Detroit Rivers System

REGULATION OF GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS

APPENDIX G

REGULATORY WORKS

REPORT TO THE

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMSISSION

BY THE

INTERNATIONAL GREAT LAKES LEVELS BOARD

(UNDER THE REFERENCE OF OCTOBER 7,1964)

SY NOPS IS

The Regulatory Works Appendixdescribes the engineering works that would benecessary to accomplish further regulation of thelevels and flows of the GreatLakes, as describedin the report on Regulationof Great Lakes Water Levels,dated December 7, 1973.

Regulationof any lake generally requires two basic facilities: first, one or more controlstructures capable of reducing the outflow, especially when low lakelevels occur, and second,dredging of its outletriver so that greaterflows can be released at times when highlake levels occur. Thi.s appendixdescribes the existing facilities in theoutlet rivers of Lake Superiorand Lake Ontarioand discusses the problems to be faced in providing new facilities, particularlyin the outlet rivers of the presently unregulated LakesMichigan, Huron and Erie. It alsodescribes the site investigationscarried out, the design criteria andmethods used, and the environmental factorsconsidered in preparing preliminary designs and cost estimates ofthe worksnecessary for the various selected regulation plans considered in the Board'sstudy.

For all theselected plans it was foundthat the existing works in the St. Marys Riverhave adequate capacity and sufficient remaining life so that nomajor engineering work will benecessary. However,improved regulation of Lake Superiorwould be possible if the gates of the compensating works at SaultSte. Marie couldbe operated, when necessary,to vary the flow during winter. Normally, ice conditions restrict operationsduring December through April. The appendixdescribes a series of practical tests conducted at the SaultSte. Marie worksduring the four winters 1968-69 to 1971-72.These tests demonstratedthe feasibility of winter operationsand provided costs andother data. The averageannual costs of improved regulation of Lake Superior, as provided by Plan SO-901, is $70,000.

Plansinvolving the regulation of Lakes Michigan-Huronwould require works inthe St. Clair-Detroit Rivers system. Due toextensive shoreline developmentalong and the requirements of navigationthrough this 89-mile system, it would benecessary to undertake considerable dredging and to con- struct a series of at least ninecontrol structures in order to regulate the outflowof Lakes Michigan-Huron and to maintain the hydraulic profile of the rivers. The averageannual costs of suchworks is shown tobe in the $18-21 millionrange, depending on theplan considered, which far exceeds the esti- matedeconomic benefits. Furthermore there would beunacceptable environ- mentalconsequences particularly in the Lake St. Clair area.

The Board'sthree alternative approaches to theregulation of Lake Erie, representedby selected plans SEO-33, SEO-9CIl and SEO-42P, wouldrequire differentregulatory works in the Niagara River. It is shown thatthe least expensive is SEO-901 at anaverage annual cost of $99,000; that SEO-42P, at $380,000, is the most attractive alternative!;and that the average annual costof Niagara River works for plan SEO-33, $8million, produces a benefit- costratio less thanunity.

i No designsor cost estimates are given for new or improvedworks in the St. Lawrence River,the outlet of Lake Ontario,since all the selected plans would use the existingworks.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

OUTLINE Page

Section 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Generai 01 b 1.2 Purpose G-1

1.3 Scope 01

1.4 Study Organization 6-2

1.5 PriorStudies 6-3

Section 2 ST. MARYS RIVER SYSTEM

2.1 Description of the System G-4 2.1.1General 04 2.1.2 ExistingRegulatory Structure 07 2.1.3Power Facilities andFlows 6-12 2.1.4 NavigationFacilities andFlows 013 2.1.5 Bridges,Ferries, Wharves andOther Facilities 014 2.1.6 Ice Problems 014 2.1.7 CurrentPlan of Regulation G-15

2.2 Assumptions 017

2.3 Methodology 6-17 2.3.1 Plans of Regulation(Superior'Ontario) 6-18 2.3.2 Winter Flow Tests G-18 2.3.3 Alternate Methods of Gate and Gain Heating 0-30 2.3.4 Alternate Method of Winter -Operation 0-34 2.3.5 Recommended Facilitiesfor Winter Operations 6-37 2.3.6 Costs of Increasingthe Storage Capacity of 039 Lake Superior

2.4 Data 6-40 2.4.1 Basic Data G-40 2.4.2 Derived Data 0-41

Section 3 ST.CLAIR-DETROIT RIVER SYSTEM

3.1 Description of the System 042 3.1.1 General 6-42 3.1.2 St. Clair River 6-42 3.1.3 Lake St. Clair 642

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

D etroit River 3.1.4 Detroit G-45 N avigation Channels3.1.5 Navigation G-45 3.1.6Navigation Recreational G-45 3.1.7Compensating Existing Works G-49 3.1.8 Pollution andEnvironmental Consideration ' G-49 3 .1.9 Bridges,3.1.9 FerriesOtherFacilitiesand G-49 3.1.10 I.ce Problems G-51

3.2 Assumptions G-51

3.3 Methodology G-52 3.3.1. Objectives G-53 3.3.2 Outline ofProcedures G-53 3.3.3 Determination of DesignConditions of G-54 RegulatedLevels and Flows 3.3.4 Determinationof Channel Design Limits G-55 3.3.5 PreliminaryChannel Design Procedure G-59 3.3.6 Development of MathematicalModels for G-59 ChannelDesigns 3.3.7 Use of MathematicalModels G-59 3.3.8 St. clairRiver Mathematical Model G-59 3.3.9 DetroitRiver Mathematical Model G-60 3.3.10 Applicationof Mathematical Model in G-60 ChannelDesign, Channel Capacity Increase 3.3.11 Channel.izationRequirements G-68 3.3.12 Channel.Capacity Increase Cost Curves G-77 3.3.13 Application of Mathematical Model in Channel G-77 Design,Channel Capacity Decrease 3.3.14 HydraulicDesign Characteristics G-77 3.3.15 ConceptualDesigns and Cost Estimates of G-81 RegulatoryStructures 3.3.16 Development of CostCurves for Channel Capacity 6-94 Decreases 3.3.17 Use of Cost Curves G-108

3.4 ChannelDesign Costand Estimates Selectedfor G-108 Regulation Plans 3.4.1 Lake St. Clair Critical DesignElevation 0108

3.5 Basic Data G-109

Section 4 NIAGARA RIVER SYSTEM

4.1 Description of theSystem G-111 4.1.1 General 6.111 4.1.2 ExistingRegulatory Works 0114 4.1.3 Power Facilities and Flows G-115 4.1.4 NavigationFacilities and Flows G-117

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont 'dl

Page

4.1.5Bridges, Ferries, Docksand Other Facilities G-118 4.1.6 Ice Problems 6-119 4.1 .7 ShortPeriod Water LevelsFluctuations G-119 4.2 Assumptions 6-119 4.3 Methodology - Total Regulation 0120 4.3.1 SteadyState Mathematical Model 6120 4.3.2 UnsteadyState Mathematical Model G-125 4.3.3Design and Cost Estimates 6127 4 04 Methodology - Partial Regulation 0144 4.5 Data G-156 4.5.1 Basic Data G-156 4.5.2 Derived Data 6160

Section 5 ST. LAWRENCE RIVER SYSTEM

D escrip tion of the 5.1of Description 6-161 System 5.1.1 General G-161 5.1.2 ExistingRegulatory and Power Facilities 6-164 N avig ation Facilities5.1.3 Navigation G-166 5.1.4 Bridges, Wharves, Ferries and OtherFacilities 6-167 5.1.5 Ice Problems G-168 C urrent Operating Plan5.1.6 Operating Current G-170

5.2 Assumptions G-170

Sect ion 6 COST EVALUATION OFSELECTED REGULATION PLANS

6.1 Introduction 0-172

6.2Plan Regulation SO-901 G-17 2 6.2.1Modifications Existingto Regulatory Works G-172 6.2.2 Capacity of ExistingChannels and Regulatory 0173 Facilities 6.2.3Costs Summary and 6-173

R egu lation Plan 6.3 Regulation SMHO-11 6173 6.3.1 LakesMichigan-Huron6.3.1 Regulatory Works 6175 6.3.2 CostsSummary and G-17 7

V TMLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

6.4 RegulationPlan SEO-901 G-177 6.4.1Lake Erie Regulatory Works G-177 6.4.2 Summary andCosts G-179

6.5Regulation Plan SEO-33 6180 6.5.1Lake Erie Regulatory Works G-180 6.5.2 Summary and Costs G-184

6.6Regulation Plan SEO-42-P G-184 6.6.1Lake Erie Regulatory Works G-186 6.6.2 Summary and Costs G-186

6.7Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 g1188 6.7.1Lakes Michigan-Huron Regulatory Works G-188 6.7.2Lake Erie Regulatory Works G-190 6.7.3 Summary andCosts G-193

vi LIST OF TABLES

Page

G-1 PrincipalDimensions of NavigationLocks at Sault Ste. Marie 6-13

G-2 AverageAnnual Costs of Winter Operations of the I ControlStructure at Sault Ste. Marie Utilizing St ream Heating Facilities G-2 8

G-3 Lake SuperiorRegulatory Works - Summary of Cost Estimates forAlternate Gate Heating Methods G-3 3

G-4 AverageAnnual Costs of Winter Operation of the ControlStructure At Sault Ste. Marie (Recommended Method,Using ElectricalEquipment) 6-38

G-5 St. Clair - DetroitRiver System - Highway Bridges, Tunnelsand Ferries G-50 G-6 ExistingHydro-Electric Power Development - Niagara River G-116

G-7 Designof Niagara River Regulatory Works - Results ofStability Analysis 6-135 G-8 Designof Niagara River Regulatory Works - Details of CellularCofferdams G-135

G-9 Designof Niagara River Regulatory Works Unit Component Costsof Structure 6-135 010 Designof Niagara River Regulatory Works - Equipment Costsfor Channel Excavation 6-139 G-11 Design of NiagaraRiver Regulatory Works - Estimated Costs of ShoreProtective Works 6-143

G-12 Partial Regulation ofLake Erie .- Determinationof ChannelCapacity Increase forVarying Size of Squaw IslandDiversion Channel G-15 7

G-13 Summary of CostsEstimates - Black Rock Canal-Squaw IslandDiversion Schemes G-157

G-14 Summary of Regulatory Works Requirements 6-174

G-15Summary ofEstimated Costs of Modifications to LakeSuperior Compensating Works for Plan SO-901 6-174

vii LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)

Page

G-16 Summary of Critical ChannelCapacity Increase Design Conditions - LakesMichigan-Huron Regulatory Works Plan SMHO-11 G-176

6-17 Summary of CriticalChannel Capacity Decrease Design Conditions - LakesMichigan-Huron Regulatory Works Plan SMHO-11 G-17 6

G-18 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Lakes Michigan-Huron Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SMHO-11 G-178

G-19 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SMHO-11 ($ Thousands) G-178

6-20 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Lake Erie Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SEO-901 G-179

G-21Summary ofEstimated Costs of Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SEO-901 ($ Thousands) G-181 G-22 Summary of Critical DesignConditions - Lake Erie Regulatory Works Plan SEO-33 G-181

G-23 Eatimate of FirstCost (1971 Price Levels),Lake Erie Control Works - RegulationPlan SEO-33 G-182 G-24 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Lake Erie Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SEO-33 G-185

6-25 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SEO-33 ($ Thousands) G-18 5

G-26 Summary ofEstimated Costs ofLake Erie Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SEO-42-P G-187

6-27 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SEO-42-P ($ Thousands) G-187

6-28 Summary of Critical ChannelCapacity Increase Design Conditions - LakesMichigan-Huron Regulatory Works - Plan SMHEO-38 G-189 6-29 Summary of Critical ChannelCapacity Decrease Design Conditions - LakesMichigan-Huron Regulatory Works Plan SMHEO-38 G-189

viii LIST OFTABLES (cont'd)

Page

G-30 Summary ofEstimated Costs of Lakes Michigan-Huron Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SMHEO-38 6-192 G-31 Summary of Critical DesignConditions - Lake Erie Regulatory Works - Plan SMHEO-38 6192

G-32 Estimate of FirstCost (1971 Price Levels), Lake Erie Control Works - RegulationPlan SMHEO-38 G-194

G-33 Summary of EstimatedCosts of Lake Erie Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SMHEO-38 6-197

G-34 Summary of EstimatedCosts of Regulatory Works Requiredfor Plan SWO-38 ($ Thousands) G-197

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Page Gl St. Marys River- Location Map G-5 62 Lower St. Marys River - Water Surface Profiles G-6 G- 3 St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie- Location Map G-8 G-4 St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie- Aerial Photograph 9 G- G5 Existing Compensating Works at Sault Ste. Marie- Plan,Sectional and Downstream Elevation Views G-10

G- 6 Compensating Works at Sault Ste. Marie Aerial Photograph G-11 6.7 Lake Superior Regulation Plan- 1955 Modified Rule of 1949 G-16

G-8 Lower St. Marys River- Two Gauge Open Water Stage Discharge RelationshipDischargeG- Stage 19

G9 Photographs of Compensating Works at Sault Ste. Marie Under Winter ConditionsG-23Winter Under Marie

G-10 Aerial Photograph of the Bayfield Channel Below NavigationSaultLocksSte.at Marie G-25 Gll Lower St. Marys River- Hydrographs of Daily Mean WaterLevels During 1971-72 Winter Period G-26

G12 Ice Survey of the St. Marys River Below the Rapids at Sault Ste. Marie Taken During 1971-72 Winter Period G-27 6.13 Lake Superior Compensating Works- Proposed Electric Tubular Heater Arrangement for Gate and Gain HeatingG-31 G-14 Lake Superior Compensating Works- Proposed Modified Drive Machinery Arrangement G-35Arrangement Machinery Drive 615 Lake Superior Compensating Works- Proposed Hoist Bridge Enclosure ArrangementEnclosure Bridge 636 G-16St. Clair-Detroit River System - LocationMap 643 617 St. Clair-Detroit River System - Water Surface Profiles G-44 618Clair RiverSt. - LocationMap 646

X LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd) Page

G- 19 Lake St. Clair - Location Map G-4 7 G-20 Detroit River - Location Map G-48 G-21 Lakes Michigan-Huron Recorded Levels- Stage Duration Diagram G-5 6 G-22 St. Clair-Detroit River System- Preliminary Design Levels andFlows G-5 7 G-2 3 St. Clair-Detroit River System- Preliminary Design Profiles G-58 624 St. Clair River Mathematical Model- Result of Calibration 6-61 G- 25 Detroit River Mathematical Model- Results of Calibration G-62

626 St. Clair River Channel Capacity Increase Relationship Between Volume of Excavation,Flow and Lakes Michigan-Huron Levels G-63

G-27 Detroit River Channel Capacity Increase Relationship Between Volume of Excavation,Flow and Lake St. Clair Levels 6-64

G28A Location of Proposed Dredging in St. Clair River Maximum Channel Capacity Increase G-65

G-28B Location of Proposed Dredging in St. Clair River Maximum Channel Capacity Increase G-66

G 29 Location of Proposed Dredging in Detroit River Maximum Channel Capacity Increase G-6 7

G 30A Summary of Quantities and Types of Materialbe to Dredged from the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers Maximum Channel Capacity Increase G-69

G-30B Summary of Quantities and Types of Material to be Dredged from the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers Maximum Channel Capacity Increase G-70 631 St. Clair River- Proposed Locations of Dredge Disposal Sites 671 632 Detroit River- Proposed Locations of Dredge Disposal Sites G-72

xi LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

Page

G-33 St, Clair River - ProposedAllocations of Dredge Spoil - Maximum ChannelCapacity Increase G-73 G34 DetroitRiver - ProposedAllocation of Dredge Spoil - Maximum ChannelCapacity Increase G-74 635 St. Clair River - EstimatedCosts of Dredging Maximum CapacityChannelIncrease G- 75

636 Detroit River - EstimatedCosts of Dredging Maximum ChannelCapacityIncrease G- 76

G-37 St, Clair River - ChannelCapacity Increase Cos t Relationship Cost G-78

G-38 DetroitRiver - ChannelCapacity Increase Cos t Relationship Cost G- 79

G-39 Location of ProposedRegulatory Structures St. Clair andDetroit Rivers G- 80

G-40 St.Clair River - HydraulicDesign Data for ProposedRegulatory Structures - Maximum Channel Capacity Decrease G- 82

641 Detroit River - HydraulicDesign Data for ProposedRegulatory Structures - Maximum Channel Capacity Decrease G-83

G-42 St. Clair River - Comparison Between Naturaland Regulated Flow Distributions Under Maxumum Channel Capacity Decrease Conditions G-84

G-43 DetroitRiver - ComparisonsBetween Natural and Regulated Flow Distributions Under Maximum Channel Cap acity Decrease ConditionsDecrease Capacity G-84

G-44 St. Clairand 9etroit Rivers - Gate Concepts Investigatedfor Proposed Regulatory Structures G-8 7 G-45 St. Clair andDetroit Rivers - Layout of StandardizedConcrete Sills for Proposed Regulatory Structures G-89 G-46 St. Clair andDetroit Rivers - Layoutof Proposed Typ ical Small Boat Passage Boat Small Typical G-93 6.47 St. Clair and Detroit Rivers - ConceptualSketch of ProposedTypical Regulatory Structure G-9 5

xii LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)

Page

E48 St. Clair River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at Port Huron G-96

G-49 St. Clair River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at Stag Island G-9 7 G-50 St. Clair River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at St. Clair, Michigan G-98

G-51 St. Clair River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at Head of North and Middle Channels G-99

652 Detroit River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at Peach Island (North Side) G-100

G-53 Detroit River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at Peach Island (South Side) G-101

G-54 Detroit River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at West Belle Isle G-102

G-55 Detroit River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at Zug Island G-103

G-56 Detroit River - Proposed Regulatory Structure in Trenton Channel G-104

G-57 Detroit River - Proposed Regulatory Structure at East Fighting Island (Grassy Island) G-105

G-58 St. Clair River - Relationship Between Cost and Channel Capacity DecreaseFor Range of Channel Capacity Increases G-106

G-59 DetroitRiver - Relationship Between Cost and Channel Capacity DecreaseFor Range of Channel Capacity Increases 6107 G-60 Niagara River - Location Map 6112 G-61 Aerial Photograph of Upper Niagara River Looking Downstream From International Railroad Bridge 6113 G62 Upper Niagara River- Location of Water Level Gauges, Alternative Control Structures andCross Sections for Mathematical Model G-122

G-63 Upper Niagara River Mathematical Model Result of Calibration 6-123

xiii LISI'.. ...~ (~-.) ~ -.e, ..~-- as.~ - =--~ ~~ --= =-ir.1 '-1 ~ ~.1ft a.ri. ~ (1.953 ~ "1-- ~.-: f .-f ~ ) &-1.24 ~ ..~~.;; x--. - ~- ~ ~ G-1.a

8pper ..~-- ~-- - :;IyIL'~--;."" -- ~,~ of ~ Site - &'19'--U 0 »1 S~~lDX:~ G-J28

G-67 D~ 8f-;;..;;.;;-.;;.~- - -,.J:I: ~Y .. ~~--:Y of T~ SI.I:e - &'I~ ~ c..1".-8J1 Sb~_I:_--~ e-J.:m e-68 ~ "_1- X...,;a:-- ~~.;;.1",,- I-~ ~ 'I'ypi~1 Ser;t:J- of ~.:~--.,:--~~ ~_~I:ID1. Sb:-;;_.~ G-1.D

G-69 ;ppa:- ..~-- ai~ - 8el-'8ri~f~ ~~~ c-ts ~ ~ .,.;;-_""r J.ecl" at' &l.~~ 0.. -D1 Sb:~I:DI:~ G-~

G-JO ~ 8f-:-.. ti~ - -~"""'~p .t~~

~~---"'-~ ~ .,r-~J:;y 1-1..I8:E~. ~d1 o£~x~ ~L-_~_--~af ~ r~;_.u1

5b:-1 --e 81: ~ Sf.te G-rJ7

G-71. ~ 8t_~~ :a.:l-=c - _"""'._11.1.~~~ Daf.t: c..t: of' 2ara.~l:j~ ~ .1- of :2Kr6,.;~=-1~ &-1..0

Upper 81_-;;-. 8.t~ - :'.:-"::-;:-~~ ~C: ~Lu~~-,,;_~...:: aa &-141

~ 8i~.;;.;;-,.!o z.i.wm: - .1.rl~"p .~ TOtal. r":iE8i::0.1:8. ~ :I c..-::It:y I8:1:~ ~ ~. ~ - ~ S:1t:e G-145

~ ~-~~ ti~ - """"~"p .~ TDI:81 Fi.:EBt. c..ts. Q -:I r~~f£y ~~ ~ ~. n.- . ~ Ute &-1.'" ~ 8f~~~- u~ - ("_~r~ ~~ Tob1 ft:E8I: ~ of Oppel:"... ~~ ~ - :-a:4-~ r-mtf:..1 Sa ~_.~ G-147

G-76 Part::Ia1 -.u 1 t - of' I.-e kie - I.-e Erie C.a.~~ 9':Ia D-k ~ c.-1 - ~~...~~ .. G-14fJ

G-n I.8e £de D1~diDD fta W1_k ~ ~ pt:j - r-1 - ~-=~ A e-~

L8e Erie D:I.-=L8fJ8 YJa m~ .a:. ~pd- c.-l - ~~ . c-m

d.. usr ... ~-~ (0..1::-.)

~ &-19 I.-e &:-je ;...~m- Yia ~ ~8d=i- C-l - c.:~-- C G-J.52 - I.8e &:'je ~s:I81 Yia ~ ~pI:'i- r--"1 - ~ca1 c.:- S8:t:1- ..:' ;c"J:-.~~ -p-- Tc'l-t Di.~n- ... :I G-1.53

:I.-.e E8:'je Di.-=.i:m- Yja 81~ ~ ~pI:i- -=-"1 - , =-~~~ ~ -- 1"---=-..1.$tt-t-;;:-c; c-~ J.8e Erie u.i.-.si.- ¥ia M-6: ~ ~ptl- ~] - ""IaN.~I. .~~ 1'1 ~ -:I "~t:y I-=:I: ~ ~ ~ :PI.- ~ a.t: G-1.W e-m St:- I.-~ Zk.-=:&:- T ;-.I 1- ... G-J62

G-84 51:. CI.-Ir ti.~ - ~..~~-~ ~" ~.7$tt--,;;--~ aI: ~ Ts1.-d G-1.91

:KY LIST OF ANNEXES

Page

ANNEX A Terms ofReference, Subcommittee on Regulatory Works, 6-198 September 21, 1967

ANNEX B Members and Associates,Regulatory Works Subcommittee(1967-1974) G-199

ANNEX C Abstractsof Contributary Reports to Regulatory Works Subcommittee G-200, Studies

xv i -9

APPENDIX G

REGULATORY WORKS

Section 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Pursuantto the October 7, 1964Reference to the International Joint Commission by theGovernments of the United States and Canada, the Commission establishedthe International Great LakesLevels Board to carry out the studies necessary ". . . to determiie whethermeasures within the Great Lakes basincan be taken in the public interest to regulate further the levels of the Great Lakes orany of them andtheir connecting waters so as toreduce theextremes of stage which have been experienced, and . . . forthe purpose ofbringing about a more beneficialrange of stage for, and improvement in: (a)domestic water supply and sanitation;(b) navigation; (c) water for power andindustry; (d) flood control; (e) agriculture; (f) fish and wildlife; (g) recreation; and (h)other beneficial public purposes."

Regulationof any lake generally requires two basic facilities; first, anincrease in the discharge capacity of its outlet river so that, when necessary, more water canbe released than under unregulated conditions, in orderto reduce high lake levels; second, one or more controlstructures capableof decreasing the outflow, at other times, in order to raise low lake levels. The channelimprovements, new structures and ancillaryengi- neeringworks considered necessary to accomplish'further regulation of the Great Lakes are thesubject of this Appendix. Appendix "GI' is partof the FinalReport of the International Great LakesLevels Board to the Interna- tionalJoint Commission,dated December 1973.

1.2 Purpose

The purposeof this Appendix is todescribe the outlet systems of the lakes,the problems to be faced in providing regulatory facilities therein, the site investigationscarried out, the design criteria andmethods used, theenvironmental factors considered, and the designs and cost estimates of theengineering works which would be required to institute the various regulationplans selected in this study.

1.3 Scope

To regulatethe Great LakesSystem, control facilities would berequired inthe four outlet rivers concerned. Section 2 ofthis Appendix dealswith theSt. Marys River,the outlet of Lake Superior,and is mainlyconcerned withmodifications to the existing control structure at SaultSte. Marie so that It can be operated more effectively.Lakes Michigan-Huron discharge

G-1

Section 2

ST. MARYS RIVER SYSTEM

2.1 Description of the System

The St. Marys River,which forms the only outlet fromLake Superior, links Lake Superior at its most easterly pointwith Lakes Michigan-Huron. The riverflows in a generallysoutheasterly direction over a distanceof 61, 63 or 75 miles, dependingon the route traversed. A location map ofthe area is shown onFigure G-1. The followingparagraphs describe the river system in more detail.

2.1.1 General

From Whitefish Bay nearGros Cap, Ontarioand Pt. Iroquois,Michigan, to its outlet onLake Huron near DeTour Village,Michigan, the St. Marys Riverfalls approximately 22 feet onthe average. At Sault Ste. Marie, the river is dividedinto an upstream anddownstream reach by existing regulatoryfacilities, including powerand navigationfacilities and the compensatingworks, which together control the total outflow fromLake Superior. The averagefall of the upper reach, extending from Whitefish Bay tothe headof the navigation locks, a distanceof some 14 miles, is approximately 0.25feet. Over the next 1.5 miles, theaverage fall across the regulatory facilities and rapids is approximately 20 feet. From thefoot of the rapids to its outlet onLake Huron,the average fall ofthe lower reach is approximately 2 feet. The water surfaceprofiles for maximum, medianand minimum flowconditions, for ice-free periods, are shown on Figure G-2.

Duringthe period from1900 through 1967, the discharge of the St. Marys River, as recorded at SaultSte. Marie, averaged74,000 cfs (cubic feet per second)and has ranged from a maximum monthly mean discharge of127,000 cfs to a minimum monthly mean discharge of41,000 cfs. However, the latter flow resulted from a labourstrike at oneof the power plantsthat reduced the averageflow about 20,000 cfs for 2 months.

The International Boundary follows,in general, the mediancourse of the Upper St. Marys River. However, inthe Lower St. Marys River,the International Boundary lies inthe various channels and designates the Islands of Sugar,Neebish, Lime and Drummond as UnitedStates territory and theIslands of St. Marys, Whitefish,St. Joseph, Cockburnand Manitoulin as Canadianterritory.

Over thepast 118 years, man-made alterationshave been made intermit- tentlyto the various channels of the St. Marys Riverfor navigation purposes. At thepresent time, theSt. Marys River is capable of passingships with lengths up to1,000 feet and a draft up to 25-1/2 feet at L.W.D. (Low Water Datum) between Lake Superior andLakes Michigan-Huron. Inthe Upper St. Marys River a navigationchannel, having a minimum depthof 28 feet below L.W.D. and a minimum width of 1,200 feet, is maintained.In the Lower St. Marys River a navigationchannel, with a minimum depthof 27 feet below

G- 4 nI UI

Figure G-I ST. MARYS RIVER LOCATION MAP wi 2 L h Figure G-4 St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie-Aerial Photograph SCALE OF FEET I

SECTlON AI DOWNSTREW ELEVATION OF SLUICE GATES I 3- OT SIC. 4A 10,o 0 lo-- 10 - sa Figure G-5 EXISTING COMPENSATING WORKS AT SAULT STE MARIE- PLAN, SECTIONAL AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION VIEWS G-10 G-11 thesouth dyke in 1921, the outflow fromLake Superior was undercomplete control. The distancesbetween centres alternate between 60 feet-8inches and60 feet-2 inches. The gates,which are 52 feet-2inches wide and 14 feethigh, lift vertically and are counterweighted. Each gateessentially consistsof a stiffenedupstream skinplate, supported by horizontal beams framed into vertical end members whichbear on theirStoney rollers which inturn transmit the forces into the piers by means of embedded tracks. The gates are manuallyoperated by meansof winches ateither end. The superstructure consists entirely of steel with a woodplankdeck.

