open water. One of the significant principles upon which
185
-------
the above recommendations are to be based is, "as soon as practicable,
the disposal of polluted dredged spoil in open water should be carried
out in a manner consistent with the achievement of the water quality
objectives, and should be phased out." (25). As an interim measure,
polluted spoil is to be disposed in confined areas if they are avail-
able. The U.S. Army C.E. and the D.P.W. of Canada must continue efforts
to develop additional sites for confined disposal during this interim.
In accordance with Public Law 91-611, Section 123, the C.E. has begun to
implement this action (see Section IV of this report).
This agreement is unique in that it was designed for a specified drain-
age basin (the Great Lakes) on an international boundary and specifi-
cally concentrates on the identification of polluted spoil within that
basin.
DISCUSSION
In Canada, dredging of Great Lakes' projects is contracted to private
firms (public tenders) which, in some instances, accounts for high dredg-
ing costs. It has been estimated by the D.P.W. that contract dredging
is at least 42 percent more expensive than dredging performed by depart-
mentally owned plants (26). if the C.E. were to contract all their main-
tenance dredging projects to private firms, costs could realistically
triple. Such a policy may lead to a greater selectivity and priority of
dredging.
Recently, the M.O.T. has assumed more of the dredging responsibility.
Prior to the NWPA, private dredging was regulated by the D.P.W. However,
this authority and the administration of public harbors have been trans-
ferred to the M.O.T. Also, if a harbor commission in Canada plans any
new work dredging projects, a permit must be secured from the M.O.T, and
other concerned agencies including the Ministry of Natural Resources and
the M.O.E. A unique facet of the Canadian dredging regulations is a
186
-------
'marina policy' developed in 1965 to assist in non-federal marina
development (27). Under this policy the D.P.W. will dredge and provide
sea walls and jetties for a private marina. Such marine work, however,
is limited to the value of new construction being undertaken by the
developer to serve the boating public. Therefore, in a sense the
federal government will subsidize industries directly related to marine
activity. Although the pollution guidelines in Canada are as stringent
as those of the E.P.A., dredging and disposal policies in general reveal
some degree of flexibility and encourage most dredging activity to be
resourceful. Spoil may be deposited on private land with few restric-
tions. In many harbor areas, particularly along the lower Great Lakes,
land reclamation projects, parks, and civic centers are constructed with
dredged spoil. In Toronto Harbor, for example, locally derived spoil is
being utilized for the construction of beaches, berms, and an aquatic
park (28). Moreover, unpolluted materials in Toronto Harbor are used to
form dikes into which polluted dredgings are placed.
In the United States such flexibility is less evident. Private dredging
is not subsidized nor is disposal by federal plants allowed on private
land unless the owner provides retaining dikes and pump-out facilities.
Based on Public Law 91-611 the confined disposal sites are to be con-
structed on public land or land purchased by the government. Normally
25 percent of the construction costs of the confined site is to be paid
by the local political entities. However, if the local municipalities
and industries are developing or using pollutant elimination systems in
accordance with Public Law 92-500, then they are considered in com-
pliance with current water quality standards and a waiver may be
obtained.
Perhaps the most pressing problem with the confined disposal program in
the United States is the high capital costs of the construction and land
availability for these sites. Although construction costs of a confined
187
-------
disposal site range from 4 to 12 million dollars, the cost per cubic
yard may be relatively low for a large site. The C.E. has determined
that confinement of polluted dredged spoil from the 35 federal harbors
having the highest annual maintenance dredging requirements may increase
the cost by 3.5 times (1). Vacant land in harbor areas is extremely
limited, particularly in industrialized projects where maintenance dredg-
ing volumes are high. In Canada, this problem has not reached a critical
stage partly because maintenance dredging volumes in major projects such
as Toronto and Hamilton are smaller. In the U.S. the policy for the con-
finement of polluted dredged spoil is ambitious; however, implementation
is physically difficult and economically very costly.
Another new development which may affect spoil disposal in the near
future in the United States is the new guidelines for dredged materials
currently being drafted by the E.P.A. and reviewed by the C.E. (22). As
discussed elsewhere, the E.P.A. pollution criteria have received construc-
tive criticism (21). Based on the 5th draft of these new guidelines,
which are to be finalized in 1975, the list of pollution parameters which
determine the eligibility of dredged spoil for disposal in open waters of
the Great Lakes will be expanded beyond the 7 mandatory parameters.
These will include a wide range of pollutants such as insecticides, bac-
terial quality and toxic substances. A 'shake' or standard Elutriate
Test will also be introduced to distinguish between contaminants in the
dredged spoil and background pollutants occurring naturally in the lake
waters. The draft guidelines specify that each harbor is to be consid-
ered individually and more completely. Sampling schedules have been pre-
pared through 1976. All sampling analyses will be more complete in that
subjective as well as chemical testing will be done on all samples taken.
The draft guidelines also indicate that less stress will be placed on
the pollution capability of the dredged sediments per se and more empha-
sis on the potential impact of the spoil on the disposal area. The
188
-------
following areas are not to be selected as sites for the diked proposal
facilities:
a. Municipal water supply and intake areas
b. Shellfish beds and fishing areas, to include spawning and
breeding areas
c. Wildlife areas
d. Recreational areas
Since 1970 a decline in maintenance dredging has occurred in public and
private harbors of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron due to a lack of dis-
posal sites for the confinement of polluted spoil.
The volume of dredged spoil and industrial waste such as fly ash dis-
posed in wetlands of the Great Lakes is not known. Since wetlands are
recognized as beneficial from many points of view, an assessment of the
impact of private dredging and industrial disposal in such areas is
recommended. For example, from Toledo Harbor northward to Lake St.
Glair (Figure 5), C.E. confined disposal facilities are in use or being
planned. The C.E. has designed offshore diked disposal areas for Toledo
and for the Detroit and Rouge Rivers to accommodate dredgings from
federal projects. However, power plants and industries are continuing
to dispose industrial wastes and dredgings in limited onshore wetlands.
