Summary of preliminary feasibility studies for Great Lakes connecting channels and harbors study

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Summary

Preliminary Feasibility Studies
for Great Lakes Connecting Channels
and Harbors Study

July 1982

TC
209.3
.G786
1 982 US Army Corps
of Engineers
Detroit District

SUNI4ARY
OF

pREL-14,IN&RY FSIBILITY STUDIES
FOR

GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS
AND HARBORS STUDY

u.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Property of CSC Library

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District

- JIULY 1982

SYLLABUS

The Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway commercial navigation system serves
the heartland of the United States and Canada providing a minimum 25.5 foot safe
vessel draft at low water datum. It is anticipated that unless modifications
are made to the existing navigation system, some amount of waterborne commerce
would not be able to be serviced in the future.

The study is to determine the feasibility of further commercial navigation
improvements to the connecting channels, locks, and harbors on the upper four
Great Lakes, and the extent of any Federal interest.

Preliminary feasibility studies have been completed.

In response to the commercial navigation problems, needs, and opportunities,
several alternative structural plans were evaluated.

.deepening the connecting channels and harbors to provide greater draft on
a system-wide basis
installing a new lock at the lock facilities at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
deepening the upper St. Marys River and three Lake Superior commercial
harbors to optimize the availability of maximum draft during periods of high water
on the lower system
.installing an alternate canal across Michigan's Upper Peninsula between
Lakes Superior and Michigan

A non-structural plan (i.e. increased traffic control at the Soo Locks on the
St. Marys River) and a No Action Plan were also evaluated.

Based on the analysis to date, a second large lock to accommodate the existing
and projected fleet at the existing 25.5 foot vessel draft is economically justified.
There is additional justification for a second large lock on the basis of National
Defense and to reduce the risk of dependency of 25 vessels of the existing fleet
which are solely dedicated to the operation of the existing Poe Lock. This plan
maximizes net benefits and is the National Economic Development Plan warranting
further detailed study. Total first costs for the lock are estimated at $170,000,000
(October 1981 price levels). Average annual costs are estimated at $15,849,000.
Average annual benefits at 7 5/8% are estimated at $86,500,000. The resultant
benefit-to-cost ratio is 5.46. This plan is further optimized by the inclusion
of a non-structural measure(i.e. increased traffic control) which is both
independently and incrementally justified.

Further system-wide deepening and an alternate canal across Michigan's Upper
Peninsula are economically and environmentally infeasible at this time.

Deepening the upper St. Marys River and three Lake Superior harbors, modifying
seven harbors to accommodate 1,000 foot by 105 foot vessels at the existing 25.5
foot draft, and a port-to-port analysis of Lake Michigan harbors that could benefit
from additional modifications beyond the existing 25.5 foot draft system warrant
further detailed study for feasibility.

While the final form of the proposed Administration's user fee and fullicost
recovery policies for commercial navigation improvements have yet to be determined,
potential users/sponsors and affected States support continuation of the detailed
studies.

The study is continuing into the detailed feasibility stage. The Final
Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement are scheduled for completion
in September 1985.

SUMMARY
OF
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDIES
FOR
GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS
AND HARBORS STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Page
SECTION I - THE STUDY AND REPORT I
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY I
SCOPE OF THE STUDY I
SECTION II - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4
COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION PROBLEMS 4
EXISTING CONDITIONS 7
The Great Lakes System 7

SECTION III - FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 14
MANAGEMENT MEASURES 14
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES 14
PLANS OF OTHERS 15
St. Lawrence Seaway Additional Locks Study 15

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 15
PLAN A: The Without Project Plan 16
PLAN B: Structural Alternative Plans 20
PLAN C: Non-Structural Alternative Plan 26

PLAN D: Combination Structural/
Non-Structural Alternative Plans 28

SECTION IV -ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS 30
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 31
PLAN A: THE WITHOUT PROJECT PLAN CONDITION 33
PLAN B: STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS 35
B-i - System-wide Channel and Harbor Modifications 35
B-2 - A New Lock at the Soo Locks 42
B-3 - Deepen the Upper St. Marys River and
3 Lake Superior Harbors 43
B-4 - An Alternate Canal through the Michigan
Upper Peninsula 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Item Page

PLAN C: THE NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN 45

PLAN D: COMBINATION STRUCTURAL/NON-STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVE PLANS 49
D - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL 49

D-1 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL + 28 FOOT
DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE 50
D-2 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL + 31 FOOT
DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE 50
D-3 - DEEPEN UPPER ST. MARYS RIVER AND 3 LAKE
SUPERIOR HARBORS + TRAFFIC CONTROL 51
D-4 - INTRODUCTION OF 1100 FOOT VESSELS ON SYSTEM 51
D-5 - 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE 52
D-6 - 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 31 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE 52
D-7 - INTRODUCTION OF 1200 FOOT VESSELS ON SYSTEM 52

D-8 - 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE 53
D-9 - 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 30 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE 53
SENSITIVITY TEST 1 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC
CONTROL WITH 90% LOCK
UTILIZATION 53
SENSITIVITY TEST 2 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC
CONTROL WITH NAVIGATION SEASON
EXTENSION 57
SENSITIVITY TEST 3 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC
CONTROL WITH A CONSTRAINED
WELLAND CANAL 58

PLANS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 59

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Item Page

SECTION V - COMPARISON OF PLANS 61
RATIONALE FOR CANDIDATE NED PLAN 61
CANDIDATE PLAN 62
SECTION VI - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 64

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1 GREAT LAKES CHARACTERISTICS 8
2 CONNECTING CHANNELS CHARACTERISTICS 11
3 PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE ST. MARYS FALLS
CANAL LOCKS 12
4 U.S. GREAT LAKES FEDERAL AND PRIVATE
HARBORS 13

5 REQUIRED DEPTH ACCORDING TO VESSEL DRAFT IN
ROCK OR OVERBURDEN 22
6 WIDTH CRITERIA 22
7 COMBINATION STRUCTURAL/NON-STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVES 29
8 SOO LOCKS REHABILITATION 34
9 CAPACITY ANALYSIS - DEEPER DRAFTS 36
10 CAPACITY ANALYSIS - NEW LOCK 42
11 LIST OF ALTERNATIVE COMBINATION PLANS 54

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP 2

iii

SECTION I

THE STUDY AND REPORT

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway commercial navigation system
serves the heartland of two nations and the midcontinent of North America.
The present system provides a minimum vessel draft at low water datum of
25.5 feet. During the past years, several significant advancements in
design have resulted in improved maneuverability of new Great Lakes
vessels. This report presents the evaluation of the economic, social,
environmental, institutional and technical feasibility for making further
commercial navigation system modifications at harbors, connecting channels
and locks on the upper four Great Lakes.

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

Authorized by two resolutions of the Senate Committee on Public Works
in 1969 and 1976, the purpose of the study is to determine the advisability
of further improvements in the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors
in the interest of present and prospective deep-draft commerce including
the advisability of providing additional lockage facilities and increased
capacity at the St. Marys Falls Canal at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (Soo).

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study includes the U.S. deep-draft harbors on the upper four Great
Lakes and the connecting channels between Lakes Superior and Huron (St.
Marys River); and Lakes Huron and Erie (St. Clair River - Lake St. Clair -
Detroit River) upstream from the Welland Canal (see Figure 1). The Welland
Canal, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River are not within the scope of
this study; however, an economic model of the entire Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence Seaway System has been developed to account for system-wide
domestic and foreign shipping.

MINNESACONIT ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

SILVER BAY* L.81pe

Two HARORSYSTE
DtJLUTH-~pERI(RST. MARYS RIVER
PRSQUE IL
D U L U T H~~ S U P E R I O BJMICHIC A N A D N

WELN2CANALA

ED-U DETROIT ~ �RIE ~ - - -N EWH OR

W~~~~~~~~~~~~ISCENNSYLINIA
I ~ MCINA

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U

Analysis to date has focused on the development and screening of
alternative improvements to determine those that demonstrate potential
economic feasibility, and the identification of significant impacts
associated with people, the environment, and institutional considerations.

In analyzing potential additional system-wide improvements, the
identification of the base condition for the existing system (channels,
locks, and harbors) is extremely important. While a 27-foot project depth
(25.5 safe vessel draft) has been provided in all the connecting channels,
many harbors, including some that handle millions of tons of commodities
annually, do not have a 27-foot project depth. These harbors are not fully
utilizing the capacity of the existing system.

This study has focused, therefore, on the harbors with an existing
27-foot project depth. These incude: Duluth-Superior,
Minnesota-Wisconsin; Two Harbors, Silver Bay, and Taconite, Minnesota;

Presque Isle, and Escanaba, Michigan (the 6 major U.S. taconite shipping
harbors on the Great Lakes); Muskegon, Michigan; Burns Waterway, Gary, and
Indiana Harbor, Indiana; Calumet, Indiana-Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
St. Clair, and Detroit, Michigan; Toledo, Lorain, Cleveland, Ashtabula, and
Conneaut, Ohio; Erie, Pennsylvania; Monroe, Michigan; and Buffalo, New
York. Monroe, Michigan, is proposed to have a 27-foot project depth based
on an individual harbor study submitted in 1980. Also, studies of Buffalo
and Cleveland Harbors are underway to determine the merits of deepening
wider areas of these harbors to a 27-foot project depth. Trade between
these 22 harbors, if accomplished through additional commercial navigation
system modifications, could result in benefits which could immediately be
"applied" against the system-wide costs of those modifications.

SECTION II

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Understanding the diverse problems, needs and existing conditions
associated with the Great Lakes commercial navigation system and the
economic, social and institutional systems that interact with it
establishes a guide to the formulation of alternatives that address these
problems and needs. While many of the problems and needs listed below vary
in intensity according to geographic areas, there are two primary issues
that form the basis for problem analysis in this study. These are the
needs that arise from the commercial fleets desire for economic
optimization; and the potential impacts on the existing environmental,
social and institutional systems that could result from those modifications
necessary to meet the demands of the commercial fleet. The problems and
needs of the various systems can best be summarized by major navigational
feature.

COMM4ERCIAL NAVIGATION PROBLEMS

a. Capital investment required to accommodate larger vessels.
b. Maintenance costs.
c. Vessel size and its effect on transit of channels.
d. Safeguards to avoid spills of oil and other hazardous substances.
e. Navigation during fog and high winds.
f. Vessel traffic and speed control.
g. Impacts on historic and cultural resources.
h. Potential disruption of fish and wildlife habitat.
i. Operational training of vessel pilots.
J. Potential for shoreline and shore structure damage.
k. Availability of sites for dredge disposal.
1. Potential bottom scouring.
m. Secondary employment effects of structural and non-structural
improvements for waterborne transportation.
n. Potential recreational boating effects and associated recreation
activities in the channels.

o. Potential social effects on channel residents.
p. Canadian participation, responsibility, and cost sharing.

Harbor Problems

a. Ramifications of vessel size in relation to vessel handling and

control.
b. Operation of loading and unloading facilities.
c. Capital investment of others needed to handle larger vessels.
d. Potential shoreline and shore structure damage.
e. Water quality, vessel waste discharge and turbidity.
f. Safeguards to avoid spills of oil and other hazardous substances.
g. Interfacing larger vessels with other transportation modes.
h. Adequate turning basins.
i. Potential bottom scouring.
j. Potential disruption of fish and wildlife habitat.
k. Potential air pollution.
1. First costs and the operation/maintenance costs of the
modifications.
m. Potential effects on littoral transport, both on lakes and rivers.

Locks

a. Relationship between existing and potential vessel sizes and
existing facilities.
b. Capital investment requirements for necessary facilities to
support and handle larger vessels.
c. Traffic control and service requirements.
d. Effects and constraints of additional locks.
e. Maintenance costs for modifications.
f. Determination of maximum lock size.
g. Safeguards to avoid disruption of service from accidents in
critical areas.

h. Need for additional locks.
i. Potential social effects of modified or new lockage systems.
J. Potential economic impacts resulting from lock modification.
k. Potential disruption of fish and wildlife habitat.
1. Requirements and contingency plans to handle hazardous material

transport.
m. Lock crew safety.
n. Potential effects on employment.
o. Water quality, vessel waste discharge and turbidity.
p. Potential effects on recreational boating and associated
activities.
q. Canadian participation and responsibility.
r. Potential air pollution.
a. Navigation during fog and high winds.

