Harbor Maintenance Operations and Funding: Opportunities and Challenges for the Great Lakes Region

Transcription

1 Harbor Maintenance Operations and Funding: Opportunities and Challenges for the Great Lakes Region Josh Feldmann U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chief, Operations, Buffalo District September 26, 2015 US Army Corps of Engineers

2 Great Lakes Navigation System Economic Data A non-linear interdependent system of 140 deep and shallow draft projects; commercial ports are dependent on each other for the efficiency and health of the system. 145M tons (5-year average) (USACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics) 20% of tonnage is exported to Canada or overseas (USACE Waterborne Commerce Statistics) GLNS saves the country $3.6 billion per year compared to the next least costly mode of transportation (USACE Inland Nav Center of Expertise)

3 Federal Projects on the Great Lakes Taconite Silver Bay Grand Marais Chippewa Harbor Lake Superior A non-linear navigation system with 60 federal commercial projects and 80 federal shallow draft/recreational projects Two Harbors Eagle Harbor Lac La Belle Knife River Duluth- Superior Port Wing Bayfield La Pointe Keweenaw Waterway Grand Traverse Bay Big Bay Little Lake Whitefish Point Harbor MI Presque Isle Marquette Little Bay de noc Grand Marais Soo Locks St. Marys River Channels in Straits of Mackinac Detour Manistique Les Cheneaux Island Grays Reef Mackinac Island St. James Mackinac City Cheboygan CANADA WI Cedar River Menominee Oconto Pensaukee Washington Island Sturgeon Bay Leland Hammond Bay Inland Route Petoskey Charlevoix Alpena Ogdensburg Morristown Big Suamico Green Bay Two Rivers Algoma Kewaunee Frankfort Arcadia Portage Lake Greilickville Harrisville Au Sable Harbor Tawas Bay Cape Vincent Sackets Harbor Manitowoc Manistee Point Lookout Port Austin Commercial Recreational IL Sheboygan Port Washington Milwaukee Kenosha Waukegan Chicago Harbor IN Ludington Pentwater White Lake Muskegon Grand River Grand Haven Holland Saugatuck South Haven St. Joseph St. Joseph River New Buffalo Michigan City Harbor Beach Saginaw Port Sanilac MI OH Lexington Black River Pine River St. Clair River Belle River Clinton River Lake St. Clair Rouge River Detroit River Monroe Bolles Harbor Niagara River PA NY Port Ontario Oswego 3

4 Great Lakes Navigation Interdependent Ports Silver Bay Two Harbors Duluth-Superior Lake Superior Key Challenges Ontonagon Ashland >10M Ton Harbor 1-10M Ton Harbor WI <1M Ton Harbor Presque Isle MI Gladstone Menominee Green Bay Manitowoc Milwaukee Waukegan Chicago Harbor Calumet IL Marquette Cheboygan Charlevoix Alpena Manistee Ludington Saginaw Muskegon IN Grand Haven MI Holland Rouge River Detroit River St. Joseph Monroe St. Clair OH CANADA Harbor Beach Marysville Buffalo Put In Bay NY PA 4 Balancing System Requirements Dredging Dredged Material Management Navigation structures Soo Locks Interdependency requires using a system approach in prioritizing investments