Spoil dredged from private harbors and adjacent to private docks in pub-
lic harbors in the United States will continue to be confined on the per-
mittee's own land or in alternate ways approved by the C.E. It is antic-
ipated that in the future the C.E. will regulate private dredging opera-
tions more closely. Proposed Change 6 of the 1899 River and Harbor Act
requires that the C.E. consider non-federal activities, including pri-
vate dredging, in the planning and maintenance of federal projects. In
addition, the permit applicant is to comply with the following: (1) the
FWPC Amendments of 1972; (2) the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctua-
ries Act of 1972; and (3) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Pub-
lic Law 92-583). Although future private dredging volumes in Lakes Erie,
Michigan and Ontario are expected to remain relatively high, some
189
-------
decrease in dredging may result as waste treatment facilities reduce
municipal and industrial deposition.
The C.E., in their pilot study of dredging, reported that the effects of
open-lake disposal of dredged material had not been researched (1). At
present the effect of open-lake disposal of dredged spoil on water qual-
ity is still in a research phase (29). Moreover, the C.E. concluded
that in the future, at some of the harbors with low maintenance dredging
requirements, small quantities of moderately polluted spoil may be dis-
posed in the open lake (1). Although few confined disposal sites are
available, most large volume projects such as Toledo and Buffalo do have
confined facilities. If economic stress is to be avoided while permit-
ting maintenance dredging, then open-lake disposal of small volumes of
lightly polluted spoil could be a temporary solution to the problem of
confining polluted dredged spoil. In emergency situations small volumes
could be trucked to nearly landfill areas or confined behind earthen
dikes.
190
-------
SECTION VI
FACTORS RELATED TO DREDGING
INTRODUCTION
Dredging and disposal of sediments from Great Lakes harbors are related
to physical and economic activities. In this section sources of dredged
material, lake levels, and future economic changes in the Great Lakes
Basin are briefly discussed and their association with Great Lakes dredg-
ing activity examined.
SOURCES OF DREDGED MATERIAL
Dredging is required to remove sediments which have accumulated in navi-
gation channels in Great Lakes' harbors and waterways. The three main
sources of the dredged sediments are: (1) stream sedimentation; (2) lit-
toral drift; and (3) industrial and municipal discharges. The sources
of sediments vary from harbor to harbor and depend upon harbor site and
design. In most instances the sediments are unconsolidated and can be
removed with a hydraulic or mechanical dredge. Occasionally bedrock is
encountered (Class A material in Canada) such as in the Amherstburg
Channel in the Detroit River. Harbors such as Saginaw and Green Bay
receive large quantities of sediment from the drainage basin. Other
projects, such as Ashtabula and Hamilton, are located on the lake front
where sediments are transported by longshore currents which introduce
sediment into the harbors. Here the detritus is derived directly from
191
-------
the nearshore area and is usually comprised of sand-sized particles. A
third source of harbor sediments is from industrial and municipal efflu-
ents as noted in Buffalo and Cleveland Harbors.
Although there is a variety of glacial drift and bedrock in the Great
Lakes region, sediment transport by streams tributary to the lakes is
generally low. The surface geology of the Great Lakes region is largely
composed of unconsolidated glacial deposits. However, in much of
Ontario the glacial drift is thin or absent exposing the ancient Precam-
brian Shield. Stream concentrations of suspended sediments, in the
Great Lakes region, are usually less than 270 parts per million. A nota-
ble exception is the Maumee River basin where concentrations ranging
between 270 and 1900 parts per million have been determined (30). By
comparison, in the American southwest suspended load concentrations are
often in excess of 1900 parts per million. As a whole, the Great Lakes
basin contributes only 0.4 percent of the nation's total sediment volume
to the oceans (31) .
Factors other than sediment or soil composition will influence the amount
of sediment contributed by streams to the lakes. Table 70 illustrates
land use in the Great Lakes basin. As indicated, almost one half of the
basin is characterized by forested land which, in part, accounts for the
Table 70. LAND USE IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN (31)
(percent)
Land use Percent of area
Forest 47.4
Agriculture 38.4
Urban 8.4
Other 5.8
192
-------
low erosion rates, hence low sediment yields of streams therein. The
most significant source of sediment for the basin is the cultivated
agricultural land (Table 71).
Table 71. ESTIMATED SEDIMENT SOURCES FOR THE GREAT LAKES BASIN (31)
(Percent)
Percent of Total
Sources Sediments
Agricultural land sheet erosion 37
Geologic erosion 30
Range and forest 10
Construction sites, roadsides, and 10
development sites
Streamland, flood basin erosion 8
Gully erosion 5
The lack of sediment transport into the Great Lakes by tributary streams
is reflected in the morphology of many coastal areas of the basin.
Normally where great volumes of sediment are introduced to a coastal
zone, deltas, coastal plains, and extensive marshlands characterize the
coast. With few exceptions, considering the length of the Great Lakes'
shoreline, such features are uncommon. Thus, in part, due to the low
sedimentation rates of streams tributary to the Great Lakes, dredging
volumes are relatively low.
Rivers contribute sediments to river mouth harbors. Although stream
data are available for many rivers in the Great Lakes region, it is dif-
ficult to equate stream sediment loads to maintenance dredging volumes.
In Table 72, pertaining to river mouth harbors, estimated stream loads
derived from upland sources in tons per year and mean annual maintenance
193
-------
Table 72. A COMPARISON OF RIVER SEDIMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING
IN SELECTED PROJECTS (7, 50)
Project
Lake Superior
Ashland
Duluth/ Superior
Ontonagon
Lake Michigan
Manistee
Manistique
Manitowoc
Menominee
Oconto
Racine
St. Joseph
Lake Huron
Alpena
Au Sable
Clinton R.