Associated Problems

a. Relationship of vessel size to system capacity.
b. Modifications for cargo handling by others.
e. Optimum vessel size that would be feasible.
d. The appropriateness of considering improvements to the upper
Great Lakes without improvements to the Welland Canal - Lake
Ontario - St. Lawrence River portion of the system.
e. Use of alternative modes of transportation in lieu of changes to
the existing system (such as utilization of rail transportation
between Marquette and Escanaba in lieu of alterations to the St.
Marys River).
f. Current and projected origin and destination patterns.
g. Significance of an energy policy on commercial navigation.
h. Alternatives to increased capacity of the Great Lakes system.
i. Insurance costs due to larger vessels.
J. Correlation between viability of water transportation and the
economic well-being of the Nation.
k. Stockpiling effects on the environment.

1. Potential overall impact of larger vessels on Great Lakes

employment.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

A general survey of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System
provides a benchmark against which potential impacts from proposed
modifications to the existing commercial navigation system can be
evaluated.

The region provides a good "quality of life" through its beautiful

scenery, fishing, swimming, power boating and sailing, and through
agriculture, mining, manufacturing, water and power supply, and
transportation. All these activities are dependent upon the water
resources of the system.

The Great Lakes System

The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System extends from the western
end of Lake Superior to the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the Atlantic Ocean, a
distance of more than 2,000 miles. The five Great Lakes -- Superior,
Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario -- with their connecting channels and
Lake St. Clair, have a water surface area of about 95,000 square miles.
The lakes lie partly in each of the two countries of Canada and the United
States except for Lake Michigan which lies wholly within the United States.
The total area of the Great Lakes basin, both land and water, above the
eastern end of Lake Ontario is approximately 296,000 square miles, of which
174,000 square miles are in the United States and 122,000 square miles are
in Canada. The Great Lakes and the connecting channels have a controlling
commercial navigation depth of 27 feet. Characteristics of the five Great
Lakes are as follows:

TABLE I
GREAT LAKES CHARACTERISTICS

Water Surface Maximum Drainage
Area Length Breadth Depth Area
Great Lakes (sq. miles) (miles) (miles) (feet) (sq. miles)
Lake Superior 31,700 350 160 1,333 81,000
Lake 'Huron 23,000 206 101 752 74,800
Lake Michigan 22,300 307 118 925 67,900
Lake Erie 9,900 241 57 212 33,500
Lake Ontario 7,600 193 53 804 34,800*
*Includes water surface area and tributary land area downstream to the St.

Lawrence Power Plant at Cornwall, Ontario, Canada.

Hydraulics and Hydrology

Lake Superior has been regulated since 1921 by means of a series of
control structures including a gated dam across the St. Marys River at
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Ontario. Construction of the gated dam was
authorized by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as a condition to
approval of the water diversion for hydropower. By operation of the gates,
locks, and changes in power diversions,' flows specified by the adopted plan
of regulation can be achieved. The present plan of regulation is known as
Plan 1977. Basically, the plan balances the levels of Lake Superior and
Lakes Michigan-Huron to maintain their levels at the same position to each
other according to their long-term monthly means, while protecting the
maximum on Lake Superior. The plan of regulation is designed to meet
criteria specified by the IJC which requires, among other things, that the
control works be operated so that the mean level of Lake Superior would be
retained within its normal range of stage such that the level shall not
exceed elevation 602.0 feet IGLD (1955) or fall below elevation 598.4 feet
IGLD (1955), and will be done in such a manner so as not to interfere with
navigation. These actions have a small impact on the levels of Lakes Erie
and Ontario in reducing levels when supplies are high.

Improved or further regulation of the Great Lakes system is being

studied by two Study Boards. Their primary purpose is described as
follows.

1. The International Lake Brie Regulation Study Board is an
eight-member (four U.S. and four Canadian) technical Study Board appointed
in accordance with a Reference from the two Governments to the
International Joint Commission dated 21 February 1977. The Reference
requested the commission to study the possibilities for limited regulation
of Lake Erie. The Board's primary purpose is to conduct the study, taking
into account the applicable Orders of Approval of the Commission and the
recommendations of the Canada-Quebec study of flow regulation in the
Montreal Region.

2. The International Great Lakes Diversions and Consumptive Uses
Study Board is a ten member (five U.S. and five Canadian) technical Study
Board appointed in accordance with a Reference from the two Governments to
the International Joint Commission dated 21 February 1977. The Board's
purpose is to assist the Commission in reporting to the Governments the
effects of existing and proposed diversions within, into, and out of, the
Great Lakes basin and the effects of existing and reasonably foreseeable
patterns of consumptive uses on the Great Lakes water levels and outflows.

Lakes

Lake Superior is the largest of the upper Great Lakes. Compared with
the other Great Lakes, its surface is more elevated above the Atlantic
Ocean, is more irregular in outline, has deeper water, more fog, and less
rain. The main United States commercial harbors are located at Duluth and
Two Harbors, Minnesota; Superior and Ashland, Wisconsin; and Marquette and
Presque Isle, Michigan. Two additional private harbors are located in
Minnesota on the north shore of Lake Superior at Silver Bay and at Taconite
Harbor. Each is used for the shipment of concentrated taconite-iron ore.
In addition, there is an important Canadian harbor at Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Lakes Huron and Michigan are one lake from a navigation standpoint,
since the Straits of Mackinac which connects the two lakes is so broad and
deep there is no perceptible flow between them and their surfaces stand at
the same elevation. Major harbors on Lake Huron located in the United
States are at Calcite, Stoneport, Alpena, Alabaster, Bay City, and Saginaw.
Major harbors on Lake Michigan are located at Port Inland, Escanaba,
Muskegon, and Grand Haven, Michigan; Green Bay and Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Chicago and Calumnent Harbor, Illinois; and at Burns Waterway, Buff ington,
Gary, and Indiana Harbor, Indiana.

Lake Erie is the shallowest of all the Great Lakes and considerably
smaller than Lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron. Major harbors on Lake
Erie are located at Monroe, Michigan; Toledo, Sandusky, Huron, Lorain,
Cleveland'. Fairport, Ashtabula, and Conneaut, Ohio; Erie, Pennsylvania; and
Buffalo, New York.

Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes with its waters
flowing into the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean. It is connected
to Lake Erie by the Welland Canal which extends for about 27 miles and
provides a series of locks that overcome a difference in elevation of 326
feet. Major U.S. harbors on Lake Ontario are located at Rochester, Sodus
Bay, and Oswego, New York. Major Canadian harbors are located at Hamilton
and Toronto, Ontario. Investigation of facilities involving Lake Ontario
and the International Section of the St. Lawrence River are being
undertaken as part of the St. Lawrence Seaway Additional Locks Study.

Connecting Channels

St. Marys River is the outlet of Lake Superior and leaves the lake at
Point Iroquois, flowing in a generally southeasterly direction through
several channels to Lake Huron, a distance of from 63 to 75 miles according
to the route traversed. The river drops approximately 22 feet with most of
the drop (20 feet) occurring at the St. Marys Falls Canal, where four U.S.
navigation locks and one Canadian lock allow for the transit of vessels.
The natural control of the outflow from Lake Superior was a rock ledge at
the head of the St. Marys River. This natural control has been replaced

by the locks, compensating works, and powerhouses. As a result., the

outflow from Lake Superior is regulated. Of particular interst in the St.
Marys River are the Sugar, Lime, Neebish, and Drummond Islands which are
inhabited year-round. Transportation to these islands is provided by ferry
boat or tug during the summer. During the winter, transportation has
traditionally been over the ice or by ferry boat through an established

open water vessel track.

The St. Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River System connects Lake
Huron and Lake Erie. The system is approximately 89 miles long and has a
relatively uniform water surface profile with a fall of 8 feet from Lake
Huron to Lake Erie. The St. Clair River has a length of about 39 miles.
Lake St. Clair, extending between the mouth of the St. Clair River and the
head of the Detroit River (a distance of about 18 miles) occupies a shallow
basin having an average depth of about 10 feet, with low, marshy shores.
The shallow depth requires a dredged commercial navigation channel 27.5
feet deep and 800 feet wide throughout its length. The Detroit River
extends about 32 miles to Lake Erie. Major harbors located along the
system are at Sarnia and Windsor, Ontario, and at Detroit, Michigan. There
are no commercial harbors on Lake St. Clair.

The physical characteristics of the connecting channels are summarized
below:

TABLE 2
CONNECTING CHANNELS CHARACTERISTICS

Length Width Depth Fall
Connecting Channels (miles) (feet) (feet) (feet)
St. Marys River 63 300-1500 27-30 23
St. Clair River 40 700-1400 27-30 5
Lake St. Clair 18 700-800 27.5 0
Detroit River 31 300-1200 27.5-29.5 3

The connecting channels are unregulated (free flow) except for the St.

Marys River which is controlled by a series of improvements. Although
compensating dikes were constructed on the lower Detroit River to partially
offset (hydraulically) the lowering of the water levels (due to past
authorized navigational improvements in 1912, 1936, and 1962), the Detroit
River is not considered regulated.

Locks

Locks in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System are located in the
St. Marys River, Welland Canal and St. Lawrence River, In the St. Marys
River at Sault Ste Marie, Michigan and Ontario, four parallel locks on the
U.S. side, and one on the Canadian side are operational. The principal
features of the locks in the St. Marys River (Soo Locks) are as follows.

TABLE 3
PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE ST. MARYS FALLS CANAL LOCKS

Lock
Principal Features MacArthur Sabin Davis Poe Canadian
Opened to Commerce 1943 1919 1914 1969 1895
Width, feet 80 80 80 110 59
Length between mitre ' 800 1350 1350 1200 900
sill, feet
Depth on upper mitre 31 24.3 24.3 32 16.8
sill, feet
Depth on lower mitre 31 23.1 23.1 32 16.8
sill, feet
Lift, feet 22 22 22 22 22

Harbors

There are presently 60 U.S. Federal deep-draft harbors on the Great
Lakes that have received Federal assistance. The navigation depths at
these harbors range from 16 feet to 28 feet. In addition, there are 15
U.S. private deep-draft harbors in the Great Lakes system. Harbors in the
study area are listed in Table 4.

TABLE 4 -- U.S. GREAT LAKES FEDERAL AND PRIVATE lARBORS
Federal Private

Lake Superior Lake Michigan (cont'd) Lake Erie (cont'd) Lake Superior

Grand Marais, Minn. Grand Haven, Mich. + Erie, Pa. + Taconite, Minn.
+ Two Harbors, Minn. + Muskegon, Mich. + Port of Buffalo, N.Y. + Silver Bay, Minn.
+ Duluth-Superior, Minn-Wis. White Lake, Mich.
Ashland, Wisconsin Ludington, Mich. Lake Ontario Lake Michigan
Ontonagon, Mich. Manistee Harbor, Mich.
+ Presque Isle, Mich. Frankfort, Mich. Rochester, N.Y. Oak Creek, Wis.
Marquette, Mich. Charlevoix, Mich. Great Sodus Bay, N.Y. Buffington, Ind.
Kewaunaw Waterway, Mich. Oswego, N.Y. + Gary, Ind.
Lake Huron Ogdensburg, N.Y. Port Dolomite, Mich.
Lake Michigan Port Inland, Mich.
Alpena, Mich. + Escanaba, Mich.
Menominee, Mich. & Wis. Cheboygan, Mich. Petoskey, Penn Dixie
Green Bay, Wis. Saginaw, Mich. Harbor, Mich.
Sturgeon Bay, Wis. Harbor Beach, Mich.
Kewaunee, Wis.
Two Rivers, Wis. St. Clair/Detroit Rivers Lake Huron
Manitowoc, Wis.
Cheboygan, Wis. Marysville, Mich. Calcite, Mich.
Port Washington, Wis. + Port of Detroit, Mich. Stoneport, Mich.
+ Milwaukee, Wis. Detroit River Port Gypsum, Mich.
Racine, Wis. + St. Clair Alabaster, Mich.
Kenosha, Wis. Trenton Channel Drummond Island, Mich.
Waukegan, Ill. + Monroe, Mich.
Chicago, Ill. Lake Erie
+ Calumet Harbor, Ind. & Lake Erie
Eli. & Lake Calumet Marblehead, Ohio
+ Indiana Harbor, Ind. + Toledo, Ohio
+ Burns Waterway, Ind. Sandusky, Ohio
Michigan City, Ind. Huron, Ohio
St. Joseph, Mich. + Lorain, Ohio LEGEND
South Haven, Mich. + Cleveland, Ohio
Holland, Mich. Fairport, Ohio + 22 harbors reviewed
Manistique, Mich. + Ashtabula, Ohio in this report
Gladstone, Mich. + Conneaut, Ohio

SECTION III

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Plan formulation is the development of combinations of management
measures into alternative plans that exhibit technical feasibility and
maximize contributions to the various planning objectives. Management
measures are potential structural and non-structural modifications to the
existing navigation system that address the problems and planning
objectives of the study, but do not necessarily provide complete solutions
individually.

