US Army Corps of EngineersBUILDING STRONG®

Michael B. WhiteDirector of ProgramsUSACE, Great Lakes and

Ohio River Division

11 February 2010

Great Lakes Infrastructure ~ Managing the Challenges ~

BUILDING STRONG®2

Reducing Dredging Backlog

Dredged Material Management Strategic Plan

Soo

Locks Reliability

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Aquatic Invasive Species Dispersal Barrier

Ongoing Critical Issues

BUILDING STRONG®3

Reducing Dredging Backlog

BUILDING STRONG®4

Path Forward to Reduce Backlog 2010-2017

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Cubi

c Ya

rds

Dred

ged

(x10

00)-

Blue

Lin

e

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Cum

. Bac

klog

(100

0 cu

yds

) -

Gre

en L

ine

Annual Great Lakes Dredging 1986-2010 Average Annual Need Dredging Backlog FY11

FY11 PB

BUILDING STRONG®5

Dredging Funding Trends 2007 Dredging Funding Trends 2007 -- 20112011

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

FY07 FY09

Qua

ntity

Dre

dged

(100

0 cu

yd)

L. SuperiorRegional Provisions

CommercialRegional Provisions

Energy & Water Adds

President's

FY08

MichiganRegional Provision

5.0 ARRA(Stimulus)

5.5

3.3M Annual Reqm’t

Budget

FY10 FY11

2.2M cu yds ($26M) needed over annual reqmt to meet backlog removal plan

0.6M cu yds ($7M) needed to meet annual reqmt

BUILDING STRONG®6

Executed $63M in dredging in 2009; removed nearly 2M cubic yards of backlog

Employing innovative acquisition strategies; increasing the number of GL contractors

Increasing capacity: GL Contractor fleet added hydraulic dredging capacity in 2009

Working to improve efficiency: improved dredging efficiency in 2009 by 5%

Strategic Dredging Initiatives

BUILDING STRONG®7

Dredged Material Management Strategic Plan

BUILDING STRONG®8

DMM Historical Perspective

Dredged material nearly exclusively disposed via open water placement

1970

- River a

nd H

arbor

Act an

d

Flood C

ontro

l Act

of 19

70

(PL 9

1-611

) pas

sed

1988

- Federa

l Stan

dard

defin

ed

1996

- Sectio

n 201

of th

e 199

6 WRDA

requir

es co

st-sh

aring

45 Great Lakes CDFs constructed and/or operated by USACE at a cost of $900M

(2009 dollars)

Curren

t CRITIC

AL situ

ation

.

DMM strat

egies

mus

t be d

evelo

ped.

Execute sustainable

DMM solutions

1970 1980 1990 20001960

BUILDING STRONG®9

Current Dredged Material Management Conditions

Lake Superior

Lak

e M

ichi

gan

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

Lake Ontario

CANADA

WISCONSIN

OHIO

INDIANAILLINIOS

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTAGrand Marias

Two Harbors

Duluth Superior

AshlandOntonagon

Keweenaw Waterway

Presque IsleMarquette Grand

Marias St. Marys RiverChannel in Straits of Mackinac

Grays ReefLittle Bay

de Noc

Menominee

Green Bay Kewaunee

Port Washington

Milwaukee

Kenosha

Manitowoc

Sheboygan

Waukegan

Chicago River & Harbor

Calumet

Indiana Harbor

Burns Waterway

Harbor

St. Joseph Harbor

Holland

Grand Haven

Muskegon Harbor

Ludington

Manistee

Frankfort

Charlevoix

Cheboygan

Alpena

Saginaw Harbor Beach

Monroe

Channels in Lake St.

Clair

St. Clair River

Detroit River

Rouge River

Toledo Sandusky

Harbor

Huron

Lorain

Cleveland

Fairport

Ashtabula

Conneaut

Erie

Dunkirk

Buffalo Harbor

Rochester

Harbor

Oswego

Ogdensburg

800K

100K – 250K

50K – 95K

<50K

ANNUAL DREDGING REQUIREMENT (CY)

DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT STATUSCritical –

Dredged Material Management issues could severely restrict channel availability within 5 yearsPressing –

Dredged Material Management issues could severely restrict channel availability within 10 years.No pressing issues within next 10 years; continue to work on long range planning such as DMMPs.