5 Great Lakes Navigation System 5

6 Dredging 6

7 FY15 Dredging Funding and Dredging Requirements Chippewa Harbor Grand Marais Taconite Silver Bay Lake Superior Two Harbors Eagle Harbor Lac La Belle Knife River Cornucopia Duluth- Superior Port Wing La Pointe Bayfield Keweenaw Waterway Grand Traverse Bay Big Bay Little Lake Whitefish Point Harbor MI Presque Isle Marquette Grand Marais Manistique Channels in Straits of Mackinac Grays Reef Soo Locks St. Marys River Detour Les Cheneaux Island Mackinac Island Little Bay de noc St. James Mackinac City Cheboygan WI Cedar River Menominee Oconto Pensaukee Big Suamico Green Bay Two Rivers Washington Island Sturgeon Bay Algoma Kewaunee Hammond Bay Petoskey Inland Route Charlevoix Leland Alpena Black River Harbor Greilickville Frankfort Harrisville Arcadia Au Sable Harbor Portage Lake Tawas Bay CANADA Ogdensburg Morristown Cape Vincent Sackets Harbor Manitowoc Manistee Point Lookout Port Austin Sheboygan Ludington Pentwater Saginaw Harbor Beach Port Ontario Oswego Port Washington White Lake Muskegon Grand River MI Black River Port Sanilac Lexington Milwaukee Grand Haven St. Clair River Commercial Recreational IL Kenosha Waukegan Holland Saugatuck South Haven Pine River Clinton River Lake St. Clair Rouge River Belle River NY St. Joseph Detroit River FY15 Funded Dredging FY15 Unbudgeted Dredging Need Chicago Harbor Chicago River Calumet IN St. Joseph River New Buffalo Michigan City OH Monroe Bolles Harbor PA 7

8 FY 16 Great Lakes Navigation $111.6M Great Lakes Navigation Operations & Maintenance Key Items $49M in Dredging (25 projects 3.4M cubic yards) $8.4M in Dredged Material Management $3.7M in Soo Asset Renewal 8

9 FY16 President s Budget Dredging Projects Beaver Bay Grand Marais Chippewa Harbor Lake Superior Two Harbors Eagle Harbor Lac La Belle Knife River Cornucopia Duluth- Superior Port Wing La Pointe Bayfield Keweenaw Waterway Grand Traverse Bay Big Bay Little Lake Whitefish Point Harbor MI Presque Isle Marquette Gladstone Grand Marais Manistique Channels in Straits of Mackinac Grays Reef Soo Locks St. Marys River Detour Les Cheneaux Island Mackinac Island WI Little Bay de noc Washington Cedar River Island Menominee Oconto Pensaukee Sturgeon Bay Big Suamico Algoma Green Bay Kewaunee Two Rivers St. James Mackinac City Cheboygan Cross Village Hammond Bay Petoskey Inland Route Charlevoix Leland Alpena Black River Harbor Greilickville Frankfort Harrisville Arcadia Au Sable Harbor Portage Lake Tawas Bay CANADA Ogdensburg Morristown Cape Vincent Sackets Harbor Manitowoc Manistee Point Lookout Port Austin Sheboygan Ludington Pentwater Saginaw Harbor Beach Port Ontario Oswego Commercial Recreational Port Washington Milwaukee Kenosha White Lake Muskegon Grand River Grand Haven Holland Saugatuck MI Black River Pine River Clinton River Lake St. Clair Port Sanilac Lexington St. Clair River Belle River NY President s Budget IL Waukegan Chicago Harbor Chicago River Calumet IN South Haven St. Joseph St. Joseph River New Buffalo Michigan City OH Rouge River Detroit River Monroe Bolles Harbor PA 9

10 Dredging Funding Trends $70 $60 National Provisions Dredging Funding (millions of dollars) $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 $40 M Annual Reqm t FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 ARRA (Stimulus) L ake Superior Regional Provisions Michigan Regional Provisions Commercial Regional Provisions Energy & Water Adds President's Budget

11 Historical Shallow Draft/Recreational Harbor Funding 30 # Projects Funded Fiscal Year 11

12 Dredged Material Management 12

13 Historical Perspective Dredged material nearly exclusively disposed via open water placement 45 Great Lakes CDFs constructed and/or operated by USACE at a cost of $900M (2009 dollars) Execute sustainable DMM solutions 13

14 Navigation Structures 14

15 Great Lakes Navigation Structures - Purposes Navigation structures intended purposes: Safeguard navigation from wave and ice damage (GL experience waves over 25 ft) Protect navigation channel from sediment shoaling Protect navigation channel from wave action (preserve the design wave climate to allow pilots to navigate the channel) Additional benefits provided: Protect other navigation structures within harbor such as CDFs Protect critical city infrastructure (buildings, roads, power plants, water/wastewater plants) Provide essential flood and storm protection Control and reduce shoaling in navigation channel Control wave climate within navigation channel and harbor 15