MANAGEME NT MEASURE S

Structural measures considered in this study include: construction of a
new lock at the Soo; deepening the connecting channels and harbors to
provide maximum draft; and constructing a canal between Lakes Superior and
Michigan that would cross the Michigan Upper Peninsula. Non-structural
measures would increase the operating efficiency of the existing lock
system and include: traveling kevels, increased vessel speed entering the
locks, decreased chambering time during locking, and increased traffic
control.

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES

The national objectives for planning water resources projects provides
for the enhancement national economic development (NED) by increasing the
value of the Nation's output of goods and services and improving national
economic efficiency.

A set of planning objectives have been formulated based upon the water
and related resource management problems, needs and opportunities
identified for the Great Lakes region. The objectives listed below
contribute to both the national and regional objectives for the economic~
life of the project.

a. Contribute to the development and efficient utilization of the
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway commercial navigation system

infrastructure;

b. Contribute to an increase in output of goods, services and
external economics of the Great 'Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system;

c. Contribute to the maintenance of existing water levels and flows
for the Great Lakes; and

d. Contribute to the quality of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway
environment, giving particular attention to the ecosystem and water quality
of the lakes.

PLANS OF OTHERS

St. Lawrence Seaway N.Y. Feasibility Study for Additional Locks and Other
Navigation Improvements.

A reconnaissance report for this study was prepared in May 1978 by the
Buffalo District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of the
study is to determine the adequacy of the existing locks and channels in
the International Section of the St. Lawrence River in light of present and
future needs, and the advisability of their rehabilitation, enlargement, or
augmentation.

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The plan formulation process established several assumptions that
formed the basis upon which the alternative plans were developed. These
assumptions are:

Alternative plans were formulated to provide system-wide
compatability between the connecting channels and harbors study
and the St. Lawrence River Additional Locks Study.

* The traffic forecasts would be developed on a system-wide basis.

* Benefits included in the analysis are based only on U.S. traffic.

* The costs included in the analysis are assumed to be 100% United
States costs including harbors, channels and locks.

* Current two-way traffic patterns in the connecting channels would
be maintained.

* Structural modifications considered would be designed to maintain
existing water level profiles and flows.

* The maximum ship size considered in this analysis is 1200 feet by
130 feet.

With the use of the above study planning objectives and assumptions,, several
alternative plans were developed.

Plan A - The Without Project Plan

The without project plan is the Corps' best estimate of how the upper
Great Lakes system would change over the 50 years of the project life
assuming none of the structural or non-structural alternative plans under
review were implemented. This plan forms a basis of comparison for further
improvements (i.e., without a project vs. with a project). There are a
number of economic, environmental and social considerations that go into
the without project plan analysis.

Economic Considerations

The Corps has developed traffic forecasts on a system-side basis that
estimate tonnage at the Soo Locks could increase to 150-185 million tons
(short-tons) annually before a capacity constraint level was reached.
Capacity is measured as a percent of lock utilization and represents the
point at which vessel delay hours exceed potential transportation rate
savings. Capacity has been defined in this study in the following manner:

Percent Vessels in Queue/Lock Delay Hours

90% 4 6+
80% 2 3-6
70% 1. up to 3

Based upon these parameters, the Welland Canal would approach a capacity
condition sometime in the early 1990's. If the Canadian government took
actions at that time to upgrade the Welland Canal and the U.S. locks on the
St. Lawrence River were upgraded in a corresponding manner; then the Soo
Locks would encounter an initial capacity condition sometime between the
years 2000-2010. Once this capacity condition was reached, the Soo Locks
would be operating at a maximum efficiency level and no further tonnage
increases could be gained since vessel delay hours would outweigh
transportation savings. If, conversely, no action was taken by the
Canadian government to increase capacity at the Welland Canal, then the
lower system would not expand beyond 80-85 million t~ns annually and the
date for an initial capacity condition at the Soo would be moved further
into the future.

Another economic consideration of the Great Lakes commercial
navigation system anticipated to change over time, independent from any
alternative plans being evaluated in this study, is the base condition of
the navigation season. While 15 December is historically thought of as the
closing date for operations at the Soo Locks, over the past 15 years the
locks have continued in operation based on the demands of commerce many
times. It is anticipated, therefore, that the base condition for the
commercial navigation season during the project life would be:

Lock Node Navigation Season

Soo Locks I Apr to 8 Jan + 1 week (9-1/4 months)
Welland Canal I Apr to 31 Dec (9 months)
St. Lawrence I Apr to 15 Dec (8-1/2 months)

Although shipping companies consider stockpiling of general cargo
uneconomical because of its relatively high value per ton, bulk commodities
are often stockpiled during the winter because it is more economical to do
so than shift to an alternative mode of transportation. This type of
operation would be expected to continue.

1~7

It is anticipated that a limited increase in larger size vessels could
occur in the future without modifications to the existing system. As more
vessels of the 1,000-foot class are built, the total number of vessels in
the Great Lakes fleet would be expected to reduce as the older, smaller
vessels become obsolete. The existing Poe Lock or any future lock at the
Soo Locks limits the design of future vessels traversing between Lake
Superior and the lower lakes. Based upon current Federal regulation, the
maximum size vessel that could be locked through the Poe Lock with special
handling procedures is 1,100 feet x 105 feet.

Environmental Considerations

Many aspects of the Great Lakes environment are expected to show
little or no change during the life of the project. Among these are
climatic conditions, geology, and topography. There may be some changes in
soil fertility resulting from weathering and agricultural practices. Other
factors, such as air and water quality, are expected to gradually improve
throughout the Great Lakes region over the next several decades assuming
that current environmental protection laws are continued and enforced.

Human development along shorelines is expected to continue, but at a
slower rate than the past due to enforcement of recent laws. If
consumptive use of Great Lakes water results in a significant reduction in
the levels of the lakes, some wetland areas will probably be shifted
lakeward or lost completely. New wetlands or other valuable shoreline
areas will be created in some locations as the result of the well-placed
disposal of material from maintenance dredging and small scale navigation
improvement projects. In other areas, local losses of shorelands and
wetlands may result from such projects. Changes in bottom configurations
at disposal sites or around new construction will alter habitat important
to periphyton, benthic invertebrates, and fish. It is possible that such
changes will significantly impact some local populations, but system-wide
detrimental impacts are not expected.

Fish and wildlife of the Great Lakes Region would be expected to
respond to management efforts as well as to the changes in the

physical-chemical and biological environment outlined above. Wildlife in

shoreline areas will probably increase slightly in undeveloped locations as
the result of improved management techniques, but development of new areas
will cause the displacement of many organisms. Fish and high quality

benthic organisms are expected to return to areas which are currently too
polluted for their use as water quality in these areas improves. Stocks of
game and commercial fish will probably improve with tighter commercial
fishing laws, reductions in lamprey populations, stocking of fish, and
improved management techniques. Sought after sport fish will probably
benefit most as management efforts will focus on these species.

Social Considerations

From 1966 to 1973, five of the metropolitan areas in the Great Lakes states

with populations over one million actually lost manufacturing employment
with only Minneapolis, Cincinnati, and Columbus showing absolute gains. Of
the 165,200 manufacturing job gains in the region over the same seven year
period, only 25,500 were in metropolitan areas; while 140,000 manufacturing
jobs were realized in "exurban" areas. As cities lose manufacturing
employment, they are required to provide public services at increasing
costs; while, their local tax base deteriorates contributing to urban
blight. But, the loss of plants for cities will not mean a long term gain
for "exurban" areas.

Along with the decreasing opportunities is a diminishing standard of
living for those who do receive income. Family income is, on the average,
greater for the eight Great Lakes states than for either the Nation or
Hinterland; however, family income is falling in the Great Lakes States and
rising elsewhere. The number of families as well as family income
increased by greater proportions in the Hinterland and Nation. Problems in
the regional economy have led to diminishing population growth rates.
Entire metropolitan areas, not just central cities, are losing people.
Fifteen of the region's 58 SMSA's have had absolute population losses

between 1970 and 1975. For the 1974-1975 period, the number of SMSA's with
absolute population losses jumped to 26.

Similar losses have been projected for the basin. Per capita income
in the basin has been from 10% to 20% above the national average during the
period between 1950 and 1970. However, it is expected that the rate of
growth in both personal and per capita income, following trends of
population and employment, will decline relative to the Nation during the
period from 1980 through 2020.

Plan B - Structural Alternative Plans

Four structural alternative plans were developed and reviewed for
feasibility. These plans are:

1. System-wide channel and harbor modifications that provide maximum
draft and vessel size on a system-wide basis.

2. Provide a new lock at the Soo Locks.

3. Deepen the upper St. Marys River and three Lake Superior

commercial harbors to maximize draft during periods of high
water on the lower system.

4. Develop an alternate canal across Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Plan B-I - System-Wide Channel and Harbor Modifications

The structural modification of the connecting channels and the 22
deep-draft harbors, including estimates of dredged quantities, disposal
options and construction costs, has been analyzed. The analysis was
performed at the survey level based on existing information and no new
field studies were performed. Specific work items performed are:

The modification of harbors, and channels, necessary to
accommodate the existing fleet at new drafts from 26 feet
to a maximum of 31 feet in one foot increments was analyzed.
In addition, the incremental increases required to accommodate
vessels 1100 by 105 feet, and 1200 by 130 feet at each draft for
the connecting channels and all 22 harbors were also analyzed.

Disposal options for dredge material were analyzed based upon
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on pollution
levels in the harbors and channels. This approach was used to
identify a range of disposal costs that could be anticipated once
actual levels of polluted and non-polluted dredge quantities had
been determined. In addition, environmental laws and regulations
controlling disposal practices were identified.

* Alternative beneficial uses of dredge material have been
identified where such uses appear practical.

* Alternative dredging and disposal unit costs were based upon
available cost records for similar work efforts. Unit costs vary
according to dredging methods, distances to disposal sites,
disposal method, and disposal site land values. The unit costs
and material quantities have been extended to total dredging
costs for each harbor for various vessel sizes, drafts and
poll1ution levels. The costs for relocation of utilities in the
harbor and channel bed and private improvement costs have also
been identified.

Estimate of Dredge Quantities

Criteria - Harbor and channel modifications were premised upon vessel
design lengths, widths and drafts with a nominal bottom clearance of two
feet for areas classified as overburden, and three feet for regions
classified as rock. Depths to be dredged according to vessel draft in a
rock or overburden area are listed In Table 5. Harbor and channel
modifications necessary to accommodate vessels assume a one-way channel
width 3.0 times the beam of the vessel and a two-way width 7.6 times the
vessel beam. Table 6 lists the various widths in relation to vessel beam
and width criteria.

TABLE 5
REQUIRED DEPTH ACCORDING TO VESSEL DRAFT
IN ROCK OR OVERBURDEN

Vessel Draft (feet) Depth (feet)
Overburden _Rock

26 28 29
27 29 30
28* 30 31
29 31 32
30 32 33
31* 33 34
32 34 35
34 36 37
36 38 38

TABLE 6
WIDTH CRITERIA

Vessel Beam Width (feet)
(feet) One-Way Two-Way

105 315 798
130 390 988

*NOTE: Cost estimates on a system-wide basis were prepared for each
one foot increment of additional draft, as shown in the table.
A complete benefit/cost anslysis was accomplished for only the
28 foot and 30/31 foot system-wide draft, however, to cover
what were judged to be the minimum and maximum increases in
draft with a reasonable chance of feasibility. An effort to
complete a system-wide deepening project to less than a 28 foot
draft was judged to be proportionately even less effective than
the 28 foot case, given the reduced level of benefits that
would result.

Project Limits - New project limits were established in outer harbor
areas and entrance channels extending from the harbor entrance to lake
soundings sufficient for navigation when necessary. For some harbors,
existing project limits extend into channels with critical curvatures which
could create an obstruction in channel alignment and restricts passage of
1,200 foot vessels. Potential obstructions such as bridges, submarine
cables, aerial cables, and ruins also occur in these channels which would
incur relocation costs.

Disposal Site Selection

In identifying potential sites for the disposal of dredged material,
Federal and State regulations controlling the disposal of dredged spoils
were included in the identification criteria. The regulations were adhered
to closely, however, site information was limited to mapping and literature
searches, and not to actual site reconnaissance. Conflicts could arise in
the utilization of potential disposal sites due to change of information
which was not detailed in the available mapping and literature.