Becausethe gates are unheated,efficient winter operation was not possiblein the past. However, tests conductedfor this study during the winterperiods of 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71and 1971-72 indicatedthat effi- cientwinter operation is possibleand feasible utilizing temporary steam heatingfacilities. A summary ofthe test experience is containedin Sec- tion2.3.2. For reasons of safety and reliability, more permanentmethods ofgate and gain heating, as discussedin Section 2.3.3, were investigated.

The compensatingworks, in their entirety, appear to be structurally sound,but the Canadian portion is in needof some repair. (See Lake SuperiorBoard Calendar Year 1973Report.) Provided maintenance and repair tothe entire structure is carriedout when necessary, it is consideredthat it shouldprovide 50 more yearsof useful life.

2.1.3Power Facilities andFlows

Fourhydro-electric power plants are located at SaultSte. Marie, Ontarioand Michigan and all use water from theSt. Marys River.Since the averagegross head on theseplants is approximately 20 feet, all are classed as low headrun of the river plantsand consequently the physical size of eachplant is largein comparison with its kilowattoutput. However, these plants are unique inhaving Lake Superiorfor a reservoir,one of the largest lakes in the world with a water surface area of31,700 square miles.

The Great LakesPower Company plant,located between St. Marys Island and theCanadian mainland, was constructedbetween 1916and 1918. Additional units were installedin 1921and 1931. The planthas 28 generators having a totalinstalled capacity of 21,520 kilowatts at a ratedhead of 18.5 feet. Powerfrom thisplant is utilized by theOntario HydroSystem. Water is divertedthrough the plant from upstream of the compensating works to a pointdownstream of the rapids. Water requirements are normally18,000 cfs.

In May 1970,the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company, SaultSte. Marie, Ontario,converted from hydraulic power driven pulpwood grindersto electric drivengrinders. Since the hydraulic system required a water flowof ap- proximately7,000 cfs, diverted from the forebay of the Great Lakes Power Company plant,the total outflow capacity of the regulatory facilities is reducedby about 7,000 cfs at highlake stage. The hydraulicturbines can beoperated, but with difficulty, to discharge water. Moreover,due to deterioration of some of thecontrol mechanisms, a capacity of onlyabout 5,000 cfs is now possible. The UnitedStates hydroelectric plant is locatedin the State of Michigan betweenthe United States navigation locks and the rapids. It consistsof two separatestructures having a common forebayand convergent tailraces. Thisplant has a totalinstalled capacity of 18,300 kilowatts, and contains 5 generators. Powerfrom theplant is usedto supply the requirements of theUnited States navigation locks, the City of SaultSte. Marie, Michigan andsurrounding areas. Becauseof the ever-increasing demands for more elec- tricalenergy, this plant, like its counterpartin Ontario, is operated at fullcapacity. Water is divertedfrom upstream of the compensating works to thelower end of therapids. Water requirements are approximately12,700 cfs.

The EdisonSault hydroelectric power plant,constructed in 1902, is served by a two andone-half mile longcanal which diverts water from a point, justabove the United States navigation locks and delivers it tothe plant locatedabout one-half mile belowthe locks. This plant is aboutone-quarter of a mile in length, has 78 generatorshorizontally mounted, andhas a total installedcapacity of 41,300kilowatts. Water requirements are approximately 30,000cf 8. Power is usedto provide for the needs of theeastern half of the Upper Peninsulaof Michigan. The plant is normallyoperated at full capacity.

2.1.4Navigation Facilities and Flows

There are fivelocks at Sault Ste. Marie enablingboth commercial and recreationalcraft to bypass the rapids, a drop of about 20 feet. The maxi- mm size ofvessel allowed through the locks is onewith a 105-feet beam by 1,000feet length. The principaldimensions of the locks are shown onTable Gl .

TABLE G-1

PRINCIPALDIMENSIONS OF NAVIGATION LOCKS AT SAULTSTE. MARIE

LengthFeet in of Depth Water in be tween Feet over Sills Referred Sills over Feet tween be -Lock Inner Gates _widthtoFeet in L.W.D. Poe110 1200 32 .O

MacArthur 800 80 31.0

Davis 1350 80 23.1

135 0 80 23.1 80 Sabin 1350

Canadian16.8 900 60

G-13 At SaultSte. Marie, anadditional channel with a minimum depthof 24 feet below L.W.D. and a minimum widthof 500 feet servesthe Canadian lock and thewharves of Algoma SteelCorporation.

Total water usage for lockagerequirements during the historical navigationseason, April 1 throughmid-December, are inthe order of 1,500 cfs, equivalent to anaverage annual flow of approximately 900 cfs. Duringthe 1969,1970, 1971, 1972and 1973 navigationseasons, attempts were made with thecooperation of shippinginterests, to extend the normal St. Marys River navigationseason beyond thecustomary December 17 closingdate. As a con- sequence,shipping was extended to January 11, 1970;January 30, 1971;February 1, 1972;and February 8, 1973.However, only a limited number ofships par- ticipatedin the season extension program.

2.1.5Bridges, Ferries, Wharvesand otherFacilities

Two bridges, on railwayand one highway, cross the St. Marys River at SaultSte. Marie. Both are locatednear the head of the locks and rapids anddownstream of the compensating works. The railway bridge is a low level structurewith three movablespans to allow the passage of ships. Normally, duringthe navigation season, all threespans are keptopen providing a vertical clearanceof 120 feet abovehigh water. East ofthe railway bridge, a two-lanehigh level highway bridge, having a verticalclearance of 120 feetabove high water, linksUnited States and Canada.

Inthe vicinity of Sault Ste. Marie, wharves at the Algoma Steel CorporationLimited and Reiss Coal Company providethese companies with access tonav'igation in the upper river. Immediatelydownstream of the locks and rapids, numerouswharves serve various industries and the public onboth sides of the river. The elevationsof many ofthese wharves are approximately at 582.9 feet IGLD, the maximum allowablelevel below the locks as specifiedin the 1914 IJC Ordersof Approval. Consequently, they are vulnerableto high water levelsespecially during spring breakup.

Threeferries operate on the Lower St. Marys River. The SugarIsland ferry,the Neebish Island ferry, and the Drummond Islandferry. TheSugar Island and Drummond Islandferries normally operate year-round while the NeebishIsland ferry usually ceases operationabout January 1st because of ice conditions, and resumes service in March.

2.1.6 Ice Problems

Ice problems inthe St. Marys River are due tothree principal causes, summarized as follows:

(1)Ships operating toward the latter partof the navigation season break veryyoung ice intofloes of various sizes which, movingdownstream, tendto cause ice jams inthe more restrictedriver cross sections. The Little RapidsChannel, beginning about two miles downstreamfrom the U. S. navigationlocks, is particularlysusceptible to the formation of such jams.

G-14 (2)Each winter before the surface ice becomes firmlyestablished or where velocities are toohigh to allow ice coverformation, a certain amount of anchoror frazil ice forms,especially in placesof high water velocity such as inthe St. Marys Rapids.This type of ice contributesto ice jams inthe river by reducingthe river cross section and frequently causes difficulty at thehydroelectric power plants byclogging pen- stocks and scroll cases. Since ice booms have little or no effecton , frazil ice, it is difficultto control at power plants andconsequently restrictions in power outputduring this period are not uncommon.

(3) Duringthe spring breakup, the upper river becomescovered with broken drift ice. Thistype of ice has not caused ice jams butdoes make operationof the locks and navigation on theriver extremely difficult. Ice booms installed across the power canalentrances, have been successful in preventing drift ice from enteringthe power plants.

Attempts toextend the.navigation season have caused problems with the SugarIsland ferry. Normally this ferry operates all winterin a narrow open water slotwith fixed ice bridgesabove and below. When thenavigation seasonextends into the ice formationperiod, passage of ships breaks up the ice bridgethat has been formed, and, carried by &hecurrent, the broken ice fills up theopen-water area, stoppingferry operation. Attempts to cope withthese problems were made duringthe 1971-72 extendednavigation season experimentwith the installation of a highvelocity bubbler system in the mainland slip, wheremost of the difficulty is encountered.This continued in subsequent winters.

2.1.7Current Plan of Regulation

Subsequentto the completion in August 1921 of the compensating works in the St. Marys River at Sault S te. Marie, theoutflows from Lake Superior havebeen controlled. The regulation of thelake is inaccordance with the Ordersof Approval of the International Joint Conrmission issued May 26-27, 1914, inresponse to application for authorization of diversions of water aroundthe rapids for the production of hydroelectric power. The Orders providethat the works be so operated as to maintain the lake levels within a specifiedrange and in such a manner as not to Interfere with navigation. Further,they provide safeguards against extremely high and low levels on Lake Superior,and high levels on the St. Marys River. The operationof the river control worksand the determinations of theoutflow are underthe direct supervision of theInternational Lake Superior Board of Control established by the International Joint Commission inaccordance with the terms of its Orders.

The presentplan of regulation onLake Superior is the 1955Modified Ruleof 1949 andhas been in force since December of1955. The "rulecurve," shown on Figure 67, was designedto maintain the levels of Lake Superior betweenelevations 600.5 feet and 602.0 feet (IGLD) . The"rule curve" flow is determinedon the first of every monthfrom the mean Lake Superiorstage of theprevious month.Between December 1 andApril 30, changes to theplan outflow are made only when successive monthly man stages of the lake move froman intermediate range, as defined by a rangeof levels for each winter

G-15 NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR MAY APRJUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

MAXIMUM SUMMER (MAY-NOV) OUTFLOW: 16 GATES+65,000 - 601.16 - MAXIMUM WINTER (DEC-APR) OUTFLOW: 85,000 601.09 --104-- 601.09 103 - 601.05 - 5; 601.0 601.00-- 600.99 -- 91 03 In 103 91 - 600.94 "600.95 - - 600.90 - 600'91 600.89 - 81 90 _-600.90 - 90 81 - 600.84 -- 600.83 - -76 "600B1=- 600.80 -- 76- - 600.78= 81 70 81 -z600-71 100 - 600.73 - 70 6o0'72- - 600.70 - -600.69 600.70 - 600.70 -- 600.70 - 2 c 90 - 70 68 68 600.62 "6oo.62 70 k -70 76 - "600.61" 600.60 -- 600.60 0 81 - 6oo.58 - 70 - - 600.53 - 98 - 600.53 - 68 5 600.5 -600.51 - 600.50 - 600.51 - "600.49 68 - 600.51= W 70 600.46 - LL 70 - 600.44- 89 - -68 - 600.41 - 600.40 -= 600.41 - 68 - f 75 g8-- 600.33 - 600.34 - 68 -600.31 -- -- 600.31 - 75 - 600.31 - 8o 600.30 - 600.31 = 600.27 - 67 - - 70 600.22 - 75 89 70 E 6oo.16 600'13" - "600.15 - 0 - 600.11- -=600.11- E 70 80 67 W - 600.04 -- 600.04 - 5 600.0 67 70 u) - 599.96 - 70 - 599.92 - 599.89 - 67 - 599.86 - 7 1 - 599.75 - MINIMUM SUMMER (MAY-NOV) OUTFLOW: 58,000 599.70 67 - 599.61 -

MINIMUM WINTER (DEC-APR) OUTFLOW: 55,000 NOTE: GATES TO BE SET ON THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH, DE- PENDINGON THE MEAN STAGE OF THE PRECEDING MONTH. RULE OUTFLOWS ARE GIVEN IN THOUSANDS OF CFS.

Figure G-7 LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATIONPLAN-1955 MODIFIED RULE OF 1949 month, to a maximum or minimum condition or when successive monthly mean stages move from a maximum or minimum conditionto the intermediate range. Duringthe winter period, the present plan specifies a maximum dischargeof 85,000 cfs and minimum dischargeof 55,000 cfs . Duringthe summer period, Mav 1 through November 30, the maximum outflow is thatcorresponding to 16 gates fully open,plus about 65,000 cfs through the powerand navigation facilities. The minimum outflcwduring the summer period is 58,000 cfs.

The compensatingworks were built without specific provision for operatingthe gates when icingof the mechanismsoccurred. Consequently, there did didnot exist an efficient means ofmoving thegates during the winter period eventhough the existingregulation plan calls forsuch action as specifiedabove.

2.2 Assumptions

A numberof preliminary regulation plans were developedwhich utilized anincreased outflow capacity through the St. Marys River.Preliminary analysisof these regulation plans disclosed that no additionalbenefits wouldaccrue by increasingthe discharge capacity of the St. Marys River. Accordingly, no major capital improvementswould be required for the St. Marys River. However, it hasbeen determined that additional benefits do accrueto a regulationplan which employs flow changes during the winter months as a normalprocedure.

Indetermining the requirements for a regulationplan for Lake Superior requiring nomajor capital improvements, the following assumptions and limitations were used:

(1) A maximum dischargecapacity, corresponding to that with all 16 gates ofthe compensating works fully open, plus 65,000 cfs through the parer andnavigation facilities, will beavailable during the life of the proj ect . (2) Power andnavigation flows will continue at thepresent rate.

(3) The remaining life ofthe control structure, with proper maintenance, would beabout 50 years.

(4) The existingrange of water levelprofiles must bemaintained in the river sys tem.

(5) The gatescould be operated throughout the winter period.

2.3 Methodology

As indicated in Section 2.2 above, a studyof various preliminary Lake Superiorregulation plans revealed that it was notfeasible to enlarge the channelcapacity or alter the existing structure to achieve a higherchannel carryingcapacity; however, winter operation of the gates was feasible. The followingsections discuss: the methodology of regulation plans; the experience gainedduring the winter gate test programs;and, the design and cost estimates of various alternate gate heating methods which were considered for winter operation of the Lake Superiorcompensating works. 2.3.1 Plansof Regulation (Superior-Ontario)

SinceLakes Superior and Ontario are alreadyregulated under separate Ordersof Approval issued by the IJC, theInternational Great Lakes Levels Boardstudied plans for the coordinated regulation of Lakes Superior and Ontariowhich would provide additional benefits to the system withoutsigni- ficant economicloss to any interest on theGreat Lakes, their connecting channelsand the St. Lawrence River and, at the same time, withoutinvolving major capital costsfor reconstruction of theexisting regulatory works or outletchannel capacities. For this condition, the existing facilities for regulatingthe outflow from Lake Superior and its dischargechannels through the St. Marys River are consideredto be adequate. The maximum outflow duringthe open-water period (May-Nov. incl.) is limitedto the discharge capacityof the 16 control gates of the Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structure, plus a flowof 65,000 cfs through the powerand navigationfacilities. The maximum monthlyoutflow during the winter period (December-April incl.) shouldnot be greater than 85,000 cfs to minimize the possibility of flooding causedby ice conditionsdownstream of the St. Marys RiverRapids. It was further assumed that the minimum outflowfor all monthswould be limited to 55,000 cfs. In additionto the above limitations, the change from month to month inthe outflow would belimited to a maximum of 30,000 cfs.Although the maximum and minimum flows may notexceed the existing limitations, the patternof releases may changeand as a resultcould adversely affect the downstream profiles.Therefore, monthly computations of the water surface elevation at the U. S. Slipgauge, representing the upstream extremity of thelower St. Marys River, were computedusing the regulated Lake Superior outflowsand resulting elevations ofLakes Michigan-Huron. These elevations were computed usingthe existing open-water st'age-fall discharge relationshipbetween the U. s. Slip and Mackinaw Citygauges (IGLD, 1955), stated as follows: Q = 1659 (U.S. Slip - 567.19)1'5 (U.S. Slip - Mackinaw)O" Duringthe winter months, the regulated flow was increased by 3,000 cfs to accountfor ice retardation. A graphicrepresentation of theabove equation is shown onFigure Gb8. Thecomputed U. S. Slipgauge elevation was then compared tobasis-of-comparison levels as well as to the maximum allowable elevationbelow the locks of582.9 feet as specifiedin the IJC Ordersof Approval.

2.3.2 Winter Flow Tests

Duringthe study it became evidentthat it was possibleto realize economic benefits to the Great Lakes as a system if greater flexibility could beachieved in the regulation of Lake Superiorusing the existing control facilities.Currently, inflexibility occurs during the five winter months when theoutflow remains fixed except for rare instances when a change in gate setting is requiredto or from intermediate to maximum or minimum outflow. The present maximum winteroutflow permitted is a discharge.of85,000 cfsin the St. Marys River. The existingpolicy for winter setting of the gates is due to the difficulties of movingthem when they are frozenin ice; the flow limitation was arbitrarily set at what was considered to be a "safe" maximum as a resultof past experience with ice jams at higherflows. The questionsposed, therefore, were: (1) Is this "safe" maximum tooconservative? Can it beincreased? (2) Ifthe St. Marys River can carry a higherflow during winter (or during part of it), when,and to what limit?

G-18 TWO GAUGEOPEN WATER STAGE-DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP 4~1659(1J.S. SLIP-567.19) 1.5 (U.S. SLIP-MACKINAW) 0.4

I I I I I I 1 I I I 576 57 5 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 LAKEHURON AT MACKINAW CITYELEVATION IN FEET (IGLD 1955) (3) Is it practicableto change the gate settings and vary the flow as a normalprocedure during winter? If so, by what means and howmuch would it cost?

To answer thesequestions, a test programwas carriedout during the fourwinters of1968-69 through 1971-72.The three key features of theprogram were: theinstallation of steam heatingequipment for de-icing the gatesof the compensating works; the monitoring of the ice and hydraulic conditionsin the river throughout the winter; and, a waterlevelmonitoring systemand emergency procedures for quickly closing gates in the event that an ice jam developed. The experimentsvaried from yearto year depending on theprevailing weather and hydraulic conditions, navigation activity in the river andthe regulation requirements of theInternational Lake Superior Boardof Control, with whose approvalthe tests were carriedout. The following is a summary:

Site Preparations: Preparatory work forthe 1968-69 test programcon- sistedof, among otherthings: the installation of a gravelledaccess road betweenthe Canadian lock and the north end of the control structure; the erection of a 24' by 40' prefabricatedbuilding to house the steam heating equipmentand toprovide crew facilities;the erection of a timberstairway at thenorth end of the control structure to provide safe access tothe machinerydeck; a thoroughoverhaul of all gatehoisting equipment and an- cillarymachinery; and, the installation of steam heatingfacilities. The steam heatingequipment consisted of two oil-fired steam boilers, watertank, pumps and steam lines. An insulated steam line was installedalong the downstream sideof the machinery deck, between piers 1 and15, and connected to thecontrol building. At eachpier, a headerconnection was made tothe main line,each header having twin valves and boss fittings to which 50-fOOt flexible steam hoses were attached as theneed arose. Machinery- deck lighting was installed and a 25-KVA diesel-poweredgenerator was pro- curedto provide electric power tothe site. Inthe first two years of tests, a pontoonbridge was constructedupstream of the Canadian lock so thatheavy equipmentcould be transported to the site. However, this was eliminatedin subsequentyears by transporting all equipment by bargeprior to freeze-up.

Insubsequent years, site preparationconsisted primarily of recomis- sioningof the temporary equipment installed. In addition, minor maintenance was carriedout each year on the gate hoisting and gate heating equipment to ensuretheir satisfactory performance during the test programs.

Hydraulic Monitoring: Existingpermanent water levelgauges in the Lower St. Marys River were augmentedwith additional installations at stra- tegiclocations so as topermit quick identification of water levelanomalies in critical reachesdue to ice conditions. The locations of water level gauges inthe St. Marys River are shownon Figure G-2. The Little Rapids reach,which discharges about 70 percent of theflow of the Lower St. Marys River, was selected as the critical reachdue to its small cross-sectional area and.previous history of ice jamming.Open-water gauge relationships were developedbetween the various gauges so thatany departure from the open-watercondition could be identified. Criteria were establishedto determine critical elevations aboveand below the Little Rapids reach. An

G-2 0 "alert" condition, wherebykey personnel would be notified of an impending ice jamming situation, was established. The "alert" conditioncould develop from:

(1) Jam aboveFrechette gauge; if thegauge reads 1.1 feet below its normal open water reading

(2) Jam belowFrechette gauge; if the gauge reads 0.9 footabove its normal open water reading

Duringthe alert condition, all gauges were carefullyobserved. If the U. S. Slip gaugeindicated a rate of rise of 0.10 footlhour or more or ap- proachedelevation 582.4 feet IGLD, the"action" condition was established whereby gates would beclosed so as to provide a water level elevationno greaterthan 582.9.

An attempt was made tohave the Frechette gauge sound an alarm when the "alert" conditi6narose; however, this proved unsatisfactory. Each year the method of calculatingopen water levels at thevarious gauges was improved dueto the additional hydraulic data collected. Thegauge installations were also improved. At present all gauges are automatic,providing a con- tinuousrecord and may be interrogated by telephonewhenever required.

In addition to water leveldata, supplementary data were collecteddur- ing the winter period in order to properly analyze the ice andhydraulic regimeof the river. Sets of aerial photographs were obtained at several key times eachyear to provide data on theextent and nature of the ice cover. This was supplemented by ice measurementstaken at several stations along theriver detailing the thickness and nature of the cover. Local climato- logicaldata, taken at theairports of Sault Ste. Marie, Michiganand Ontario, were alsoused. Other data included movie film of the operations and still photographsof the control structure.

Test Progrm: The test program carriedout each year with minor variations,consisted essentially of threephases: de-icing test; a test involv- ingan increase in flow; and a simulatedemergency test. The main objectives of thede-icing test were: (1) to checkthe capacity and efficiency of the steam heatingequipment; (2) tofamiliarize the crew withthe equipment and to train them to workunder winter conditions; (3) todevelop workmethods and site procedures; (4) toevaluate the adequacy of safetygear and ice- cutting andchiseling equipment; (5) toensure adequate operation of the gate hoistingequipment; and, (6) ifweather conditions were severeenough, to determinethe time to openand/or close the gates.

An increasein flow test consistedessentially of opening sufficient gatesto flow 95,000 cfs,careful monitoring of water levelsand, if weather conditions were severeenough, to determine the time requiredto open gates undersuch conditions.

The simulatedemergency test was designedto check out the effectiveness of theplanned procedures which would have to be followed in the event of an ice jam situationoccurring. The ability to close gates quickly wouldbe of

G-21 little value in itself if an inadequatewarning system, together with the inability to muster the crew quicklyenough, resulted in no actionbeing takenuntil it was too late toavert flooding. Accordingly, planning was notrevealed beforehand in an attemptto simulate an actual emergency as close as possible.Photographs of the compensating works under winter conditions are shownon Figure G-9.

The 1968-69 test programconsisted of a de-icing test on January 7, a simulatedemergency test at 2:20 a.m. on January 24, at a flow of 85,000 cfs, andan increased flow test, duringwhich the flow was increased to 95,000 cfs, on February 11. A flowof 95,000 cfs was maintaineduntil April 15 at which time riverconditions permitted the opening of all 16 gates to decrease highlake levels. The weatherconditions were aboutnormal but certainly not as rigorous as couldbe expected in some years. It hadtaken only 45 minutesto muster the crew forthe simulated emergency test and a further 65 minutesto raise a full headof steam. The totalelapsed time forthe operation,which consisted of mustering the crew andclosing 2 gates, was 2 hoursand 43 minutes.

The 1969-70 test programconsisted of a de-icing test onJanuary 15, anincreased flow test onFebruary 9-11, duringwhich the flow was increased to 95,000 cfs, and thetermination of theincreased flow test by a simulated emergency test on March 5. Weatherconditions during the winter period were slightly more severethan the previous winter. Theextended navigation season,which terminated on January 14, 1970, my havehad some effect onthe ice andhydraulic regime of theriver but it couldnot be quantified. The simulatedemergency test was carried out onMarch 5 underrelatively mild conditionsbut in the aftermath of a severefreezing rain storm. The overall elapsed time fromthe sounding of the alarm tothe complete closure of 7-1/2 gates was 7 hours - 18 minutes. The 1970-71 test programconsisted of preliminary tests carriedout be- tweenDecember 16-18 havingthe same objectives as thede-icing tests but under less severeconditions. The flow was increasedto 95,000 cfs on December 18 anddue to ice jamming conditions,resulted in emergencygate closingoperations on January 28. Weatherconditions were verysevere with highsnowfall and subzero temperatures pervaillng between mid-january and mid-February. The navigationseason was extendedto January 30, 1971, and had a definite effect on the ice andhydraulic regime of the river, although thiscould not be quantified. Theemergency gateclosing operations were carriedout on January 28 withtemperatures ranging from -10' to 10°F,and withwinds gusting to 50 m.p.h. resulting in snow squallswhich at times reduced visibilityto nearly zero. Not only were levels reachingthe critical elevationof 582.9 IGLD belowthe locks, but, an anomalyof 0.20 foot existed betweenthe U. S. Powerhouse Tailrace and U. S. Slip Gauges,located approximately 2,000 feet apart, which was thoughtto have been caused by an ice jam betweenthe gauges. There was apprehensionthat this ice mass might let go at any time andplug the Little Rapidsreach. The totalelapsed time from when the closure orders were givenby the International Lake SuperiorBoard ofControl to the final closure of three gates was 11 hours - 7 minutes. The water levels eventually stabilized and, onMarch 9, onegate was opened to partially restore requiredoutflow. I N w

Figure G-9 Photographs of Compensating Works at Sault Ste. Marie Under Winter Conditions. Due tothe extended navigation season, the Board planned to conduct the 1971-72 winter gate test program afterthe termination of navigation on the river by increasingthe flow from the"rule curve" flow of 85,000 cfsto 95,000 cfs. However,under a flowof 81,200 cfs,the level at the U. S. Slipgauge reached elevation 582.7 IGLD and togetherwith an anomaly, as in theprevious year, between the U. S. Slipand U. S. PowerhouseTailrace gauges,the International Lake Superior Boardof Controlordered an emer- gencyclosure of 2 gates on Jantary 26. The weatherconditions were very severewith a temperatureof -7 F andwinds gusting from 14-30 m.p.h. To make matters worse,approximately 10 feet of snow pluggedthe access road tothe control structure while the machine deck and work area was covered with 2 to 3 feet ofsnow and ice. The totalelapsed time to move the crew tothe control structure and close 2 gates was 7 hours - 20 minutes.Although this emergencygate closing operation was not a part of theprogram, it did provideadditional experience. The causeof the anomaly between the U. S. Slip and U. S. Powerhouse Tailrace gauges was determinedand is discussed below. Water levelsin the lower river did not permit an increase in the flow of 95,000 cfsduring any part of the remaining winter period. An aerial photograph,taken on January 31,1972, Figure G10, of theBayfield channel, lookingdownstream from the U. S. navigation.locksillustrates the ice conditions of theriver in the reach between the locks and Sugar Island.

Anomaly betueen 17. S. Slip and U. S. Pawerhouse Tailrace Gauges: During the 1970-71 and 1971-72 winterperiods, an anomaly existed in water surface elevationbetween the U. S. Slip and U. S. PowerhouseTailrace gauges, located some 2,000 feetapart. A reviewof water levels as recorded at these gauges,over the period of record, revealed that nosuch difference had oc- curredin the past. *Duringthe 1970-71 winterperiod, the anomalyreached a maximum of 0.80 footwhile during the 1971-72 winterperiod, a maximum difference of 0.60 foot was recorded. A plotof the water surfaceelevation, as recorded at thesegauges during the 1971-72 winterperiod, is shownon Figure G-11.

Surveysconducted by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers and the St. LawrenceSeaway Authoritybetween February 10,1972 and March 22, 1972 re- vealedthat a large mass ofcompacted ice fragments,with thickness up to more than 25 feet hadformed between a pointlocated some 800 feet downstream of the East CentrePier of the U. S. Canal andthe open-water area at the footof the Rapids. A map ofthe area showingthe location of survey points and a tabulationof the thickness and composition of ice at thesesurvey points is shown on Figure 612.

A definiteexplanation of the cause of this mass ofslush ice has not yetbeen explained. However, dueto the fact that this ice buildup hadnot beenexperienced prior to the "Extended Navigation Season Program," it is postulated that winter navigation was a contributing factor.