Saginaw
Lake Erie
Buffalo
Cleveland
Fairport
Lorain
Monroe
Port Clinton
Toledo
Lake Ontario
Oswego
Rochester
Stream load
(tons/yr)
10,240
14,410
5,130
26,800
3,250
44,000
26,000
33,000
34,969
255,000
9,540
7,800
48,000
135,800
23,000
200,456
22,500
67,100
118,800
89,000
1,179,000
136,500
76,100
C.E. maintenance
dredging
(cubic yards)
2,000
120,000
30,000
50,000
10,000
40,000
8,000
4,000
30,000
87,000
10,000
30,000
30,000
500,000
600,000
1,220,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
10,000
1,250,000
80,000
360,000
Conversion
1 CY=0.675 tons
1,350
81,000
20,250
33,750
6,750
27,000
5,400
2,700
20,250
58,725
6,750
20,250
20,250
337,500
405,000
823,500
270,000
202,500
135,000
6,750
843,750
54,000
243,000
2,566,395
5,371,000
3,625,425
194
-------
dredging volumes (1961-1970) are compared. If it is assumed that a dry
weight of sediment averages 50 pounds per cubic foot (32), then the vol-
ume of sediment can be converted to tons. As illustrated in Table 72,
some general compatibility between sediment yield and average annual
maintenance dredging is evident, particularly in harbors where dredging
volumes and sediment yields are low (i.e., Manistee and Racine). How-
ever discrepancies are equally obvious, especially in Lake Ontario and
Lake Erie where, as in Buffalo, Lorain, and Rochester Harbors, average
annual maintenance dredging volumes greatly exceed the annual sediment
load. An explanation, recognized by the Great Lakes Basin Commission,
is that the assumed density of the dredged material could be too high
(32). Another possibility is that sediments derived from littoral drift
accumulate in outer harbors and approach channels (i.e., Cleveland,
Oswego). Perhaps more important, in some river mouth harbors, such as
Cleveland and Buffalo, sediment sources from industrial and municipal
effluent may be considerable. Thus, in many river mouth harbors sedi-
ment sources other than or in addition to stream transport are signifi-
cant. Also, based on data in Table 72, open-lake disposal of dredged
spoil may in some areas significantly accelerate sedimentation in the
Great Lakes Basin. Prior to the turn of the century, many harbors were
located in estuaries a short distance from the lake. However, through
decades of expansion, harbor facilities have expanded upriver as well as
along the coast. A number of commercial harbors in the Great Lakes
today have this dual characteristic (e.g., Buffalo, Cleveland, and
Thunder Bay). Thus, the sediment sources may be derived from stream
deposition and littoral transport as well.
Harbors, such as Buffalo, are located on the lake front where sediments
are transported by longshore processes. Although a lake-front harbor
with its jetty and breakwater system may be well designed, sediments may
accumulate near the outer harbor structures. Since the detrital
material is derived directly from the nearshore environment, in most
195
-------
instances the sediment is composed of sand-size particles. In some
instances the sediment is not polluted and can be used for beach nourish-
ment. In harbors on the east coast of Lake Michigan, littoral drift
accounts for most of the maintenance dredging volumes which are extracted
from these projects. Normally, sand bars will form adjacent to the jet-
ties as the current velocities decrease in these areas.
As indicated in Table 73, the annual quantity of littoral drift gener-
ally exceeds the average annual maintenance dredging volume in the
harbors. Differences between the littoral transport rate and the main-
tenance dredging may occur for a number of reasons. For example, at
Muskegon Harbor the breakwater is relatively new, therefore sediment is
being trapped in the lee of the structure and little material is bypass-
ing the breakwater. Research is required to quantitatively relate the
observed alongshore sediment transport to the theoretical energy condi-
tions offshore. However, on exposed coasts where lake front harbors are
located, the volume of sediments accumulating in the outer harbors is
probably a function of the magnitude and direction of littoral drift.
A significant source of dredged material is industrial and municipal
wastes discharged and settling in navigable waterways. Table 74 repre-
sents total and suspended solids from selected harbors in Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario. Some of the suspended solids are adsorbed onto the sus-
pended load in the rivers and are then deposited as fluvial sediments
which must eventually be dredged. At Cleveland, during dredging opera-
tions in 1966 and 1967, 660,000 tons of dry solids were removed which
included 17,600 tons of oil and grease (24). The suspended sediment
load of the Cuyahoga River south of Cleveland is about 200,000 tons
annually, however annual maintenance dredging volumes therein exceed
800,000 CY. Materials such as flue dust and fly ash can contribute sig-
nificantly to the dredging volumes in highly industrialized harbors. At
Thunder Bay, Ontario, it has been estimated that 85 percent of the
196
-------
Table 73. COMPARISON OF LITTORAL DRIFT AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING (50)
(cubic yards)
Public harbor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Grand Haven
Frankfurt
Grand Marais, MI
Hammond Bay
Harbor Beach
Lake Huron
Harrisville
Holland
Leland
Ludington
Manistee
Muskegon
Pentwater
Port Sanilac
South Haven
St. Joseph
White Lake
Annual quantity Average annual
of littoral maintenance dredging
drift volume (mean 1963-1972)
63,000-70,000
60,000
60,000
7,500
60,000
10,000
100,000
20,000-40,000
81,500
75,000
100,000
90,000
40,000-50,000
45,000-50,000
110,000
48,000
127,553
23,114
—
—
22,825
600
80,000
4,448
26,549
32,390
45,689
43,085
7,670
42,438
57,409
23,482
Totals
approximately 1,072,500
547,252
197
-------
Table 74. TOTAL AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN SELECTED PROJECTS (24, 55)
(tons)
vo
oo
Project
Detroit River
Rouge River
Monroe
Toledo
Port Clinton
Sandusky
Lorain
Cleveland
Fairport
Buffalo/Tonawanda
Buffalo River
Vermilion
Rochester
Oswego
Total
solids
30,600,000
3,560
95,700
3,400,000
114,400
600,000
81,000
509,000
—
—
434,000
90,000
1,050,000
3,540,000
Suspended
solids
1,600,000
433
4,700
2,000,000
27,400
150,000
15,000
89,000
—
—
74,000
17,000
318,000
334,000
Annual maintenance
dredging (CY)
800,000
300,000
200,000
1,250,000
10,000
600,000
300,000
1,220,000
400,000
600,000
as above
500
360,000
80,000
Conversion
1 CY=0.675 tons
540,000
202,500
135,000
135,000
6,750
405,000
202,500
823,000
270,000
405,000
—
338
243,000
54,000
-------
material dredged from the Kam River and its turning basin is fine wood
pulp from local paper plants. At Calumet Harbor perhaps as much as 90
percent of the spoil is due to industrial sedimentation. Dredging rates
in the lower Rouge River are far greater than estimated erosion and
delivery rates would indicate (32). A more detailed study at Buffalo
illustrated that 13 percent of the 1967 dredging activity represented
solids such as oil and grease (33). A small decrease in permit dredging,
as in Calumet and Indiana Harbors, may result from a reduction of indus-
trial sedimentation by large private industries such as Youngstown Sheet
and Tube and Inland Steel Company.