Plan B-2 - A New Lock at the Soo Locks

Locks were placed on the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway System to
allow passage, of vessels where the natural conditions of rapids and water
falls made navigation impossible. The locks allow navigation through the
waterways while maintaining relatively large differences in water level
between the upstream and downstream sides of the lock.

Vessels using the lock facilities at the Soo Locks range from pleasure
craft as small as 20 feet in length to ocean carriers 730 feet long, and
lake carriers 1,000 feet long and 105 feet wide. The locking process
varies depending on the type and size of the vessel, weather conditions and
lockage demand, and upon the individual lock characteristics. However, the
general locking process is always the same.

Factors Affecting the Locking Process - The time required to process a
vessel through a lock (locking time) can be broken down into a number of
components. An elementary breakdown of the three primary components is:

Entrance Time - Time from vessel arrival to vessel mooring
inside the lock;

Chambering Time - Time required to close the rearward gate, empty
or fill the lock, and open the forward gates;

Exit Time - Time from completion of chambering until the
lock is ready to accept another vessel.

The length of the locking time is dependent upon individual lock
characteristics, vessel characteristics, the preceding lock cycle, weather
conditions, level of traffic, and equipment failures. Improper positioning
of the vessels in queue can also cause delays.

The six alternative lock plans evaluated for increasing lock capacity
at the Soo Locks are:

Vessel Size Lock Size Depth Over Sills
(feet x feet) (feet x feet) 25.5 foot Draft 31 foot Draft

Up to 1000 x 105 1200x115 32 feet 36 feet
1100x115 1350x115*
1200x130 1460x145**

*A lock this size would replace the existing Davis Lock.
**A lock this size would replace the existing Sabin and Davis Locks.

Plan B-3 - Deepen the Upper St. Marys River and 3 Lake Superior Harbors

During periods of high water on the upper four Great Lakes, vessel
owners often increase draft downstream from the Soo Locks to optimize
operating efficiency. The effectiveness of this procedure is reduced,

however, since the frequency of water levels below low water datum on Lake
Superior is higher than for the other lakes. This precludes vessels from

taking advantage of potential additional draft on Lake'Superior,
particularly during the early (April-May) portion of the navigation season.

Since Lake Superior is regulated, additional draft could be obtained
through additional dredging. The alternative plan would consist,
therefore, of deepening the upper St. Marys River from the Vidal Shoals
Channel to the Brush Point Course in Lake Superior together with selected
areas in Duluth/Superior, Two Harbors and Presque Isle Harbors an amount
necessary to bring Lake Superior into a 50-50 control relationship with
Lake Michigan-Huron. By performing this dredging, Lakes Superior and
Michigan-Huron would have a more balanced relationship with one another and

the additional draft could still be utilized up to 50% of the time during
periods of low water on Lake Superior. While this alternative is a
structural modification, it would be a method of optimizing the existing
system rather than increasing capacity in the sense that the other
alternatives do.

Plan B-4 - An Alternate Canal through the Michigan Upper Peninsula

This alternative was considered to provide a direct shipping route
between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. The present commercial shipping
route between the two lakes is a relatively lengthy one. Vessels must
currently utilize the St. Marys River and the Straits of Mackinac to travel
between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan.

Two alternative canal routes were considered in the analysis. Both
would cross the western section of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and
provide direct passage between Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. The
benefits and costs were examined for canal depths of 28 to 33 feet in one
foot Increments for each route.

Plan C - Non-Structural Alternative Plan

The non-structural alternative plan could increase tonnage processed
through the existing lock system without major structural modifications by
increasing the efficiency of existing lock operation.

Four management measures were selected for consideration in the
non-structural alternative. These are:

1. Install traveling kevels,
2. Increase ship speed entering the locks,
3. Decrease lock chambering time,
4. Improved lock traffic control system.

A range of locking time reductions was established for each measure
based on operational experience. Engineering judgement was then used to
determine a reasonable locking time reduction that could be obtained within
this range. In addition to evaluating each non-structural measure
individually, a combination of non-structural improvements to obtain
maximum utility was also tested.

Traveling Kevels

Traveling kevels are wheeled movable mooring posts which would travel
on a rail along the guide walls on both sides of the lock. Upon
approaching the lock entrance, a ship would be moored to the kevels. The
kevels would then tow the ship into the lock. A vessel under its own power
must proceed into a lock very slowly to minimize the chance of damaging the
lock or the vessel. Using traveling kevels a vessel could potentially move
into a lock faster with the same degree of safety.

Increase Ship Speed Entering the Locks

Under this measure, vessels would be instructed to enter the locks at
a higher rate of speed. Additional safety procedures and devices would be
required at the lock to reduce potential lock and vessel damage. The
vessel would have to rely to a greater extent than it presently does on the

operation of its own controls, particularly the application of reversal of
power. Additional safety devices could include replaceable fenders, energy
absorbers, and rolling fenders. Some of these devices are currently in
place at the Soo Locks and at the St. Lawrence River Locks.

Decrease Lock Chambering Time

Chambering time is the time required to close the rearward gate, empty
or fill the lock, and open the forward gates. Locking time could be
reduced by reducing the chamber dump/fill times and chamber exit times. To
reduce the dump/fill time, the hydraulic system of the lock would require
remodeling or replacement. The flow rate through the culverts and the
intake and outlet ports would be increased. The valves would require
modification to open and close faster. Exit times could be reduced by
providing longitudinal hydraulic assistance for ships exiting downstream.
Water would be allowed to enter the chamber through the filling ports from
the upstream side to hydraulically assist the exit of downbound vessels.
Implementation of this alternative would decrease the lock chambering times

and thereby reduce the lock cycle time.

Improved Lock Traffic Control System

The proposed traffic control system would consist of a central,
computer run control point for the lock system. Information concerning all
of the vessels approaching or in the lock system would be input. The
system would plan vessel arrivals at the lock to reduce lock approach
times. Vessel meetings at restricted channel sections would also be
planned to increase safety. Instructions would be relayed to the vessel
captains by radio from lock traffic controllers at the central control
station. The proposed traffic control system could be designed to reduce
delays in lock approaches and would allow faster responses by the lock
operators in the locking operations.

For the Soo Locks the improved lock traffic control system was
determined to be the only effective plan of the four non-structural plans

considered.

Plan D, Combination Structural/Non-Structural Alternative Plans

A fourth set of alternative plans have been analyzed which consist of
combinations of the structural and non-structural alternatives described
earlier to determine whether these alternatives were feasible on a
system-wide basis. The combinations that were analyzed are portrayed in
the following matrix - Table 7.

TABLE 7

COMBINATION STRUCTURAL/NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES

1/ NAVIGATION NON-STRUCTURAL VESSEL MAXIMUM
ALTERNATIVE PLAN LOCK UTILIZATION SEASON 2/ CAPACITY INCREASE 3/ DRAFT VESSEL SIZE
('-feet) (Percent) (Months) - (Percent) (Feet) (feet x feet)

D - NEW POE SIZE LOCK & TRAFFIC CONTROL 80 9-1/4 4-1/2% 25.5 1000 X 105
D-1 NEW POE SIZE LOCK & TRAFFIC CONTROL ""28.0
+ 28 FOOT DRAFT
D-2 NEW POE SIZE LOCK & TRAFFIC CONTROL ..31
+ 31 FOOT DRAFT
D-3 DEEPEN UPPER ST. MARYS/LAKE SUPERIOR
HARBORS + NON-STRUCTURAL "
D-4 INTRODUCTION OF 1100' VESSELS """25.5 1100 X 105
D-5 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT """28.0
D-6 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 31 FOOT DRAFT ""31.0 "
D-7 INTRODUCTION OF 1200 FOOT VESSELS "'"25.5 1200 X 130
D-8 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT .. 28.0
D-9 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 30 FOOT DRAFT ..30.0 "
SENSITIVITY TEST 1, NEW POE SIZE LOCK/ 90 ""25.5 1000 x 105
TRAFFIC CONTROL - 90%
SENSITIVITY TEST 2, NEW POE SIZE LOCK/
TRAFFIC CONTROL+SEASON EXTENSION 80 10
SENSITIVITY TEST 3, NEW POE SIZE LOCK/
TRAFFIC CONTROL+CONSTRAINED WELLAND 9-1/4
CANAL

1/ 80% - 4 vessels in queue/lock, 6+ hours delay
90% - 2 vessels in queue/lock, 3-6 hours delay

2/ 9-1/4 months - 1 April to 8 January + 1 week
3 10 m onths - 1 April to 31 January'-+ 2 weeks

3/ 4.5% reduction in overall locking time (traffic control)

SECTION IV

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS

Assessment is the identification, description, and, if possible,
measurement of the impacts of the alternative plans. These are the
economic, social, or environmental consequences of an alternative which
would be weighed during the decision-making process. Impact assessment
requires forecasting where and when significant effects could result from
implementing a given alternative. This determination requires analyzing
monetary and nonmonetary changes based on professional And technical
assessment of the resources.

Evaluation is the analysis of each alternative plan's potential
impacts. Evaluation determines the subjective value of potential changes.
This is accomplished by conducting "with project and without project"
analysis of the alternative plans based on the changes identified in impact

assessment and ascribing values to the impacts based on public input and
the planner's judgment. The process begins by establishing the
contributions of each alternative in relation to the planning objectives
and then measuring those contributions according to four tests. These are:

a. Completeness - the extent to which a given alternative plan
provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to
ensure the realization of the planned effects.

b. Effectiveness - the extent to which an alternative plan alleviates
the specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities.

C. Efficiency - the extent to which an alternative plan is the most
cost effective means of alleviating the specified problems and realizing
the specified opportunities.

d. Acceptability - the workability and viability of the alternative
plan with respect to acceptance by the public and compatability with
existing laws, regulations, and public policies.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The economic analysis for preliminary feasibility studies consists
primarily of:

1. Traffic forecasts by commodity group, using 1978 waterborne
commerce statistics as the baseline and projecting traffic levels to the

year 2050;

2. Transportation rate analysis, which compares alternative
transportation modes (lake and ocean vessels, rail, barge, and truck) to
determine the least expensive means of delivering bulk and general cargos
within the Great Lakes region and for overseas trade;

3. Capacity analysis of the three lock systems on the Great Lakes and
St. Lawrence, and in particular the Soo Locks, to determine points in time
when constraints may develop and to test structural and non-structural
measures for alleviating such constraints; and

4. Determination of national economic development (NED) benefits that
could result from navigation system modifications over a 50 year project
life.

Base data for the analysis were developed from work undertaken through
contract by the consulting firms of Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., of
Bethesda, Maryland, and ARCTEC, Incorporated, of Columbia, Maryland.

The primary focus for economic evaluation in the preliminary
feasibility studies has been to determine whether system modifications can
be economically justified. These modifications could consist of deeper
navigation channels, or an enlargement of the existing system so that
vessels larger than what currently operate could be utilized. The various
dimensions subjected to analysis have included vessel drafts of 26 to 31
feet and vessel sizes of 1100 and 1200 feet in length and 105 and 130 feet
in width. A new large lock at the Soo to service only existing sized
vessels has also been examined.

Quantification of benefits in this study is determined by:
1) reductions in the cost of waterborne commerce; or 2) measures to
increase the capacity of a constrained navigation system in the future, so
that commerce could continue to be serviced by water transportation instead
of being forced to shift to more expensive transportation alternatives.

Three categories of transportation benefits have been separately
classified. Vessel utilization savings measure the increased efficiencies
of vessels taking advantage of greater system-wide channel and harbor
depths. They also identify the reduction in shipping costs permitted by
use of larger vessels on the system as a result of modifications of locks
and channels. A plan formulation rationale has been developed for this
stage of the study which requires that only those harbors taking full
advantage of the existing maximum system draft or vessel size be included
in the analysis of vessel utilization savings. There are 22 harbors
considered to be qualifying under this standard, including harbors for
which Corps of Engineers studies are underway and that presently recommend
27 foot harbor depths for use by the largest vessels on the system (e.g.,
Monroe Harbor). Other harbors would require modifications, either through
provision of a greater depth to 27 feet, or longer dock facilities to
handle the larger vessels on the system, before they would be considered to
take full advantage of the existing navigation system.

Reduction of vessel delays at a lack when capacity conditions are
reached constitutes a second benefit category. If structural or
non-structural measures or policies can be implemented to allow an increase
in tonnage able to be shipped through a lock per unit of time, or if a new
lock can be constructed to service the increase in traffic, then reductions
in vessel operating costs can be realized: vessels would no longer have to
wait (or wait as long) in a queue.