Cost EStin~iteS: The cost estimates containedherein are based on the experiencegained during the winter gate test program, as smarized above, utilizing steam heating and ancillaryequipment. The costestimates, shown on Table 62, may bebroken into three major categories: capital expenditure, annual maintenance and annual operations 0 I N ul

Figure G-I0 Aerial Photograph of The BayfieldChannel Below Navigation Locks at Sault Ste. Marie. 00 h m

a W

0 0. 00 h h v) v) v)

( SE61 a19l) 1333 NI NOllVA313

G-26 ILL LO Vdl, 1Ul.i UPPER BAYFIELO CHANNEL AI'JD BELOW RIPlOS AT SAUl TE. MARIE HOLE SNOW SLUSH HARD ,OUNOING STIFF SLUSH REMARKS __NO E -ICE UNDER ICE NIL \ 1 10" 4" 16" 20 NIL \ 2 10" 10" 14' 2 1' 3 8" 10" 14' 25' 13' 4 10" 12" 15" 26 18" 5 10" 6" 16" 21' 10-6" 6 1 1 " NIL NIL 25+ 24+ 7 12" NIL NIL 25+ 24+ 8 17" 13" '/2 " 25+ 12' 9 16" 2" 14" 18" 10' 10 17" 3' 10" 2S+ 11' 11 12" 3" 10' 25'+ 24'+ 12 12" 4" 20" 25'+ 24'+ 13 14" 5" 11" 25'+ 14' 14 17" 0 13. 2S+ 9'-8" 15 5" 0 17" 2S+ 18' 16 17" 0 17" 25'+ 1u-10" 17 10" 0 19" 25'+ 23'-6" ia 12" 0 16" 25'+ 19' 19 13" 0 14' 25'+ 20 20 17" 0 16' 25'+ 18 21 13' 0 17' 25'+ 18-6" 22 14" 3" 16" 2S+ 2' 23 18" 0 15" 25'+ NIL 24 12" 0 12' 25'+ 1' 25 14" 0 17" 25'+ 6-6" 26 12" 0 17" 25'+ 13'

~ 27 16" 11" 10' 25'+ 78.6" 12" 0 10" 2S+ 18, SURVEY EQUIPMENT 28 I 29 8" 0 12' 25'+ 4' LIMITED TO 25 FT. 30 0 2%. 9' 0 f 31 0 18' 21' 2' FAST CURRENT 32 13" 0 11" 28.2' 0 FAST CURRENT 33 12" 0 22" 26.9' 9' FAST CURRENT 34 16" 0 17" 31 7' FAST CURRENT 35 18" 0 9" 27.6 7'~6" FAST CURRENT 36 12" 0 14" 25' 11' \ 37 0 8" 0 SAULT STE. MARIE, MlCH 38 0 8" 0 39 0 7' 5' 40 0 1" 5' 41 0 22" 0 42 0 32' 0 43 0 32" 0 44 0 22' 0 -N 45 0 29" 0 TOP OF ICE 0 2' ABOVE W S e"I SCALE IN FEET ICE ABOVE W S _- 46 0 20" 15' 11" TOP OF 0.6' ' i- 22'-10" TOP OF ICE 0.8' ABOVE W S 0 1200 47 0 16" '' Figure G-12 ICE SURVEY OF THE ST MARYS RIVER BELOW THE RAPIDS AT SAULT STE MARIE TAKEN DURING 1971/1972 WINTER PERIOD

G-27 TABLE 62

AverageAnnual Costs of Winter Operations of the ControlStructure at SaultSte. Marie Utilizing Steam Heating Facilities

1. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

(a) Averageannual costs of service building andmajor equipment with aninitial cost of $30,800 ai;d a usefullife of 20 years, based on a 7% interest rate.* $ 2,900

Averageannual cost of minor equipmentwith an initial cost of $2,400 and a useful life of five years, basedon a 7% in- terestrate. 800

$ 3,700

2. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE

(a)Maintenance of service building andmajor equipment. 500

(b)Maintenance of Minor equipment. 200

(c) Routinemaintenance of the controlstructure, heating of building,and other overhead necessaryto ensure winter serviceability. 1,000

(d) Snow removaland site access. 300

2,000

3. ANNUAL OPERATIONS

(a)Average cost of gate operations. 1,300

(b) The costof hydraulic monitoring ofthe river andemergency standby procedures. 17,000

18,300

TOTAL : $24,000**

*Assuming straight line depreciation and full salvage value on the unexpiredportion of the capital asset.

**Expressed in 1971 price levels.

G-2 8 The installationsrequired for steam-heating the gates consisted essentially of a servicebuilding, steam boilers,generator, water and oiltanks andother auxiliary equipment, together with a heated room forpersonnel; insulated steam linesextending along the structure; and other facilities, such as adequatelighting of themachinery deck. Capital expenditure was estimated on thebasis of thecost of the servicebuilding and major items of equipmenthaving a minimum expecteduseful life of 20 years (assumingthat normalmaintenance procedures are followed)and other minor equipment having a useful life of 5 years.

Annualmaintenance costs cover the upkeep of the above described installations,heating of the service building, snow removaland site access,and otheroverhead costs necessary to ensure winter serviceability of the works. Theseexpenses would be required annually whether or not gate movements are carriedout in any particularwinter.

The annualoperating costs comprise labor, materials and fuelexpenses, withthe major item beingthe payroll. Based on experienceto date, unit costs per gate movement (openingor closing, under routine or emergency conditions)have been developed. Analysis of a typicalregulation plan (SO-901) shows that,applied to theperiod of recard,there wouldhave been 14 years out of the 68 years of thestudy period when no wintergate movementswould havebeen required. For the remaining years, the estimated operating costs, at currentprices, wouldhave ranged from $450 to $3,650 dependingon the numberof gate movements required. The simple averagecost for all 68 winters wouldhave been $1,300.

Due to the effectsthat changing the winter flows can have on thesta- bility ofdownstream iceconditions, it would benecessary to provide close surveillance of theriver throughout the winter. This includedground observations, aerial reconnaissance andphotography, and the installation and operation of strategically located water levelgauges to detect water profile changesthat could signify the onset of ice jamningconditions. Coupled with this was anemergency warning and communications system, and at certain cri- ticalperiods, personnel standby arrangements, so thatimmediate gate closing actioncould be taken to alleviate the effects ofany incipient ice jam. Thesehydraulic monitoring and emergency standby procedures constitute a major part of thecost of winteroperations.

Conclusions: Fourwinter seasons of field tests were insufficientto provideconclusive answers to the basic questions posed. It would require many seasons,under a widevariety of hydrologic and meteorological conditions, to investigateadequately the capability of the river tosafely handle a rangeof higher flows, at differentlake stages, under various ice conditions,throughout or during specific periods of winter; there are too many combinations of these parameters whichwould have tobe tested. Furthermore, lengtheningthe navigation season is a complicatingfactor, since this in- volvesice-breaking activity and thus disturbance of the natural ice cover inthe river.

Nevertheless, under condltions whichprevailed in these four particular years, it was foundthat it is definitelypossible to change gate settings

G-2 9 duringthe winter, even under quite severe conditions, and thatthe costs of suchoperations are reasonable.De-icing and closing gates was easier and quickerthan de-icing and opening them. Flows of 95,000 cfs are generally feasible,although it appearsdesirable not to exceed 85,000 cfs until after stable ice coverconditions have been established. This latter proviso may well bethe key to the problem and, if so, theneven higher flows may bepos- sible on thisbasis. Even if higherflows did produce ice jamming, the dan- gersof resulting flooding could be averted by promptlyclosing the compen- satinggates to reduce the flow. This calls forcontinuous monitoring of ice conditions and water levels in the river, particularly in certain critical reaches,to enable immediate identification of any developing ice jam and prompt: action at thecontrol structure. The test programdemonstrated thepracticability of the monitoring procedures used and their ability to giveadequate lead time forresponsive action in any emergency and is being continued.

2.3.3 Alternate Methodsof Gate andGain Heating

Although steam was chosen as the mostexpedient method forthe purposes of thewinter gate test program, it is onlyone of a number ofalternate methodsof heating the gates. These include electrical, air bubbles,radiant andhot air systems. TheBoard decided that a more permanentmethod should beexamined inthe interest of crew safety,working conditions and reliability. The followingparagraphs summarize the various methods investigated.

IIot Air Heating for Gates: The hot air system as applied to theexist- inggates would consist of 2-stagethermostatically controlled blower heating unitslocated in the top compartment of the gate. Ductworkwould beprovided tocarry hot air tothe lower compartment of each gate. The downstream side ofeach gate would be enclosed with hinged steel coverssuch that the hot air wouldbe confined and circulated within the gate. The hot air system is frequentlyused for heating of control gates in the "dry" and has been found tobe efficient, reliable, safe and economical. However, thissystem would notbe readily. adaptable to the compensating works at SaultSte. Marie for thefollowing reasons: (1) the middlegirder of each gate would, seriously hamper air circulation, (2) since it is more efficientto melt ice between a metal-ice interfacethan an ice-water interface,the hot air systemwould beinefficient in melting ice inthe lower Compartment,and, (3) sincethe gains,which cannot be enclosed, would have to beheated, a more efficient system wouldhave to be employed for this purpose.

EZectric lkcbuZar Heaters for Gate and Gain Heating: Thissystem is com- prised of 2-stagethermostatically controlled heating elements, encased in steel tubes,located at strategicpoints in the gains and within the gates as shown on Figure G-13. The electric tubularheating system is normally used for "sluice" gates,such as thoseof the compensating works, for operation underwinter conditions and, furthermore, it is consideredthe only acceptable methodof heating the gains. Gain heaters would be of the hairpin typeand would be protectedfrom damage,due to ice anddebris, by structural members boltedto the pier faces. As withthe hot air system,the electric tubularsystem provides a reliable, safe andeconomical method of heating the gates of thecompensating works. Furthermore, it is readilyadaptable

G-3 0 J!

! c I tothe compensating works and performsequally well inthe "dry" and in the "wet" . Air Bubbler System: While the abovesystems are better suited to ice prevention and iceremoval in the gate and in the gains, air-bubbler systems canbe readily applied to ice prevention andremoval along the face of the gates. The air bubbler system operates by releasingcompressed air from nozzleslocated near the bottom of theriver bed. The air fromthe submerged nozzlesbreaks into bubbles, mixes with the surrounding water, which is relatively warmer thanthe surface water, and rises tothe surface thus melting icealready formedand/or preventing the formation of new ice. There are a numberof gate installationsusing this system, primarily as a backup unit, but,in general, it hasbeen found to be unsatisfactory. A numberof problems rangingfrom the formation of icewithin the piping due'"to air moisture con- densation,the blocking of nozzles due todust particles inthe air toan inadequate differential in water temperature betweenthe bottom and surface waters make this system unreliable.In addition, it wouldhave tobe backed upby heating systems to remove ice from thegate and gains.

RadiantHeating System: Gas firedor electrical radiant heaters would be mounted inprotective housings above the water level on theupstream and downstreamportions of the gates. This system operates byremoving ice or preventingice formation by directradiation. Radiant heaters have an efficiencyof only 50% underideal conditions and, under windy conditions, theefficiency drops to 25%. Thissystem has high operating costs and is unreliableunder severe weather conditions. Furthermore, it cannotbe appliedto gain heating due tothe restrictive space around the gains which seriously hampers air circulation.

Steam Heating System: This system is essentially a modificationto the existingtemporary facilities used for the winter gate test programaugmented by electric tubulargain heaters. The modificationsinclude: (1) horizontal steam linesincorporating nozzles, spaced some 2 to 3 feetapart, running alongthe upstream and downstream face of each gate and supported from each pier by chainhoists, (2) handrailslocated around the top girder of each gate, and (3) access toeach gate from the bridge deck by means of a caged ladderwhich would be covered by a hingedplate when notin use. As with theexisting system, this system may proveto be unsafe and unreliable under severe winterconditions.

Comparison of Alternate Gate Heating Methods: An analysisof the heat- ingsystems, as describedabove, was carriedout assuming that 10 gatesand 10 sets of gains wouldbe required for winter operation. A summary ofthe cost estimates is shown inTable 63.

Althoughgate heating by steam is least expensive,the safety hazards to the crew, the unreliability of thesystem under severe weather conditions and potentiallabour difficulties far outweigh the addedcost of the other systems.For these reasons, gate and gain heating by electrictubular heaters was selectedfor further design and cost estimates. A more detailed discussion of the designand cost estimates is presentedin Section 2.3.4.

G-3 2 TABLEG-3

LAKESUPERIOR REGULATORY WORKS

SUMMARY OF COSTESTIMATES* FOR ALTERNATE

GATE HEATINGMETHODS (10 GATESAND 10 PAIRS OF GAINS)

METHOD ANNUALCOST**

GATEHEATING BY HOT AIRHEATERS GAIN HEATING BY ELECTRIC TUBULARHEATERS...... $36,800 GATE AND GAINHEATING BY ELECTRIC TUBULARHEATERS...... 37,600

GATEHEATING BY AIRBUBBLER SYSTEM GAINHEATING BY ELECTRIC TUBULAR HEATERS...... 39,500

GATEHEATING BY RADIANTHEATERS GAINHEATING BY ELECTRIC TUBULAR HEATERS...... 42,900

GATE HEATING BY STEAM(MODIFIED SYSTEM) GAINHEATING BY ELECTRICTUBULAR HEATERS... .e..e... 26,900

*Expressed in 1971 price levels

**Based on an interest rate of 7% Ancillary Works: Inaddition to the abovedescribed works, a numberof other works are requiredboth to service the worksand toprovide additional safety and reliabilityin the operation of the gates under winter conditions. The followingparagraphs describe these ancillary works in more detail.

1. EnergySupply to the Site. Fouralternate methods were examined, namely;electrical powerfrom theCanadian side, electrical powerfrom the U. S. side,natural gas from theCanadian side and diesel generated power at theCompensating Works. Electrical powerfrom theCanadian side offered the lowest capital andannual costs. The annualcost was estimated at $14,500 assuming a 200 KW demand. It shouldbe pointed out that of the annual cost of$14,500, the annual cost of energy was $8,100based on a Great LakesPower Company's standardcommercial power contract whereby the minimum monthly bill is not less than 75% of thehighest monthly bill established over the life ofthe agreement. Significant savings could be achieved by successful nego- tiationof a contractwhereby either different rateTstructures for winter and summer monthscould be established, or, a yearly contractto accommodate some years oflower winter power demand.

2. TelephoneService to the Site. The annualcost of telephone service tothe site is estimated at $1,000comprising $750 for capital costof telephone line, $100 forannual maintenance and $150 forannual operations. If theelectrical power line andtelephone line were combined,the annual cost oftelephone service could be reduced by$425.

3. Mechanization of Gate HoistMachinery. In order to achieve opera- tionalefficiency andmodern standardsof personnel safety, it was considered essential that all 16 gatesbe mechanized and all exposedopen gearing be enclosed. An electric motordrive was selected,incorporating magnetic re- versingcontrollers and the necessary limit switches. Dial typegate open- ingindicators wouldbe provided for operational convenience. The control gatescould be moved manually as a backup tothe system. Hinged sheet steel covers wouldbe provided to cover exposed gearing. The proposedmodifica- tjons are illustrated on Figure 614. The estimatedannual cost of these facilities is $8,100.

4. Enclosureover 10 Gates of Compensating Works. It was considered essential that an enclosureshould be placed over at least thosegates which wouldconceivably be utilized during the winter months if not over the entire structure. Forpurposes of costestimating, it was assumed themiddle 10 gateswould be enclosed to provide a continuousweather-proof housing. Two alternate typesof material were investigated, a metal-cladprepainted enclosure at anannual cost of $9,125 and an asbestos-clad enclosure at an estimatedannual cost of $11,075. The metal-cladenclosure was selectedin that it offered more durability at a lowercost. Convenient lighting would beprovided inside the enclosure. The proposedenclosure is illustrated on Figure 615. The low regularprofile, the neutral colour (dawn grey), would provide an aesthetically pleasing structure with minimal visual impact.

2.3.4Alternate Method ofWinter Operation

As analternate measure, the installation of additionalgates on the northend (Canadian side) would satisfy the requirements of winter operation.

G- 34

+I--

4 4 i It is estimatedthat three gates,having similar dimensions as existinggates wouldbe required and these could be constructed without necessity for major modificationsto the existing approach and exitchannels of thestructure. Thesegates, which would be electrically heatedand completely mechanized, wouldbe operated to provide the appropriate change in regulated winter flow above a baseflow which.would be discharged through the existing works In otherwords, the gates of the Compensating Works wouldbe set at theonset ofthe winter period and any required variations in the flow during the period wouldbe obtained by manipulatingthe new, additionalgates. These gates would alsocompensate for the lost capacity of the control works (noted inSection 2.1.3) during maximum flowrequirements. These gates would also increasethe capacity of the existing works (such as Abitibiunits) especially duringperiods of maximum flowrequirements. It is estimatedthat these works would require a capitaloutlay of $3,900,000 (1971 pricelevels) which when amortizedover a 50-yearproject period, at aninterest rate of 7%, is equivalentto an annual cost of $283,000. It is estimatedthat the annual operation andmaintenance costs, principally electrical energy for theheating of thegates, hydraulic monitoring of the river and annual maintenance of the . gates wouldbe $30,000. On thisbasis, the total annual cost of these works are' estimated at $313,000. Due tothe preliminary nature of this design and therecognized necessity of model studies, estimates of 20% forengineering design,supervision and administrationand 30% forcontingencies were incorporatedinto the above cost estimate. Details forthe construction of these additionalgates were notpursued beyond this point since the capital expenditures far exceededthat of thefollowing recommended method.

2.3.5 Recommended Facilities for WinterOperation

An analysisof Plans SO-802 and SO-901 (seeSection 8, Main Report) re- vealedthat the maximum gate setting would be 6 gatesopen during the winter monthscorresponding to a flowof 85,000 cf 8. If a maximum winterflow of 95,000 cfs were to be specified, a gate setting of 8 gatesopen would be required. It was thereforedecided to provide electrical tubularheaters for 6 gatesand electrical tubularheaters for 8 pairsof gains. If in thefu- ture, a winter maximum flowof 95,000 cfs was adopted, electrical tubular heaterscould be provided for the additional 2 gatessince construction methods are relatively simple and inexpensive. However, theinstallation of the tubularheaters in the gate gains is relatively complexand expensive. Since thetubular heaters have to be installed in the gains with the gate in the fullyopen position, the construction method selected consists essentially offorming slots in the piers, downstream of the gate, which would serve as receptacles for a bulkheadgate thus eliminating flow of water throughthe gate. Onlyone bulkhead gate would be constructed and this would be moved by derrickboatfrom gate to gate as theinstallation progressed. Not only would thisbulkhead gate beused for installation of the tubular gain heaters, but it couldbe used subsequently for underwater sill, pier, or gate slot repairsrequired from time to time as partof the normal maintenanceprogram. All otherequipment is inaccordance with Section 2.3.3.

Table 64 summarizesthe cost of winter operations based upon the recommended works as discussedabove. The estimated annualcost based upon this TABLE 6-4

AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS* OF WINTER OPERATION OF THE CONTROL STRUCTURE AT SAULT STE. MARIE (Recommended Method, Uaing Electrical Equipment)

INITIAL ANNUAL** CA PITAL COSTSCAPITAL COSTS 1. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (a)Tubular gate heaters for 6 gates 6 tubular gainheaters for 8 pairs of gains $208,000 $15,600 (b) Structuralmodifications for 6 gates 54,000 4,050 (c) Electrical power linethrough Great Lakes Power Company tothe north end of the structure 80 ,000 6,000 (d)Telephone line to north end of structure 750 10,000 (e)Modifications to provide motorized drives for all 16 sets of gate hoistmachinery 102 ,000 7,650 (f) Hingedsheet steel coversover open gears of 16 sets ofgate hoist machinery 5,000 375 (e) Metal cladenclosure over 10 gates includingconvenient lighting 8,625 115,000 TotalCapital Cost: $574,000 Sub- $43,050 Total: 2. ANNUAL MAINTENANCE (a)Maintenance of heatingequipment 300 (b)Maintenance of motorized drives 200 (c) Maintenance of power line,sub-station 6 telephone line 600 (d)Maintenance of metal housing & lighting equipment 450 (e) Snow removal and site access 300 Subtotal: $ 1,850 3. ANNUAL OPERATIONS (a) Annual cost ofgate heating operations 8,100 (b) Annualcost of gate moving operations 2 50 (c) Annual cost of operation of lighting equipment 6 telephone 200 (d)Annual cost of hydraulic monitoring of the river 6 emergencystandby procedures 16,000 Subtotal: $24,550 Total Annual Cost : $69,450

*Expressed at 1971 price levels **Based on a useful life of 40 years at an interest rate of 7%

6-3 8 method is $69,450(1971 pricelevels). The followingparagraphs outline the basis of the elements ofthese annual costs: capital expenditure, maintenance and operat ion.

The installationsrequired consist of electric tubulargate heaters for 6 gates, electric tubularheaters for 8 pairsof gains, associated structural modificationsfor 6 gates,separate electrical powerand telephone lines to thenorth end of thestructure, modifications to provide motorized drives for all 16 sets ofgate hoist machinery, a metal cladenclosure over 10 gates andhinged sheet steel coversover open gearing of all 16 sets of gatehoist machinery. The estimatedcapital cost of this equipment is $574,000 which when amortizedover a useful life of 40 years at a 7% interest rate, correspondsto an annual cost of $43,050. Althoughthe estimated life of the control structure is SO years,the actual life of both equipment and the structure is dependent uponupkeep and repair. The 40-yearfigure for equipment life was onlyused for amortization purposes.

Annualmaintenance costs cover the upkeep of the above described works plusthe cost of snowremoval and site access.These annual costs, $1,850, wouldbe expended annually, whether or not gate movements are required during any particular winter period.

The annualcost of operationsconsists of labour costs to mve thegates, annualcost of lighting equipment and telephone and two othermajor items; thecost of gate heating operations, and, the cost of hydraulic monitoring andemergency standby procedures. The costof gate heating operations (electrical energy) was based on heatingof 2 gatescontinuously over the winter periodand heating others as required.This criterion would satisfy regula- tionPlan SO-901. Due tothe effects that changing winter flows can have onthe stability of downstream ice conditions, it is essentialthat close surveillanceof the river be maintained over the winter period. This sur- veillanceincludes; ground observations, aerial reconnaissanceand photogra- phy, the installation and operation of strategically located water level gaugescapable of detecting changes in water surfaceprofile that could sig- nifythe onset of ice jamming conditions,and the operation and maintenance of anemergency warning and communication system, the annual cost of operations is estimated at $24,550.

2.3.6 Costsof Increasing the Storage Capacity of Lake Superior

Alternative SO regulation plans were developedduring the Board's Study which wouldexpand the range of stage onLake Superior by lowering the minimum level up toone foot. Approximate economic evaluations revealed that benefits in theorder of $4 million,over and above that of Plan SO-901, couldbe obtained by such a lowering. It was determinedthat there would be no adverse effects onnavigation provided all channeland harbours on Lake Superior and in the upper St. Marys River were dredgedone foot deeper.

Preliminary estimates by theCanadian Department of Public Works revealed that the total capital costs of dredgingpublic and private harbours and slips alongthe Canadian shoreline of Lake Superior to maintain present depths, if the minimum water levelof Lake Superior were loweredone foot, would be $17 million, $9 millionfor public facilities and $8 millionfor privatefacilities.

Similarcost estimates fordredging harbours and navigation channels in UnitedStates were carriedout by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers. The total capital costsof such dredging was computed tobe $31.5 million. It was assumed inthe Corps' Study that costs associated with dredging of recreational andcommercial fishing harbours would be minimal.

The total capital costof dredging harbours and navigation channels situatedalong and in Lake Superior and theupper St. Marys River,to maintain existing vessel draft under a loweringof the range of Lake Superior by onefoot would be $48.5 million. The totalannual costs wouldbe $3.8 million, at aninterest rate of 7% and a projectperiod of 50 years. It must bepointed out that this is a verypreliminary estimate andwould have tobe refined in order to determine the feasibility or desirabilityof this improvement inthe operation of a regulationplan. The environmentaleffects of theextensive dredging required must also be examined.

2.4 Data

The followingsections list thebasic and derived data pertinent to the designand cost estimates ofLake Superiorregulatory works.

2.4.1 Basic Data

The followingsubsections list thebasic data which existed or was up- datedduring the course of thestudy and the collected data which was obtained duringthe study.

Existing Data:

(1) Recorded Water Levels at U. S. Slip Gauge (1900-1972).

(2) Recorded Water Levels at C.H.S. 012 Gauge (1908-1972).

(3) Recorded Water Levels at Lookout No. 3 Gauge (1900-1972).

(4) Recorded Water Levels ofLake Superior (1900-1972).

(5) Recorded Water Levelsof Lakes Michigan-Huron (1900-1972).

(6) RecordedAdjusted Water Levelsof Lake Superior (1900-1972).

(7) RecordedAdjusted Water Levelsof Lakes Michigan-Huron (1900-1972).

(8) Lake SuperiorOutflow, 1860-1968, CoordinatingComittee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulicand Hydrologic Data, June 1970.

(9) Lake SuperiorOutflow, 1968-1972, Nobleand Woodard Tables, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Monthly Publication.

G-4 0 (10) Ratingcurves for Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structure, Report on Discharge of St. Marys River, HA. Edmands, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,March, 1931.

(11) Stage-falldischarge equation between U. S. Slip and Mackinaw City Gauges, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers.

(12) RegulatedLevels and Flows, Plans SO-801, SO-802, SO-803 and SO-901, (1900-1967).

Collected Uuta:

(1) Water Levels at Frechette Gauge (1968-1972).

(2) Water Levels at Rock Cut Gauge (1968-1972).

(3) Winter Gate Tests:

(a) Water LevelProfiles, St. Marys River.

(b) Aerial Photographsof St. Marys River,Several Sets Each Year.

'I (c) Ice Thicknessand Characteristics.

(d)Climatological Records.

2.4.2 Derived Data

Data derivedduring the course of thestudy is listed below:

(1) Critical designElevations at U. S. Slip Gauge forthe regulation plans.

(2) CostCurves for Winter Gate Operation.

(3) Gauge Relationshipsin the Lower Riverfor Open Water Conditions.

(4) Reportentitled: "Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structure, Report on Present Conditionand Terms ofReference for Feasibility Study of Winter Opera- t ion" . (5) Reportentitled : "Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structure, Feasibility Study for Improvements to Lake SuperiorRegulatory Control Works", Acres ConsultingService, March 1972.

G-4 1 Section 3 ST. CLAIR - DETROIT RIVERSYSTEM

3.1 Descriptionof the System

The St.Clair-Detroit River system forms the outlet for Lakes Michigan- Huron dischargingsoutherly into Lake Erie. The system,about 86 miles long, is characterized by relativelyuniform water surfaceprofiles with no rapids or falls. The river bed is composed forthe most partof heavy blue clay and,except for the actions of man, is stable.

3.1.1General

The St.Clair-Detroit River system, shown onFigure 6-16, is divided intothree distinct parts: The St. Clair River,which has a lengthof about 38 miles; Lake St. Clair, extendingbetween the mouth ofthe St. Clair River and thehead of the Detroit River, a distance ofabout 16 miles; and the Detroit Riverwhich extends about 32 milesto Lake Erie. The fall in the water level fromLakes Michigan-Huron to Lake St. Clair is about 5 feet and fromLake St. Clair to Lake Erie it is about 3 feet.Figure 617 shows the water surfaceprofile for the low, mean,and high flow conditions of 152,000 cfs, 186,000 cfsand 210,NO cfsrespectively under the present (1962) hy- draulicregimen. Average current velocities in the St. Clair Riverrange from 3 to 7 fps(feet per second) depending on thecharacteristics of a spe- cificreach. Maximum velocitiesoccur in the narrow constriction, 800 feet width,near the Blue Water Bridge.Similarly, depending on thelocation, averagevelocities in the Detroit River range from 1.5 to 3 fps.

3.1.2 St.Clqir River

The St. Clair River, shownon Figure 618, canbe separated into three reaches. The uppercontracted reach, extending downstream from LakeHuron forabout 4 miles, is about 800 feet wide at thenarrowest point andhas mid-channeldepths varying from about 30 to 70 feet. The middlereach ex- tendsdownstream over the next 23 miles, is aboutone-half mile wide,and haschannel depths varying from about 27 to 50 feet.Located in this reach are Stag and Fawn Islandsand a middleground shoal opposite the City of St. Clair, Michigan. The lower reachextends about 11 miles to Lake St. Clair and it is inthis reach that the river begins to divideinto a number of distributarieswhich flow across thedelta shaped area called the St. Clair Flats. It is inthis latter area wheremajor changes inthe channels have takenplace through private, Canadian and U. S. Government dredgingoperations.