In addition, a considerable amount of dredging in many harbor projects
is the result of slumping or sloughing which occurs naturally or due to
propeller wash (wheeling) of a vessel. This is particularly evident at
bends or meanders of rivers. Another locally significant source of sedi-
ments in dredged channels is ice shoving or rafting associated with
storms or onshore winds particularly on the south shore of Lake Superior.
Drifting of sand by wind waves on exposed Lake Michigan beaches into
jetty systems is, in part, responsible for the occurrence of sand bars
inside the jetty systems. Also, as a vessel increases speed, the stern
settles deeper in the water (squatting) which increases turbulence and
sediment transport in the navigation channels. This acceleration of
sedimentation due to vessel traffic is noteworthy in waterways such as
Lake St. Glair. Thus, the dredging frequency of a given harbor may be
controlled by natural and man-induced sedimentation. The sources of
sediments are numerous, and are not solely limited to natural river and
marine deposition.
Areas of Sedimentation Within a Harbor
Although each harbor is unique and the areas of sediment deposition vary,
some generalizations may be made. Most large, commercial harbors on the
199
-------
Great Lakes may be subdivided into two sections. The outer harbor
extends from the shoreline lakeward and is protected by breakwaters.
Landward of the shoreline is the inner portion of the harbor which may
extend several miles upriver. Racine Harbor is an example of such a
river-mouth and lake-front harbor. Here, the outer harbor is enclosed
by a permanent breakwater extending from the shoreline into Lake
Michigan. The outer harbor is maintained at project depth of 21 to 23
feet. The inner harbor extends from the shoreline upriver for approxi-
mately 1.5 miles, and has a project depth of 19 feet.
Before and after a project is dredged by the C.E., soundings are made
and corrected to the low water datum. By comparing pre-dredging and
post-dredging sounding charts, the areas of submarine deposition and
erosion may be determined. Figure 19 is such a contour map illustrating
areas of sediment accumulation and deposition in Racine Harbor. It is
based on soundings made in June, 1968, immediately after the harbor was
dredged, and in April, 1973. During this interval the harbor was not
dredged, thus the contours represent changes in sediment distribution
and sediment accumulation over a five-year period.
Figure 20 are cross sections taken along selected traverses in Racine
Harbor. Although some erosion has occurred in the outer harbor, the
prevalence of sedimentation is clearly evident. Most of the sedimenta-
tion occurs in upper and lower ends of the project. Upriver, cross sec-
tions A and B reveal that 2 to 3 feet of detritus has accumulated in 5
years. The principal sources of these deposits are erosion from the
drainage basin and municipal wastes. Additional sources of detritus for
the dredged channel are erosion and slumping of the channel walls due to
wheeling and fluvial transport processes. This is most evident in mean-
ders of the Root River. On the map, east of Cross Section C (Fig. 20)
is a tongue of sediment extending downstream. Sedimentation occurs when
the river flow joins a large body of water, causing a sudden decrease in
the velocity of the river (34( 35).
200
-------
rw
O
Area of Deposition
V—*~ Area of Erosion
„ **-x' Area of NO Change
Figure 19. AREAS Of SEDIMENTATION IN RACINE HARBOR, WISCONSIN
-------
Ni
O
9
10
EH
w
w
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
15 .
EH
W
W
CROSS SECTION A
20
22
8 „
17 ^
20
CROSS SECTION B
W
W
25
27
CROSS SECTION D
100 200
IN FEET
300
LJ SHOALING
EROSION
12-
EH
W
w
20
23
20 .
EH
W H
W
25 .
26
\
CROSS SECTION C
CROSS SECTION E
Figure 20. SELECTED CROSS SECTIONS OF THE ROOT RIVER AT RACINE, WISCONSIN
-------
Thus, the principal source of this sediment is the Root River. The con-
tours immediately east of the jetty system indicate the influence of the
littoral current causing a southerly migration of the channel. The
shift of the channel is clearly evident in cross section D. In this
area the sediment source is principally the littoral current flowing
from north to south. In such areas sediment accumulation is a constant
problem.
Table 75 summarizes the sedimentation in Racine Harbor. As noted by the
dredging frequencies, the area which must be constantly maintained is in
the vicinity of the jetties. Although low sedimentation in the inner
harbor due to stream transport results in considerable dredging quanti-
ties , small volumes must frequently be dredged from the approach
channels.
Table 75. SEDIMENTATION IN RACINE HARBOR, 1968-1973
Sediment area
Dredging
Source of Accumulation frequency,
sediment in feet 1958-73
Upriver
River mouth
Industrial wastes
Slumping
Geologic erosion
River detritus
natural and
municipal
2 to 3
Harbor
entrance
Littoral zone
Some fluvial and
municipal
Variable,
1 to 4
8
Summary
In summary, average annual maintenance dredging volumes from river-mouth
harbors are not a simple function of sedimentation by streams therein.
203
-------
Using Racine Harbor, Wisconsin, as an example, it has been demonstrated
that there are three main areas of sediment deposition. Sedimentation
occurs in the upstream section of the harbor at the head of navigation
where sediments transported as river bedload accumulate in the dredged
channels. Like a tongue extending downstream toward the lake front,
sediments are also deposited throughout the inner harbor, including the
turning basin. Because deposition is most conspicuous on the outside of
meander bends in the river, the source of these sediments is probably
from suspended river load. Finally, the third area of sedimentation is
in the outer harbor and approach channels where littoral drift results
in continual sediment bypassing of the breakwater and/or jetty system.
As the entire harbor is polluted, industrial and municipal sedimentation
probably occurs throughout the project.
In many of the commercial public harbors of the Great Lakes, particu-
larly where there are industrial-urban complexes adjacent to the harbor,
man-induced sedimentation by industrial and municipal wastes may signifi-
cantly increase maintenance dredging. Although the sediments in the
Great Lakes have a certain level of 'background' pollution and some
'natural' pollution is caused by tree leaves and marsh drainage, pollu-
tion of inner harbor areas by industrial and municipal discharges
appears to be much more important. As along the east coast of Lake
Michigan, sediment transport by beach drift and longshore currents cause
considerable deposition in the outer harbor areas. Because these sandy
sediments are relatively clean, the C.E. has utilized some of this spoil
for nourishing eroding beaches at Holland, Muskegon, Michigan City, and
Ontonagon. Using the pre-dredging and post-dredging sounding charts, it
is possible to document the areas of sedimentation for each harbor. In
addition, if sediment abatement programs are to be successfully imple-
mented to reduce the volume of future maintenance dredging, then the
various sources of dredged sediments must first be determined. Sediment
abatement programs directed toward the reduction of natural stream
204
-------
sedimentation, industrial-municipal discharges, and interruption of
littoral drift by public harbor structures may significantly decrease
the maintenance dredging requirements of many harbors.