The third benefit category is transportation rate savings. If a
capacity constraint can be alleviated as a result of a modification to the
navigation system, then additional amounts of tonnage can continue to be
serviced by lake shipping. The most immediate alternative is for tonnage
to be diverted to higher cost transportation modes for the commodities and

routes under consideration. The benefit in this case is the difference

between waterborne rates, with handling and transfer charges, if
applicable, and the least cost alternative mode rate. The value of goods
in transit, for general cargo and grain in particular, is also taken into
account in determining an average rate differential. (The GL/SLS has an
advantage in the grain trade, but a disadvantage in the general cargo
trade, where faster alternative transportation service is frequently
available).

Economic justification of the various alternatives analyzed is
determined by comparing estimated average annual costs to estimated average
annual benefits over a 50-year period of analysis. March 1982 price levels
with a 7-5/8% interest rate were used in conducting the economic analysis.

PLAN A - THE WITHOUT PROJECT PLAN CONDITION

The without project plan condition, which assumes none of the proposed
alternatives under review were implemented, forms the benchmark upon which
potential impacts can be assessed and evaluated. This plan condition would
be one in which the existing fleet, which includes Class 10 (1,000 feet x
105 feet) vessels, would continue to operate at the current safe vessel
draft of 25.5 feet. The navigation season over time would probably be
9-1/4 months from I April to 8 January + 1 week. Since no structural or
non-structural plans would be implemented, capacity at the Soo Locks would
be limited to 150-185 million tons annually depending upon the capacity
measure (percent lock utilization) use, and would occur between the year
2000 and 2005. There would be no costs associated with this plan beyond the
normal costs required for operation and maintenance activities.

Since one of the assumptions made during the plan formulation process
was the existing locks would continue to operate throughout the life of the
project, an estimate was made for costs associated with the major
rehabilitation that would be required for each lock over this time period.

These costs would be in addition to normal operation and maintenance costs

and are summarized below:

TABLE 8
SOO LOCKS REHABILITATION

Projected Year
of
Lock Rehabilitation Cost

Davis 1992 $62,500,000
Sabin 1992 62,500,000
MacArthur 2010 78,000,000
Poe 2045 87,600,000

From a Social/Institutional standpoint, to the extent that the project
would contribute either to short-term, construction-related employment or
to long-term employment opportunities through increased diversification of
the employment base, those opportunities would be lost. In addition, as a
capacity condition was approached at the Soo Locks, congestion on the
connecting channels would increase as more transits were made to keep pace
with the increased tonnage. This increased congestion would increase the
opportunity for potential conflicts between commercial vessels and
recreational craft.

Potential beneficial and adverse environmental impacts resulting from
the alternative plans would not occur. Changes to the environment apart
from this study as outlined earlier in the plan formulation section of the
report, however, could be anticipated to occur.

The four evaluation tests of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency
and acceptability are not applied to the without plan.

Two additional factors are to be evaluated concerning the Soo Locks,
national defense and risk. The Great Lakes system has served the nation
during periods of military conflict in the past, and would be expected to
do so again in the future if the need arose. The Soo Locks are a vital
link in the system. Also, there are presently 25 vessels in the existing

fleet that are dedicated to the Poe Lock and can only use the Poe Lock for

upbound and downbound transits. A breakdown in the Poe Lock could have
serious consequences on bulk cargo movements on the Lakes. A risk analysis
is proposed during the detailed study stage.

PLAN B - STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The structural alternative plans for increasing system capacity are:
(1) increasing draft through additional dredging in harbors and channels
first for the existing fleet and then for two larger vessel sizes; (2)
construction of a new larger lock on the site of'the Sabin/Davis Locks; (3)
optimizing the existing system during periods of high water; and (4)
providing an alternate canal through the Michigan Upper Peninsula. The
first two structural alternative plans listed were tested with the lock
capacity model to determine their potential effects on increasing capacity
at the Soo. The other two were also analyzed as described below:

PLAN B-l - SYSTEM-WIDE CHANNEL AND HARBOR MODIFICATIONS

A lock capacity model was utilized to determine the increased capacity
that resulted from providing deeper drafts and larger vessels on the
system. From this analysis two vessel drafts, 28 feet and 31 feet, were
selected for full benefit/cost analysis. The results were:

TABLE 9
CAPACITY ANALYSIS-DEEPER DRAFTS

DEEPER DRAFTS (Feet) CAPACITY INCREASE (YEARS)
(due to deeper draft only)

EXISTING FLEET
(up to 1000 feet by 105 feet)

28 10
31 20

1100 feet x 105 feet

28 7
31 14

1200 feet x 130 feet

28 10
31 20

Costs for system-wide dredging of the connecting channels and
selected harbors on the upper four lakes, using the existing fleet,
ranged from $3.4 billion to provide a 28 foot draft to $5.34 billion
to provide a 31 foot draft.

Since none of these alternatives was benefit/cost effective, they were
eliminated from further consideration. Each of these plans was analyzed
with an initial date of action in 1992, to maintain system-wide
compatibility with plans under consideration in the Additional Locks Study
for the Welland Canal and St. Lawrence River locks.

The significant environmental resources identified earlier for the

study area could be influenced by the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and
Harbors Project through the specific activities that would be carried out
in the implementation and operation of the alternative plans. The proposed
structural alternatives encompass four major types of activities; dredging,
dredged material disposal, the building of structures, and vessel movement.

Dredging

Dredging activities related to a Connecting Channels and Harbors
project are not expected to have significant impacts upon air quality at
proposed navigation improvement sites. However, some very localized
temporary negative impacts may occur as the result of equipment operation
at the time of dredging.

Direct shoreland impacts of dredging will in most cases be limited to
the nuisance collection of scum or debris dislodged from the bottom by
dredging activities. In cases where channels are dredged through previous
terrestrial areas or near to shorelines some loss of terrestrial habitat
may occur, but such cases are unlikely.

Impacts on water quality and circulation represent a major concern in
relation to dredging activities. Short-term direct effects of dredging on
water quality may include: (1) the creation of turbidity and reduction in
light penetration; (2) the resuspension of contaminated bottom material;
(3) the release of nutrients and other materials trapped in the sediments,
(4) the depletion of dissolved oxygen from the water column; and (5) the
creation of floating scum and debris.

Most long-term impacts are related to modifications of bottom geometry
in areas of dredging. Those effects may be positive or negative. Dredging
may improve water quality by removing contaminated sediments from an area,
thus decreasing toxic substance release and oxygen demand, or by improving
circulation in restricted areas. However, dredging may also have long-term
negative impacts by creating pools of stagnant water in areas of over

dredging or by increasing the flushing time or polluted areas. Increased
dredging in riverine areas where channels are bordered by wetlands may
result in significantly decreased water flow through these important
habitats. Impacts of such an action are difficult to predict but may
significantly reduce wetland productivity.

Fish are probably subject to less direct effect by dredging than other
aquatic organisms. Despite this, they may be injured by blasting, early
life stages and small species may be entrained by dredging operations, and
they are subject to gill irritation and stress induced by turbidity and
toxic substances. Dredging operations may also harass fish. Hydrocarbons
and other pollutants have the potential to interfere with olfactory senses
affecting food location, escape from predators, selection of habitat, and
sex attraction. The noise, physical presence of equipment, and changes in
water quality associated with dredging may disrupt migration patterns,
interfere with spawning, and result in the smothering of eggs and burial of
spawning grounds. New dredging activities may result in removal of natural
shelters including macrophyte beds and reefs. This would act to reduce the
availability of spawning, feeding and nursery areas. All changes in
species diversity and population size which occur at lower tropic levels
will ultimately have some impact on fish and may ultimately decimate a

fishery.

Mammals and birds would probably suffer no direct impacts as the result
of dredging in aquatic areas although loss of habitat may occur when
macrophyte beds are removed. In cases where terrestrial areas are to be
converted into navigation channels, drastic impacts upon terrestrial fauna
may occur. In addition to the obvious direct losses of habitat, navigation
channels would alter local topography and block mammal migration routes.
As discussed in relation to fish, any changes which occur at lower tropic
levels will also ultimately affect birds and mammals of the area.

Dredged Material Disposal

Three types of disposal have been proposed for dredged materials; open
water disposal, in-water confined disposal, and terrestrial confined
disposal.

Open Water Disposal. The least expensive alternative, if a nearby site
is available, is open water disposal. The impact of this type of disposal
depends upon the disposal site, its bottom characteristics, and the
characteristics of the dredged material. Open water disposal is currently
restricted for polluted dredge spoils.

In-Water Confined Disposal. The impacts of confined disposal in
aquatic habitats depends upon the material being deposited and the natural
habitat present at the disposal site. If disposal facilities are
constructed near to or adjoining shore, changes in shorelands will occur.
A portion of the change will be the result of the direct addition of the
new land the disposal facility creates. Additional shoreland changes may
result from associated alterations in near shore currents which will affect
littoral drift, sediment deposition, and erosion. The magnitude of these
effects can only be judged on a site specific basis.

Terrestrial Confined Disposal. The impacts of terrestrial confined
disposal depends upon the character of the spoil being deposited and the
conditions of the site prior to disposal. Odors from sediments high in
organic materials may contribute to local declines in air quality at
disposal sites. Land use in the area will probably be changed
significantly by the construction of a confinement facility. If sediments
are highly polluted, future use of the area may be restricted to prevent
introduction of toxic materials into the food chain. Sediment
characteristics may also prevent future construction on the site.

Building of Structures

Implementation of the various alternatives of a Great Lakes Connecting
Channels and Harbors Project would involve building a variety of major
structures including locks, compensating works, breakwaters, confined
disposal facilities, and docks. Construction of any of these structures
may result in temporary declines in air quality associated with the
operation of heavy equipment and creation of dust.

Breakwaters and in-water confined disposal facilities may affect
shorelands by protecting these areas from the impact of open water wave
action or by influencing littoral drift. The net result of this may be a
change in erosion and deposition patterns along the shoreline.

Other impacts on shorelands are more directly related to human
activities. Construction or improvement of dock facilities may result in
increased development in harbor areas. Construction of in-water confined
disposal facilities would result in additional terrestrial areas which may
be developed or used as wildlife habitat. On-land confined facilities
would alter the habitat at the site and may affect future use of the area.

During construction activities, building of all of the mentioned
structures would have short-term impacts on local water quality. At worst,
these impacts would be similar to those previously described for dredging
as some excavation may be required. In most cases, water quality impacts
would be less severe but of longer duration than those associated with
dredging. Construction activities should not increase levels of nutrients
or toxic materials in most cases but would probably increase turbidity.
Even this effect should be relatively slight as construction activities
deal -mainly with the movement of rock.

Construction may cause changes in water flow patterns which can
drastically affect the local aquatic environment. In the case of lock
construction these changes would be largely short-term, lasting only during

the construction phase. Dock construction or improvement would generally

occur in areas of little water circulation and, in general, effects would
probably not be of significance. Confined disposal facilities may have
significant long-term impacts. As discussed in previous sections, these
impacts may be beneficial or detrimental depending on local conditions.
Disposal facilities may divert currents causing increased erosion or
creating areas of reduced water exchange where pollutants may be
concentrated. Such facilities may also be placed to protect sensitive
areas from strong wave action and erosion damage.

Breakwaters and compensating works are designed to alter water flow
patterns. Breakwaters are usually associated with harbor facilities.
Their major impact on flow patterns often involves disruption of littoral

drift patterns and reduction of water exchange between the harbor and
surrounding waters. Compensating works are designed to reduce the
discharge of rivers in order to prevent changes in water levels. Fixed
compensating works, as evaluated in the project, result in areas of dead
water immediately downstream of the structures. The habitat in these areas
can be changed by such alterations in flow patterns.

Building structures can result in changes in local macrophyte and
periphyton populations through changes in water quality, water flows, and
available substrate. Productivity changes associated with water quality
alterations have been extensively discussed elsewhere. New circulation
patterns in an area may cause erosion or deposition of sediments, altering
the suitability of the area for some species and resulting in changes in
species composition.

Building structures would affect fish populations in a variety of ways.
Fish inhabiting the area would be harassed by noise, vibrations and changes
in water quality during construction activities. This may be limited to

just chasing fish from the area for a short period or it may interfere with
a critical life period such as spawning. In the latter case long-term
losses to the population may result.

Wildlife and birds in the vicinity of new structures would also be
harassed during construction but impacts would not often be significant.
Increased development may result in obvious losses of wildlife habitat,
particularly around dock and lock facilities. However, additional habitat
may be created by other structures. Breakwaters are often used as resting
sites by gulls and terns, and the quiet water areas created behind these
structures are often used by waterfowl as resting and feeding areas.
Similarly, compensating works may create areas of quiet water favored by
some species of birds.