BUILDING STRONG®10

DMM Long-Term Strategy

Strategic Plan1. Extend CDF Life through Fill Management2. Aggressively pursue opportunities for beneficial use and reuse of

dredged material to create CDF capacity.3. Reduce Amount of Materials Entering Federally Maintained

Navigation Channels4. Engage State Agencies in Solutions5. Foster Partnership with USEPA to Leverage Funding for Projects

Supporting Environmental Goals and Navigation Benefits

Relying solely on new CDF construction is uncertain; we must maximize the use of the 5 strategies above.

Harbors that require immediate DMM-related solutions:►

Cleveland, Lorain, Calumet, Indiana, Toledo, Duluth-Superior, Saginaw Bay

BUILDING STRONG®11

Coordination with Other Agencies is Critical

Collaborate with USDA-NRCS, state and local agencies to leverage the Corps’

current programs such as Great Lakes Tributary Modeling to ultimately reduce the amount of material entering watersheds

that contribute to sedimentation in federally maintained navigation channels.

Engage states, USEPA, and USFWS to participate in studies to improve the scientific basis for establishing environmental dredging windows

and open lake placement decisions; develop specific strategies for each state.

Partner with USEPA to aggressively leverage authorities and funding for projects that benefit navigation and the environment -

Great Lakes Legacy Act & Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

BUILDING STRONG®12

Soo Locks Reliability

BUILDING STRONG®13

70% of the commercial commodities transiting the Soo Locks are limited by size to the Poe Lock

•Security concerns -

foreign crews in vessels are capable of seriously damaging or destroying locks

•There is currently no redundancy for the Poe Lock

Two major efforts are underway to improve reliability of the Soo

Locks

1.

Maintain existing infrastructure through Asset Renewal Plan

2.

Add redundancy by constructing a new replacement lock with the same dimensions as the Poe Lock

•The economic impact of a 30-day unscheduled closure of the Soo Locks = $160M

The Soo Locks A Lynch Pin of the Great Lakes Navigation System

BUILDING STRONG®14

Soo Locks Asset Renewal Long-Term Plan

Asset Renewal Plan will maximize reliability and reduce risk through 2035

Full funding requires $93 million over 6 years

$19.6 M funded to date

new hydraulics, stop logs, utilities

$73M in needs from FY10-FY14

Major remaining needs:

•

New compressed air system

•

Heavy lift equipment procurement

•

Rock Cut stabilization

•

Bollard reinforcement0

5

10

15

20

25

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14Fu

ndin

g, $

M

Funded

Needs

BUILDING STRONG®15

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

BUILDING STRONG®16

Administration Budget Initiative for restoration of Great Lakes ecosystem

$475M in FY 2010 ($411M new funding)

Led by EPA and coordinated through GL Interagency Task Force

Budgeted through EPA Appropriations

Five-Year Action Plan (FY10 -

FY14)

Identifies five Focus Areas for restoration

Objectives, short-

and long-term goals for each Focus Area

$46.3M for USACE projects in FY10

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Overview

BUILDING STRONG®17

Strategic Navigation Dredging (SND)

GLRI funds will be used to dredge contaminated sediments from Federal navigation channels to complement clean-up with Legacy Act

Buffalo River –

$7M in FY 2010 for removal of up to 660,000 cubic yards

Dredged Material Disposal Facility Construction

GLRI funds can be used for development of DMDFs that also provide habitat benefits

Green Bay –

DMDF will help restore 1,000 acres of coastal wetlands –

Cat Island Restoration

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Navigation Connections

BUILDING STRONG®18

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

GLRI funds will be used to plan, design and construct beneficial use projects

Wynn Road and Maumee Bay –

projects for dredged material from Toledo Harbor

Tributary Models

GLRI will supplement Corps’

base funding for models that support soil conservation and nonpoint source pollution prevention activities by state and local agencies

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Navigation Connections

BUILDING STRONG®19

Aquatic Invasive Species Dispersal Barrier

BUILDING STRONG®20

BUILDING STRONG®21

Chicago Area Waterway System

21

BUILDING STRONG®22

800’

220’

Chi

cago

San

itary

and

Shi

p C

anal

Barrier I (Demo)

Lake

Mic

higa

n

Wat

er F

low

Dispersal Barriers Overview

Barrier IIB:₋ Site prep completed₋

Building construction 

contract NTP issued 3 Dec

₋ Electronics design ongoing₋

Construction to be 

completed 30 Sep 10

Barrier IIA:

‐

Activated @ 1 Volt/in, 5 hz, 4 

ms in APR 09.