LAKE LEVELS AND DREDGING VOLUMES
The historical records of annual dredging in each of the Great Lakes
indicate that the total quantity of dredged spoil varies considerably
from year to year. In an attempt to explain part of this variation, the
effect of lake levels on the historical dredging volumes was investi-
gated. It is hypothesized that an inverse relationship exists between
mean annual lake level and the total quantity of maintenance and private
spoil dredged annually in each lake. New work or capital dredging quan-
tities were excluded from the analysis. Maintenance dredging depths in
C.E. and D.P.W. projects are measured from the low water datum for each
lake referred to mean water level at Father Point, Quebec (Table 76). In
addition, the C.E. allows 1 to 2 feet of subgrade, whereas in Canada one
foot of overage is common.
Table 76. DATUMS FOR THE GREAT LAKES (7)
(feet)
Lake Elevation (low water datum)
Ontario 242.8
Erie 568.6
Huron-Michigan 576.8
Superior 600.0
To determine whether or not annual maintenance and private dredging quan-
tities are associated with varying lake levels, a correlation analysis,
205
-------
using the Pearson-Product Moment formula, was tested on the two varia-
bles. Except for Lakes Erie and Ontario, the data covered the period
1940 to 1970. Lake level stations included Oswego, Cleveland, Harbor
Beach, Calumet, and Marquette. Lake level data are by calendar year,
whereas dredging data is reported by fiscal year. The C.E. fiscal year
begins July 1st, while the Canadian fiscal year begins April 1st. This
factor must be entered into any correlation analysis. Dredging may be
started in April or July and be completed and reported in May or June of
the following calendar year.
In Table 77, the simple correlation coefficients are presented by lake.
For each lake, the analysis yields an inverse relationship between
annual maintenance and private dredging volumes with mean annual lake
level. The correlation coefficient exceeds -0.5 only in Lakes Huron and
Michigan, indicating a strong relationship where the amplitude of lake
level fluctuation is high. When the dredging volumes are lagged one
year behind lake levels, then the correlations are slightly strengthened,
as compared to direct annual correlation. This reflects the fiscal year
Table 77. CORRELATION BETWEEN LAKE LEVELS AND MAINTENANCE/PRIVATE
DREDGING VOLUMES, 1940-1970, IN THE GREAT LAKES
Lake
Erie3
Superior
Ontario3
Huron
Michigan
Correlation
Direct annual
correlation
-0.1070
-0.1134
-0.3208
-0.5192
-0.5845
coefficients
One-year
lag
-0.3659
-0.2569
-0.3329
-0.6265
-0.6400
Maximum range
of lake level
>.97 feet
0.90
3.52
3,85
3.88
Dredging volume data only 1951-1970.
206
-------
data lag and the delay between the time of scheduling and funding of a
project and the actual completion of the dredging. Using the one-year
lag, the improvement in correlation is most apparent in Lake Erie. In
Lake Erie, priority appears to be given to maintenance dredging of the
large commercial harbors during periods of low lake levels.
During periods of low lake levels, as in the middle 1960's, groundings
are more frequent, especially in the spring. In response to complaints
of groundings, the C.E. and the D.P.W. strictly maintain all commercial
public harbors at their project depths including subgrade. At such
times the C.E. usually engages more contract dredgers to insure that the
harbors and waterways are free of impassable shoals. Conversely, when
lake levels are above normal, as during the early 1970's, maintenance
dredging operations may be postponed temporarily. For example, Chicago
Harbor and River were last dredged in fiscal year 1967. Since then some
shoaling has occurred, but the higher than average lake level has pro-
vided sufficient draft for most vessel traffic.
An analysis of the Great Lakes hydrographs reveals that lake levels
oscillate (36). Long term oscillations are recognized by the C.E. and
G.L.B.C. (37, 7), but cannot be forecasted with sufficient accuracy to
assist with dredge planning. The C.E. and the D.P.W. program their oper-
ations on the basis of periodic sounding surveillance of all project
harbors.
Basically, the variations in lake levels can be classified as follows
(37):
1. Long term periodic cycles.
2. Seasonal fluctuations.
3. Short term oscillations.
As demonstrated by Liu (38), a persistent oscillation for all the lakes
is an 8 year cycle. Climatic variations appear to control these long
term periodic cycles (8). The effect is regional, in that the lakes
appear to oscillate in phase. This long term oscillation influences
207
-------
maintenance dredging when extreme lake levels are reached. Seasonal
precipitation produces high lake levels in the summer and low lake
levels in winter and early spring as a result of the Great Lakes water
budget (39), The small range of seasonal fluctuations in lake levels
and occasional vessel groundings in the spring do not significantly
effect dredge planning. Short term oscillations, due to local storms,
seiches, ice jams and prevailing winds bear no relationship to dredge
volumes. These factors primarily influence local sailing schedules,
docking and undocking, and piloting functions.
Future long term lake level changes are not applied, in this study, in
establishing predictions of future average annual maintenance and pri-
vate dredging volumes. At the present, the C.E. and the U.S. Lake
Survey, using water balance equations, predict lake levels for only 6
months in advance. Nevertheless, a general relationship between future
long term lake cycles and future maintenance dredging can be suggested.
If lake levels oscillate on an 8-year cycle, and a peak in the present
high lake level period is attained in 1974, then low levels can be antic-
ipated in 1978-1979. This low water period may result in somewhat
higher than average dredging volumes in 1979-1980, applying the lag fac-
tors. Prior to that time, maintenance and private dredging volumes may be
below the projection of this report. In some polluted harbors, mainte-
nance dredging may be postponed until confined disposal sites or other
acceptable means of disposal are developed.