Operation of 'Larger Vessels

Some individuals and agencies have expressed concerns that the

operation of larger vessels, in addition to the physical modifications they
require, will damage the environment. Possible impacts of the operation of
larger vessels include changes in air and water quality and their
subsequent effects on the biota. It is assumed that larger vessels will
consume more fuel and would emit more pollutants to the atmosphere.
However, as large vessels are currently the most fuel efficient means of
bulk commodity transport, a net decrease in atmospheric pollution would
result from using larger vessels rather than alternative modes of
transportation.

PLAN B-2 - A NEW LOCK AT THE SOO LOCKS

Three new lock sizes were tested with the lock capacity model to
determine their effects. The results are summarized in Table 9 and once
again, since the plan provided an incomplete solution, the installation of
a new lock was reconsidered as part of a combination plan.

TABLE 10
CAPACITY ANALYSIS-NEW LOCK

ALTERNATIVE PLAN CAPACITY INCREASE (YEARS)

Vessel Size Lock Size
(feet x feet) (feet x feet)

1000 x 105 1200 x 115 28 - 30
1100 x 105 1350 x 115 28 - 30
1200 x 130 1460 x 145 28 - 30

costs for a new lock ranged from $170 million for a lock 1200 feet by
115 feet, to $235 million for a lock 1460 feet by 145 feet with related
harbor and channel improvements to accommodate the 1200 feat by 130 foot
vessel size.

PLAN B-3 - DEEPEN THE UPPER ST. MARYS RIVER AND 3 LAKE SUPERIOR HARBORS

This alternative plan would increase the capacity/efficiency of the
existing commercial navigation system by optimizing draft during periods of
high water. In its current relationship, the frequency of water levels at
or below low water datum on Lake Superior is higher than for the other
lakes. This results in Lake Superior controlling draft 90% of the time
even during periods of high water. The objective of this plan, therefore,
is to determine the level of dredging necessary to bring Lake Superior into
a 50%-50% relationship with Lakes Michigan/Huron and assure additional
draft during periods of high water on the lower system. Through an
analysis of 75 years of hydrologic data it was determined that with a
28-foot project depth in the upper St. Marys River from the Vidal Shoals
area to Brush Point in Lake Superior and three Lake Superior commercial
harbors, the objective could be met. Since Lake Superior is carefully
regulated, the additional bottom clearance would enable vessel operators to
anticipate a 26.5 foot draft from June through the balance of the
navigation season. In addition, during the months of April and May which
are the traditional low-water months, vessel operators could anticipate
being able to take advantage of additional draft up to 50% of the time.

A review of the upper St. Marys River and the three deep-draft harbors
on Lake Superior determined that additional modifications would be
necessary to obtain a 28-foot project depth. These modifications included
deepening the Vidal Shoals area on the upper St. Mary's to 29 feet to
provide safe vessel clearance; 29 feet from Vidal Shoals to Brush Point;
and deepening Duluth-Superior, Presque Isle and Two Harbors to 28 feet.

Total average annual costs associated with this plan are $11.5 million.
Economic benefits resulting from the plan were estimated to be $10.0
million with a resulting B/c ratio of .90. Since this is an improvement to
the existing system as opposed to additional improvements, capacity was
increased by 2-3 years. The potential environmental, social and

institutional impacts resulting from the implementation of the alternative
would, on an order of magnitude, be the same as those outlined in the

general dredging impacts discussion earlier. Since the costs associated
with this plan are order of magnitude numbers, this plan is being
recommended for further analysis in the next stage of the planning
process*

PLAN B-4 - AN ALTERNATE CANAL THROUGH THE MICHIGAN UPPER PENINSULA

Two alternate canal routes were considered for this alternative. One

route would consist of a canal between Au Train Bay on Lake Superior and
Little Bay De Noc on Lake Michigan. The second route traverses the area of
Michigan's Upper Peninsula between Munising on Lake Superior and Manistique
on Lake Michigan.

While previous canal studies were designed to accommodate a 700 foot by
70 foot vessel, this study considered a 1,000 foot by 105 foot vessel. For
each canal the 23.1 foot difference in elevation between Lake Superior and

Lake Michigan would be overcome by three locks, each 1,400 feet by 160 feet,
and located a minimum of one mile apart to be constructed in heavy fill
sections which are difficult to breach under most conditions.

Route 1: Au Train -Little Bay De Noe

The Au Train - Little Bay De Noc alternative utilizes the natural
courses of the Au Train and Whitefish Rivers which originate in the
highlands approximately 13 miles south of the Lake Superior shore. The
head of Little Bay De Noc is approximately 38 miles south of the mouth of
the Au Train River in Au Train Bay. The surface profile along the
centerline of this route rises sharply from Lake Superior level to an
elevation of 760 feet approximately 7 miles south of Au Train Bay. This
approximate elevation is maintained southward for about 12 miles.

From that point southward the land slopes more or less uniformly to the
level of Little Bay De Noc on Lake Michigan. Rock at relatively shallow
depths underlies the ground surface for most of the route except for the
extreme northern section.

The shoreline of Little Bay De Noc at the southern end of the canal is

such that the locks could be dispersed in broad fill sections extending
across the bay.

Route 2: Munising - Manistique

The Lake Superior terminus for this route would utilize Grand Island
Harbor at Munising. The southern terminus would be on Lake Michigan near
the Village of Thompson about 6 miles southwest of Manistique. The length
of the canal would be 41 miles. The terrain along this route rises from
the level of Lake Superior to an elevation of approximately 950 feet five
miles southeast of Munising. The main body of water intercepted by the
canal would be the Indian River, which empties into Indian Lake. Several
other streams would also be affected and would require inlet structures.

The results of the analysis indicate that neither the Au Train - Little
Bay De Noe nor the Munising - Manistique route can be justified based on
estimated project costs and benefits. In both cases annual project costs
greatly exceed benefits based on operating cost savings. The benefit/cost
ratios for Au Train - Little Bay De Noc vary from .018 to .024 for channel
depths from 28 to 33 feet. The benefitlcost ratios for Munising -
Manistique vary from .010 to .014 over the same range of channel depths.
These benefit/cost ratios are very low when compared to the normal

benefit/cost ratio criteria that the ratio be in excess of 1.0 for the
project to be considered economically beneficial. These results support
the findings of previous investigations.

PLAN C - NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN

Although four management measures were originally included in the
formulation of the non-structural plan, the lock capacity model simulation
results, together with operational constraints on implementation, have
eliminated three of these measures from further analysis.

The installation of traveling kevels, the mechanical devices that could

move vessels into the lock chamber at a faster rate of speed with safety
levels comparable to existing operations, has been eliminated. The
configuration of the existing guide walls at the Soo Locks would make
implementation of this measure operationally infeasible for three reasons.
First, the guide walls along the approach channel and lock chamber are
stepped which precludes the kevels from moving along a single track. Two
kevels and track, with an interim movement by the linehandlers, would be
required to operationalize this measure which would cause an increase in
locking time. Secondly, the guide walls contain a series of conduits,
tunnels and other improvements which would make them unsuitable to serve as
a foundation for kevels of the size required to assist 800 - 1000 foot
vessels in the lock. Finally, the length of the guide walls from approach
channel to lock chamber is too short to anticipate a decrease in lock
entrance time could be achieved over a vessel moving under its own power.

Increasing vessel speed entering the lock chamber has also been
eliminated from consideration. Currently at the Soo Locks, a vessel is
allowed to enter the lock chamber while a second vessel waits in queue
moored to the approach channel guide wall immediately behind. As the
vessel entering the lock approaches the front gate, water is compressed
around and under the vessel forcing it back past the stern. The force of
this water under existing conditions is sufficient at times to pull the
vessel waiting in queue away from the approach canal guide wall. An
increase in vessel speed entering the locks could increase the potential
for vessels waiting in queue actually being pulled off of the guide wall
and increase the potential for damage to the vessels and the locks. A
second consideration in eliminating this measure is a vessel master cannot

be ordered to proceed into a lock at a prescribed rate of speed. The rate
at which he enters the lock is an individual decision based upon the
manuevering characteristics of his vessel and his experience in operation
in confined areas.

The third management measure eliminated from further consideration is
decreasing lock chambering time. Chambering time consists of several

components, but the two components most sensitive to speed increases are

chamber dump/fill times and chamber exiting times. Chamber dump/fill time
would be decreased through remodeling or replacement of the hydraulic
systems in the locks. The effort would include modification of the
intake/discharge valves to increase capacity; the installation of
self-cleaning vents on the valves; and hydraulic assistance to vessels
exiting downstream by opening the upstream valves as the vessel exits. A
review of the operational impacts of four parallel locks on one another in
terms of eddys, cross-currents and turbulence and the reduction in safety
that could occur precluded this measure from further analysis. In
addition, it is unclear without further hydraulic analysis whether the St.
Marys River could sustain the flows required to obtain the increased fill
rates without adversely affecting the upstream vessels waiting in queue.
The potential for bottoming loaded vessels waiting in queue could be
increased through this measure.

Increased traffic control through the installation of a computer run
control point for the lock system does appear to have utility as a
non-structural capacity increasing measure.

Approach time constitutes approximately 20% of the total time required

for the locking process. The proposed traffic control system could reduce
vessel approach times by approximately 22%, and total locking time by 4.5%.
Analysis of this management measure through the capacity model indicated a
4.5% reduction in overall locking time would result in a 4-5 year capacity
increase for the system. Increased traffic control has been established,
therefore, as the non-structural plan for the Soo Locks system.

Total average annual costs associated with the implementation of this
plan are estimated to be $128,000 with benefits estimated at $35,866,000.
The corresponding B/C ratio is 280.2 which makes this a highly feasible

alternative.

Since the electronic equipment envisioned in this plan would be placed
in existing buildings, no adverse environmental or social impacts have been
identified. A beneficial effect to both environmental and social concerns
is the reduction in potential accidents that could occur within the
connecting channels in tight reaches. Vessels approaching one another
would be monitored and potential points of conflict could be avoided. An
institutional issue identified in the analysis of this alternative is to
obtain true traffic control. An agreement would have to be made between
vessel operators and the United States/Canadian governments regarding what
authority; i.e., the Corps of Engineers or the Coast Guard, would be the
designated authority having control of commercial traffic on the system.

To summarize the non-structural plan utilizying the four tests
established for evaluation:

Completeness: the computer based traffic control system would be
complete in that it represents all necessary investment to insure
realization of the plan. The only additional investment beyond normal
operation/maintenance that may be necessary would be if the technology in
the computer hardware over time changes sufficiently that a change could be
warranted.

Effectiveness: based upon the results of the capacity model

simulation, the alternative appears to be highly effective within limits.
While the non-structural plan-does not resolve the capacity problem for the
50 year period, it does appear to have good potential as a solution when
used in combination with other alternatives.

Efficiency: while increased traffic control only poses a 4-5 year
solution to the capacity problem, it is a highly cost efficient alternative
with a B/C ratio of 280.2.

Acceptability: it appears the implementation of this alternative would
be highly acceptable to all concerns assuming the issue of authority for
traffic control can be agreed upon.

PLAN D - COMBINATION STRUCTURAL/NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Ten combinations of structural and non-structural alternative plans
were developed for analysis as portrayed in Table 7. Six data bases were
utilized to determine whether feasible solutions were possible. These dta
bases are: traffic forecasts based upon two rates of growth; the capacity
of the lock system (measured as a percent utilization); the length of the
commercial navigation season; the capacity increase obtained through
implementation of the non-structural plan (measured in years); maximum

draft available to the fleet; and the maximum vessel size operating on the
system. Plans D - New Poe-Size Lock and Traffic Control, and D-3 - Deepen
the Upper St. Marys River and the Lake Superior Harbors, were reviewed in
detail. The other eight plans were reviewed only in terms of the four
evaluative tests of completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and
acceptability, since they do not exhibit feasibility. In addition, three
combinations were included for sensitivity testing. The same data bases
were used and the combination reviewed in terms of the four evaluative

tests.

The results of the benefit-to-cost analysis and evaluative tests for
each of the plans are displayed in Table 11.

PLAN D - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the
Soo Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season from I April to 8
January + I week, a 4-1/2% capacity increase from the non-structural
alternative, a maximum available draft system-wide of 25.5 feet and the
maximum vessel size in the fleet is 1000 feet x 105 feet.

Analysis of this alternative plan through the lock capacity model
resulted in an initial capacity condition in the year 2004 when total
tonnage reached 170 million tons annually. The capacity constraint was
eased through the implementation of traffic control and then the
construction of a new Poe size lock (1200 feet by 115 feet).