3.1.3 Lake St. Clair

Lake St. Clair, a shallow embayment inthe St. Clair-Detroit River system, occupies a wide,expansive, relatively shallow basin having an average depthof about 10 feet,with low, marshy shores. A location map of Lake St. Clair is shownon Figure G-19. It has a water surface area ofabout 430 square miles. The drop inlevel in the 16 miles across thelake from

G-4 2 MICHIGAN i

ONTARIO

Figure G-16 ST. CLAIR-DETROIT RIVER SYSTEM-LOCATION MAP e 1 G-43 PP -3

ELEVATION IN FEET IGLD (1955) cn cn cn cn U U U v N P m 03

W m

W 0

2? n2

ni A v, C the St. Clair Flats tothe head of theDetroit River is inthe order of 0.1 foot. The shallowdepth requires a dredgedcommercial navigation channel throughout its length.Improvements for navigationhave provided a navigationchannel 27.5 feet deep and 800 feetwide.

3.1.4Detroit River

Except at its headwhere Peach Island and Belle Isle are located,the upper 13 miles of theDetroit River is characterized by relativelyuniform crosssections, having a widthof about one-half mile andchannel depths varyingfrom 27 to SO feet. Inthe lower 19 miles, fromthe head of Fighting Islandto Lake Erie,the river broadens and is characterized by many islands and shoalscreated by extensiveoutcroppings of limestone. Theimproved main navigationchannels through the lower river are locatedbetween the west side ofFighting Island and t.he east side ofGrosse Ile. Inthe lower 7 miles, starting from a point east ofGrosse Ile, to Lake Erie, downbound traffic is viathe Livingstone Channel and upbound is viathe Amherstburg Channel. Ex- cept for the work of man, thenatural channels in the St. Clair andDetroit Rivershave remained virtually unchaged due to the stability of the heavy blueclay which constitutes their bed. A locationplan of the Detroit River is shownon Figure620.

3.1.5Navigation Channels

A minimum 25-fOot navigationchannel was constructedthroughout the St. Clair-DetroitRiver system in 1932-36. A minimum 27-foot.deep-draft channel existsthroughout the entire length of the system as theresult of a deepen- ing program initiatedin 1957 andcompleted in 1962. In the upper St. Clair River, anunmaintained channel with a depthof 21 feet is available on the east sideof Stag Island. It is at times used by upbound vessels. In the St. Clair Flats area, vessels use the St. Clair Cutoff Canal, which was constructedin 1962 toeliminate the hazard of navigation encountered in the sharplycurved Southeast Bend Channeland to reduce the vessel passage time through a shortenedroute. The Southeast Bend Channel,although no longer maintained,has at thepresent time (1972) good availabledepths (25 feet below LWD). Inthe lower Detroit River, from Ear Point,Ontario, to Ballards Reef, two channels are provided: the AmherstburgChannel is for upbound traffic andthe Livingstone Channel is for downbound traffic.Another deep- draftnavigation channel in the Detroit River, called the Trenton Channel, extendsfrom the main ship channel north of Grosse Ile, Michigan,approximately nine miles from its pointof origin. The upper 5.5 miles has a minimum depthof 27 feet andthe remainder 21 feet.Navigation channels for the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair andthe Detroit River are shown on Figures G-18, G-19, and G-20, respectively.

3.1.6Recreational Navigation

Numerous recreationalboating harbours, maintained by thevarious levels ofgovernment and by privateindividuals and clubs, are locatedthroughout the Great Lakessystem. In particular, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and DetroitRiver waterway is heavilyused for recreational boating purposes and, as such,forms a major considerationin the design of regulatory works.

G-45 .I

RT GRLTIOT GLCE

BLUE WAlER BRIDC

GRAND TRUNK WESTERN R.R. TUN L 0 CAR FERRY

DRY OOCK GAGE

YARYSVILLE 6LGE. AERIAL CABLE iT. CLAIR SHORES 5

s T. CLAIR

Figure G-I 9 LAKE ST.CLAIR-LOCATION MAP G-47 ? t

Figure G-20 DETROIT RIVER-LOCATION MAP 3.1.7Existing Compensating Works

Compensatingdikes have been constructed on thelower Detroit River to partiallyoffset the lowering of water levels due topast authorized navi- gationalimprovements in 1912, 1936, and 1962. However, similar compensation in the St. ClairRiver, resulting from the 25 and27-foot navigation projects hasnot been made.

On thelower Detroit River, compensating dikes have been constructed alongsections of both sides ofthe Livingstone Channel and the westerly side of theAmherstburg Channel from near the lower end of Bois Blanc Island tothe channel junction as shownon Figures G-20. Inaddition, the Sugar Islandcompensating dike has been constructed across a portionof the river fromthe Livingstone Channel to near Sugar Island at thesouth end of Grosse Ile as part ofthe 25-foot project in 1936. Compensation for the 27-foot project,completed in 1962, consisted of added width and length to existing dikes.Studies of the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers indicate that suffi- cientcompensation has not been provided in the Detroit River to offset the loweringeffect due tothe 27-foot navigation project.

3.1.8Pollution andEnvironmental Consideration

In conjunctionwith providing regulatory works and dredging associated withLakes Michigan-Huron regulation plans, factors affecting pollution and otherenvironmental factors were considered. An abstractof a reportdeal- ingwith this subject is containedin Annex C tothis Appendix.For example, tests performed by U. S. andCanadian agencies indicated that the bottom materials ofthe St. .Clair-Detroit River system contain mercury and other pollutants at unacceptablelevels. To preventfurther distribution of,the pollutedbottom materials throughoutthe dredging activities, it is proposed thatthe dredged materials beconfined by dikes which would generally be located onupland sites. Inanother case, during preliminary design stages, coordinationwith other interests revealed that structure location at the , junction of themain North and Subsidiary Middle Channels would have an ad- verseeffect onthe environment of Anchor Bay in Lake St. Clair. As a result of theseconsiderations, the designs of theregulatory structures included provisionfor unimpededflow around the end of the structures and flushing flowsthrough the gated portions.

3.1.9Bridges, Ferries, andOther Facilities

The St.Clair-Detroit River system is intensivelydeveloped with domestic, commercialand industrial facilities. Those facilities, in direct con- nectionwith changes in the St. Clair-Detroit River system,'include bridges, tunnelsand docks for automobile and railway car ferries, commercialvessels and recreationalcraft. A list ofthe major bridges, tunnels and ferries and theirlocations is presentedin Table G5. The locationof each of these facilities is further illustrated onFigures 618 and6-20. TABLE G-5 ST. CLAIR - DETROIT RIVER SYSTEM HIGHWAY BRIDGES,TUNNELS AND FERRIES

-Name Location TyPe Clearance, Ft. -Max. -Min . 1. HIGHWAY BRIDGES

Blue Water Port Huron - Cantilever 155 135 Sarnia

Ambassador Detroit - Suspension 156 133 Windsor Wayne County Grosse Ile Swing - - Higtway (Trenton Ch.) Grosse Ile Grosse Ile Swing - - Bridge , (Pr ivate) (Trenton Ch. )

2. TUNNELS

Railway GrandTrunk Western Port Huron - Sarnia Penn Central (New York Central) Detroit - Windsor Automobile Detroit - Windsor Tunnel Detroit - Windsor

3. FERRIES

Railway Chesapeake L Ohio Port Huron - Sarnia Norfolk 61 Western Detroit - Windsor Automobile Corruna - Stag Island Automobile Marine City - Sombra Automobile RobertsLanding - Port Lambton Automobile Algonac - Russell Island Automobile Algonac - WalpoleIsland Automobile Algonac - HarsensIsland

G-50 3.1.10 Ice Problems

LakesMichigan-Huron, as with all ofthe Great Lakes,does not freeze overwith a permanent ice coverduring the winter, primarily due to the in- fluence of wind actionand of theheat stored in the water. Ice whichforms on thesurface is ableto persist as coherentsheets only in protected areas. The ice whichforms in exposedcentral parts of the lakes is continually broken up and moved about by theaction of thewind. Most of the ice even- tuallydecays on thelake surface with the advent of warmer weather,but part of it finds its way intothe St. Clair River at theoutlet of Lakes Michigan- Huron. It is normal tofind ice jams inthe St. Clair Riverperiodically throughthe winter season. The supplyof ice deliveredto the river and the consequentdegree of jamming are highlyvariable, being the result of such inherentlyvariable climatic factors as winds,temperatures and snowfall. Duringthe times when jams are present,the outflow of water fromthe lakes may bereduced due to the obstructing effect of the ice inthe outlet rivers. Ice jamming is animportant factor in thenatural winter regime of the St. Clair-DetroitRivers Systems. Jams form inplaces where the capacity of the riverto carry away floating ice is less thanthat necessary to remove the outputof ice beingdelivered from upstream. Lake St. Clair, andthe lower St. Clair Riverchannels discharging into it, normallyfreeze over early in thewinter. Ice carried down tothis point fromLake Huron forms heavy jams inthese regions. It hasbeen estimated that the average flow in theSt. Clair Riverduring the 3-month period,January through March, is approximately 25,000 cfs less thanthat which would occurunder open-water conditions.This value applies to thechannels as theyexisted prior to the 27- footnavigation improvement which was completed in 1962.

The DetroitRiver is shieldedfrom heavy ice runs by the intact cover onLake St. Clair, and ice jams seldomoccur at theoutlet from Lake St. Clair. The riveritself is frequentlyfrozen over in its lowerreaches. The averageJanuary through March flowretardation by ice in the Detroit River is estimatedto be 4,000 cfs.This value applies to the channels as theyexisted prior to the 27-foot navigation improvement.

The effect of ice on theflow resistance of the river system between LakeHuron and Lake Erie is reflectedin the water levels.During severe ice jams, water levels in the St. Clair River may rise as much as 3 feet, whereasthe level in Lake St. Clair (belowthe jams) may drop by as much as 1.5feet.

Withthe dredging of the various channels of the St. Clair-Detroit Riversystem over the years, thedepth and cross-sectional area of critical reacheshave been increased and, as such,have decreased the amount of ice retardationrelative to natural conditions. In thiscontext, the existing ice regimewould be altered by the regulatory works which would be required for a SMHO or SMHEO regulation plan, as discussed In Section 3.3.15.

3.2Assumptions

The followingassumptions have been made withrespect to thedesign of regulatoryworks and channel excavations for the St. Clair-Detroit River system .

G-5 1 (1) Commercial navigationlocks would notbe tolerable to commercial navigationin the St. Clair-Detroit River system.

(2) Thereshould be minimum restrictionof recreational boat traffic.

(3) The existingrange of water levelprofiles as adjustedto the pre-1933channel regime, should be maintained in the St. Clair- Detroit Riversystem.

(4) The generalflow and current pattern in Lake St. Clair should bemaintained.

(5) The existingice regimen should be maintained in the system.

(6) Adverseenvironmental impact of all proposedworks should be minimized.

(7) The structuresshould be operable all year.

3.3 Methodology

Becauseno hydraulic control exists in the St. Clair-Detroit River system, theflow is sub-criticalwith the outflow from LakesMichigan-Huron being a function of thelevels of Lakes Michigan-Huron, St. Clair and Erie. A change of onefoot on thelevel of Lake Erie is reduced.bythe backwater effects in the system to a changeof only 0.25 foot onLakes Michigan-Huron. The regulation of theoutflow from a lakeor reservoir will, by definition, require a changefrom the flow that wouldhave occurred under natural channelconditions. Artificial releases withconstruction of regulatory works would affect the water surfaceprofiles in the connecting channels, in this casethe St. Clair-Detroit River. Due tothe discharge capacity character- isticsof the natural channels, regulated or artificial releases which are greater than the natural flow would result in higher water surface profiles. Forthis condition, the capacity of the channels must beincreased in order tomaintain the same profilethat would occurfor natural conditions. In contrast, artificial releases whichwould be less than natural would result in lower natural water surfaceprofiles. This conditionrequires that the flowbe retarded in order to raise theprofile to the natural conditions. The developmentof channel designs which are necessary to satisfy these changes are based on the selection of the mostunfavourable or extreme changesthat could be experienced under regulated conditions. The methodology was developedwith a view to providingthe necessary channel capacity increasesand retardations in order to maintain the natural profiles.

One of the major constraintsin the channel design and cost determination was thenecessity of providing cost curves for use in evaluating regulationplans that were inthe developmental stage, Stated in another Way, the costcurves for channel design were developedindependently of the yet to be developedregulation plans. As a result, thefollowing procedures were followed:

1. Due to the unavailability of regulatedlevels and flows, extreme designconditions were determinedfrom recorded prototype conditions. 2. Forregulation plans requiring both channel capacity increases and decreases,regulatory structures were required.to reduce or retard the flow to a degreethat returned the channel capacity increase to zero or to the 1933 naturalchannel capacity. From thiscondition, the regulatory strue tures were furtherrequired to reduce or retard the flow by anadditional amount as specified by thechannel capacity decrease. Thus thetotal amount of channelcapacity decrease includes the enlargements in the channels providedfor the channel capacity increase. Since the combination of conditions for channelcapacity increases and decreases are innumerable,the structures requiredfor channel designs were limitedto two conditions of channelin- creases,no increase andan assumed maximum. Both of theseconditions were combined withvarious channel capacity decreases. Thus, the product of the structuraldesign activities consisted of two costcurves: (1) structure costsversus a rangeof channel capacity decreases for no channelcapacity increasesand, (2) for similar channelcapacity decreases incorporating the enlargedchannel determined for the maximum channelcapacity increase.

The structure costs for preliminary regulation plans were determined fromthese two curves,with the intermediate values of channel capacity increases beingobtained by interpolatingbetween the two curves, no increase and maximum increase. The costsfor channel capacity increases were determinedfrom a relationshipbetween channel capacity increase and costs, as illustratedin Section 3.3.12. Forselected regulation plans, which provide therequired regulated levels andflows, the channel designs and costs are keyed tothe hydraulic conditions created by theplans. The methodology developedhere is applicableto both the final and preliminaryapplications.

Anotherconstraint that affected the methodology was therequirement tomaintain the St. Clair-DetroitRiver water surfaceprofiles to the hy- draulicregimen which existed prior to 1933, beforethe start of the25-foot navigationproject.

3.3.1 Objectives

The principalobjectives in channel design were todetermine the re- quiredchanges in the channels, the optimum locationof regulatory works and thecosts thereof. These objectives were achievedon the basis of assump- tionsdiscussed in Section 3.2.

3.3.2 Outline ofProcedures

The proceduresfollowed in reaching the objectives for channel design are outlinedbelow:

1. Determinationof design conditions, extremes oflevels and flows

2. Determination of 1933 channelcondition water surfaceprofiles for thedesign conditions

3. Developmentof mathematical model of St.Clair-Detroit River system forpresent (1962) channel conditions

G-5 3 4. Applicationof mathematical model in the design of channel enlarge- mentsand location of regulatory structures

5. Conceptualdesign and cost estimates of regulatorystructures

6. Determinationof cost estimates forchannel excavations

7. Developmentof costcurves

8. Determination of costsfor preliminary regulation plans

9. Channeldesign and cost estimates forselected regulation plans

The details of theprocedures outlined above are discussedin the following subsections.

3.3.3 Determination of DesignConditions of Regulated Levels and Flows

Inthe development of a regulationplan there exists two extremecondi- tionsof flow that have the maximum deviation from naturalconditions. These are :

1. The maximum channelincrease, the flow regulated minus flow natural, is the maximum positivedifference or: Max ChannelIncrease - Qregulated-Qnatural - Qmax (+) 2. The maximum channeldecrease, the flow regulated minus the flow natural, is the maximum negativedifference or;

Max Channel Decrease = Qregulated-Qnatural = Qmax (-)

Regulatoryworks designed to satisfy these two extreme conditions would also satisfy all intermediateconditions.

Design Conditions for PreliminaryRegulation Plans: Inorder to provide channeldesign costs for optimizing the benefits and costs of preliminary regulationplans, cost curves were requiredfor a rangeof channel changes. Since no regulatedlevels and flows were availablefor obtaining the extreme designconditions, recorded monthly water levels for theperiod, 1900-1967, were substitutedfor regulated monthly levels of LakesMichigan-Huron and Lake Erie. The assumption was made thatthe regulated conditions most difficult to satisfy hydraulically wouldbe abnormal, i.e. otherthan average. Also, inthe selection of therecorded levels, it was realizedthat the most extremelevels might not recur since the objective of the 1964.water levels Referenceto the IJC is tostudy the feasibility of reducing the extremes in stage whichhave been experienced. Since the extreme levels would not beappropriate design parameters, a stage-durationcurve for Lakes Michigan- Huron levels,April through November, was derived andemployed. This diagram is shownon Figure 621. The water levelsnear the 10 and90 percent frequencies were identified by datesof occurrence. Recorded Lake Erie water

G-5 4 levels,corresponding to thedates of theselected Lakes Michigan-Huron levels, were extractedfrom the historical data. Abnormal slopesbetween the two lakes were selectedfrom these data for use in determiningthe channel capacity increase and decreasedesign conditions. These design elevations, shown on Figure G-22, occurred at the 8 and 93 percentfrequency ex- ceedence of theLakes Michigan-Huron stageduration curve. Using the dates on whichthese selected levels occurred, the corresponding recorded levels of Lake St. Clair were obtained.

The .next: step was thedetermination of the flow that would occur under 1933channel conditions €or each river under the two designconditions. These flows were determined from thedesign levels given, utilizing the stage-falldischarge equations derived from the monthly mean flowsfor the 1924-1933 periodas determined in this study. The results, summarizedon Figure G-22, show theprofile condition for discharging increased flows. The corresponding St. ClairRiver flow is 148,000 cfs forthe natural (1933 channel)regimen. The conditionfor retarding flow corresponds to a St. ClairRiver flow of 220,000 cfs. Employingthe information contained on Figure G22, the water surfaceprofile for the two designconditions and theresults are shown on Figure 623. Thisdifference in flowbetween the St. Clair andDetroit River profiles has been computed tobe about 4,000 to 5,000 cfs, depending on thesupply conditions, as determinedby the water balancefor Lake St. Clair. Inorder to obtain hydraulic compatability for design in thisriver system, 4,000 cfs was added to theSt. Clair Riverflow for the low flowcondition of 148,000 cfs resulting in a Detroit River flow of 152,000 cfs. Applicationof 5,000 cfsto the high-flow condition for the St. ClairKiver results in a comparableflow of 225,000 cfsfor the Detroit River.Using these design flows for the Detroit River, together with the derivedequations, Lake Erie water surfaceelevations of 570.62 and 572.38 were computed forthe low- andhigh-flow conditions, respectively. Inter- mediate water surfaceelevations between Lake Erie andLake St. Clair were also computed todefine the water surfaceprofile under 1933 channelconditions. A summary ofthe data derived for the Detroit Riverdesign conditions is shownon Figure G-23. The locationsof the gauges utilized for the St. Clair-Detroit River system are shownon Figure G-16.

3.3.4 Determinationof Channel Design Limits

The nextrequirement was to establish some limits forthe channel capacityincreases and decreasesthat could be expected under regulated conditions.Utilizing the costs obtained in the U. s. Army Corpsof Engineers' report entitled "Water Levelsof the Great Lakes"dated December 1965 and using as a guidethe evaluation of preliminary regulation plans, the upper limit ofchannel capacity decrease required for regulation would be 32,000 cfs,for both the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers, whilethe upper limit of channelcapacity increase would be 32,000 cfs for the St. Clair River and 26,000 cfsfor the Detroit River. Theseassumptions are applicableonly to thedetermination of the preliminary regulation plan channel design-cost re- lationshipsand not to channel designs for a selectedregulation plan in- volvingthese two rivers. The incrementsof flow changes used in thechannel design, when applied to theflows determined for the 1933 channelconditions, representthe regulated flow. For example, if the increment offlow of

G-5 5 hWm 0 07 03 co h m m hm i

G-56 FIGURE G-22 ST.CLAIR-DETROIT RIVER SYSTEM - PRELIMINARYDESIGN LEVELS AND FLOWS

DESIGNSTAGES FOR HIGH & LOW PROFILES

- ~ DESIGN LAKES MICH-HUR % OF TIME DATE OF L. ERIE FALL BETWEEN L. ST. CLAIR STAGE L . MICH-HUR OCCURRENCE STAGE L . MICH-NiR STAGE(GPYC) RIVER FLOW 1 (HARBOR BEACH) CLEVELANDSTAGEEXCEEDED & LAKE ERIE

CHANNEL INCREASE 576.49 93% APRIL 1959 570.16 6.35 572.72 168,000 (LOW)

CHANNEL DECREASE 580.70 8% SEP 1952 571.95 8.81 575. 41 2 20,000 (HIGH) L. 0 ulI U ST.CLAIR RIVER - DESIGNSTAGES AND INTERMRIVER PROFILES

t DESIGNCONDITION ST.CLAIR RIVER WATER SURFACEPROFILE INFEET 9 H 7 HARBOR POINT GAUGE MOUTH DRY MARYS- ST.CLAIR ROBERTS ALGONAC GROSSE ST.CLAIR 2 BEACH EDWARD OF DOCK VILLE LANDING POINTE RIVER 0 I BLACK YACHT FLOW h) RIVER CLUB W' (CFS) CHANNEL INCREASE +l 576 .4g 575.91 575.80 575.49 575.20 574.56 573.58 573.71 (LOW) 572.72 148,000 c3 r 2 CHANNEL DECREASE 580.76 U 579.74 579.17 579.60578.75 577.90 576.27 576.54575.41 220,000 m (HIGH) +I L

H rj cz DETROITRIVER - DESIGNSTAGES AND INTERMRIVER PROFILES

DESIGNCONDITION DETROITRIVER LAKE FORT WINDMILLCLEVELAND FLOW (CFS) ST.CLAIR POINT WAY NE (LAKE ERIE)

CHANNEL INCREASE 152,000 572.72 572.52 571.98 570.62 (LOW)

CHANNEL DECREASE 575. 41 (HIGH) 225 ,000 574.35 575.23572.38 20,000 cfs is selected as thechannel capacity increase required under regulation,the regulated flow wouldbe the natural 1933 channelcondition flow of 148,000 cfsplus the 20,000 cfs change,or 168,000 cfsregulated flow. Conversely,the increment of flow for the channel capacity decrease is sub- tracted fromthe natural flow computed for the 1933 channelconditionin orderto determine the regulated flow.

3.3.5 PreliminaryChannel Design Procedure

To facilitate thecomputation of channel designs for the development of costcurves for the preliminary channel design, the curves for the channel capacitydecreases vs. costs were developedin combination with two channel capacityincreases, namely, no channelcapacity increase and the maximum assumedchannel capacity increase relative to 1933 outletconditions.

3.3.6 Developmentof Mathematical Models for ChannelDesigns

The computationfor determining the effects of channel changes, water surfaceprofiles, anddesign of compensating structures and channels,involves thestandard, step-by-step backwater process. Manual trial and error computations are tedius and time consuming.Therefore, this process was compu- terizedinto what is referredto as a "mathematicalmodel". The mathematical modelsused inthis study consist of the computerization of thestandard backwatercomputations utilizing Manning's equation. These models have been designedfor specific rivers, incorporating features for balancing the river flowaround islands, changing roughness coefficients for various river reaches andcomputing variable coefficients for sudden transitions in flows and eddies. An abstract of a- report,describing in detail the processes in- volvedfor development of mathematical models for river systems, is contained in Annex C of this Appendix.

3.3.7 Use ofMathematical Models

One ofthe assumptions for regulatory works design was therequirement tomaintain the range in water surfaceprofiles of theSt. Clair-Detroit River systemto 1933 outletconditions. Since the two models were designed toreflect existing (1962) conditions, they contain within themselves the uncompensatedchannel increases for the 25- and27-foot navigation improvements. The amount ofthis built-in channel capacity increase was determined by operatingthe model withthe 1933 channelcapacity increase condition profile andcomputing the discharge that would duplicate this design profile. The model resultsindicated that the St. Clair Riverunder present conditions is carryingabout 11,000 cfs more flowthan the 1933 channelconditions and theDetroit River is carryingabout 6,000 cfs more. These "built-in" in creases inthe channel capacities were deductedfrom the results obtained fromthe model (1962 conditions) inchannel design in order to adjust to 1933 channelconditions.

3.3.8 St. Clair RiverMathematical Model

The St. Clair River mathematical model was developedin two parts, Lake Huron (Fort Gratlot Gauge) to Algonac at theconfluence of the North and SouthChannels, and from Algonac to Lake St. Clair. Inthe lower portion, the model dividesinto the North, Middle and South Channels. The South Channel inturn is divided by theSoutheast Bend and the St. Clair Cut-off Channels.Other minor channels, such as theChenal Ecarte and Basset Channel, were represented in the model asdirect losses based on thepercent of flow distribution. Themodel was dividedinto two partsdue to thestorage limi- tationof the computer used. The model was calibratedusing discharge measurementstaken in 1968, withcorresponding water levels. Flow distribu- tionsand cross sectional areas of thechannels were determinedfrom hydrographicsurveys taken in 1954 and1970. The resultsof the calibration are summarizedon Figure 024.

3.3.9 DetroitRiver Mathematical hdel

TheDetroit River model, extending from Lake St. Clair (WindmillPoint Gauge) tothe outlet at Lake Erie, (BarPoint, Ontario) is a computerprogram dividedinto six parts (phases). The subdivisionof the model was due inlarge measureto the limited capacity of the computer used. The model was calibratedusing discharge measurements taken in 1967, corresponding water levels, flowdis.tribution and cross sectional areas ofthe channels determinedfrom hydjographic surveys taken in 1966. The results ofthe calibration are shown on Figure 625.

3.3.10 Applicationof Mathematical Model in ChannelDesign, ChannelCapacity Increase

Sincethe most economicallocation for dredging would be in those channels in which the structures wouldprobably be located, some judgment was initiallyapplied as totheir location. Utilizing the water levelsfor Lakes Michigan-Huron, St. Clair and Erie, shown on Figure622, under the assumed most difficultprofile for discharging additional flow, an incrementof channel increase was appliedto the design condition of flow in bothrivers. Amountsof material were removedfrom thecross sections and theresulting profiles were 'computed forboth rivers. Keeping the flow constant and increasingthe amountof material removed, a relationship between the elevations ofLakes Michigan-Huron and material tobe excavated on the St. Clair River was developed.Then, by changingthe flow and repeating this process, a series ofcurves were determined as shown on Figure626. The intersection of thecurves with the design elevation for Lakes Michigan-Huron delineated those computed profiles which satisfied the Lakes Michigan-Huron design elevation.Similar computations were performedfor the Detroit River and the series of curves are shownon Figure 627.

Forthe maximum channelcapacity increase condition to provide for an increasein flow of 32,000 cfs,approximately 28.7 million cubic yards of bot tom material is required to be dredged from seven reaches in the St. Clair River down to a depthof 36.0 feet below LWD. This estimate is basedon 1962 channelconditions. Approximately 36.8 millioncubic yards of bed material frompresent conditions is requiredto be dredged from four reaches in the DetroitRiver to 32.0 feetbelow LWD toprovide for a maximum channelcapacity Increase of 26,000. The locations of thesereaches in theSt. Clair andDetroit Rivers are shown on Figures G28a, G-28b and G-29, respectively.

G-60 ST. CLAIR RIVER MATHEMATICAL MODEL 1968 CALIBRATION AVERAGE DISCHARGE= 192,600 CFS a. UPPER ST. CLAIR RIVER

Flow Percent of Manning's Reach (CFS) Total Flow Roughness

Ft. Gratiot 192,600 100 0.0252 Mouth of Black River 192,600 100 0.0234 Dry Dock 192,600 100 0.0237 Marysville 192,600 100 0.0235 St. Clair 192,600 100 0.0233 Robert's Landing 192,600 100 0.0265 Algonac 192,600 100 b. LOWER ST. CLAIR RIVER

Flow Percent of Manning' s Reach (CFS) Total Flow Roughness North Channel - Dick. Isl. 102,100 53 0.0213 to Alg.