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND FUTURE DREDGING VOLUMES
The purpose of this subsection is to discuss some general economic
aspects in relation to dredging volumes in the next decade. Particu-
larly important in this regard are: (1) factors which may increase or
decrease future dredging quantities; and (2) rapidly increasing dredging
costs, especially costs of dredging operations and confinement of
polluted spoil.
208
-------
Historical dredging data presented in this report reveal that mainte-
nance and private dredging volumes are slightly increasing, while the
new work dredging quantity varies greatly over the years (Table 78).
The increase in maintenance and private dredging, including the pro-
jected figure, is probably due to widening and deepening of navigation
channels to accommodate vessels with deeper drafts. During the 1960*s
the major commercial harbors, connecting channels, and turning basins
were widened and deepened to meet the 27-foot maximum draft requirement
of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Although new work dredging may cause some
increase in maintenance dredging, the new work associated with the Sea-
way system was not accompanied by a sharp rise in maintenance dredging.
This is because most of the new work dredging involved deepening of
existing harbors and connecting channels as well as the construction of
locks. Apparently, then, the rate of shoaling in the artificial chan-
nels due to sedimentation is relatively constant and is not dramatically
affected by increased depths.
Table 78. DREDGING TRENDS IN THE GREAT LAKES, 1951-1983
(millions cubic yards)
Average annual Average annual
maintenance and new work
Period private dredging dredging Total
1951-1960
1961-1970
1973-1983
9.17
10.82
11.45
1.79
9.74
4.11
10.96
20.56
15.56
The decrease in the number of new work projects scheduled through 1979
suggests that a temporary economic plateau may have been reached in the
Great Lakes. Moreover, most of the scheduled new work is designed to
accommodate the boating public as several new recreational harbors with
12 to 14 foot drafts are anticipated. Conversely, a projected increase
209
-------
in bulk traffic from 188 million tons in 1973 to 276 million tons by
1995 (40) should create some demand for new harbor facilities, i.e.,
docks, slips and berthing areas. In addition, in 1973 the first south-
bound movements of coal from the Rocky Mountain region occurred in the
Great Lakes. A few declining harbors such as Michigan City may
actually be revitalized by new coal imports or by increased activity in
bulk and general cargo movements. However, these new developments are
not yet reflected in the future new work projects.
To handle the increase in bulk shipments of iron ore, limestone, coal,
and to some extent, grain, Great Lakes vessels of longer length, greater
beam and increased draft are being constructed (41). Since 1970, two
1,000-foot bulk carriers with beams exceeding 100 feet have appeared on
the Great Lakes. Several more of these large vessels are in the plan-
ning stage. Even though they cannot be loaded to full capacity due to
the 27-foot draft limit of the Seaway, these vessels transport about
twice the cargo of conventional lake carriers. Many older ships have
also been lengthened to the 800-foot category. To achieve economies of
scale, the trend in the United States toward larger carriers will prob-
ably continue during the next decade, resulting in record bulk cargo
volumes but fewer ship transits.
With regard to the effect on future maintenance dredging, the longer
vessels with broader beams may cause increased turbulence and sloughing
in approach channels, as in Green Bay and Saginaw Harbors. Bow
thrusters will permit the vessels to turn essentially in their own
length, thus turning basins will not have to be enlarged. However, to
avoid grounding of such large carriers, especially due to squatting, con-
necting and approach channels will have to be dredged to maximum project
depth plus subgrade at all times. Therefore, as more of these large
carriers are deployed, maintenance dredging requirements in the connect-
ing channels and major commercial harbors may slightly increase, espe-
cially during low-water periods.
210
-------
An increase in the draft of the Seaway system may be limited by cost
constraints. As estimated by the U.S. Department of Transport in 1968,
the cost of converting and deepening the entire seaway system to a 31-
foot capacity was estimated to be 3.5 billion dollars (41). Nearly one-
half of this cost involves the deepening of the Welland Canal, which cur-
rently has a draft of 27 feet plus subgrade. In the upper Great Lakes,
the Poe Lock at Sault Ste. Marie has sills at 32 feet, and it can accom-
modate vessels of 110 foot beam. To extend the draft of the upper Great
Lakes to 32 feet, St. Marys Channel, St. Clair River, and Detroit River
would have to be dredged to 32 feet. To date, deepening of these con-
necting channels has not been justified.
The economic feasibility of an extended navigation season is currently
being investigated (42). TO many shippers, particularly in the U.S., an
extended season is vital to the future vitality of the Great Lakes navi-
gation system. Although an extension seems likely in the near future,
no significant effect on future maintenance and new work dredging is
anticipated.
Several economic factors may cause a levelling off of future maintenance
and new work dredging volumes. First, a few small, commercial harbors
which are no longer economically justified (such as Saugatuck and Pent-
water) may be downgraded to recreational status and maintained at 12 to
14 foot depths. In Canada, a number of small semi-commercial harbors
have been reclassified and transferred. Projects such as Grand Bend,
Killarney and Blind River have been transferred from the M.O.T. to the
Fisheries and Marine Section of the M.O.E.
Other factors which may depress future maintenance dredging volumes in-
clude rising dredging costs, competition from other modes of transport,
and sediment abatement programs. In Canada, all maintenance dredging is
contracted to public tenders. As has been pointed out in the Policy
Section, government-owned dredging plants can reduce the cost of
211
-------
maintenance dredging operations by about 50 percent. In addition, the
C.E. has estimated that the transport and disposal of polluted mainte-
nance dredgings in confined disposal sites could increase dredging costs
350 percent (1). Rising costs of dredging will probably result in
dredging priorities, perhaps by comparing cost-benefit ratios of the
harbors to be dredged. In Canada, the M.O.T. has recently assumed the
administration of the public harbors from the D.P.W., thus reflecting
some economic concern over navigation and dredging.
Competition from other carriers for non-bulk commodities traditionally
moved by lake carriers may result in less dredging in the future. Im-
provements in land transportation such as unit trains or pipelines may
cause lower demand for shipping on the Great Lakes. In fact, cost feas-
ibility of transporting taconite from the Lake Superior area to Chicago
by pipeline has been established (43). In addition, Canadian railroads
have been competing successfully for containerized freight which custom-
arily moved by ship along the Seaway route from Halifax to Detroit (44) .