From an environmental standpoint, while this alternative does not have
the potential to greatly improve the environment, it may provide some
measure of enhancement or protection to the aquatic environment while still
improving the navigation system. Although some short-term adverse impacts
could result, the area around the locks is highly developed and direct
long-term impacts are expected to be negligible. Possible long-term
benefits may accrue to both environmental and social considerations through
the reduction of congestion around the locks and a decrease in potential
accidents or conflicts between commercial vessels and recreational craft.
The institutional issues to be addressed if this alternative were
implemented would include the cost sharing between the public and private
sectors for construction and the establishment of a new flow regime between
the United States and Canada to cover the increased flows required to
service the new lock.

PLAN D-1 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE

Plan D-1 combines Plan D with a 28-foot draft system-wide to
accommodate the existing fleet.

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the
Soo Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season, a 4-1/2% capacity
increase from the non-structural alternative, a maximum available draft
system-wide of 28 feet and the maximum vessel size in the fleet is 1000
feet x 105 feet. Actions were taken in 1992 to increase system-mwide
capacity. These actions included a new Poe size lock at the site of the
Davis Lock and system-wide draft increased to 28 feet.

PLAN~ D-2 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL + 31 FOOT DRAFT
SYSTEM-WIDE.

Utilizing Plan D, this plan would combine it with a 31 foot draft
system-wide to accommodate the existing fleet.

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the
Soo Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season, a 4-1/2% capacity
increase from the non-structural alternative, a maximum available draft
system-wide of 31 feet and the maximum vessel size in the fleet is 1000
feet x 105 feet. Actions were taken in 1992 to increase system wide
capacity. These actions included a new Poe-size lock at the site of the
Davis, and a system-wide draft increase to 31 feet.

PLAN D-3 - DEEPEN UPPER ST. MARYS RIVER AND 3 LAKE SUPERIOR HARBORS +
TRAFFIC CONTROL

This plan would consist of traffic control at the Soo Locks and
deepening by one foot the upper St. Marys River from the Vidal Shoals
Channel to the Brush Point Course in Lake Superior along with selected
areas in Duluth/Superior, Two Harbors, and Presque Isle harbors. This
would bring Lake Superior into a 50-50 balance with Lakes Michigan/Huron
instead of the 90-10 condition which currently exists. Although this
alternative would optimize the existing upper lakes commercial navigation
system during periods of high water, the additional draft could be utilized
up to 50% of the time during periods of low water on Lake Superior. This
would accommodate the existing fleet.

PLAN D-4 - INTRODUCTION OF 1100 FOOT VESSELS ON SYSTEM.

In this plan the maximum available draft system-wide would remain 25.5
feet; however, the replacement lock at the Soo Locks would be 1350 feet by
115 feet and this would accommodate vessels up to 1100 feet by 105 feet.

PLAN D-5 - 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE.

This plan combines Plan D-4 with a 28 foot draft system-wide. The
replacement lock at the Soo Locks would be 1350 feet by 115 feet and the
maximum available draft system-wide would be 28 feet. This would
accommodate vessels up to 1100 feet by 105 feet.

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the
Soo Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season, a 4-1/2% capacity
increase from tne non-structural alternative, a maximum available draft
system-wide of 28 feet and the maximum vessel size in the fleet is 1100
feet by 105 feet.

PLAN D-6 - 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 31 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE.

Same as Plan D-4 with a maximum available 31 foot draft system-wide,
this plan would accommodate vessels 1100 feet by 105 feet.

PLAN D-7 - INTRODUCTION OF 1200 FOOT VESSELS ON SYSTEM.

Although the maximum available draft system-wide would remain at 25.5
feet, the replacement lock at the Soo Locks would be 1460 feet by 145 feet.
This would allow vessels of 1200 feet by 130 feet to utilize the system.

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the

Soo Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season, a 4-1/2% capacity
increase from tne non-structural alternative, a maximum available draft
system-wide of 25.5 feet and the maximum vessel size in the fleet is 1200

feet by 130 feet.

PLAN D-8 - 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE.

In this plan the replacement lock at the Soo Locks would be 1460 feet

by 145 feet combined with a 28 foot draft system-wide. This would
accommodate vessels up to 1200 feet by 130 feet.

PLAN D-9 - 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 30 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE.

This plan combines Plan D-7 with a 30 foot draft system-wide to
accommodate vessels up to 1200 feet by 130 feet.

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the
Soo Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season, a 4-1/2% capacity
increase from tne non-structural alternative, a maximum available draft
system-wide of 30 feet and the maximum vessel size in the fleet is 1200
feet by 130 feet.

SENSITIVITY TEST I - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL WITH 90% LOCK

UTILIZATION.

For this sensitivity test, Plan D is implemented; however, utilization
of the lock at capacity is increased to 90%. This would accommodate the
existing fleet.

TABLE 11
LIST OF ALTERNATIVE COMBINATION PLANS

Average Average
Structural: Non-structursl' Initial IAnnual Annual B/C Not
PLAN Replacement improvement Date of costs Benefits Ratio Benefits
Draft Lock Size Vessel Traffic Control Action (Non-Additive) ($000) ($00) ($000)

D 25.5' 1200' x 115' 4%4% 2004 Non-trc. 128 35,868 280.2 35,738
Struc-Lock 15.549 88.500 5.48 70,651
Lock +71-Hbrs. 22.084 8.500 3.92 64,416

Di PA, 1200'x 115' none 1992 2515,182 207,909 .73

D2 Si, 1200' x115' none 1992 438,581 238.174 .54

03 Deepening upper St. Marys River plus 3 Lake Superior harbors Anytime. Current traffic 11.446 10.020 .88

With traffic growth 11.446 12,884 1.11 1,218

04 25.5' 1350' x 115' none 1992 68.837 123.043 1.84 56,206

05 2' 1350' X115' none 1992 292,453 204,039 .70

06 31' 1350 X 11' none 1992 446.086 234.136 .52

D7 25.5' 1460' x 145' none 1992 105.127 118,760 1.13 13.842

DO 28' 1460' x 145' none 1992 343.259 192.598 .88

Do 31' 1460' x 145' none 1992 461.905 221,105 .48

For each plan except 0-3. the following appired:

1. % lock utilization at capacity =80%

2. Traffic forecast=Low: Developed specifically for GLCCH &SLSAL Studies under contract by
Bo~oz Allen & Hamilton.

3. Length of season at the Scoo 9'!4 months.

4. Constrained Welland Canal =No.

TABLE 11 (Cont.)

Four EvaluativeTests

PLAN Completeness Effectiveness Efficiency Acceptability

D Cost estimates include on order of magnitude Based upon the results of the capacity model Mot efficient of ael alternatives analyzed
numbers all first costs related to con- the combination of increased traffic control and a new In terms of dollars expended, benefitslcapacity
struction both public and private as well as an Poe-size lock would provide a total of 32 years Increases gained, environmentalsocial
estimate of annual O&M costs that would be of additional capacity on the system. Therefore, it Is acceptability and institutional feasibility.
required. To that extent, the plan is complete. effective, but would require additional analysis in
the out-years to determine whether an additional
lock would be required beyond the year 2036.

D1 Cost estimates reflect all construction related Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock With a B/C ratio of .73, the plan is Potential adverse Impacts from
first costs both public and private, and the system out to the year 2042. economically infeasible and has been activities related to system-wide
annual O&M costs that would be required. eliminated from further consideration. dredging make this plan less
Also Includes all actions necessary to acceptable from an environmental
Implement the plan. social impacts perspective.

D2 Same as for Plan D1. Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock Witha B/C ratio of.54, the plan is Same as for Plan D1.
system out to the year 2042. economically Infeasible and has been
eliminated from further consideration.

D3 The objective of this plan is to optimize the Dredging of one foot from the areas identified brings The B/C ratio is .88. A capacity increase of 2-3 Has some potentially adverse
existing upper lakes commercial navigation Lakes Superior into a 50-50 balance with Lake years was obtained through this plan. Since impacts since it involves some
system during periods of high water and is Michigan/Huron rather than the 90-10 condition the costs of dredging were at the survey blasting in rock areas and in the
therefore complete within the scope of that objective. that currently exists in terms of which lake level of detail, this alternative is three harbors. The environmental/
controls at low water. The plan is effective recommended as a plan warranting social acceptability are to be
since an additional foot of draft could be further study. analyzed in the next stage of study.
anticipated for 70-80% of the overall navigation season.

D4 Same as for Plan D1. Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock B/C ratio is 1.84 and is economically feasible Same as for Plan D1.
system out to the year 2030. but has been eliminated from further
study since the existing fleet with a
new Poe-size lock maximizes annual
costs and benefits.

D5 Same as for Plan D1. Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock B/C ratio is .70 and is economically infeasible. Same as for Plan D1.
system beyond the year 2042. Has been eliminated from further consideration.

D6 Same as for Plan D1. Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock B/C ratio is .52 and is economically Same as for Plan D1.
system beyond the year 2042. infeasible. Has been eliminated from
further consideration.

D7 Same as for Plan D1. Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock B/C ratio is 1.13. Plan is economically feasible, Same as for Plan D1.
system out to the year 2032. but has been eliminated from further
consideration since the Poe-size lock maximizes
economic benefits to the system.

D8 Same as for Plan D1. Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock B/C ratio is .56 and is economically Same as for Plan D1.
system out to the year 2040. infeasible. Has been eliminated from
further consideration.
09 Same as for Plan D1. . Results in an addition to the capacity of the lock B/C ratio is.48 and is economically infeasible. Same as for Plan D1.
system beyond the year 2042. Has been eliminated from further consideration.

The assumptions under this plan are a 90% capacity condition at the Soo

Locks, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season from I April to 8 January
+ I week, a 4-1/2% capacity increase from the non-structural alternative, a
maximum available draft system-wide of 25.5 feet and the maximum vessel
size in the fleet is 1000 feet by 105 feet.

Testing of this combination plan through the lock capacity model
resulted in an initial capacity condition in approximately the year 2012
when total tonnage reached 185 million tons annually. The capacity
constraint was eased through the implementation of traffic control and then
the construction of the new Poe size lock.

Total average annual costs associated with the implementation of this

plan were estimated to be $22.1 million with'average annual benefits from
the two savings categories estimated at $82.3 million. The corresponding
benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.7 which makes this an economically feasible
alternative.

Utilizing the four evaluation tests, the alternative may be summarized
as follows:

Completeness: Cost estimates prepared for this alternative include on
order of magnitude numbers including all first costs related to
construction both public and private as well as an estimate of annual
operation and maintenance costs that would be required. To that extent,
the plan is complete.

Effectiveness: Based upon the results of the lock capacity model
simulation, the combination of increased traffic control and a new Poe size
lock would provide a total of approximately 32 years of additional capacity
on the system. It is, therefore, an effective alternative, but would
require additional analysis in the out-years to determine whether an
additional lock would be required beyond the year 2044.

Efficiency: While this alternative is as efficient as Plan D,
operational constraints imposed by a 90% capacity condition and the
reduction of safety levels that would result, preclude this alternative from

further analysis. The operational constraints that make consideration of
the 90% level infeasible as a capacity measure center on the assumption
that downbound transits with four vessels waiting in queue up to 12 hours
or an average six hours could be accomplished. The physical limitations of
the St. Marys River above and below the locks, however, preclude the safe
operation of vessels in such close proximity with that number of vessels in
queue.

SENSITIVITY TEST 2 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL WITH NAVIGATION
SEASON EXTENSION.

This combination plan is Plan D with an extended navigation season of
10 months, to accommodate the existing fleet.

The assumptions under this plan are an 80% capacity condition at the
Soo Locks, a 10 month extended commercial navigation season from I April to
31 January, a 4-1/2% capacity increase from the non-structural alternative,
a maximum available draft system-wide of 25.5 feet and the maximum vessel
size in the fleet is 1000 feet by 105 feet.

Testing of this combination plan through the lock capacity model
resulted in an initial capacity condition in approximately the year 2010
when total tonnage reached 182 million tons annually. The capacity
constraint was eased through the implementation of traffic control and the
construction of a new Poe size lock.

Average annual costs associated with the implementation of this plan
were the same as Plan D as summarized in Table 11. None of the costs or
benefits associated with the extension of the navigation season were
incorporated into this analysis.

Utilizing the four evaluation tests, the alternative may be summarized
as follows:

Effectiveness: Based upon the results of the lock capacity model
simulation, the combination of increased traffic control and a new Poe size
lock would provide a total of 34 years of additional capacity on the
system. It is, therefore, an effective alternative, but would require
additional analysis in the out-years to determine whether an additional
lock would be required beyond the year 2044.