16 Great Lakes Navigation Structure Conditions 50% of GL coastal structures were built before WWI Over 80% of all coastal structures exceed 50 years of age 45% have never undergone any significant repair effort due to funding constraints Over 30% of structures have timber crib core sections; recent low water levels have accelerated deterioration of the wood 16

17 Harbor Structure Condition Assessments Two Harbors Knife River Duluth- Superior Grand Marais Bayfield Cost to Restore Most Critical Harbors to Acceptable Level of Risk: Ashtabula Harbor $39.0M Chicago Harbor $19.6M Cleveland Harbor $10.0M Fairport Harbor $28.0M Lorain Harbor $14.0M Eagle Harbor Keweenaw Waterway WI IL Lake Superior Big Bay Presque Isle MI Menominee Manitowoc Sheboygan Port Washington Milwaukee Kenosha Waukegan Chicago Harbor Chicago River Lac La Belle Grand Traverse Marquette Cedar River Oconto Two Rivers Indiana Harbor Leland Sturgeon Bay Kewaunee IN Manistique Algoma Grand Marais Little Lake Frankfort Arcadia Portage Lake Manistee Ludington Pentwater White Lake Muskegon Grand Haven Holland Saugatuck South Haven St. Joseph New Buffalo Michigan City Inland Route Petoskey Milwaukee Harbor $33.0M Total: $143.6M 17 Whitefish Point Detour Charlevoix Greilickville Mackinac Island Mackinaw City Cheboygan MI OH Alpena Au Sable Detroit River Bolles Harbor Hammond Bay Harrisville Tawas Bay Point Lookout Clinton River Port Austin Harbor Beach Port Sanilac Lexington CANADA NY Cape Vincent Oswego Port Ontario A PA Failure Unlikely B Low Risk of Failure C Medium Risk of Failure D High Risk of Failure F Failed Commercial BUILDING Recreational STRONG

18 Lock Reliability 18

19 The Soo Locks Lynch Pin of the Great Lakes Navigation System 70% of the commercial commodities transiting the Soo Locks are limited by size to the Poe Lock Aging and deteriorating infrastructure; unscheduled outages increasing There is currently no redundancy for the Poe Lock The economic impact of a 30-day unscheduled closure of the Soo Locks = $160M Two major efforts are underway to improve reliability of the Soo Locks 1. Maintain existing infrastructure through Asset Renewal Plan 2. New lock with the same dimensions as the Poe Lock - BCR sensitivity analysis underway 19

20 Soo Locks Asset Renewal Long-Term Plan Asset Renewal Plan will maximize reliability and reduce risk through 2035 $47.2M funded to date through FY14 New hydraulics, stop logs, utilities Compressed Air System Gate Anchorage Replacement Mac Lock Controls Replacement Remaining key priorities Poe Miter and Quoin Block Replacement Poe Electrical Rehabilitation Poe Lock Gate 1 Replacement Pier rehabilitation Funding, $M Funded Requirements 0 FY08 FY10 FY12 FY14 FY16 FY18

21 New Poe-Size Lock WRDA 2007: Construction at 100% federal expense Inconsistent with Administration policy due to BCR of 0.73 Conducted a partial benefits reanalysis to determine if some benefit categories were not captured or if insufficient information was used. Completed in Dec

22 GL Navigation Funding History $200,000 $180,000 Executable Backlog Reduction Funding Range NAV O&M and CDF Funds (in $000's) $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 Sustainable Funding Range $80,000 $60,000 ARRA Adds and National Provisions President's Budget Fiscal Year 22

23 Great Lakes Navigation System A Great Investment Great Lakes Navigation System s Transporting Rates Savings More competitive American steel Lower cost energy Lower cost concrete (construction) $3.6 BILLION/year for a $90 Million/yr total investment! More competitive Grain for Export Less fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions Less congested highways/rails BUILDING STRONG 23

24 Questions 24