Conversely, if the energy crisis in the U.S. worsens, hampering future
rail and truck traffic, then shipping volumes on the lakes may increase
since water transport is significantly more energy efficient. Studies
by the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation conclude that 15 to
20 million gallons of fuel could be saved each year if 50 percent of the
import-export cargoes originating in or destined for states bordering
the Great Lakes were moved on the Seaway rather than overland to ports
on the East Coast (45) .
If implemented, sediment abatement programs could significantly reduce
shoaling and hence reduce dredging. It has been estimated that the
stream load of the Maumee River could be significantly reduced of sedi-
ment traps on the upper river were installed (1). Along the eastern
shore of Lake Michigan, where littoral drift results in shoaling near
the breakwater and jetty systems, some reduction in sediment bypassing
may be feasible. New policies in the U.S. and Canada regarding the
212
-------
effect of federal harbor structures on littoral transport of beach sedi-
ments could promote the development of abatement programs along exposed
coasts.
Perhaps the most important economic factor which may influence future
dredging volumes is the high cost of the confined disposal program for
polluted spoil. Costs of dredging and disposing spoil in diked sites,
including construction costs, are approximately $10 per cubic yard,
while disposal in the open waters of the Great Lakes averages about $1.00
per cubic yard. Even though larger sites are generally less expensive
to construct and maintain, the confined disposal program of the C.E.,
involving 35 polluted harbors, may require an expenditure of $85 million
(1). Should construction of confined disposal sites be delayed, main-
tenance dredging of some polluted harbors may have to be postponed. At
present the construction of the diked site for Cleveland Harbor is 6
months behind schedule, and although lake levels are at a record high,
groundings have been reported.
Though the cost of confining polluted dredged spoil is high, the total
cost may be lower than some preliminary projections. In this report the
future average annual quantity of polluted spoil in the Great Lakes has
been estimated to be about 7.5 million CY place measure. In their 1969
report, the C.E. projected that the future average annual quantity of
polluted spoil from only 35 harbors in the U.S. will be 8,573,000 CY
(1). Our projection of future polluted spoil includes private and main-
tenance dredging of all polluted and partially polluted harbor sediments
in the U.S. and Canada, whereas the C.E. projection includes only
polluted maintenance dredgings to be derived from 35 American harbors
and waterways. The projection of the C.E. appears high because some of
the volumes were not converted to place measure and, in partially
polluted harbors (P/U), the polluted portion was not separated from the
unpolluted portion. The new pollution guidelines, to be promulgated by
the E.P.A. in 1975, may result in the reclassification of some of the
213
-------
small harbors which are currently considered partially polluted. In
addition, the confined disposal sites may actually contain as much as
25 percent more spoil than anticipated. For example, at Buffalo Harbor,
the diked site was designed for a capacity of 400,000 cubic yards, but
more than 500,000 cubic yards were disposed there.
In summary, economic factors regarding future planning of new work
projects and scheduling of maintenance dredging will probably be given
more consideration. In Canada, this change is evidenced by the assump-
tion of harbor administration by the M.O.T. Rising costs of dredging
and disposal of spoil may result in the necessity for the establishment
of dredging priorities based on cost-benefit comparisons. Such priori-
ties based on cost-benefit ratios and the trend toward larger vessels
with economy of scales will probably promote the decline of the small,
commercial harbors. Maintenance dredging may actually increase slightly
in connecting channels and major industrial harbors. The projected
increase in bulk commodity movements and the pressure for an extended
navigation season should offset the competition for containerized
freight and general cargo by other modes of transport. However, future
maintenance and new work dredging volumes are not expected to be
affected by these developments. With the rising cost of dredging and
the high capital costs of confined disposal sites for polluted spoil,
dredging and disposal site priorities are foreseeable. The C.E. antici-
pated the need for priorities by designing diked disposal sites first
for the large, commercial harbors which are unequivocally justified and
heavily polluted.
214
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Army C.E., Dredging and Water Quality Problems in the Great
Lakes. Buffalo District, Buffalo, Vol. 1 (1969).
2. U.S. Army C.E., Cost/Benefit Ratios of Great Lakes Projects, Chicago,
undated. (Mimeographed).
3. U.S. Army C.E., Dredging and Water Quality Problems in the Great
Lakes. Buffalo District, Vol. 10 (1968).
4. U.S. Army C.E., Dredging and Water Quality Problems in the Great
Lakes. Buffalo District, Vol. 11 (1968).
5. U.S. Army C.E., Waterborne Commerce of the United States, U.S. Army
Engineer District, Chicago, (1973).
6. Seip, D. W., ed., 1973 Canadian Ports and Seaway Directory, Southam
Business Publications, Ltd., Don Mills (1973).
7. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study,
Appendix 11, Ann Arbor, (1972).
8. Phillips, D. W. and McCulloch, J. A. W., The Climate of the Great
Lakes Basin, Climatological Studies, No. 20, Toronto (1973).
9. Superior Evening Telegram, p. 1, November 2, 1973.
10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Great Lakes Pilot, Lake Survey Center
(N.O.A.A.), Detroit, p. 590 (1973).
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria for Determining
Acceptability of Dredged Spoil Disposal to the Nation's Waters,
E.P.A., Chicago (1971).
12. Ministry of the Environment, Water Quality Guidelines for the
Review of Proposed Dredging and Spoils Disposal Operations. Toronto
undated. (Mimeographed).
215
-------
13. Minutes of the Seaway Navigation and Commerce Committee, Great
Lakes Commission, August 27, 1973, p. 6 (meeting at Mackinac Island,
Mich.).
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Disposal of Dredged and Fill
Materials in Inland Waters, Draft of Section 404 (b), Public Law
92-500.
15. U.S. Army C.E., St. Paul District, personal communication (August, 1974)
16. National Biocentrics, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota, personal communi-
cation (August, 1974).
17. Lindgren, W., Mineral Deposits, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 525
(1933).
18. D.P.W., District Engineer, Toronto and Thunder Bay, Ontario,
personal communication (August, 1973).
19. National Water Commission, New Directions in U.S. Water Policy,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1973).
20. U.S. Army C.E., Detroit District, Alternatives for Managing Waste-
water in Southeastern Michigan, Information Brochure No. 2,
Detroit, 29 pp. (1973).
21. Boyd, M. B., Saucier, R. T. and others, Disposal of Dredged Spoil,
Technical Report H-72-8, U.S. Army C.E. Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, (1972).