‐

Increased to 2 Volt/in, 15 hz, 

6.5 ms in AUG 09

‐Maintenance shutdown 

completed 3 – 4 Dec 

w/rotenone support by State

Barrier I (Demonstration):₋In continuous operationsince 2002 @ 1 Volt/in, 5 hz, 4 ms‐ Rehabilitated in Oct 2008

Barrier I (Permanent):

‐

Upgrade to a permanent 

barrier authorized; plan 

activation by 2013 if funded

I

IIB

IIA Barrier IIA

Other Ongoing Efforts:- Asian Carp Monitoring

-

Research on Optimum 

Operating Parameters 

-

Study of Solutions to 

Potential Barrier Bypasses

BUILDING STRONG®23

Construction of Barrier IIB & Permanent Barrier IConstruction of Barrier IIB30 OCT 2009

Building Construction Contract Awarded

Mar 2010Electronics

Design Finalized

May 2010Building

Substantially Complete

Oct 2010Complete

Safety Testing

Dec 2009Building Notice to Proceed Issued

IIB Capabilities: Range of Operating Parameters Same As IIA

Improvements for Barrier IIB Vs. Barrier IIA

► Closed-Loop Cooling System

► All System Components Enclosed in Sealed

Building

Upgrade of Barrier I to Permanent► Similar to IIB

► Initiate Once Barrier II is Fully Operational

800’

220’

Chi

cago

San

itary

and

Shi

p C

anal

Barrier I (Demo)

Lake

Mic

higa

nW

ater

Flo

w

Sep 2010Complete Startup Testing

Aug 2010Complete

Construction

Jun 2010Begin

Electronics Installation

Barrier IIA

Barrier IIB

BUILDING STRONG®24

Efficacy Study Interim III – Modified Operations

Initial Meeting

12 Jan 10

Revision and approval of Review Plan Development of draft report and draft EA

2 Feb Initial UserEngagement

USACE timeline to ASA(CW) for Sec. 126 approvalMar 2010

Test / Implement Actions

April 10Execute

22 Jan 10Meet with IDNR / MWRD

Early Mar 10ASA(CW) Review / Approval

28 Jan 10Plan development

With agencies

27 Jan 10Vertical team

8 Feb 10NEPA –

Scoping Letters

HQ OWPR Review / Approval for

release to public

ATR of draft decision document and draft EA

Release NEPA document for public comment

Final draft documents to HQ OWPR and LRD RIT

Modify Waterway Operations (MWRD)• Lower water levels in advance of storms • Retrofit sluice gates with screens •

Use pumps instead of opening gates at Wilmette Pumping Station•

Investigate possibility of modifying water quality to distress / kill ACEstablish Control (Kill) Zones (IDNR/FWS)•

Identify areas & establish plans for “spot treatment”

using piscicide•

Identify areas and establish plans for intensive fishing operations (nets / commercial / shock)Guide AC into Control Zones (IDNR/FWS•

Herd fish into designated control zones –

directional boat mounted; electro-fish; nets•

Stationary directional barriers –

Chicago and O’Brien Locks –

deny access through locks

Modify Structural Operations (USACE)

• Close both sets of gates between lockages

• Intermittent lock operations

• Screens for flooding?

•

Screens during treatments or commercial

fishing

Uncontrolled Pathways (USACE/IDNR/FWS)

•

Intense monitoring/population control actions in

Little Cal

•

Directional / interim barriers –

Little Cal / Grand

Cal

BUILDING STRONG®25

Impact UncertaintiesFlooding: Flood Damage Reduction Structures

TARP Impacts

Property Loss / Damage ($B)

Loss of Life

Commerce / Economics: Transportation System Upset

Critical Infrastructure

Revenue Impacts

Job Impacts

Recreation / Tourism: Navy Pier

Great Lakes Shoreline

Great Lakes Fishing

Great Lakes Ecosystem: Asian Carp (AC) Adaptability

AC Impacts to Shoreline and Tributaries

AC Impacts to Great Lakes Fisheries ($B)

Water Quality: TARP Impacts

Public Health and Safety/EM: USCG/DHS/Chicago Fire and Police

BUILDING STRONG®26

We are working on many key Great Lakes navigation related issues:

►

Continuing to work toward gaining efficiencies and improving cost-effectiveness of Great Lakes dredging

►

Aggressively working multiple paths to solve the Dredged Material Management crisis –

including maximizing the beneficial reuse of dredged material

►

Continuing to assess and prioritize risks and refine needs to ensure reliability at the Soo

Locks►

Working collaboratively with EPA on important GLRI projects that will benefit Great Lakes navigation

►

Tackling the Asian Carp Barrier issues on multiple fronts –

a dynamic situation

Moving Forward

BUILDING STRONG®27

QuestionsQuestions