North Channel 63,600 33 0.0150

Middle Channel 38,500 20 0.0175

South Channel 80,900 42 0.0209

Southeast Bend 34,700 18 0.0170

St. Clair Cutoff 38,500 20 0.0275

Basset Channel 7,700 4 Loss

Chematogan Channel - Less than 1% Loss

Chenal Ecarte 9,600 5 Loss

FIGURE G-24 ST. CLAIR RIVER MATHEMATICAL' MODEL - RESULT OF CALIBRATION

G-6 1 DETROIT RIVER MATHEMATICAL MODEL

1967 CALIBRATION

AVERAGE DISCHARGE = 186,000 CFS

FLOW PERCENT OF REACH (CFS) TOTAI, FLOW "" ____"

Detroit River 186,000 100

West of Peach I. 142,000 77

East of Peach I. h3,200 23

West of Belle I. 57,000 31

East of Belle I. 129,000 69

West of head of Fighting I. 143,500 77

East of head of Fighting I. 42,500 23

Fighting I. Channel opposite Grassy I. 94,500 5 1

West of Grassy I. 49,000 26

Trenton 39,200 21

Fighting I. Channel opposite GrosseIsle 104,200 56

West of Turkey I. 22,000 12

East of Turkey I. 20,500 11

Amherstburg, Lime Kiln Reach 88,000 47

Livingstone, Upper Diked Reach 48,600 26

Stony Island 10,200 6

Amherstburg, Hackett Reach 67,300 36

Bois Blanc Dike 7,200 4

Livingstone, Lower Diked Reach 40,100 22

Sugar Island Dike 9,190 5

Sugar Island 23,100 12

West of Celeron I. 27,900 15

East of Celeron I. 11,300 6

FIGURE G-25 DETROIT RIVER MATHEPATICAL MODEL- RESULTS OF CALIBRATION <

G-6 2 USING MATHEMATICAL MODEL WITH GPYCSTAGE OF 572.72

( \

576.60

h 576.50 - ELEVATION v2 n 2 52 $ 576.40 a 3

UI 576.30 I 0 I wu) 2 576.20 -I

576.10

11111111111~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~ , 1 3 2 4 7 6 5 8 9 10 11 141312 15 16 1817 19 2021 28272625242322 VOLUME MATERIAL REMOVED (MILLION CUBIC YARDS) Figure G-26 ST.CLAIR RIVER CHANNEL CAPACITYINCREASE- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOLUMEOF EXCAVATION, FLOW AND LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON LEVELS. DETROITRIVER CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE (USING DETROITRIVER MODEL WITH LAKE ERIL AT 570.26)

573.00

\ \ 572.90 mCI m 07 \ ,+ u +9 \ c?- t; 572.80 W LC f W (3 U \ \ ELEVATIONDESIGN I- - \\~""~"~" u) \ \ \ 572.72 "== -0: 572.70

Ja 0 G v) W Y Ja 572.60

572.50

VOLUME OF EXCAVATEDMATERIAL (MILLION CUBIC YARDS)

Figure G-27 DETROIT RIVER CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOLUME OF EXCAVATION, FLOW AND LAKE ST. CLAIRLEVELS ~w " ~ z u z~ -Z 8 ~ z u< ~ 0 5 c( § uj \ - 2. ~z " ~ It: ~ ~ ~ :) . " - ! I ~

,~ c( ~ ~ \ :I: ~I

~ ~~ N- o ~ In (.) 0 ~~ -C ,,- I Z Q 5~ ~ "'" .-"' u - Q LL. '" I- ~ cn 0 Q Q § Z"",",Zm -Z ~ " 1B~o ~ -'m'" Z -'~ (; n~ 0 ~" W ~ " I~:j 0 0 W cn 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ LL 0 Z 0 ~ < U 0 -'

I Z I~ 2 cC\ 1- ~Z ~t;

~a0'1- ~ 'i ~ \::0 ~

I I \

~ z ~ c1i

Z 0 "~ "

~ § '" ., > ~ 0 ~ ~ 8 '< '" N Z ..J ""

0 (J~8 ~ '" '" " :J "' ... w:I: ... C

-- Z'

d. ~ 0 ~ \

.@,\\

. ~ ~" 0»0~~~ ~- ~ m-~~z" 0z 0 8 E 0 Z

n ..

% ,.

! z " I i 0 .S ,.

§ j az ~ J a~ 0 g~ z " z ~

C1 ~f I,. ~" "' ~.. -~ ~~ -.§:~zcEiT' -- "

... , ~~ t;~ CU

z-Z -~

,I!CZ ~ i ~~ ~

; I ~2L" .~ ~2 ~i . ~~ ~~

: - ~~~~

: ~ i I!;!i < ~ i~~~I~

U ~~.~.~

~i~~~~ .ft--,"

\ .. \

~ ~ 1

~ i!-. .! ~~: The entire widths of thedesignated reaches would not necessarily be dredged sincethe dredging was limitedto the amount of changerequired in the cross sectionin order to obtain the required channel increase. The dredged areas, codedalphabetically on theaforementioned figures, are tabulated on Figure G-30a and 630b, showingthe volume and type of material.

3.3.11 ChannelizationRequirements

Dredgingrequirements, disposal and related problems in the St. Clair- DetroitRiver system were investigated. The principalfeatures examined in- cludedthe following:

1. The methods of dredgingand dredged-material disposal with the emphasis on theenvironment

2. Cost estimates forthe required dredging

3. Costestimates for the required utility relocation

An abstract of a reporton this subject is containedin Annex C to this Appendix.Figure 631 shows thelocation of possible disposal areas for the material tobe dredged from theSt. Clair River.Figure G-32 shows thepro- posedlocations for the Detroit River disposal areas. Not all ofthe dredged material will requireplacement in the disposal areas, since some ofthe material, after removalof the polluted overburden, could be utilized for theconstruction of trainingdikes associated with the regulating structures. The quantities and distribution of dredged material to the disposal areas and for use in the training dikes is shownon Figure6-33 for the St. Clair Riverand Figure 634 forthe Detroit River.

The cost estimates, basedon unit costs developed for the St. Clair- DetroitRivers, are detailedon Figures 6-35 and6-36, respectively. The total cost of dredging 28.7 million cubic yards and utility relocations for the St. Clair River wouldapproximate $176 million including an allow- ance of 252 forcontingencies and furtherengineering, design andadministration. The cost estimates forthe Detroit River fordredging 36.8 million cubic yards and utility relocations is approximately $375 million, which alsoincludes a similar allowanceof 25% forcontingencies and further engineeringdesign and administration. Theabove costs are basedon 1971 pricelevels,

With respectto channel dredging, two main factorsthat require further study in order to minimize any potentially undesirable effects on the environment are:

1. Designand operation of the dredging procedures to avoid unneces- saryredistribution of contaminated sediment6

2. Disposal and/ortreatment of dredged material torender it non-noxious to its adjacentenvironment

G-6 8 Quantity Dredged Area Location (Bank Measure) Type of Material* Boreholes 3 mo C.S.2133+00 - C.S.2116+00 319,000yd Densesandy gravel, CB-3, CB-5 c3r Some boulders 3 C.S.2116"OO - C.S.2019+00 2,157,100yd DenseSand, Gravel, CB-6, CB-7, SC1-71 Silt, Clay 3 C.S.1970+00 - C.S.1533+00 7,701,000yd SiltyClay, Sand CB-7 thru CB-17 Gravel except CB-11; SC2-71 SC3-71, 10-59,12-59, 13-59, 15-59,16-59, 17-59

C.S.1520+00 - C.S.lh90+00 279,900yd3 Clay,Silty Clay CB-18, CB-19,CB-21, SCb-71

3 C.S.1670+00 - C.S.llhO+OO -0,825,500 yd Clay,Silty Clay, CB-21 thru CB-25: Sand, Gravel SCb-71 thru SC8-71, 2b-59, 25-59

3 C.S.10b0+00 - C.S.910+00 5,362,500yd SiltyClay, Sand, CB-26 thru CB-35 Gravel 3 C.S.8454-00 - C.S.7054-00 2,091,200yd SoftClay 10-60, 15-60, 32-60

*In order of decreasing proportion ~ Quantity Dredged Area Location (Bank Measure) Type of Material*

SouthPeach Island 4,370,000 yd 3 Sand,Clay, Gravel, DR8-71, U59-7 Reach Silt 3 NorthBelle Isle 16,079,000 yd Sand, Sandy Gravel, No. 0, No. 19(City of Reach Clay, Silt Detroit,1920) DR8-71, U59-5, U59-6, U59-12, U59-13, U59-14, U59-15, 1-62 through 9-62 3 East FightingIsland 7,390,000yd SandyClay, Silt, DR6-71, Reach Gravel,Limestone 31-59 through 34-59, Wayne CountyBoring

3 TrentonChannel Reach 8,490,000 yd Limestone, Broken 1-38,2-38, 3-38, 6-38, Limestone,Sand, 7-38, 8-61,10-61, 11-61, Clay,Gravel, Silt 12-61,13-61, 17-61 through 33-61, DR3-71,DR4-71, DR5-71, 1-62, 2-62,1-64

*Inorder of decreasingproportion INDICATES DISPOSAL AREA

LAKE ST. CLAIR

ST. CLAIR RIVER-PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF DREDGE DISPOSAL SITES -N-

INDICATES DISPOSRL RREA

Figure G-32 DETROIT RIVER-PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF DREDGE DISPOSAL SITES REACH A 100% 1000' PORT HURON 319,000 c.y. - 100,000 c.y. I L

I 4100' STAG ISLAND - b 50,000 c.y. Construction Training Walls I 375,000 c.y. I ST. CLAIR 150,000 c.y. I -3% -3% REACH B PEACHISLAND 2,157,100 c.y. 75,000 c.y. 6 97% I

1 2370' 29400' 12370' CANADA 1 1, 11,000,000 c.y. * A c -20% 15000' I , 7 REACH C14% 80% 6530' CANADA 3 7,701,000 c.y. Booo' 2,250,000 c.y. 8 + 4 L

, 3 26% CANADA 4 REACH D I 100 % 9600' 100% ' b 2,250,000 c.y. 279,900 c.y. 11400' . + 40% 4000' 40% f 4 + 40% CANADA 5 REACH E 16200t' 7,150,000 C.Y. 10,825,500 c.y. r

r 5400' CANADA 6 12,936,000 c.y. I 0% 21,635,000 c.y 5,362,500 c.y. 600'

7,140,000 c.y. O-Purnping Station REACH G 2,091,200 c.y. CANADA 12

FIGUREG-33 ST. CLAIRRIVER - PROPOSEDALLOCATION OF DREDGE SPOIL MAXIMUM CHANNEL CAPACITYINCREASE 15% 1200'1250' CANADA 1 c.y.

CANADA 2 -.

1,133,000 c.y. 3,850,000 c.y.

14500' PORT HURON 8,675,000 c.y. b 38,400 c.y. 1 L"---A

50% , 1 EA ST FIGHTINGEAST 374200' STAGISLAND 8,325,000 c.y. I S LAND 503,600 C.Y. 7,390,000 c.y.

I I I I U. S.1400' 29000'13 348000' ST. CLAIR + 2,630,000 c.y. 804,300 c.y. m34x J CONSTRUCTION TRAININGDYKES - 2,812,900 c.y. -a 1 121200' PEACHISLAND N. 6,453,000 c.y. b 837,100 c.y.

PEACHISLAND S. >

154,500 C.Y. TRENTON CHANNEL

475,000 C.Y. 0 -- PUMPINGSTATION

FIGURE G-34 DETROITRIVER - PROPOSEDALLOCATION OF DREDGE SPOIL MAXIMUM CHANNELCAPACITY INCREASE

G-7 4 ~~~ ESTIMATED ITEM QUANTITY IJNIT UNIT PRICE COST - " 1. Dredging Area A 75 ,000 $ 4.00 300 ,000 244 ,000 $ 2.50 610 ,000 Area B 2,157,100 $ 3.50 7,549,850 Area C 1, 540,200 $ 3.50 5,390,700 6 ,160,800 $ 3.00 1a,482,400 Area D 279 ,900 $ 3.00 a39 ,700 Area E .o ,a25 ,500 $ 3.00 32,476,500 Area F 5 ,362,500 $ 3.00 16,0a7,500 Area G 2,091,200 $ 3.00 6,273,600

2. Earth Dykes Canada 1 627,000 $ 3.00 1,aa1,ooo Canada3 272,000 $ 3.00 a16 ,ooo Canada4 283 ,ooo $ 3.00 a49 ,ooo Canada5 200,000 $ 3.00 600 ,000 Canada6 653,000 $ 3.00 1,959,000 Canada7 584 ,ooo $ 3.00 1,752,000 Canada 12 544,000 $ 3.00 1,632,000 U.S. 17 224 ,000 $ 3.00 672,000 U.S. 23 400 ,000 $ 3.00 1,200,000

3. Striping 4,858 Acre $1,500.00 7,2a7,000

4. Clearing 4 ,a58 Acre $1,000.00 4,858,000

5. Seeding & Mulching 4,858 Acre $1,000.00 4,a5aYooo

6. Trees & Shrubs 4,858 Acre $1,000.00 4 ,858 ,ooo 7. Pumpout Facilities

Pipelines & Trestles 31, 400 L.F. $ 30.00 942 ,000 Oil Skimmers 9 Each $5,000,00 45 ,000 Weirs la Each $7,500.00 135, 000 a. Mooring Facilities la Each 25,000.00 450,000 (PileClusters)

9. Real Estate 4858 Acre 1,000.00 4,85a,ooo

10 Utilities Intakes 19 Each 77,000.00 1,463,000 Outf alls 10 Each 35,000.00 350 ,000 PipeCrossings 1 Each 22,000.00 122,000 CableCrossings 5 Each 00,000.00 500,000 SteelSheet Piling 3500 L.F. 3,000.00 10,500,000

ub-Total 140,597,250 5% ontingency 35,149,313

OTAL 175,746,563

L IL.l-

Figure G-35 ST. CLAIR RIVER ESTIMATEDCOST OF DREDGING MAXIMUM CHANNEL CAPACITYINCREASE

G-75 I I ESTIMATED - ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST 1 Dredging S. PeachIsland 4,370,OOC $ 2.50 10,925,000 N. Belle Island 1,930,OOC $ 3.00 5,790,000 1,607,gOC $ 3.00 4,823,700 8,039,50C $ 3.50 28,138,250 964,74C $ 3.50 3,376,590 3,536,86C $ 4.00 14,147,440 E. FightingIsland 5,490,OOC $ 3.00 16,470,000 1,9oo,ooc $ 30.00 57,000,000 TrentonChannel 4,490,000 $ 3.00 13,470,000 4,000,000 $ 30.00 120,000,000

Earth Dykes Canada 1 197,200 $ 6.00 1,183,200 Canada 2 437,000 $ 6.00 2,622,000 U.S. 1 154,000 $ 3.00 462,000 U.S. 6 154,000 $ 3.00 462,000 U.S. 11 1,640,000 $ 3.00 4,920,000 U.S. 12 $ 3.00 U.S. 13 270,000 $ 6.00 1,620,000 U.S./Canada 14 198,000 $ 6.00 1,188,000 U.S. 16 570,000 $ 6.00 3,420,000

3. Stripping 623 Acre $ 1,500.00 934,500

4. Clearing 623 Acre $ 1,000.00 623,000

5. Seeding & Mulching 1,552 Acre $ 1,000.00 1,552,000

6. Trees & Shrubs 1,552 Acre $ 1,000.00 1,552,000

7. Pumpout Facilities Pipeline & Trestles 7,000 L.F. $ 30.00 210,000 Oil Skimmers 9 Each $ 5,000.00 45,000 Weirs 18 Each $ 7,500.00 135,000

8. Mooring Facility 18 Each $ 50,000.00 900,000

9. Real Estate 623 Acre $ 2,000.00 1,246,000 .o . Utilities PipeCrossing 8 Each $122,000.00 976,000 CableCrossing 10 Each $100,000.00 1,000,000 Intakes 5 Each $ 77,000.00 385,000 Outfalls Each $ 35,000.00 - Sub-Total $299,576,680

25% Contingency $74,894,170 - - TOTAL $374,470,850 FIGUREG-36 DETROIT RIVER ESTIMATED COSTS OF DREDGING MIMUM CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE

G-7 6 3.3.12 ChannelCapacity Increase Cost Curves

Utilizingthe costs as presentedabove, the volumes of material tobe dredgedfor the various channel capacity increases, shown onFigures G-26 and G-27, were convertedto costs in dollars. The conversioninto channel capacityincrease cost curves for theSt. Clair and DetroitRivers is shown onFigures (2-37 and G38, respectively.These cost curves, based on the result of recordedabnormal lake levels, were designedfor determining the costs of LakesMichigan-Huron regulationplans. These curves, applicable tothe 1933 regimenconditions, contain the "built-in" channel capacity increase resulting from the 2s- and27-foot navigational improvements.

3.3.13 Application of Mathematical Model in Channel Design,Channel Capacity Decrease

Initial tests usingthe mathematical models were conducted for thepur- poseof determining the most effectivelocations of structures. The struc- turelocations tested included those determined in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineersreport "Water Levelsof the Great Lakes,Appendix "F", dated December 1965. However, in theevaluation of theretarding effect of each structurein an accumulative downstream order,the Fawn Island structure was eliminateddue to the relatively small hydrauliceffect exerted by this structure. The proposedlocations for the St. Clair RiverControl structures are shown onFigure G-39. These are:

1. Port Huron 2. StagIsland 3. St. Clair 4. Northand Middle Channels

The proposedlocations for the Detroit River structures are shown onFigure G-39. These are:

1. Head of DetroitRiver, East and West ofPeach Island 2. Belle Isle 3. Zug Island 4. East FightingIsland (Grassy Island) 5. TrentonChannel

3.3.14 HydraulicDesign Characteristics

Followingthe determination of the optimum location of the structures, the St. Clair and DetroitRiver models were operatedfor determining the hydraulic characteristics of thestructures required for selected amountsof channelcapacity decreases, with no channel capacity increase and with the maximum channelcapacity increase. For purposes of thedesign of the struc- turesand their costs, the results of the maximum channelcapacity decrease in combination with the maximum channel capacity increase were extracted from themathematical model output. For conditionswith all gatesclosed, the data provided were as follows:

G-7 7 40 LAKE MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATION ST.CLAIR RiVER CHANNEL DESIGN COST CURVES FOR CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE

ST. CLAIR RIVER CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE VS. COST 1933 CONDITIONS H6 STAGE=576.49 GP STAGE=572.72 Q=148 TCFS

I 0 I I 1 I 1 I I 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS-BASED ON PRICE LEVELDEC. 1971) FORREMOVAL OF MATERIAL FROM EXISTING CHANNELS (1970)

Figure G-37 ST. CLAIR RIVER-CHANNEL CAPACITYINCREASE COST RELATIONSHIP DETROITRIVER CHANNEL DESIGN COST CURVES FOR CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASES

CHANNEL CAPACITY DECREASE VS. COST 1933 CONDITIONS GYPC STAGE=572.72 CLEV. STAGE=570.60 Q=152 TCFS

I I 0 100 200 300 400 (INMILLIONS OF DOLLARS-BASED ONPRICE LEVEL DEC. 1971) FOR REMOVAL OFMATERIAL FROM EXISTING CHANNELS (1962)

Figure G-38 ST. CLAIR RIVER-CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE COST RELATIONSHIP REGULATORY STRUCTURE AT PORT HURON REGULATORY STRUCTURE AT STAGISLAND

REGULATORY STRUCTURE AT ST.CLAIR REGULATORY STRUCTURE IN NORTH & MIDDLE CHANNELS

REGULATORY STRUCTUREAT WESTBELLE ISLE

KEGULATORY STRUCTURE AT EAST FIGHTING ISLAND

REGULATORY STRUCTURE AT TRENTON

Figure G-39 LOCATION OF PROPOSED REGULATORY STRUCTURES-ST. CLAIR 81 DETROIT RIVERS 1. Location of proposedcontrol structure 2. Flow aroundend of structure (ungated portion of channel) 3. Water surfaceelevation downstreamof structure 4. Water surfaceelevation upstream of structure 5. Downstream velocity at end of structure 6. Upstream velocity at endof structure 7. Velocity at the endof structure 8. Length of ungatedstructure 9. Channeldepth at structurebelow LWD 10. Sill elevation 11. Totallength of training wall

The dataobtained for this maximum designcondition for channel capacity decreasefor the St. Clair and DetroitRivers are shown onFigures 640 and G-41, respectively.Examination of the data indicates that the maximum head to bemaintained is 1.3 feet at theSt. Clair structurelocation. Also of importance is thatsubstantial amounts of flow would be allowed to pass aroundthe ends of the structure under this severe assumed regulatedcondi- tion.These flows are inaddition to the 2,000 cfsallowed to pass through the structure, with all gatesclosed, for flushing purposes. The comparisons betweenthe resulting design flows around the end of the structures with flowsthat would occurunder natural channel conditions for the same total riverflows are shown on Figures 6-42 and 6-43. It shouldbe reiterated in thissection that the design condition described would, under test regulationplans, occur with a frequencyof less than 1%. It shouldalso be re- membered that this maximum indesign condition may bediminished in degree dependenton the channel requirement for regulation.

3.3.15 ConceptualDesigns and Cost Estimates of RegulatoryStructures

The necessaryengineering studies to prepare structure designs and cost estimates forregulatory structures in the St. Clair-Detroit River system were provided by thefirm of Acres ConsultingServices Limited, Niagara Falls, Ontario. Terms ofreference for the study and concepts were providedin a document entitled"Regulatory Structures on theSt. Clair-Detroit Rivers, Developmentof Conceptual Design, Terms ofReference", an abstract of which is containedin Annex C ofthis Appendix.

The study was presentedin two volumes. Volume I, entitled"Conceptual Designand Estimates", contains the layouts, conceptual designs and cost estimates forthe regulatory structures and theirassociated works, such as the small boatpassage, shore protection works, etc., at eachof the nine sites. Volume 11, entitled "Criteria and Selectionof Elements" presents factors and criteria thatgovern the design of theparts or elements of the Structures.Various concepts of the elements of thestructures are described, andbackground environmental considerations and construction methods that relate tothe concepts are referredto. Abstracts of the two volumes are providedin Annex C ofthis Appendix.

Each site and structure shown on Figure 639 is described in a separate chapter of theconsultants report (Volume I) whichcomprises a summary of the

G-8 1 FIGURE 6-40 ST. CLAIR RIVER - HYDRAULICDESIGN DATA FORPROPOSED REGULATORY STRUCTURES - MAXI”If CHANNEL CAPACITYDECREASE

GATED STRUCTURE COMPLETELY CLOSED’ TO TAL LOCATION OF KOW AROUND KEAN VELOCITYPASSING STRUCTUP.E LENGTH OF ELEV. ACROSS STRUCT. DEPTH AT s ILL LENGTH OF PROPOSED END OF WWNSTREAM UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAP VEL. AT UPSTREAR LJNGATED STRUCTURE ELEVATION TRAINING ELEVATION STRUCTUREELEVATION CONTROL VELOCITY STRUCTURE VELOCITY STRUCTURE3 (FT. BELOW (FT. IGLD) W&L (S) STRUCTURE (CFS) (FT. (FT.) (FT.SEC.) (FT. SEC.) (FT. SEC.) L. W. D.) FEET

Port Huron 182 ,zoo2 800 5.04.3 580.66 580.177.4 36.0 5b0.2 2,700

S tag Island 42,900Island Stag 578.68 579.35 6.8 1.6 36.0 150 1.6538.7 8,500

577.27 578.57 3.1 6.3 3.0 1,100 36 .O 538.2 10,000

- ~~ . ~~ N orth ChannelNorth I 29,200 I 575.78 I 576.40 1 0.7 I 6.8 1 0.6 100 I Natural Natural None Natural None

NOTES :

1. Maximum designconditions; Lake Michigan-Huron = 580.76, G.P.Y.C. = 575.41, Flow = 182,200 CFS.

2. Except 2,000 CFS throughcontrol structure for continuous flushing purposes.

3. Lengthof opening to beprovided to passflow around structure as indicatedin Column 2. FIGURE 6-41 DETROIT RIVER - HYDRAULICDESIGN DATA FOR PROPOSED REGULATORY STRUCTURES - MAXI" CHANNEL CAPACITY DECREASE

GATEDSTRUCTURE COMPLETELY CLOSED' I I TOTAL LOCATION OF FLOW AROUND ELEV.ACROSS STRUCT. MEAN VELOCITYPASSING STRUCTUPE LENGTHOF DEPTH AT s ILL LENGTHOF PROPOSED UPS TREAM DOWNS TRW UNGATED STRUCTURE ELEVATION TRAINING CONTROL ELEVATIONVELOCITY STRUCTURE3 (FT. BELOW (FT. IGLD WALL (S) . STRUCTURE (CFS) (E.) (FT. SEC.) (FT. SEC.) (FT. SEC.) L. W. D.) FEET 36, 400 572.50 573.36Trenton 572.50Channel 400 36, . 1.2 2.0 9.7 300536.8 32.0 None 19,00 0 573.47 574.01 0.5E. Fighting 574.01 Isl. 573.47 19,000 8.1 0.5 65538.4 32.0 None (GrassIsland) ~~

0 I 1300 NaturalNatural os Zug Island2.2 3.9 1902.0 ,ooo2 574.25 574.08 , 2,000 W 15,900 574.61 575.01 0.4 6.9 0.4 6.9 Belle0.4 Isle 575.01 574.61, 15,900 65 32.0 I 539.4 I None

.ead of Detroit 800 Natural Natural 3,000 River (N. Side each Island) I ead of Detroit 400 Natural River (S . Side each Is land)

tNOTES : 1. Maximum designconditions: Lake Erie Stage = 572.38,Lake St. Clair Stage = 575.h1,Flow = 190,000 CFS.

2.Except 2,000 CPS throughcontrol structure for flushing purposes.

3. Lengthof opening to be provided to pass flowaround structure as indicated in Column 2. FIGUREG-62 ST. CLAIRRIVER COMPARISONSBETWEEN NATURAL AND REGULATED FLOW DISTRIBUTIONS UNDER MAXIMUM CHANNEL CAPACITYDECREASE CONDITIONS

DESIGN FLOW = 182,000 cfs

~ ~ ~~ LOCATIONOF NATURAL FLOW AROUNDEND CHANGE IN PROPOSEDCONTROL CHANNEL OF STRUCTURE(CFS) FLOW STRUCTURE FLOW (CFS) (GATESCLOSED) (CFS)

PORT HURON 182,200 182,200' -"

STAGISLAND 72,900 42,900 - 30,000

ST. CLAIRI ST. I 182,200 182,200' "_ I 1 NORTHCHANNEL 60, LOO 29,200 - 30,900

MIDDLE CHANNEL 36,400 30, (300 - 6,100

NOTE : 1. EXCEPT 2,000 C.F.S. THROUGHCONTROL STRUCTURE FOR CONTINUOUS FLUSHING PURPOSES.

FIGUREG-63 DETROITRIVER COMPARISONSBETWEEN NATURAL AND REGULATED FLOW DISTRIBUTIONS UNDER MAXMJ" CHANNELCAPACITY DECREASE CONDITIONS DESIGN FLOW = 190,!)00 cfs

LOCATIONOF FLOW AROUND END NATURALCHANGE IN PROPOSEDCONTROL CHANNEL OFSTRUCTURE (CFS) FLOW STRUCTURE FLOW (CFS) (GATES CLOSED) (CFS)

TRENTONCHANNEL 39,900 36,400 -3,500

GRASSISLAND 43,700 19,900 -24,700

ZUG ISLAND 190,000 190,oool "" I

BELLEISLE 13,500 15,900 +2,400

N. SIDEPEACH ISLAND 146,300 136,300 -10,000

S. SIDEPEACH ISLAND 43,700 58,700 +15,300

NOTE : 1. EXCEPT 2,000 C.F.S. THROUGHCONTROL STRUCTURE FOR CONTINUOUS FLUSHING PURPOSES.

6.84 principalfeatures of thehydraulics andgeology, the layout of the structures and thedetail to whichthey have been taken to permit the conceptual estimates which were prepared.Cost estimates were givenfor the fully developed structure,and in successive reductions to 50% ofthe basic length determined forthe maximum designcondition. Durations and sequences of construction for each structure were estimated.

Standardization of thedesign of theelements of similar functionsof thenine sites were taken as animportant factor in reducing costs of construction andmaintenance. The format will providethe most convenient base forfuture workand costestimating.

The structures were tentativelylocated within certain limits, but lati- tude was givenin selecting the exact location of thestructures. Following an aerial inspection and a site visit, together with study of aerial photographs,structures at East FightingIsland, Zug Islandand Port Huron were relocatedwithin the given tolerance.

The criteria relatingto the proposed structures in the St. Clair and DetroitRivers were providedin the terms ofreference together with asso- ciateddata. Geotechnical information on whichthe concepts are based is aninterpretation of the results of exploratory work conductedin the rivers by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers and by consultantsfor Environment Canada.