22. David Kraus, E.P.A., Chicago, personal communication (July, 1974).
23. MacLatchy, J., The Application of Existing Law for Environmental
Protection, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada,
Unpublished manuscript (1973).
24. International Lake Erie Water Pollution Board and the International
Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Water Pollution Board, Pollution of
Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the International Section of the St.
Lawrence River. Vol. 2 and 3, G.P.O., Washington, D.C. (1969).
25. Agreement Between the United States of America and Canada on Great
Lakes Water Quality, Annex 6, Section 2 (c) (1972).
26. D.P.W., Dredging by the Department of Public Works, Marine Plant
Section of the D.P.W., Ottawa, p. 4 (1972).
216
-------
27. Anon., Study of Harbor Administration in Canada, St. Lawrence
Seaway Authority, Ottawa (1968).
28. Toronto Harbor Commissioners, Beach Building Characteristics of
Hydraulically Dredged Material from Outer Harbour Main Channels
Unpublished Report of the Engineering Department, 24 pp. (1973).
29. See for example, Water Quality Impacts of Sediment Dredging in
Large Lakes, in: Dredged Material Research, Misc. Paper D-73-2,
p. 1 (1973).
30. Geraghty, J. J., Miller, D. W., and others, Water Atlas of the
United States, Water Information Center, Port Washington, plate 56
(1973).
31. Combined Report by Canada and the United States, Agricultural Pollu-
tion of the Great Lakes Basin, G.P.O., Washington, D.C., (1971).
32. Great Lakes Basin Commission, "Erosion and Sedimentation," Great
Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix 18, Ann Arbor, pp. 18-49 to 18-148
(1971).
33. Acres Consulting Services Ltd., Evaluation of Procedures for
Removing and Decontaminating Bottom .Sediments in the Lower Great
Lakes, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, p. 57 (1972).
34. Russell, R. J., Rivc-.r and Delta Morphology, Louisiana State Univer-
sity, Baton Rouge, p. 46-47 (1967).
35. Zenkovich, V. P., Processes of Coastal Development, John Wiley,
New York, pp. 575-579 (1967).
36. U.S. Department of Commerce (N.O.A.A.), Hydrograph of Monthly Mean
Lake Levels of the Great Lakes, Lake Survey Center, Detroit (1973).
37. Graves, E., Statement of the International Great Lakes Levels
Board, U.S. Army C.E., Chicago (1973).
38. Lui, P. C., "Statistics of Great Lakes Levels," Proceedings, 13th
Conference, Great Lakes Research, pp. 360-368 (1970).
39. Sanderson, M., "A Climatic Water Balance of the Lake Erie Basin,
1958-1963," Publications in Climatology. Vol. 19, No. 1 (1966).
40. Aase, J. H., Transportation of Iron Ore, Limestone, and Bituminous
Coal on the Great Lakes Waterway System; with Projections to 1995,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, p. 1 (1970).
217
-------
41. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes Framework Study,
Appendix 9, Navigation, Vol. 1, Draft 2, (1972).
42. Nowacki, H. et al., Economics of Great Lakes Shipping in an
Estended Season, No. 139, Department of Naval Architecture and
Marine Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 83 pp.
(1973).
43. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mesabi Range Iron
Ore Transportation; Feasibility and Estimated Cost of Pipelining,
Information Circular 8512, 46 pp. (1971).
44. Detroit News, p. 1A, February 1, 1972.
45. Detroit News, p. 9B, December 14, 1973.
46. U.S. Army C.E., District Office, Operations Division.
47. U.S. Army C.E., Buffalo District.
48. Department of Public Works, Ontario, Canada.
49. Ministry of Transport, Ontario, Canada.
50. U.S. Army C.E., Detroit District
51. U.S. Army C.E., Dredging and Water Quality Problems in the Great
Lakes. Buffalo District, Vol. 11 (1968).
52. U.S. Army C.E., Chicago District.
53. U.S. Army C.E., St. Paul District.
54. Ministry of the Environment, Ontario, Canada.
55. U.S. E.P.A., Region V, Chicago.
218
-------
SECTION VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BNA Act British North America Act
C.E. United States Army Corps of Engineers
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CY cubic yards
D.P.W. Department of Public Works of Canada
E.P.A. United States Environmental Protection Agency
F.Y. fiscal year
G.L.B.C. Great Lakes Basin Commission
M.O.E. Ministry of the Environment of Ontario
M.O.T. Ministry of Transport of Canada
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of the United States
N.O.A.A. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWPA Navigable Waters Protection Act of Canada
P.W.C. Public Works Commission of Canada (now D.P.W.)
S.L.S.A. St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
219
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(I'lrase read/Hstruciitms tin tin- reverse before i-
l PORl NO.
2.
QUANTITIES IN THE GREAT LAKES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION«NO.
5. REBORT DATE
December 1974
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHORIS)
C. N. Raphael, E. Jaworski, C.F. Ojala
and D.S. Turner
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORG MNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Geography and Geology
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-801062
?. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, National Environmental Research Center
Corvallis, Ore. 97330
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Based on historical records, an overview and projection of U.S. and Canadian dredging
quantities in the Great Lakes are presented. Using current pollution criteria, future
quantities of polluted maintenance dredging are estimated for each lake. Recent en-
vironmental policies have influenced dredging and particularly disposal practices.
These policies, as well as sedimentation, lake levels, and economic factors are dis-
cussed in relation to dredging.
During the next decade, maintenance and private dredging volumes will not change
significantly, whereas new work will decrease. As in the past, most maintenance
dredging will occur in U.S. projects, particularly in Lake Erie.
A factor which will determine future U.S. maintenance dredging is the availability
of confined disposal sites. If the 62 sites are completed for commercial harbors as
planned, 300,000 of the 6.45 million cubic yards of annual projected polluted spoil
will not have disposal facilities. Where pollution elimination systems are in use,
shoaling in some industrial harbors may be decreasing. Although long-term lake
levels are not predictable, an inverse relationship between maintenance dredging and
lake levels is evident.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Great Lakes Disposal Sites
Dredging volumes Navigation
Disposal
Lake Levels
Policy
Sedimentation
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
19. DISTRIBUTION STATLMtNT
19. SECURITY CLASS ('Ihis Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 1220-1 (9-73)
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-697-997/95 REGION 10
------- |