Efficiency: This alternative is as efficient as Plan D, but was run as
a sensitivity test only. The plan has been precluded from further analysis
since implementation of an extended season is beyond the scope of this
study, and is being reviewed under separate authority.

SENSITIVITY TEST 3 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRA.FFIC CONTROL WITH A CONSTRAINED
WELLAND CANAL.

This test combined Plan D with a constrained condition at the Welland
Canal in 1992. A constrained Welland Canal would limit the tonnage
serviced. This plan would accommodate the existing fleet.

Testing of this combination plan through the lock capacity model
resulted in an initial capacity condition in approximately the year 2006
when total tonnage reached 170 million tons annually. The capacity
constraint was eased through the implementation of traffic control and then
the construction of a new Poe size lock.

Average annual costs associated with the implementation of this plan
are $22,084 and average annual benefits from the three savings categories
are $86,797. The corresponding benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.9 which makes
this au economically feasible alternative.

Utilizing the four evaluation tests, the alternative may be summarized

as follows:

Effectiveness: Based upon the results of the lock capacity model

simulation, the combination of increased traffic control and a new Poe size
lock would provide a total of approximately 36 years of additional capacity
on the system. It is," therefore, an effective alternative, but would
require additional analysis in the out-years to determine whether an
additional lock would be required beyond the year 2042.

Efficiency: This alternative was conducted as a sensitivity test.

PLANS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Through the assessment and evaluation process the following plans have
been eliminated from further analysis because they are economically
infeasible, incomplete in terms of effectiveness and/or unacceptable
because of potential adverse environmental and social impacts:

PLAN B: STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS

1. PLAN B-1 - SYSTEM-WIDE CHANNEL AND HARBOR MODIFICATIONS

VESSEL DRAFT
(feet x feet) (feet)

Existing Fleet: 28 - 31
(up to 100 x 105)
1100 x 105 : 25.5 - 28 - 31
1200 x 130 : 25.5 - 28 - 30

2. PLAN B-2 - A NEW LOCK AT THE SOO LOCKS

LOCK SIZE DEPTH OVER SILLS
(feet x feet) (feet)

Poe Size: 36
1350 x 115 : 32 - 36
1460 x 145 : 32 - 36

3. PLAN B-4 - ALTERNATE CANAL ACROSS THE MICHIGAN UPPER
PENINSULA:

PLAN D: COMBINATION STRUCTURAL/NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Plan D-1 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL + 28 FOOT DRAFT
SYSTEM-WIDE
Plan D-2 - NEW POE SIZE LOCK + TRAFFIC CONTROL + 31 FOOT DRAFT

SYSTEM-WIDE
Plan D-4 - INTRODUCTION OF 1100 FOOT VESSELS ON SYSTEM
Plan D-5 - 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE
Plan D-6 - 1100 FOOT VESSELS + 31 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE
Plan D-7 - INTRODUCTION OF 1200 FOOT VESSELS ON SYSTEM
Plan D-8 - 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 28 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE
Plan D-9 - 1200 FOOT VESSELS + 31 FOOT DRAFT SYSTEM-WIDE

SECTION V

COMPARISON OF PLANS

The previous section of this report assessed, evaluated and eliminated
from further analysis those alternative plans that lacked economic
feasibility and/or exhibited potential environmental, social or
institutional impacts that would make them unacceptable. The plan that
survived this assessment/evaluation process, Plan D - New Poe Size Lock and
Traffic Control, can now be reviewed as a potential candidate National
Economic Development plan. One additional plan, Plan D-3, Deepening the
Upper St. Marys River and 3 Lake Superior Harbors, also warrants further
study. In addition, after analysis of the harbors throughout the system, it
became evident that several harbor pairings (ports of origin and
destination) on Lake Michigan may warrant improvement and be developed as a
separate plan. Also, seven harbors which provide an existing 25.5 foot
vessel draft may warrant improvement to accommodate Class 10 (1000 foot by
105 foot) vessels and could be considered an additional plan.

RATIONALE FOR CANIDIDATE NED PLAN

National Economic Development (NED) is defined as an increase in the
value of the Nation's output of goods and services and the improvement of
national economic efficiency attributable to a project. It is determined
by comparing the average annual benefits resulting from project
implementation against the average annual costs of undertaking the project.
The NED plan, therefore, is that plan which maximizes the excess of average
annual benefits over average annual costs. Among all of the alternatives
considered in a study, designation of the NED plan is that plan that
maximizes net benefits. The basic economic benefits from navigation
management and development plans are the reduction in the value of
resources required to transport commodities and the increase in the value
of output for goods and services. Specific transportation savings may
result from the use of larger vessels, more efficient use of large vessels,
more efficient use of existing vessels, reductions in transit time, lower

cargo handling and tug assistance costs, reduced interest and storage

costs, such as from an extended navigation season, and the use of water
transportation rather than an alternative land mode.

CANDIDATE PLAN

A candidate plan is one which exhibits maximum economic feasibility
and warrants further detailed analysis during the detailed study stage of
the planning process. In this study, the plan which maximizes the excess
of average annual benefits over average annual costs as required for the
NED plan is Plan D -- New Poe Size Lock and Traffic Control, which assumes
80% lock utilization, a 9-1/4 month commercial navigation season, a 4-1/2%
capacity increase through improved traffic control, a maximum draft of 25.5
feet, and a maximum vessel size on the system of 1000 feet x 105 feet. The
analysis of the alternatives also revealed that, although none of the
proposed alternatives have the potential to greatly improve the
environment, Plan D does appear to offer some measure of enhancement and
protection to the aquatic environment while still improving the navigation
system. W~hile this plan could result in negative short-term effects, the
area is highly developed and direct long-term impacts, if experienced, would
be negligible. The candidate plan for both the NED objective, therefore,
is Plan D.

Rationale For Plans Warranting Further Study

In addition to the candidate plan, three additional alternatives
exhibit sufficient feasibility that additional analysis should be
conducted. These are Plan D-3, Deepen Upper St. Marys River and 3 'Lake
Superior Harbors + Traffic Control; An Analysis of Incremental
Improvements on a Port-to-Port Basis to determine whether the existing
system could sustain additional modifications that would optimize harbor
pairings; and possible improvement to seven harbors to accommodate Class 10
vessels.

Cost Apportionment

Plans D and D-5, provide benefits to commercial navigation, therefore,
under existing regulations the costs associated with dredging of the
channels and transporting the dredged materials to disposal facilities
would be borne by the Federal Government. Those costs associated with
construction of confined disposal sites, including providing lands,
easements, and rights-of-way, would be borne by the local sponsors.

However, on 15 July 1981, the Department of the Army, on behalf of the
Administration, transmitted proposed legislation to Congress that would
provide for full recovery of certain operation, maintenance and
construction or rehabilitation costs for deep-draft channels and ports with
authorized depths greater than 14 feet. If this legislation is enacted,
Corps of Engineers expenditures for a project would be subject to recovery
as provided in the proposed legislation. Accordingly, non-Federal
interests would be required to reimburse the Federal government for
construction of navigation features of the recommended plan, and all
subsequent expenditures for operation, maintenance and rehabilitation;
except for expenditures assigned by the Secretary of the Army to
governmental vessels in non-commercial service. The proposal to fully
recover these costs would supersede the previous requirement for a 5% State

cash contribution.

The entire amount of the Federal construction or rehabilitation
expenditures to be reimbursed, including interest during construction and
interest on the unpaid balance, would be reimbursed within the life of the
project, but in no event would exceed fifty years after the date the
project becomes available for use. The interest rate for reimbursement
purposes would be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury based on the
average market yields on outstanding obligations of the United States.

SECTION VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY

The planning process to date has three primary objectives. These are:
the formulation and analysis of preliminary alternative plans that address
the problems and needs identified; determine those candidate plans which
display feasibility; and determine whether there is sufficient overall
feasibility, Federal interest, and local support to warrant further
detailed study.

The Great Lakes Connecting Channels and Harbors Study has determined
there are significant problems and needs related to the existing commercial
navigation system and the economic, environmental, social and institutional
systems that it interacts with. A series of structural and non-structural
alternative plans for system improvements have been formulated and reviewed
for overall feasibility. The conclusions of this analysis are:

Engineering

- Lock, connecting channel, and harbor improvements are engineeringly

feasible.

- Cost estimates include all U.S. costs for U.S. harbors, and for a
lock at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and the connecting channels in U.S. and
Canadian waters (i.e., St. Marys River, St. Clair River - Lake St. Clair-
Detroit River system).

Economic

- Capacity of the Soo Locks has been determined to be most
significantly affected by: traffic to be served; lock utilization; the
length of navigation season; and the development and characteristics of the

fleet mix.

- The need and justification for improvements at the Soo 'Locks are
supported both dependent and independent of developments at the Welland
Canal and St. 'Lawrence River system.

- Combinations of existing or larger lock sizes with deeper drafts on
a system-wide basis are not economically justified at this time.

Environmental

- Two areas of potential impact associated with structural
modifications are:

1. Dredging new areas associated with improvements such as channel
widening and enlargement of turning basins.

2. The disposal of dredged materials either in confined disposal
facilities or open lake disposal.

- Alternatives which reduce congestion in the upper St. Marys River
have potential for environmental benefits.

Hydraulics and Hydrology

- To offset any additional deepening, compensation would be required
in the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit Rivers to maintain existing water
surface profiles. Compensation beyond a 34-foot project depth for the St.
Marys River would require regulatory structures or locks.

- Replacement of the existing locks with a new larger lock could
affect flow available for hydropower generation.

- Lakes Superior and Michigan/Huron can be brought into a more
balanced relationship by dredging one additional foot in the upper St.
Marys River and the harbors of Duluth-Superior, Presque Isle and Two

Harbors. This dredging would permit optimization of the existing
commercial navigation system on the upper Great Lakes by permitting a
maximum draft of 26.5 feet during periods of high water.

Social

- Studies to date indicate there are no significant adverse social
impacts that would occur from improvements to the Great Lakes commercial
navigation system. There could be some minor adverse impacts on
recreational boaters and fishermen during the construction period.
However, this would be temporary. The socially beneficial impacts also
would be significant during the construction period through the creation of
jobs during this period, especially in the regions of high unemployment.

- The Great Lakes' State and Federal Governments, steel, iron ore,
coal, utility, grain interests, and shipping companies and users would
benefit directly from the project. The general public would benefit from
the project as a result of reduced transportation costs (e.g., lower costs
for coal shipments would mean lower utility costs).

- The project would contribute to long range improvements in overall
employment in the water transportation shipping industry.

- The project would stimulate business and employment whose trades are
impacted by commercial navigation system improvements.

Institutional

- Coordination to date with the Canadian agencies has been limited to
a request for information and exchange of views. The final development of
alternatives and proposed final recommendations, if any, will continue to
be coordinated.

-Dur ing the final development of the alternatives, the policies of

project cost sharing will be incorporated as applicable at that time

consistent with Administration guidelines.

-Coordination with the eight Great Lakes States individually, and
collectively with assistance from the Great Lakes Commission, will be
continued through the final development of alternatives.

- The alternatives selected for detailed study reflect environmental/

social concerns expressed by special interest groups and the public through
the public coordination process, such as an dredging alternatives. These
concerns will be investigated in further detail during the final
development of alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

- A second large lock (Poe size - 1250 feet by 115 feet), together
with increased traffic control, at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, to
accommodate the existing and projected fleet at the existing 27-foot
project depth is justified as a candidate NED pran, and detailed analysis
is warranted.

- In addition to economic feasibility, there is justification for a
second large lock at the Soo Locks on the basis of National Defense, and to
reduce the risk of dependency of 25 vessels (Classes 7, 8, 9, & 10) of the

existing fleet only on the continuous operation of the existing Poe Lock.

- Modifications of the system to obtain deeper drafts is economically

and environmentally infeasible at this time.

- Three additional plans warrant detailed study for feasibility.
These are:

deepening the upper St. Marys Rivet and 3 Lake Superior
harbors + traffic control;

� enlarging the seven deep-draft harbors on the upper system
that do not currently service Class 10 (1000 feet by 105 feet)
vessels;

� analyzing on a port-to-port basis deep-draft harbor pairs on
Lake Michigan that could benefit from additional modifications
beyond the existing 27-foot capacity system.

- While the final form for user-fees and full cost recovery policy for

navigation improvements has yet to be determined, potential users/sponsors
and affected States for the project support continuation of the detailed
studies.

The study is continuing into the final detailed study stage of the
planning process, and the Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
Statement are scheduled for completion in September 1985.