As theregulatory works involvenine structures that have a similar function,standardization of theelements common tothe sites, methodsof construction and means ofmaintenance were taken as primaryrequirements. The common principalelements, such as thegate, concrete support structure, small boatpassage and training wall were studiedseparately. After refinement,they were adaptedto each other and tothe various sites. These selectedprincipal elements are discussedin the following paragraphs. A singularfeature of the sites is the low hydraulichead across the structures whichdoes not exceed 16 inches.

The Effects of the Proposed Structures on the Ice Regime: The structures which are proposedfor regulation of flows in these rivers will have little effect on ice movements when all gates are open. When gates are closed, however,the ability of the river surface to convey ice piecesthrough various reaches will bealtered. The changes may affectthe basic mechanismsof ice jam formationand may result in ice jams forming at sites different fromthose wherethey occur under present conditions. If the gates of the proposed structures are closed,they will shelter some reachesof the river and permit a stationary ice coverto freeze in place, to the benefit of some properties alongthe shore. However, operationof the gates during the ice season may cause some less favourableresults by triggering ice runs at placesand at times when theywould not normally occur. For the purpose of thepresent investigation, it is assumed thatthese effects will beminor. Final design of a system of structures such as theserequires an evaluation of the effects ofthe ice regimebased on anextensive field reconnaissance.

G-85 Gate Desi-ms: Gateoperating conditions are unique in that the maximum hydraulicload is less than 1.5 feet,whereas the water depthin the channels is inthe order of 40 feet at all sites. A specified ice pressureof 40 kips perlineal foot of gate wasassumed. This is equivalentto a differential pressureof 16 feet actingover the total height of 40 feet, i.e., overten times greaterthan the maximum hydraulicload. It is obviousthat consider- ablesavings in gate costs are possibleif the ice loadscan be avoided. Oneway toachieve this is by a designin which the gate or its topsection canbe arranged to submerge if excessive ice loads are applied,allowing ice to pass overthe gate. Further economies can be effected if the gate system doesnot require piers to be massive to withstand the ice loads.These con- siderationslead to the concept of a simple gatedesign; a gaterequiring minimum maintenanceand one which can be readily removedand reinstalledwith- outthe necessity for cofferdams or the use of stop logs.

With a numberof gates at each site, it is consideredthat adequate flow controlcan be provided with only two gatepositions fully open and closed. Withno intermediate positions being necessary, the required complexity of themechanisms is greatlyreduced. Since the structures are inparallel with ungatedchannels, it is notnecessary to providetight-fitting seals between or at thebottom of the gates. A gapof up to 4 to 9 inchesaround individual gates is thereforeconsidered acceptable. This gap wouldprovide flow through thestructure at all times, thuskeeping the channel free of debris. In summary,the following considerations significantly affect the selection of gate type :

(1) The gateshould submerge under excessive ice loads (2) Thereshould be no piersbetween adjacent gates (3) Dewateringshould not be required for maintenance (4) Partialgate openings are notrequired (5) Watertight seals are notrequired

Gate Concepts: Figure G-44 shows fivetypes of gates considered which meet all or some of theabove criteria. The fivetypes of gates were as follows :

(1) Sectional Gate (2) Tainter Gate (3) Fishbelly Gate (4) Radial Gate (Submersible) (5) DoubleHinged Gate (BuoyantFlap Gate)

Due tothe requirement for piers between adjacent gates and need for stoplogs for maintenance, the Sectional, Tainter, and Fishbelly gates did notsatisfy all the criteria since: (1) thevisible piers and superstructure wouldbe esthetically unattractive, and (2) thepiers would have to be massive,hence costly, to resist theheavy ice loadingsthat would be imposed. The SubmersibleRadial and Buoyant Flap Gates donot require piers which overcomesthis objectionable feature. However, the Submersible Radial Gate hasthe disadvantages of requiring cofferdaming for maintenance and removal, and a foundation as deep as thedepth of water above sill elevation,about 45 feet.

G-86 D Buoyant Flap Gate - Bases of Selection: This gate is similar inprin- cipleto the Fishbelly andSubmersible Radial Gates in that it is hinged at theriverbed level. The difference is that it is raised by theaction of air-filledbuoyant tanks alone, whereas the Fishbelly and Submersible Radial Gates requiremechanical lifting. This principle is feasibleonly if the hydraulicloading is very small, as it is at all sites inthe St. Clair and DetroitRivers. No piers are requiredfor the operationof the gate. Pipes runalong the sill tocarry air to fill the buoyancytanks. A verysimple concretesupport structure of minimum depth is required, as theloads trans- mittedfrom the gate to the foundation are small. A doublehinged gate was proposedin consideration of seismicforces.

There are many advantages of a doublehinged type of gate. Its operat- ingprinciples are independentof any support structure other than a sill. Consequently,the only ice loadencountered is theimpact of an ice floe before it passes overthe gate; This design has the effect of lightening the forces on thegate support structure. The absenceof any protruding parts from theriver surface is esthetically more desirablethan gates requiring largeconcrete structures. There is no necessityfor either cofferdams or theinstallation of stoplogs for dewatering, as thegate can be easily removed in its entiretyfor maintenance or for any otherpurpose. When the gate-bearinganchor belts are released,the gate can. be floated to the sur- facefor removal from the site. It is possiblefor the foundation structure tobe built with the gate attached and theensemble installed utilizing the "float-in"principle, thereby minimizing construction and installation costs. After considering all thefactors, the BuoyantFlap Gate was preferredfor the service required and was, therefore,selected for refinement to the detail ofconceptual engineering design and cost estimate.

Gate Support Structures: Inconjunction with the study on gate concepts, similar studies were undertakenfor the selection of the mostadequate type of supportstructure. This analysisincluded rectangular piers, tapered piers, and pierless slabfoundation. It followsfrom the selection of the Buoyant Flap Gate thatthe pierless slabfoundation would satisfythe design requirements. The supportstructure, by eliminationof the pier requirement wouldbecome a slabfoundation designed only to resist theforces transmitted to it from thegate hinges and the pressures from the soil beneath.

Exceptfor the Port Huron site, whichhas a granularbed, and the Trenton site, which is on rock,the bearing capacity of the soil is gener- allynot of a high order. .In order to keep imposedloading on the soil withinpermissible limits, it is necessaryto have a largespread foundation as shownon Figure 6-45, This illustrates a reinforcedconcrete sill, cellular inconstruction, with dimensions 50 by 60 feetand 10 feetdeep. A 6- foothigh wall on the upstream face wouldaccommodate controlpiping and affordprotection to the gate from bed movement.The stability of the sill was examinedand found adequate against overturning, slipping and sliding.

The conceptof a largecellular concrete sill would meet thefoundation requirementswithout the necessity of deep pile foundations. First cost estiLmates indicatedthat it is cheaperto Install tRan a smaller cellular

688 f

3 concrete sill withdeep pile foundations,and, therefore, the large cellular concrete sill foundation was accordinglyused in the estimates of structure costs.

Construction and Placement of Gates and Sills: The proposedgate sills are reinforcedconcrete boxes, which can be constructed in one or more loca- tionsalongside or inthe river, launched andthen towed tothe various sites forsinking, thus enabling mass productionmethods to be employed in their manufacture. The selected method forconstruction is thefloating platform or"piggy back" technique. In this technique, two initialunits are constructed in a commercialdrydock or in an excavation on theriver bankand floatedto the site. The two units are launched by ballastingthe lower unit until the upper unit becomes buoyantand can be floated off, whereupon the lowerunit is raised by pumping outthe buoyancytanks. The process of cast- inganother unit may thenbe repeated. This technique has been used success- fullyfor constructing concrete crib units in major ports throughout the world. The cells are interconnectedto form fourapproximately equal sec- tionsto provide control during sinking. The gates may beadded at thecast- ingyard or at the steel fabricatingyard before sinking of the sill toavoid theneed for underwater assembly of gates.

Operation of ControlGates: The gates at each1ocation.can be maintained eitherfully opened or fullyclosed, and theirpositions canbe kept rela- tivelyconstant over extended periods of time. Operation of eachgate is effectedpneumatically from a localcompressed air centerthrough a directly connected air line. Air is suppliedto the line via a common header,and pressure is maintainedfrom a compressor-suppliedstorage tank. Tandem operatingsolenoid valves are usedto either pump air intothe line, thereby raisingthe gate, or tovent air from theline, thereby lowering it.

A centralizedremote control station is proposedin order that all the structures can beoperated as one system. Manual control is providedonly for maintenance ope rat ions.

TrainingWalls: Training walls would berequired at five of thenine sites whereregulatory structures are indicated. The totallength would be 27,200 feet;the longest would be 10,000 feet at St. Clair andthe shortest would be 1,000 feet at PeachIsland (south) location. The purposeof the training wall is to effect a change in the geometryof the river which will, inconjunction with the gated structure, produce and maintain a specified headloss due tothe gated structure. The headloss of about 1.5 feet is small inrelation to the total height of the training wall.

An evaluationof the function of training walls in this project led to an analysisof three types, namely, rock fill, flexible diaphragms and solid diaphragm.These are described as follows:

(1) Rock Fill

The primaryconsiderations of thedesign on thesection of rock-fill embankment are seepage, due to differentialhead existing across embankments, and stabilitywith respect to the generally low strengthof the clay founda-

G-9 0 tion.In addition to seepage and stabilityconsiderations, the known sources ofborrow materials and associatedcosts are parametersthat are related to theselection of thesection. Theembankment sectionchosen is ofrock fill where seepageeffects due to lowheads are negligible; wherehead differential is significant, a zoneof low permeability is requiredwithin the rock-fill shell.This study explored the potentials of structures providing only partial cutoff, whereseepage is keptto tolerable limits andwhich utilizes known availablesources of rock fill and sandand gravel.

(2) Flexible Diaphragm

The flexibletraining wall, a ratherunique concept, in principle, consists ofan impervious membrane or diaphragmanchored to the bed of the river and supported by a float. The diaphragm acts as animpervious curtain, sepa- ratingbodies of water having a headdifferential of less than 1.5 feet. The water flows down thenavigation channel side of the training wall at all times, with a maximum averagevelocity not exceeding 7.5 fps. The water on theother side is static or freeflowing, depending on control requirements. The upstream endof the training wall is sealedto the regulatory structureabutment.

The problemof eliminating ice bondage to the float was studiedusing lowbond stress coatingsand methods for preventing ice formation. The for- mer method was discardedsince known coatingssuch as Teflon are expensive tobake on and are susceptibleto danage by scratching from ice floes.These preliminarystudies indicated that the three s.cheres that offered the best prospectsof eliminating the ice bondage to the float were:

(a)Heating the affected half of the flotation collar

(b)Utilizing the water velocityhead to take relatively warm water from thechannel to the stationary-side of the float

UsingPyrotenax cables as conductors,the installation of heating elements is feasible and the installation and operatingcosts are nottoo high. However, theoperating voltage is highand as a resultthe systems are readily damaged. For thisreason, the method was notdeveloped.

Though the water transference method appears to offer the best solution tothe ice formationprevention, it was recognizedthat it is a novelmethod, anduntried. Therefore, the air bubblersystem was usedin computing the costof a flexiblediaphragm training wall dueto the lack of confirmatory tests . (3) Solid Diaphragm

The varietyof suitable types of solid diaphragms that were considered were :

(a)Structural steel sheetsand piles

G-9 1 (b) Precast concretebulkheads

(c)Precast concrete slabs spanning horizontally between solid concreteanchors

(d) A sheetpile wall withthe top 7 feetconsisting of a Fabridam (aninflatable dam)

(e) Sheetpile cells

All fivetypes were analyzedand firstcosted with the last threeoffering the best solutions.

For thepurposes of thisreport and cost estimate, a rock-filltraining wall was theadopted concept of those discussed above. Preliminary comparisonof the costs of the rock fill and flexible membrane training walls in- dicatedthe possibility of saving up to $20,000,000 inusing the concept of theflexible membrane. Shouldbenefit-cost ratios of regulation be found to justify or rejectregulation marginally, using costs based on rock-fill wall, the flexible membrane alternativeshould not be overlooked.

Small Boat Passage: The requirementsfor the design of thenavigation facilities consisted of providing a passagefor small recreational boats at all structuresduring the open water seasonto minimize the passage of small boatsinto the main navigationchannels thereby preventing congestion and promotingsafety. With theexception of the Port Huronand SouthPeach Islandstructures, where natural portions of thechannel are availablefor small boats,each facility is tohave the capability of handling fifty boats perhour (including sail boats) in either direction, having a maximum draft of 8 feet,an average length of 25 feetand a maximum lengthof 40 feet.These two latter criteria were set forconventional lock design purposes.

Sincethe loss of headacross each structure is quite small (the maximum being 1.30 feet across theSt. Clair Structure),the possibility of an un- gatedboat passage was includedin the study. The advantagesof such a passage are: (1) minimalmaintenance and attendance, and (2) theavoidance of delayimposed by conventionallocking procedures. The basicproblem is to dissipatethe energy head while at the same time maintaining velocities in theboat passage which do not create difficultiesfor small craft. Two typesof gateless boat passage were considered,one with side roughness ele- mentsand the other with bottom roughness elements. In addition, a suitable gatedstructure was studiedin detail. A boatpassage employing vertical bottomroughness elements was usedfor the establishment of cost estimates. Details of this plan are shownon Figure 6.46.

Estimates ofthe cost of conceptual designs shows thatthe cost of constructionof a gatelessnavigation passage is less than, or competitivewith, the cost of a gatedlock at all sites otherthan St. Clair. At this site, thegreat length of the navigation passage makes it more expensivethan the gatedalternative. However, when bothmaintenance and attendance costs are consideredand the added convenience of an ungated passage is taken into

G-9 2 T t

I I

I I Prior to final design, a physical model would benecessary to verify theoperation of thepassage and to indicate economies that mightbe made inthe cost of thepassage.

Development of RecreationalAreas: Some structureslend themselves to development of recreationalareas. Consequently, adjacent marinas are anticipated and providedfor in the cost estimates. An artist'sconception of a regulatory structure in operation with smallboat passage and adjacent marina is shm on Figure 6.47. Plansfor the nine control structures and ancillary works are detailed on Figures 6-48 through 657.

EnvironmsntalConsiderations During Construction: The proposed construction of the control structures and dikes would have 80184 effect on the environmentduring construction. Construction work will be activeonly in relatively small areas at anyone time. Prefabricatedsections of the work will bebuilt on land, at possibly two separate sites alongthe two rivers, thusminiaieing the landrequirements and environmentaldisturbance during construction. The proposed method of constructiondoes not require the closingoff of any -)or section of theriver at any time. Inaddition, when the structures are in operation, water levels will bemaintained within therange of naturalvariation throughout the system which is a desirable feature.

3.3.16 Development ofCost Curves for Channel Capacity Decreases

Utilizing the unit costsprovided by the report .on "ConceptualDesign and Estimates" discussedpreviously, costs for the combination of structures requiredfer the range ofchannel capacity decreases were determined for the St. Clair and DetroitRivers. Two channeldecrease cost curves were derived; one, in ccmbinetieolwith no channelcapacity increase and thesecond, in com- binationwith the enlargedchannels resulting from the maximum channelcapacity incre-erequirements. The two curvesfor the St. Clair and Lletroit Rivers,are'shsrr on Figures 658 and G-59, respectively. These cest curves show thatfor the maximum condition ofchannel decrease in combinaticbn with the maxispup chonnelincrease the total first cost of thestructures, based on 1971 pricelevels, is 69.4 milliondollars for the St. Clair River and 82.7 million dellarrr @rthe Detroit River. Since the channel design is based on 1933 channelconditions, the cost curves for no channeldecrease required structures in bothrivers to account for the "built-in" channel in- creaseresulting from the 25- and 27-foot navigation improvements.There- fore, it ha6 bean determinedthat in order to return the existing channel conditioao ts the 1933 river regimen usingthese concepts, two structures would &e reguired in the St. Clair River; one at thePort Hurm site, and the other at the Stag Island site, at a first cost of 29.8 million dollars. Similarly, fer theDetroit River, one structure located at theTrenton Channel site would be tequired at a first cost of 9.8 milliondollars. The steps shown inthe ehannel cost curves are a result ofthe range in retardation available at each structure site, depending on the number of gatesrequired.

G-9 4 W K 3 I- o 5) K I- tn > a 0

ua c

‘y

-Lo E!!

,E.'" ,E.'" %.NO r.N,.n*

SECTION &A D Lm m ,mr, W.L. - Figure G 52 DETROIT RIVER-PROPOSED REGULATORY STRUCTURE AT PEACH ISLAND (NORTH SIDE) G-100 I

B 4

+40

NO CHANNEL ST. CLAIR RIVER :HANNELCAPACITY DECREASE VS.COST CAPACITY INCREASE

+30 1933CONDITIONS: HB STAGE = 580.76 MAXIMUMCHANNEL GP STAGE 575.41 Q = 220 TCFS CAPACITY INCREASE -4"-I +20 ,

+ 10 cn LL 0 c f 2 W cn Wa Ya. 0 > 5 a a 0 l7-y;""- -I W -10 Z I a I I I GRAPH ASSUMES STRUCTURES ARE UTILIZED IN ACCUMULATIVE 0 I ORDER UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM I 1. BLUE WATER BRIDGE 2. STAG ISLANDPLUS 1. ABOVE -20 I 3. ST. CLAIR PLUS 1. AND 2. ABOVE I CHANNELN-MSTRUCTURES 4.ALL PLUS ABOVE I

-30 lP"-I

I -40 I I I I I 1 0 I 20 40 60 80 100 120 ""' COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RETARDATIONSTRUCTURES (INMILLIONS OF DOLLARS-BASEDON PRICE LEVEL DEC. 1971) Figure G-58 ST. CLAIR RIVER-RELATtONSHIP BETWEEN COST ANDCHANNEL CAPACITY DECREASE FOR RANGE OF CHANNELCAPACITY INCREASES G-106 +65 TCFS . -

d 40 - I 5 "

30 - NO CHANNEL I - 1I 20 MAXIMUM CHANNEL J 377iCAPACITY INCREASE 2.

0E? I- f 10 - W J cna W (L V W T" 0 t k DETROIT RIVER 0 0- CAPACITY DECREASE VS. COST a3 1933 CONDITIONS 0 -I GPYC STAGE = 575.41 W zZ CLEV STAGE = 572.38 U Q = 225 TCFS I 0 -10 e-1 I GRAPH ASSUMES STRUCTURES ARE UTILIZED IN ACCUMULATIVE ORDER I DOWNSTREAM TO UPSTREAM 1. TRENTON CHANNEL -20 2. E. FIGHTING ISL. PLUS 1. ABOVE - I 3. ZUG ISLAND PLUS 1. AND 2. ABOVE I 4. WEST BELLEISLAND PLUS l., 2., AND 3. ABOVE I 5. HEAD OF DETROIT RIVER PLUS l., 2., 3.. AND 4. ABOVE -30 I

I I I 1 I 0 20 40 60 80 100 COST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RETARDATIONSTRUCTURES (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS-BASED ON PRICE LEVEL DEC. 1971) Fi,gure G-59 DETROIT RIVER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COST AND CHANNEL CAPACITY DECREASE FOR RANGE OF CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASES G-107 3.3.17 Use of CostCurves

The initial step indetermining the cost of a specificregulation plan involvedthe selection of the extreme condition of channelcapacity increase anddecrease required according to the procedures previously described. The retardingcapacity of thestructures is determined by addingthe channel capacityincrease (dredging) to the amountof channel capacity decrease. This is necessarybecause an additional amount ofchannel increase is incurred whichmust be addedto the amount determined for thechannel decrease required by theregulation plan.

Proceedingto the channel capacity decrease versus cost relationships forthe St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, as shownon Figures 658 and G-59, respectively,the cost and numberof structures are obtained by interpolatingbetween the cost curves for no channelincrease and the maximum channel increase.

Thecost involved for the required dredging (channel capacity increase) is obtainedfrom the channel capacity increase versus cost curves for the St.Clair and Detroit Rivers on Figures 6.37 and G-38, respectively. The two costsadded together comprise the total first costs,based on 1971 price levels,for the regulatory structures and the dredging required for a selectedregulation plan.

3.4 ChannelDesign and Cost Estimates for SelectedRegulation Plans

The methodology,applied for determining the channel design and cost estimates forselected regulation plans and requiring detailed cost analysis, was inDrinciple similar to the methodology previously described for application todevelopment of Dreliminary regulation plans. The difference was thatfor pre liminaryplans, the cost curves were based on a given set of extreme conditions of recordedlake levels and computed flows, whereas, in the analysis of theselected regulation plans, the design conditions were based onregu- latedlevels andflows. This latter procedure was necessaryin order to assurethat the extremes in levels andflow changes required by regulation were reflectedin the regulatory works design and cost estimates.

3.4.1 Lake St. Clair Critical DesignElevation

The methodologyinvolves the determination of Lake St. Clair regulated levelswhich are notprovided by theregulation plans. This is incontrast tothe methodology used in the development of the cost curves for which re- cordedLake St. Clair levels were available as a substitute for profile designelevations.

The solutionto the problem of determining regulated Lake St. Clair designelevations involved the computation of the level whichwould maintain theSt. Clair and Detroit Riversin hydraulic balance for the critical regulated levels for LakesMichigan-Huron and Erie. Therequired design eleva- tionsfor Lake St. Clair andthe respective balanced flows for the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers were determined by thesimultaneous solution of thestage, falldischarge equation for both rivers. These equations for 1933 channel conditions are as follows:

G-108 Q St. Clair = 57.909 (HB-540.21)2'0 (HB-CP)O5

Q Detroit = 177.29(GF"548.41)2'0 (GP-cle~)*~

Where : HB (Harbor Beach) = LakesMichigan-Huron level GP (GrossePointe) - Lake St. Clair level Clev(Cleveland) - Lake Erie level The regulatedlevels and flowstogether with the design requirements and associatedcosts for selected regulation plans involving LakesMichigan- Huron arediscussed under Evaluation of Regulation Plans, Section 6.

3.5 Basic Data

The following is a list of the principal basic data utilized in this study :

(1) Soil Boring Data:

(a) Report by William Trow and Associates (Hamilton)Limited entitled:"Preliminary Subsurface Investigations, Proposed Flow Control Structures, St. Clair River,Ontario", 1971

(b)Reports by Chicago District, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers entitled:"Subsurface Investigations, Proposed Regulatory Structures Between Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair andLake Erie" and a supplemental reportentitled, "Preliminary Subsurface Investigation, Proposed RegulatoryStructures for Detroit River", 1971

(2) Hydrographic Data:

(a) Hydrographicsurveys undertaken by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers in the St. Clair Riverin 1954 and 1970 forobtaining cross sect ions

(b)Hydrographic surveys undertaken by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineersin the Lower Detroit River In 1966 for obtaining cross sections

(c)Various Lake SurveyCenter, NOAA, U. S. Department of Commerce Charts and field sheets for additional cross sections

(d)St. Clair and DetroitRivers discharge measurementsand water levelsfor existing channel conditions taken in 1968by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers. Discharge measurements were alsotaken In the lower St. Clair River for obtaining the distribution offlow in the lower reachof the St. Clair River

G-109 (3) Aerial Photographs

(a) Black and white aerial photographs of the St. ClairRiver, scale : 1/30,000

(b) Color aerial photographs of theDetroit River, Scale: 1 in. = 2,500 feet. Photos available from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

0110 Section 4

NIAGARA RIVER SYSTEM

4.1Description of theSystem

The NiagaraRiver, about 36 miles inlength, links Lake Erie at Buffalo, New York, andLake Ontario at Niagara-on-the-Lake,Ontario. The average fall over its course is 326 feet abouthalf of which is concentrated at NiagaraFalls, located approximately 22 miles belowthe head of the river. Overthe period 1900-1967, the monthly mean NiagaraRiver discharge has var- iedfrom 251,000 cfsto 116,000 cfs and has averaged approximately 194,000 cfs. A portionof the Lake Erie outflow is alsocarried bytwo artificial channels,the Welland and Black Rock Canals, a more detaileddiscussion on which is containedin Section 4.1.4.

4.1.1 General

An outstandingphysical characteristic of the Niagara River is therapid change in the water surfaceprofile between various points on theriver system. The NiagaraRiver my be considered to consist of three major reaches: the Upper NiagaraRiver; the Niagara Cascades and Falls ; and,the Lower NiagaraRiver extending from the foot of the falls at theMaid-of-the-Mist Pool to Lake Ontario. The followingparagraphs describe the river system in more detail. A location map ofthe Niagara River and surrounding area is shownon Figure C-60.

Uppertiiagara River: TheUpper Niagara River, extending from Lake Erie belowBuffalo Harbor to the Cascades and Niagara Falls, is ofprimary interest inthis study since regulatory works must be located in the upper portionof this reach to fulfill the overall objectives of regulating Lake Erie. An aerial photographof the reach, extending from the International RailroadBridge to the head of theriver, is shownon Figure661. From Lake Erie toStrawberry Island, a distanceof approximately 5 miles, the channelwidth varies from 9,000 feet at it funnel-shapedentrance to 1,500 feet at Squaw Islandbelow the Peace Bridge (Highway). The normal fall over thisupper 5 mile portion is 6.1 feet.In the upper 2 miles ofthe river, the maximum depth is approximately 20 feetwith velocities as high as 12 fps inthe vicinity of the Peace Bridge. This part of the river is paralleled by theBlack Rock Canal.Below Squaw Islandthe river widensto approximately 2,000 feetand becomes more placidwith velocities in theorder of 4 to 5 feet persecond. A navigationchannel, with a maintaineddepth of 21 feetbelow L.W.D., enters the river at thispoint and, together with the Black Rock Canal, providefor the passage of larger vessels between Lake Erie andTonawanda, New York.The Upper Niagara River is suitablefor recreationalboating with the exception of the downstream portion of Chippawa Grass-Island Po~l. (Downstreamof Navy Island,boating is discourageddue to theincreased velocities and the danger of beingswept over Niagara Falls.)

At Strawberryand Grand Islands, the river is dividedinto two channels, the Canadian, or Chippawa Channel and the American, or Tonawanda Channel.

G-111 \

3456

G-112 w

(COURTESY OF THE POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK) JANUARY 24, 1966 Figure G-61 Aerial Photograph of Upper Niagara River Looking Downstream fromLake Erie The ChippawaChannel is approximately 11 miles inlength and varies from 2,000 to4,000 feet in width. Velocities range from 2 to 3 fps. The Chippawa Channel camred approximately 57%of thetotal river flow. TheTonawanda Channel is approximately 15 miles long and varies from1,500 to 2,000 feet inwidth above Tonawanda Island. Downstream thereof,the channel varies from 1,500 to4,000 feet in width. Velocities range from 2 to 3 fps. The Islands of Navy and Tonawanda are locatedin the Chippawaand Tonawanda Channels, respectively.

At thefoot of Grand Island,the channels unite to form the3-mile-long Chippawa-Grass IslandPool extending to a partial controlstructure extending fromthe Canadian shoreline, which is locatedapproximately 4,500 feet upstream of Niagara Falls. The normal fall fromLake Erie tothe upstream endof Chippawa Grass IslandPool is 9.1feet. Thenormal fallacross the Pool is about0.4 foot.

Niagara Cascades md Falls: Below thecontrol structure, the river falls 50 feetthrough the cascades and is dividedinto two channels by Goat Island, tothe crest ofNiagara Falls. The Canadian orHorseshoe Falls, so named becausethe crest retains the shape of a somewhat distortedhorseshoe, are about1,200 feet wide across or about2,500 feet around the crest. For the most part the water fallssheer into the Maid-of-the-MistPool, a dropof about 170 feet.There are small accumulationsof talus at theflanks.

The American Falls has a crest lengthof 810 feet in the main section. The Bridal Veil Fallsadd a further 60 feetto the crest length. The water plungesvertically with distances ranging from 70 to 110 feet. At thefoot ofthe falls, the talus slopes down tothe pool water line,about 400 feet from theface of the fall, andranges in height from 60 to 100 feet at the faceof the American Falls.

Lower Niagara River: The NiagaraGorge, which begins at theHorseshoe Falls, extendsfor seven miles downstreamthereof to the foot of the escarp- ment at Queenston,Ontario. The upper2-1/4 miles ofthis reach of the river is known as the Maid-of-the-MistPool. The Poolhas a normal fallof approximately 5 feetover its course and is navigablefor practically the entire distance. The Maid-of-the-MistPool is terminated by theWhirlpool Rapids whichextend downstream for a distanceof approximately 1 mile. The water surfaceprofile drops about 50 feetover their course and velocitiesreach as high as 30 fps. The Whirlpool, a basinabout 1,700 feet long and 1,200 feetwide with depths up to 125 feet, marks thelocation where theriver makes a nearright-angled turn. As a result water comingfrom therapids forces a rotationin the Whirlpool before it is dischargedthrough its narrowout- let. Below theWhirlpool, there are another set ofrapids which drop approximately 40 feet. From Queenston,where the river emerges from the Gorge, the water is dischargedto Lake Ontario at Niagara-on-the-Lake,Ontario. The remainingsection of the river is about2,000 feet wide and is navigable over its course.

4.1.2 ExistingRegulatory Works

To fulfill the objectives of the 1950 Niagara Diversion Treaty, a control structure was constructedin lower end of the Chippawa-Grass Island

G-114 Poolapproximately 4,500 feet upstream of theHorseshoe Falls. The structure, which consisted of 13 100-footgates, was constructedbetween 1954 and 1957 in a section where theriver was approximd$ely3,800 feet wide. The toCal lengthof the structure was 1,500feet.

Due tothe expansion of power facilities, which were put intooperation in December 1961, the controlstructure was foundto provide inadequate control. As a result, 5 additional100-foot gates were constructedbetween 1961 and1963. A man-made island, now called Tower Island, was placedduring'construction andhas been permanently retained at theend of the Structure. It extendsabout 150 feetout from thegated structure.

The controlstructure, in combination with the power diversions, is operated by the power entities so that a flowof not less than100,000 cfs is maintainedover the Falls duringthe daylight hours of thetourist season and a flow of not less than 50,000 cfs at other times. The International NiagaraBoard of Control's Directive, dated June 30, 1955, required the power companies to operate the. control structure such that the daily mean stageof the Chippawa-Grass IslandPool did not vary more than0.50 foot , normonthly mean stage more than0.30 foot from the pre-1953 hydraulic regime.

The Boardof Control'sOperating Procedures were revised,effective March 1, 1973,according to procedures defined in a new directiveto the Power Entitiesdated February 27, 1973. Inessence, the new operatingpro- cedures are designedto maintain the levels ofChippawa-Grass IslandPool as near as may bepracticable to its long-term mean naturallevel of 561.00 feet (IGLD) as recorded at Material Dock gauge. The implicationsof this new procedure on themethodology is detailedin Section 4.4.3.

4.1.3 Power Facilities andFlows

Data on theexisting power developments are summarizedon Table 66. All power diversions are made in compliancewith the 1950 NiagaraDiversion Treaty so thatthe criteria as outlinedin paragraph 4.1.2 above are met. A briefdescription of the plants and thecorresponding diversions follows. A detaileddiscussion on these is givenin Appendix F, Power.

UnitedStates Power Plants: The Robert Moses Plant , which is operated by the Power Authorityof the State of New York (PASNY), diverts water from Chippawa-Grass IslandPool above the control structure via two coveredcon- duitsto the power plantforebay. From theforebay, water may beeither dischargedthrough the main plant to the Niagara River downstream of the Whirlpoolor pumped to a storagereservoir and later used by the main plant and/orthe Lewiston Pumping-Generating Plant for peaking operations. Opera- tion of theRobert Moses plant began in 1961. Inrecent years, the monthly mean diversionhas ranged from 41,900 cfs to 87,500 cfs . Thisplant has diverted up to105,000 cfs . Canadian Power PZants: There are a totalof six plants operating on theCanadian side. They are: (1)Sir Adam Beck Plant(consisting of Unit 1 and Unit 2) ; (2)PumpinglGenerating Plant; (3) Ontario Plant; (4) Toronto Plant(deactivated In April 1974);(5) Rankine Plant; and (6) DeCew Falls

G-115 TABLE 66

EXISTING HYDRO-ELECTRICPOWER DEVELOPMENT NIAGARA RIVER

Net Head Source of No. of UsedInstalled for Diversion -Power Plank Owner -Water suppb hits Power - CapacityCapacity

Robert MosesNiagara PASNY 1,950,000)Niagara 300 River 13 1 105,000 Lewis ton Pump Generating PASNY Niagara85 River 12 240,000)

Sir Adam Beck No. 1 HEPCO Niagara River 403,900)10 294 ) 70,000 Sir Adam Beck No. 2 HEPCO Niagara River 1,223,000)16 292 c3 I 1 c1 Pump Generating HEPCO Niagara River 176,700)6 60-85 c1 o\ OntarioPower HEPCO Niagara River 12 20 5 101,500 10, 7002

Toronto Power HEPCO Niagara River 7 134 64,800 15, 3002 (deactivatedApril 1974)

Ran ki ne CNPC Niagara River 11 94,700 126 10, 6002

DeCew Falls (2 plants) HEPCO WellandCanal a 2666,400147,100 & 283

““__“l__

’PASNY - PowerAuthority of the State of New York HEPCO - Hydro-ElectricPower Commission of Ontario CNPC - CanadianNiagara Power Company

’Because of thegreater efficiency and head of the Sir Adam Beck plants,these plants normally do notdevelop power unless excess water is available. Plants. All theseplants are owned and operated by Ontario Hydro withthe exceptionof the Rankine Plant which is owned and operated by Canadian Niagara Power Company.

The Sir Adam Beck Plants divert water fromChippawa-Grass IslandPool abovethe control structure to a common forebay. Water is carriedto the forebay by a set oftwin tunnels and an open canal which is located, in part, inthe WellandRiver. The flowin the Welland River is reversedover this shortdistance. The Beck Plantsalso have pumped storagefacilities and operate them in a way similar tothat of Robert Moses Pumping-Generating Station.In recent years, themonthly mean diversionhas ranged from 38,000 cfsto 63,400 cfs.

The Ontario,Toronto and RankinePlants, which are alsocalled the CascadesPlants, divert water frombelow the control structure to the Maid- of-the-MistPool. The OntarioPlant diverts water from the River at DufferinIsland by means of a gathering weir andconveys it to the power plant,located below thefalls, via closed conduits. The Torontoand Rankine Plants also divert water from the river by means of a gathering weir extending from theplants themselves, then discharge it throughturbines located in a wheel pitunder the plant. Water is thenconveyed by tailrace tunnels tooutlets under the Falls where it is dischargedinto the Maid-of-the-Mist Pool. The use ofthe Cascades Plants depends upon theavailability of water surplusfor diversions to the high head plants at-Queenston.Their operation is thereforesporadic and irregular. During 1971, the maximum dive,r- sions at theToronto, Ontario and Rankine Plants were 2,500 cfs, 8,300 cfs and 9,100 cfs,respectively. The TorontoPlant was deactivatedin April 1974 due tothe deteriorated condition of the plant.

The DeCew Falls Power Plants divert water fromLake Erie throughpart of WellandCanal and discharge it throughTwelvemile Creek to Lake Ontario. Duringthe past 20-year period,the diversion has approximated 5,900 cfs (for power generationonly).

4.1.4 Navigation Facilities andFlows

Through traffic betweenLake Erie andLake Ontario utilizes the Welland Canal. The Black Rock Canalparallels the upper reach of the Niagara River fromBuffalo Harbor to the downstream portion of Squaw Island at whichpoint thenatural channel has been deepened, extending to Tonawanda, New York. The New York StateBarge Canal extends fromTonawanda to the Hudson River withan extension to Lake Ontario at Oswego. The followingsubsections sum- marizethe existing navigation facilities and flows in detail.

WeZland Canal: The WellandCanal, with a minimum depthof 27 feet, connects Lake Erie at PortColborne, Ontario, approximately 18 miles west ofthe head of the Niagara River,with Lake Ontario at Port Weller, Ontario, 9 miles west ofthe mouth ofthe river. The canal is approximately 27 miles longand overcomes a differencein level of about 326 feet by a series of 7 liftlocks and 1 guardlock. Ships 730 feet or less in overalllength and 80 feet or less inwidth may transitthe canal. The operationof the canal requires a flowvarying from 100 to 2,100 cfs. Over thepast 20-year period,

G-117 theflow has averaged 1,200 cfs. Together with the water for the DeCew Falls Power Plant,the average diversion through the Welland Canal over the past 20-yearperiod has averaged 7,100 cfs. For purposes of this study, the mean monthlydiversion has been approximated at 7,000 cfs.

Black Hock Canal: The Black Rock Canalhas a depthof about 21 feet. It providesan alternate routearound the constricted and shallow reach at thehead of Niagara River. Extendingfrom Buffalo Harbor to the river above StrawberryIsland, the canal is separatedfrom the river by a series of stone andconcrete walls and by Squaw Island. The Black Rock Lock,which has a liftof about 5 feet, is locatednear the lower end of the canal. Operation ofthe lock requires a flowusage of about 10 cfs.

The navigationchannel rejoins the river below Squaw Islandwhere the river widensand becomes placid. A navigationchannel with a minimum depth of21 feet below L.W.D. is maintainedbetween the southern tip of Squaw Island andTonawanda, New York. From Tonawanda toNiagara Falls, New York, oppositethe Southern tip of Grand Island, a navigationchannel with a mini- rmm depthof 12 feetbelow L.W.D. is maintained.

?leu York State Barge CanaZ: The New York StateBarge Canal has a depth ofabout 12 feet. It extendseastward from Tonawanda, New York,linking the NiagaraRiver with the Hudson River nearAlbany, New York. Near Syracuse, New York,an extension runs northward into Lake Ontario at Oswego, New York. The diversionfrom the river averages 800 cfs on anannual basis with a minimum of1,100 cfs beingdiverted during the navigation season. This diversion is consideredrelatively small, and,since water is withdrawndownstream of the constricted portionof the river near the Peace Bridge, the e,ffect on thelevels of Lake Erie is consideredto be negligible.

4.1.5 Bridges,Ferries, Docks andOther Facilities

Two bridgeslinking the Province of Ontario and the State of New York are located at theUpper Niagara River. The Peace Bridge (Highway) crosses the river and theBlack Rock Canal near its inlet at Lake Erie. The Interna- tionalRailroad Bridge crosses the river and the canal about 1.5 miles downstream of the Peace Bridge. The Northand South Grand Island Highway Bridges traversethe Tonawanda Channel at Kenmore andNiagara Falls, New York.Cur- rently,there are no ferriesin operation on the Upper NiagaraRiver.

Docks forrecreational crafts are located at many pointsalong the upper NiagaraRiver with a particularlyhigh concentration along Grand Island. There are commercialdocks for bulk commodities along the United States shorelinebetween the lower end of Black Rock Canaland North Tonawanda. The Cityof Niagara Falls, New York,has a municipaldock at thedownstream endof the 12-foot navigation channel.

There are severalmunicipal and industrial water intakesand outfalls inthe upper river. Some ofthese have structures extending above the water surface. The Buffalosewage treatment plant is located on theupper end of Squaw Islandbetween the Black Rock Canal andthe river.

G-118 4.1.6 Ice Problems

Duringwinter, thin ice sheets may form inshallow areas ofthe river nearshore. But the principal problem arises fromthe breakup of the ice field in Lake Erie, resultingin the subsequent passage of broken ice down theriver. Lake ice may bebroken up by either windand/or wave action duringthe winter months or spring thaws. The latter casepresents more diffiA culties. Ice floeswith thicknesses up to 20 feethave been observed in the upper river. The Power Entities, PASNY and HEPCO, employicebreakers inthe vicinity of theirintakes as well as clear an icepassage around the endof the control structure. Frazil and anchor ice conditionsoccur peri- odically,causing reductions in the cross-sectional area ofthe river channel andpower intake openings, thus reducing flows available for power generation. However, fraziland anchor ice problems are consideredsecondary to those caused by thebreakup of the Lake Erie ice field.

In 1964,with the approval of The International Joint Commission, the Power Entitiesinstalled a floatingtimber ice boom in Lake Erie, nearthe headof the Niagara River. The boom is fastened at intervalsto anchors in therock bottom. It is normallyplaced in Decemberand removed inApril. Its purposes are to facilitateearly formation of an ice cover at theoutlet ofLake Erie and to retain ice floesthat may becreated bymid-winter breakup ofthe ice cover.Under strong winds, the boom is designedto submerge therbyallowing some ofthe ice cover to pass. When thepressure is released, the boom emerges to preventcontinuing passage of ice. It hasbeen gener- allysuccessful in preventing ice jamming inthe Niagara River. Normally, by the time the ice boom is removed, air temperatures are highenough to cause a rapiddeterioration of the ice cover. As a result,the threat of a serious ice jam inthe river and at the powerintakes is substantially reduced.

4.1.7Short Period Water Levels Fluctuations

Of thefive Great Lakes,Lake Erie is theshallowest with an average depthof 62 feet. The prevailingwind over the Lake Erie basin is south- westerlywhich coincides with the longitudinal axis ofthe lake causing sig- nificantwind and waveset-up. Of more significance,however, is the oscil- lationof the lake surface produced by changes in wind and/or barometric pressure commonly referred to as a seiche. Wind producedseiches follow cessation or shift in wind direction after a period of relatively steady wind in one direction. A rise in water surfaceelevation, due to seiche, of 5 feetabove the prestorm level can be expected annually at Buffalo. The maximum recordedseiche at theBuffalo gauge, based on a 15-minutein- stantaneousstage, was 8 feetand has been utilized in the design of regulatory works herein.

4.2Assumptions

Assumptions made in studies of Lake Erie regulatoryworks are:

(1) The level of Chippawa-Grass Island Pool will bemaintained in ac- cordancewith the operating procedures, directed by the International Niagara iJoard of Control, as detailedin its Order of June 30, 1955. Revisedoperat- ingprocedures were institutedafter the Regulatory Works studieshad been completed.(See Section 4.1.2.)

(2) Flow diversionsthrough the Welland Canal will notchange.

(3) The ice boom will be kept inoperation.

(4) Existinglake stage-river discharge relationships will bemaintained throughany construction period.

(5) Due to alterationsto the existing hydraulic regime which wouldbe required for regulation of Lake Erie, retardationof Niagara River flows, whichhas been caused in the past by ice and weed conditiorls,would be minimal.

No assumptionsof post-project stage-discharge relationships in other reachesof the upper Niagara were made; rather, it was decidedthat stages resultingfrom project implementation, and other cause-effect relationships wouldbe quantitatively determined, their impacts on navigation and other interestsevaluated, and such impacts thenreported. The effects of changed relationshipscould then be modified by planreformulation or could simply beweighed against projected plan benefits.

4.3 Methodology - TotalRegulation

The following is a briefdescription of themethodology employed. A more detailedaccount of the mathematical models developed and their applica- tions may befound in a reportentitled, "Development,Calibration and Applicationof Mathematical Models of the Connecting Channels of the Great Lakes,"an abstract of which is containedin Annex C ofthis Appendix.

4.3.1 Steady-StateMathematical Model

A steady-statemathematical model was developedfor the Upper Niagara Riverextending from Chippawa-Grass Island Pool to the head of the river at Buffalo, New York.Essentially the model is a computerprogram which per- formsbackwater computations under steady-state flow conditions.Fundamental openchannel flow equations were appliedusing the standard step method of back-watercomputations. Cross sections, taken at hydraulicallystrategic locations, were obtainedfrom the most recenthydrographic surveys of the river. The mathematicalmodel was calibratedusing flows and levels obtainedby joint measurement programs conducted by Water Survey of Canada, EnvironmentCanada, and Lake Survey District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, during1967, 1968 and 1969.

Objectives: The primaryobjective of themathematical model was to determinethe nature and extent of channelexcavation required to meet the hydraulicrequirements of any given regulation plan involving the regulation ofLake Erie. Themodel was alsoused to determinethe length and location ofthe flow control structure and the associated shore protection works. For anygiven scheme, the resulting water surfaceelevations and average dischargevelocities, below the structure, were constrained,within tolerable

G-120 limits, so thatthey would not exceed those which would occur under natural conditions.

Parameters and Constraints: As indicatedabove, the mathematical model is essentially a computerprogram which performs back-water computations employingthe standard step-method and standard parameters. Head losses be- tweensections were computedusing Manning's equation. In addition,variable coefficients were usedto compensate for head losses due to expansion and contractionof the river channel, and for sudden changes in width and depth. All velocityheads were adjustedby a kinetic energy coefficient to account forusing the mean velocity at eachsection.

The existing river profile was classified as a mild (MI) profilewith noone section or reach of the river having 100 percentof the hydraulic control. To ensurethat the backwater computations were carriedout in the directionof control, critical depth was checked at eachsection.

Due tothe presence of islands in the UpperNiagara River, such as Grand Island, Tonawanda Islandand Navy Island,an iterative technique was devel- opedto determine the division of flow in each of the channels.

Development and Calibration: Crosssections of the river channel extendingfrom the Slaters Point gauge, located at thehead of Chippawa-Grass Pool, to Lake Erie were incorporatedinto the mathematical model. At each section,basic data such as cross-sectional area, topwidth, L.W.D. elevation and the distancefrom it tothe adjacent upstream section were extractedand used as inputto the model. The locationsof the water levelgauges and crosssections used for providing data for the model are shownon Figure G-62. The majorityof discharge measurements were takenin the late spring,early summer and late fallperiods which are assumed tobe generally free of ice and weed retardation.Measurements taken during the mid-summer months were usedonly as a qualitativecheck on the model.

Flow measurements were groupedinto periods, the duration of which de- pendedon the consistency of flow. Manning's In' was computed foreach reach usingthe mathematical model. In some reaches,particularly those from Frenchman's Creek at Grand Island to Buffalo, it was foundthat Manning's 'n' variedsignificantly with level and flow, attributed to weedgrowth during the summer and fall months.Figure G-63 illustratesresults of the calibration at eachof the gauges. Commensurate with the determination of Manning's 'n',the values of the variable coefficient used to define head losses due tocontraction and expansion were analyzed.

Sincethe model was calibratedover a narrowrange of flow (200,000 - 235,000cfs), it was necessaryto verify its performanceover a widerrange. This wasdone by computing the profile from recorded monthly flows. Tests made for a random samplingof data indicated that the model satisfied the naturalconditions, within an acceptable tolerance, over a widerange of flowconditions. Based on thesefindings, a stage-dischargerelationship was developedfor the Buffalo gauge. A comparisonof the relationship with thepre-1953 stage-discharge equation is illustrated onFigure G-64. Water surfaceprofiles for high, medium andlow flow conditions are shown on

6121

> W J

565 568 570 RECORDED ELEVATION RECORDED ELEVATION

56 FRENCHMAN'S CREEK Z GAUGE 2 W5 J w56 n W i 8 / 56 I 1 I 565 566 RECORDED ELEVATION RECORDED ELEVATION

565 56 TONAWANDA ISLAY WAVER ISLAND 2 GAUGE 2 0 0 I- 5 >4 J2 W WY 564 56 n n W W

!i $I -J 8

56! 56 ! 564 565 564 565 RECORDED ELEVATION RECORDED ELEVATION

DLACK CREEK GAUGE/ NOTE : ALL ELEVATIONS IN FEET (IGLD 1955) 2 LEGEND 0 I- 0 1967SPRlNGMEASUREMENTS >4 A 1967SUMMER " 'I W + 1967FALL " 'I -I 0 1968sPRING " " W 564 - A l969FALL 'I 1' n W

?i8

5 64 565 563 564 RECORDED ELEVATION

Figure G-63 UPPER NIAGARA RIVER MATHEMATICALMODEL-RESULT OF CALIBRATION G-123 MATHEMATICAL MODEL STAGE DISCHARGE EQUATION: Q=3614 (6-556.25) 1-5 NATURALRATING CURVE (1953): Q=3665 (6-556.25) 1.5

h Lo Lo 0, 3 9 v 57 s3 Q W s LLa !& 3 m k 57 z 0 t- Q

-12 W

57c

5 69

568

Figure G-64 UPPER NlAGARA RIVER- BETWEEN MATHEMATICALMODEL ANDBUFFALO RATING CURVE (1953 OUTLET CONDITIONS) G-124 FigureG-65. Since the hydraulic requirements of any given regulation plan are met by regulatoryworks as determinedby the mathematical model, the stage-dischargerelationship developed from the model was usedto evaluate thedegree of channelcapacity increase and decrease requirements.

Application: The mathematical model was usedto select thelocation of theflow control structure. Two alternate sites forthe location of the controlstructure were investigated;namely, the "upper site" located some 3,600 feet upstream(south) of the Peace Hiphway Bridge,and the "lower site" located some 1,000 feet upstream(south) of the International Railway Bridge. A map ofthe area, illustratingthe relative location of each site, is shown onFigure 662.

Themodel was appliedin a similar mannerfor both sites. Backwater computations were initiated at Chippawa-GrassIsland Pool using the level determinedfrom the Slater's Point stage discharp.e rating stated as follows:

Slater'sPoint = 560.58 + 0.301(Niapara River Flow - 160,000)/10,000

At thosesections where channel improvements were deemed necessary,the cross-sectional area was increased by theappropriate amount. Computations were terminated at theproposed control structure location which would be a hydrauliccontrol. Head lossthrough this control was calculated, as outlinedin Section 4.3.3, andbackwater computations were continuedupstream to theBuffalo gauge at Lake Erie.

Becauseplans of regulation were initiallynot available, a rangeof hydraulicconditions which would likely encompass those of theselected plans were simulatedand used for design purposes. Because the size and location ofthe control structure and the extent of channel improvements are inter- related,optimization studies were carriedout to determine the minimum cost of all regulatoryworks. The designand cost estimates ofregulatory works are presentedin Section 4.3.3.

4.3.2Unsteady State Mathematical Model

A verylimited unsteady state mathematicalmodel was developedfor this study. Its purpose was todemonstrate whether or notLake Erie seicheswould producethe "tidal bore'' buildup phenomenonwhich hasbeen observed in other areas havingtopographical configurations somewhat similar tothose of the semi-enclosedbasin that would be created by construction of a regulatory structurein the Upper NiagaraRiver. The objective was todetermine whether or not a higher crest elevationwould be required to prevent overtopping of thestructure if this phenomenon were tooccur. The model utilized two separatebut complementary techniques that produced similar conclusions. It demonstratedthat the river would rise alongwith the lake, but with the dischargeanywhere in the anticipated range, the resulting friction gradient wouldproduce a riverstage somewhatlower than the lake stage. Additional calculationsto explore the possibility of resonant oscillations in the reach abovethe regulatory structures indicated the period of free oscillation to be suchthat lakewind tides would not likely generate resonant oscillation.

0125 J A more comprehensiveunsteady state modelwould berequired in order to evaluatethe effects ofshort period fluctuations in the Upper NiagaraRiver, such as within-the-daypower variations. Themain purpose of such a model wouldbe to determine the resultant stages andvelocities along the river system, and, if needbe, to determine the nature and extent of additional regulatory facilities.

4.3.3 Desipnand Cost Estimates

As indicatedin Section 4.3.1, two alternate sites forthe location of thecontrol structure were investigated.In order that a validcomparison ofcost between the two sites couldbe made, common designcriteria were utilizedthroughout. Thedesign and cost estimates were preparedto: (1) determinethe better site location, (2) provide a set ofcost curves to be used as inputduring the formulation of regulation plans, and (3) to form a basisfor the evaluation of selected regulation plans (as presentedin Section 6). The following is a summary ofthe studies carried out:

(.‘ontrol Structures: The followingparagraphs, unless otherwise noted, are generalizedfor both sites investigatedin light of the common design criteria utilized.

1. Topographicand Ceotechnical Characteristics of the Upper Site. At theupper site, thecontrol structure would be situated on thenatural rockledge which protrudes into Lake Erie. Thisrock ledge provides vir- tuallyfull hydraulic control of the Niagara River discharge. This site is located at thefunnel-shaped entrance of theriver where its width is approximately 3,660 feet, boundedby the Canadian shoreline and Bird Island Pier. The elevationof the river bed varies from 548 feet in mid-channel to 565 feet nearthe Canadian shore and to 566 feetnear Bird Island Pier. Very little overburden is evidentin this shallow reach of the river. Rock outcroppings are inevidence towards Bird Island Pier under low water conditions. A cross-sectionalview of the site is shownon Figure G-66.

The descriptionof the bedrock that follows is basedupon visual examination of onedrill hole located at BirdIsland Pier; however, drill holestaken for other projects in the area furthersubstantiate this evidence. Inmid-channel the bedrock is exposed at elevation 552 feet. Towardsthe Canadianshoreline, the rock is overlainby 4 to 5 feet ofsand and gravel whiletowards the U. S. shoreline(Bird Island Pier) the rock is exposedwith outcroppingsprotruding during low flow conditions. The bedrock is dense, crystallinelimestone with chert and calcite nodulesthat frequently display a marbledappearance manifested in flow-like lines. The rock is characterized th.roughoutwith stylolitic partings, a few ofwhich are open.The partings are generallysealed due to recrystallization along bedding planes of irre- gularamounts of insoluble matter. Withthe exception of more frequentcore partings near thesurface, the bedrock is consideredcompetent throughout as a medium onwhich the structure can be constructed.

2. Topographicand Geotechnical Characteristics of the Lower Site. At the lower site, thecontrol structure would be located in one of thedeep- est andnarrowest sections of the Upper Niagara River. Thewidth of the

0127 w

d 0 a c z 0 u w kz a W L i Q I

(I) a f r a 2 (I) 0 a n >- r I

YJ 13% NI NOllWA313

G-128 sectionextending between the Canadian shore and Squaw Island is approximately 1,8110 feet. The riverbed, which is distinctly V-shaped,ranges inelevation from 525 feetin mid-channel to 585 onthe Canadian shore and 565 on Squaw Island. A rock-filldyke running along Squaw Islandprotects the sanitary landfill fromerosion. A cross-sectionalview of this site is shownon Figure G-67.

The descriptionof the bedrock that follows is basedupon the visual examinationof several drill holes, four of which were takenalong or near theaxis of the control structure, which was carriedout by William Trow and Associates(Hamilton) Limited. The surficialbedrock of the river channel at elevation 525 feet is anhydrite/gypsum,dolomite/and shale of theSaline formation.Towards the Canadian shore, the surficial bedrock, varying in elevation from 530 to 545 feet, is anhydrite/pypsum,dolomite/limestone and shaleof the Bass Islandformation, while on the United States shore, the bedrock is generallydolomite of the Akron formation. The surficial bedrock is slightlyweathered exhibiting stress relief jointing and is water bearing for a depth -ofapproximately 10 feet. While thebedrock is generally compe- tent,there is a possibilityof loss ofsupport in case ofany internal erosionof the anhydrite/gypsum cavities. It is believedthat low pressure groutingup to about 30 feetbelow the structure will consolidatethe foundationadequately.

3. HydraulicDesign. In view of the fact that the design stages andflows had not been formulated prior to thesestudies, the structure had to bedesigned and cost estimates made for a numberof combinations of channel capacityincrease and decrease conditions. It was generallyaccepted early inthe study that complete control of NiagaraRiver flow is notrequired in view of theflow requirements as set forthin the Niagara Diversion Treaty of 1950. As a result,considerable cost savings were achieved. A minimum designflow of 125,000cfs at a Lake Erie stage of 568.7 feet was selected suchthat: (1) all conceivableregulation plans would be satisfied, and (2) within-the-daypower variations, although not specifically considered in thedesign stages, could be achieved. It was later shown thatinsignificant savings would beachieved by increasingthis minimum flow.The maximum design flow was taken as 280,000 cfs at a Lake Erie stageof 573 feet,representing a channelcapacity increase of 30,000 cfs. However, in view of theconsideration that a regulationplan may require a greaterchannel capacity increase and thatwithin-the-day power variations may beevaluated, a maximum design flow of320,000 cfs at theabove stage was also considered.

Due to relativelyhigh tailwater elevations at either site, submerged uncontrolled flow conditions were assumed.The hydraulic length of structure underthis flow condition is defined as follows:

L = Q/ (Cshs qH)

Where: L = Hydrauliclength of structure in feet

Q = NiagaraRiver flow in cfs

G-129 58 C

5 70

t- 560 u u LL f z 0 550 c wP -I u

540

5 30

520 -

HORIZONTALSCALE IN FEET

Figure G-67 UPPER NIAGARARIVER-HYDROGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF LOWER SITE-ALTERNATE CONTROLSTRUCTURE C = Submergeddischarge coefficients taken as 0.90 S

h = Tailwaterdepth referred to the crest in feet S

g = Accelerationdue to gravity taken as 32.2 feet per second per second

H = Differentialhead across structure in feet

The aboveformula was programmed intothe Niagara River mathematical modeland a hydrauliclength was calculatedfor each flow condition. On examinationof the above formula, it is apparentthat the size of structure, the sill elevation andthe location of dredginR (affects tailwater elevation in some instances) will affectthe channel capacity increase andhence the requiredvolume of channel excavation. This is thesubject of the paragraph entitled"Optimization Studies" hereunder.

The crest profilewas determine based on a study of severalprofiles for similar structurestested and built by the United States Bureau of Re- clamation. The geometryof the crest was based on monographsemploying di- mensionless parameters which are based on thedifferential head across the structure.In view of the low Froude Number (lessthan 2.0), theconcrete sill block was extendedto provide a stillingbasin length, downstream of thegate sill, equalto 2.5 times theoperating head over the crest. This was consideredadequate for the dissipation of the hydraulic jump and may bedecreased subject to further model experiments.

Inview of the fact thatmaintenance of a gate may haveto be carriedout under high flow, seiche and/ or ice floeconditions, one additional gate was providedfor this purpose.

4. Gate Type. The followingconsiderations were takeninto account when selection of thegate type was made: (1)the gate must be capable of passing ice up to 20 feet inthickness, (2) thenormal operating head is in theorder of 5 feet, (3) at times, underseiche conditions, the operating head may increaseto 15 feet, andthe gates must respond such that opening and/orclosing can be carried out quickly to avert emergency situations. In viewof these criteria, submersibletainter gates were selected. The maximum possiblespan would be selected such that minimum obstructionto ice would beachieved. Based on a limitingdesign force of 3,000 kips per trunnion, the maximum possiblespans of 100 feet,for the upper site, and 75 feet for thelower site were selected.In view of their submersible operation, an additionalskin plate was providedto act as a spillwayduring the passage of ice. Synchronized electrical motorhoists, which utilize Galle chains forlifting, were provided at eachend of the tainter gate. Each gate would be providedwith a position transmitter with a matingreceiver indicator at thecentral control point. Side seal heaterswould be provided to permit winteroperation of the gates.

Stoplog recesses are providedupstream and downstream of eachgate to enabledewatering of the gate area forrepairs and maintenance. A stoplop, crane is provided on thedeck over the upstream stoplog recesses while down-

G-131 stream stoplogswould be installed by floatingplant. Upstream stoplogs wouldbe stored in the body of the dam, accessibleby the stoplog crane, whiledownstream stoplogs would be stored on shore. Details ofthe tainter gate are shown onFigure G68.

5. StructuralDesign. The control structure, is a series of pier buttressessupporting the tainter gates and extending to the bottom of the sill. The widthof pier, based on a literaturesurvey of existing practice was taken as 15 feet foreach site. A stabilityanalysis of a monolith corn prisingone pier andhalf a bayon eitherside was carriedout assuming: ( anuplift force on the base corresponding to 100 percenthead at normallakl level, (2) an ice loading of 10 kipsper lineal foot acting over a four-foo, sectionbelow the maximum headwaterlevel, and (3) anearthquake with a hor: zontalintensity equal to 0.lg (zone 1). The loadingconditions examined were: (1) Stoplogsin place, gate area dewatered, maximum headwaterlevel, minimum. tailwater leveland full uplift, (2) Condition 1 plus ice, and (3) Condition 1 plusearthquake. Results of the stability analysis are sumari: on Table G-7. At either site a 20-footthick block of concrete was require1 forthe base of thestructure to provide an adequate safety factor against flotation.

6. Layout. The layoutof the control structure is basicallythe same at either site. The dimensionsof course are dependenton the site lo tionand regulation plan. Referring to the generalized layout as shownon Figure G-68, thecontrol structure consists of thefollowing factors: (1) a two-storeyconcrete control building, with a floor area of 5,000sq. ft., located 011 theCanadian shoreline and constructed on the platform used for construction of thecontrol structure; (2) a rock-filldyke, extending from theCanadian shoreline to the abutment of the control structure, which is overlain by a gravelledroad surface; (3) thecontrol structure which consi: of gatedand ungated sections resting on a foundationconsisting of a 20- foot-thickblock of concrete; (4) thepiers and abutments, with both upstre anddownstream stoplog recesses, which are 15 feetin thickness andextend fromelevation 585.0 feet and 584.0 feetto elevation 502 feet and 485 feet at theupper and lower sites, respectively;wingwalls, splayed at 30° to th flow,with a topwidth varying from 15 feet to 5 feet are provided upstream of theabutments; (5) a bridgedeck formed by reinforced concrete girders placedsuch that a gapof five feet, covered with a removable steel deck, is available for theplacing of stoplops; (6) a movablegantry crane is pro videdfor the placing of upstream stoplogs which are stored in the body of the dam;and (7) a rock-filldyke extends between the easterly abutment and theUnited States shoreline.

The gatedand ungated sections of thecontrol structure were locs inthe deepest part of the channel to minimize local dredging for training theflow through the control structure. The ungated section consists of at evenmultiple of a baylength such that, if necessary in the future, additional gates may beadded with ease.

7. Construction. As statedin paragraph 4.2, theexisting lake stage-riverdischarge relationships will bemaintained through any construc

G-13 2 I I I

u??m SITE RAN

SECTION A-A

I 4-n -L wTToI

Fiaun, G-68 UPPER NIAGARA RIVE<-GENERALIZED LAYOUT ANO TYPICAL SECTIONS OF PROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTURE G-133 tionperiod. In essence, this means thatany part of the river is cutoff dueto the construction of thecontrols structure must becompensated for by channelexcavation. It is estimatedthat construction can be carried out inthree and four annual stages at thelower and upper sites respectively, providedthe quantity of excavation does not exceed five million cubic yards. Cellular cofferdams, made up of 318 inchthick steel plates, and filledwith availableoverburden are proposed.Pertinent dimensions and quantities are givenin Table G-6. A constructionplatform, 200 feet by 200 feet, consistingof rock fill is proposedalong the Canadian shoreline. At thelower site, access may alsobe possible from Squaw Island. A portableconcrete batching andmixing plant can be installed on the platform. Aggregates can be either obtainedfrom nearby quarries or from the dredged material whichwould be crushed as required.

8. UnitCosts. Unit costs for plant, labor and materials were obtainedfrom past projects carried out in the area byOntario Hydro and the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers. All unitcosts are expressedin 1971 price levels. An estimate of 20 percent was applied as anallowance for contin- genciesto obtain the total direct costs of theworks. Indirect costs which includeallowances for detailed investigations, model experiments, engineeringdesign, and constructionsupervision and administration were estimated at 15 percentof the total direct costs. Basedon a cost estimate of parti- cularlayouts, unit component costs were developed as shownon Table G-9.

9.Cost Estimates. Basedon the above unit component costs, cost curves were developedfor each site as shown onFigure G-69. The cost estimates fromthese curves later serve as inputinto optimization studies as explained below. It shouldbe pointed out that various sill elevations,particularly forthe upper site, were investigatedbut, byand large, geotechnical considerations were foundto prevail.

Channel Improvements: As indicatedin paragraph 4.3.1, the determinationof the amountand locationof channel improvements was carriedout using theNiagara River mathematical model. Basically, there are two major areas forchannel excavation, namely: (1) the constricted reach below Peace Bridge, and (2) theentrance and exitchannels of the controlstructure. The followingparagraphs summarize the studies that were carriedout.

1. Natureand Extent. A series often channel excavation plans were developedfor each site rangingin volumefrom two tofifteen million cubicyards, which for all practicalpurposes, were consideredto be entirely rockexcavation. The locationof the excavation was optimizedfor each of theseplans utilizing the mathematical model. Based on the results of these plans, a widthof 800 feet was selected as themost optimum. This width was modifiedin the approach and exit channelsof the control structure.

Eachof the ten basic excavation plans were combined withvarying sizesof the structure at each site, because, as indicated earlier, thesize ofthe control structure and volume of excavation conflict in terms of channelcapacity increase. Graphs were preparedfor each site andeach design flow,an example of which is shownon Figure G-70.

G-134 Table G-7 DESIGN OF NIAGARA RIVER REGULATORY WORKS RESULTS OF STABILITY AiiALYSIS

___ Factor of __-Safety S tate Loading State ~___ConditionUpper Site Lower Site AcceDtable W Flotation - 3 U 1, 2, 1.28 1.24 1.1 )I Sliding - 1 0.3 0.29 0.6 :j 2 0.55 0.51 0.75 3 0.85 0.82 0.90 ShearFriction 1 10.0 10.0 5 .O f A+c A* 2 5.3 5.9 4.0 H 3 3.96 3.55 3.75 Mr** Overturning -Mo 1 1.32 1.26 1.20 2 1.22 1.20 1.10 3 1.30 1.26 1.10 Bearing Maximum (ks f ) 12.50 14.70 20.00

*f (coeff. of friction) = 0.6, shear) = 20 psi.(2.88 ksf) **The resultant falls within the middle third in all cases.

Table G-8 DESIGN OF NIAGARA RIVER REGULATORY WORKS DETAILS OF CELLULAR COFFERDAMS

Upper Site Lower Site Height(feet) 35 55 Diameter (feet) 40 63 46 69 Spacing(feet) 46 Steel170 (Tons/Unit) 72.5 1 900 5000Fill (cu yd/Unit) 1900 Number ofUnits Required 30 21

Table G-9 DESIGN OF NIAGARA RIVER REGULATORY WORKS UNIT COMPONENTCOSTS OF STRUCTURE Upper Site Lower Site fill ($/linearRockfoot) fill 6 10 1,090 UngatedControl Structures ($/linear foot)* 17,500 25,100 17,500 foot)* ($/linear GatedControl Structure ($/Bay> ** 3,550,000($/Bay>** 4 ,'280,000 *Includesabutments required at eitherside **Bay, centreto centre between piers, equals 115 feetfor the upper site and90 feet for the lower site.

G-135 I-

I-

NOTE: VERTICAL STEPS INDICATE ADDITION OF A GATED BAY

I I I I I I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1400 1200 1600 1800 2200 2000 NETHYDRAULIC LENGTH OF STRUCTURE (Ln) IN FEET Figure G-69 UPPER NlAGARA RIVER-RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COSTS AND NET HYDRAULIC LENGTH OF ALTERNATE CONTROL STRUCTURES LOWER SITE 1 roc

1boa

1500

1400

1300

1200 z- I100 t zY 1000 0 3 p 900 8

800

700

600

500 Q=280.000 CFS.

400

300 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 J 1234 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 VOLUME OF EXCAVATION IN MILLIONS OF CUBIC YARDS

100

80 T

6 8 50 E 0, i 40 30 2 z 2 20 u

-10 Q=280.000 CFS.

-20

I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 123 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516 VOLUME OF EXCAVATION IN MILLIONS OF CUBIC YARDS

Figure G-70 UPPER NIAGARA RIVER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE, VOLUME OF EXCAVATION AND NET HYDRAULIC LENGTH OF PROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTURE AT LOWER SITE 2. UnitCost. As indicatedin previous studies, the cost of excavation was approximately 60 percentof the total cost of regulatory facilities. Bearingthis in mind, the unit cost of excavation would have a signi- ficanteffect onthe overall cost.

The followingconsiderations were takeninto account when selecting themethod of dredging and dredge disposal: (1) open-lakedumping is generally more practicalthan on-land dumping, (2) on consultationwith various environmentalexperts, the rock in the Niagara River was found to beclean andwould have no adverse effects onthe biolop.ica1 regime ofLake Erie, (3) theexcavated rock should be put to some usefulpurpose, (4) velocitiesin thisreach of the river are inthe order of 12 feet persecond. Weiphing all factorsand on consultationwith various consulting/contracting marine engineering firms, open-lakedumping and excavation in-the-wet were adopted. Theexcavated rock would be transported within a five-mileradius, dumped and rehandledto form an island, and/or harbour protection works or any other usefulconfiguration.

The fourbasic operations are: (1) mobilizationand demobilization ofequipment, (2) drilling,blasting and line drilling, (3) loading,haulin? anddumping, and (4) sweeping,cleanup and miscellaneous. A sample ofequipment costs is shownon Table G-10 foran averaee annual output of 850,000 cubicyards. Of course,equipment costs vary with the amount of excavation andthe time frameavailable. Material costsvaried from $0.66 millionto $0.82million depending on the quantity and depth of excavation. Mobiliza- tion anddemobilization costs varied with the equipment used. As anexample, it is estimatedthat the cost of mobilization and demobilization of the equipment listed onTable G-10 wouldbe $1 million.Contingencies were estimated at 20 percentwhile indirect costs were estimated at 10percent. Based on thesestudies, a plotof unit cost of rock excavation versus quantity of rock excavation was developed, as shownon Figure G-71, andutilized in these studies.

Shore Protection Works: Withthe control structure located at thelower site, higherthan natural water levels wouldoccur between the structure and Lake Erie (forthe shoreline development affected, refer toFigure G-72). This involvesthe raising of existing shore protection works and the constructionof new works inother areas. Withthe control structure located at theupper site, it may beadvantageous to improveexisting shore protection works;however, the costs of such work would be minimal and is considered partof the contingency estimates. Thefollowing paragraphs summarize these studies.

1. Existing Works. Existingworks on the Canadian shore are: (1) a stonemasonry wall, with concrete cap,extending from about 7,700 feet abovethe Peace Bridge, at whichpoint the top elevation is 578.2 feet, to a pointabout 800 feetdownstream of thePeace Bridge where the wall gradually slopesto elevation 572.9 feet,and (2) masonry wall extendingabout 100 feet aboveand below the International Railway Bridge. Existing works on the U. S. shoreline are: (1) a stoneand concrete breakwater, at orabout elevation 572 feet,extending from Lake Erie to a pointabout 2,300 feet downstream ofthe Peace Bridge separating the river fromBlack Rock Canal, (2)

6138 Table G-10 DESIGNOF NIAGARA RIVER REGULATORY WORKS EQUIPMENT COSTSFOR CHANNEL EXCAVATION

Costs* $ Millions OperationEquipmentand No. Required 9 Per Hour Per Year

1. Drill, blast and line drill (2,080hrs/year) (90-110 linear feet per drillboat per hour) Drillboats 2 16 1.35 Tugs(1200 h.p.) 116 0.48 Work boats 14 0.03 2.Load, Haul and dump (4,032 hrs/year) (100-120 CU. yds.per dredgerper hour) Dipperdredge (9 CU. yds.) 2 203 1.64 Tugs (1000 hop.) 2 hop.) (1000 Tugs 105 0.85 Dump Scows 6 34 0.82 Launches 1 33 0.13 Work boats 2 13 0.10 3, Sweeping,cleanup, misc. (4,032hrs/year) (100-120 cu.yds. per dredger per hour) Derrick boats 1 88 0.35 Tugs(1200 h,p.) 1 99 0.40 Deck scows 2 20 0.16

TOTAL $6.31 million

AverageAnnual Output 0.85 million CU. yds. Average Unit Rate $7.42/cu.yd.

*Based on 1971 price levels

G-139 G-140 '" ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ..

~ ~ J~co"'~0 0 %

",'" I "c~ ~ T. 'w..~ . ..

"' z~.. co ~~ ~ 5~ ~ -!: .. ~ c.z-z ~

~O ~ ~~

0 z~ "

oz >- ~8

~z~

o~z

~"'o

..~"'

~5!:

.. ~Z ~~~"~ "..

"' ~~§ ~ Q.. "'"'~0z

~"'

5~ Z

"E - "'~oj..~" -U i. i

c~~~ I i

o~.."~"-~2~~.. . I!

-i~ .

I; ~I

j i. I~

--- I Ii Ii i: II :

~il ~ "" \

('/1 -, \<:;;-

\ ."', x:

~ \

III a 3,100 footlong concrete wall, along Squaw Islandwith top elevation of 573feet, protecting Brodrick Park andthe Buffalo Sewage treatmentplant. The concrete wall is aboutnine feet high and rests on a 20-footwide timber cribfilled with crushed stone, (3) a crushedstone breakwater extends from this wall formingthe edge of Squaw Island, and (4) masonry walls 100 feet aboveand below the abutment of the International Railway Bridge.

2. Works Required. The followin?works are illustrated on Figure G-72.

a. Canadian Shore:

Raising existing masonry wall by removingconcrete cap andforming concrete on top

Extensionof this wall downstream for a distance of 1,750 feetto protect shops and other properties consisting of a concretegravity wall on timber crib, backfilled andlandscaped

Land acquisitionof properties falling inside the above wall extension

Rock fill dykeon topof abandoned railway siding

Raisingand/or widening Niagara Boulevard along sectionsof shoreline

Provision of concreteface slab for dykes (4) and (5) abovekeyed into bedrock to form impervious cut off toprevent possible raising of groundwatertable in Fort Erie

Raising of existing storm Later outfalls, provision of proper outlets and filling of non-return valves to preventflooding from river

b.United States Shore:

(1)Raising of the existing stone/concrete breakwater aboveand below the Peace Bridge

(2)Raising of the concrete wall along Squaw Island

(3) Provisionof a rock fill dykeon top of existing crushedstone breakwater along Squaw Island

(4) Provisionof 110-foot x 30-foottainter gate in two flapsacross Black Rock Canalto prevent flooding downstreamunder seiche conditions; this would not interfere with navigation since it usually is halted underseiche conditions.

G-142 (5)Modifications to the outfall facilities of the Buffalo SewageTreatment Plant

One ofthe considerations associated with these particular shore protectionworks, especially on the Canadian shoreline, is aesthetics. It is normalpractice to adopt a five-footfree-board for dykes of this nature; however,in view of theimposition of massive walls acting as a barrier betweenthe river and those people inhabiting downtown Fort Erie, a freeboard of onefoot was adopted.Thus, the top elevations of the dykes along both shorelines are slopedfrom elevation 580 feet at theirupstream extremities toelevation 578 feet at thecontrol structure. It may alsobe considered thatany extension above the maximum elevationof the existing wall, 578.2 feet,should not be charged against regulation.

3. Cost estimates. Cost estimates were formulatedfor three al- ternateheights of shore protection works as shownon Table G-11. The costs include estimates of 25% forcontinpencies and 10% forengineering design, supervision and administration. The heightof wall selected,varying from 580.0feet to 578.0 feet, was interpolated to cost$4.5 million. It should bepointed out that this is a fixedcost, that is, it doesnot vary with the typeof plan under consideration unless of course a drasticchange is made onthe level regime of Lake Erie.

TABLE G-11

DESICN OF NIAGARA RIVER REGULATORYWORKS ESTIMATEDCOST SHORE PROTECTIVE WORKS (1971 PRICE LEVELS)

($ MILLIONS)

CanadianUnited States Top LevelSide Side" -Total

584 3 .OO 6.49 3.49

580 2.13 2.82 4.95 2.82 2.13 580

578 1.87 2.43 4.30

Optimization Studies: By utilizingthe graphs in correlation of Figure G-70, the cost curve as presentedin Figure 669 for varying length of struc- tureand the unit cost ofrock excavation as presentedin curve from Figure G71, thetotal costs of regulatoryfacilities required to meet various hydraulicrequirements were optimized.

1. Procedure.Optimization of the total cost of regulatoryfacilities was carriedout as follows:

(1) The channelcapacity increase, plotted on theordinate of thelower part of the monograph, Figure G-70, was selected.

G-143 Foreach head lass acrossthe structure, varying in magni- tudefrom 0.50 footto 3.00 feet, thevolume of channel excavationand hydraulic lenpth of structure were selected as illustratedin Figure G-70.

An adjustment was made to the volumeof channel excavation sincethe length of controlstructure affects the location andextent of channel excavation required at or nearthe structure.

The costof channel excavation was thendetermined by applyingthe unit cost of rock excavation as determined by Figure G-71.

The costof the control structure was determined by apply- inFFigure G-69.

Inthe case of the control structure at thelower site, a costof $4.5 million was addedto the total cost to accountfor the required shore protection works.

The totalcost of rep,ulatory facilities was plottedversus headloss across the structure, and the optimum was selected.

Steps 1 through 7 were repeatedfor each channel capacity increase,ranging from 0 to60,000 cfs in increments of 10,000 cfs, andfor flows from 160,000 to 320,000 cfs in incrementsof 40,000 cfs.

2. PreliminaryCost Curves. Based upon theprocedure as outlined above, a set ofpreliminary cost curves was preparedto be utilized in the formulationof preliminary regulation plans. The costcurves for the lower andupper sites are illustratedon Figures G-73 and G-74, respectively. A comparisonof cost betweenthe two sites, for a designflow of 280,000 cfs, as shownon Figure 675, reveals that the total first cost (1971 pricelevels) ofthe lower site is approximately $29 millionto $35 million,dependent on thehydraulic requirements, lower than that for the upper site. The lower site was thereforeselected for further design and cost estimates.

4.4Methodology - PartialRegulation

Variousmethods were exploredfor reducing high lake levels on Lake Erie by increasingthe discharge capacity at these sites:

1. WellandCanal 2. New York StateBarge Canal 3. Black Rock Canal

Due tothe limited capacity and erosion problems in the Welland Canal and the New York State Barge Canal, no furtherconsideration was given to those two sites as a means of"partial reRulation" of Lake Erie levels. The most promisingmethod, utilizing the Black Rock Canal, is describedbelow.

G-144 LOWER SITE

I-

g 100 - zul

-J2 --J 2 f - I- 80 cn 8 I- ul E LL

40 I I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE IN THOUSANDS OF CFS

Figure G-73 UPPER NIAGARA RIVER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL FIRST COSTS, CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE AND DESIGN FLOW-LOWER SITE G-145 200 r UPPER SITE

180

WL? > W _I W 2 160 (L a

F.+ b 2 z 0 n $ 140 Q m cn LL

J15 0 0 g 120 cn Z

-J0 -1 5 f + 100 cn 0 0 cnb- -LL U

I I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE IN THOUSANDS OF CFS

Figure G-74 UPPER NIAGARA RIVER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL FIRST COSTS, CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE AND DESIGN FLOW-UPPER SITE G-146 200

180

u) d 160 2 _I W 0 cc a ,-i n rn ,-.+ 140 Z 0 n W fn a m cn LT aJ 120 _I 0 n LL 0 u) Z 0 - 1oc I 5 Li Li 0 0

8C - LL.

4c I 10 20 30 40 50 60 CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE IN THOUSANDS OF CFS

Figure G-75 UPPER NIAGARARIVER-COMPARISON BETWEEN TOTALFIRST COSTSOF UPPER AND LOWERSITES-PROPOSED CONTROLSTRUCTURE G-147 A promising measure, in terms ofchannel capacity increase, is thedis- chargeof additional water down theBlack Rock Canalthus bypassing the constriction ofthe river at or near the Peace Highway Bridge.There are essentially threealternative schemes: (1) breachingBird Island Pier, which is a stone/concretebreakwater founded on a timbercrib extending from Squaw Islandupstream to Buffalo Harbour, and (2) excavating a diversionchannel across Squaw Islandjust upstream of theBlack Rock Lock; (3) discharging water throughthe Black Rock Lock chamberwould increasethe outflow about 15,000cfs. This would requirechanging the type of gates presentlyin use. (Both sets of gatescannot be operated simultaneously against the 5-fOOt head withoutincurring structural changes.)

It was determinedthat an uncontrolled breaching of BirdIsland Pier would seriously hamper navigationin the Canal. The costof modifying the Black Rock Lock gates would costabout $1,720,000, excluding costs for pro- tectinglock walls againsthigher water velocities. Accordingly, the alter- nativeproposal of a diversionchannel through Squaw Islandwith an attendant regulatorystructure, was deemed tobe the more practicable method ofdis- chargingadditional water throughthe Black Rock Canal. The following is a summary of studiesrelated to this proposal.

Introduction: The location of the proposeddiversion channel is shown on Figure676. The diversionflows would berouted through the Black Rock Canaland thence through the proposed diversion channel bisecting Squaw Islandbetween the International Railroad Bridge and Black Rock Lock. A control structure would belocated near the downstreamend of the diversion channel.Thus, by closingthe structure, Lake Erie outflowscould be re- turnedto preproject conditions when lakelevels and supply conditions fall belowestablished threshold limits. Threealternative sizes ofthe diversion channeland control structure were investigatedto provide a relationship be- tweenchannel capacity increase and cost. This allows for the rapid determination of costfor a rangeof partial regulation plans having a varietyof channelcapacity increase requirements.

Layout: The alignmentof each of the three schemes differs slightly in orderto fit the different channel widths intothe existing topography. The layoutsof each of the three schemes, ranging from the smallest tothe largest, are shown on Figures C-77, G-78 and G-79. Ineach case, the distance betweenthe confluence of the proposeddiversion channel with the Black Rock Canaland the entrance to the Black Rock Lock was made as greatas possibleto ensure that entrance velocities to the proposed diversion channel wouldhave minimal impact on navigation. For the same reason,the control structure was located as close as possibleto the Niagara River. Typical cross-sectionsof the proposed diversion channel upstream and downstream of thecontrol structure are shownon Figure G-80. Earthdykes, with a top widthof 10 feet, would beconstructed on eitherside of the diversion chan- nelto elevation 580.0, upstreamof the control structure, to provide ade- quatefreeboard. Downstream ofthe control structure, the earth dykes would beconstructed to elevation 575.0, which is consideredadequate in view of thedrop in stage between Lake Erie levelsand those of the Niagara River at its confluencewith the proposed diversion channel. The diversionchannel

6148 I II + I1 II If II \\

Figure G-76 PARTIALREGULATION OF LAKE ERIE-LAKE ERIE DIVERSIONVIA BLACK ROCK NAVIGATIONCANAL-LOCATION MAP crINDICATES RIPRAP

Figure G-77 LAKE ERIE DIVERSION VIA BLACK ROCK NAVIGATIONCANAL-SCHEME A INDICATES RIPRAP

Figure G-78 LAKE ERIE DIVERSION VIABLACK ROCK NAVIGATIONCANAL-SCHEME B JzT INDICATESRIPRAP

Figure G-79 LAKEERIE DIVERSION VIA BLACK ROCK NAVIGATION CANAL-SCHEME C E A RT H DIKE EARTH 3 kL.580.0 "re DlKE y!7\-RIPRAP L.W.D. EL. 568.6 RIPRAP- / "7"T7"7 - Y\\\W\\ EXISTINGGROUND EXISTINGGROUND A

SCHEMEA-30 FT. APPROXIMATE TOP OF ROCK /!\-A\' SCHEME C-160 TO 180 FT.

TYPICAL SECTION OF DIVERSION CHANNEL UPSTREAM OF CONTROL STRUCTURE

SCHEME A-30FT. APPROXIMATE TOP OF ROCK //A\-&\'

TYPICAL SECTION OF DIVERSION CHANNEL DOWNSTREAM OF CONTROL STRUCTURE

Figure G-80 LAKE ERIE DIVERSION VIA BLACKROCK NAVIGATION CANAL-TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS OF PROPOSED SQUAWISLAND DIVERSIONCHANNEL wouldbe riprapped or otherwise protected as necessaryto prevent bank erosion andgradually trained to and from the control structure to minimize ex- cessivehead losses due to contraction and expans ion.

HydraulicConsiderations: Thecapacity of the Black Rock Canal--Squaw Islanddiversion channel was determined by applyingthe standard step method ofbackwater calculation with Manning's equation being applied to estimate frictionlosses. Because no prototypedata were available,an estimate of Manning'sroughness coefficient was made. Based on a reviewof relevant literature,the relative roughness of the diversion channel and of the Black Rock Canalcould be approximated by a Manning'sroughness coefficient varying from0.025 to 0.030. The latter value was adoptedfor design purposes. En- trancelosses fromthe Niagara River to the Black Rock Canaland from the Black Rock Canal to Squaw Islanddiversion channel were estimatedby applyinR a coefficientof 0.25 to the change in velocity head across the entrance. An analysisof the geometry of the three major bends in the Black Rock Canal-- Squaw Islanddiversion channel revealed that bend losses were insignificant. Becauseof the uniformity of the Black Rock Canaland the Squaw Islanddiver- sionchannel, except at thecontrol structure, energy losses due to expansion andcontraction were consideredto be insignificant. The conservative estimate ofthe Manning's roughness coefficient would correct for any errors implicitin this assumption.

The channelcapacity increase for the Black Rock Canal--Squaw Island diversionchannel was obtainedby balancing the flows through the canal and theNiagara River for the water levelconditions at theirconfluence. The channelcapacity increase was thereforedetermined using the Niagara River mathematicalmodel, as describedin Section 4.3.1, in combination with the abovedescribed method of determining the capacity of the Black Rock Canal-- Squaw Islanddiversion channel.

One ofthe factors that affects the ability of the diversion schemes to dischargeadditional flow is theavailable head. To present a rangeof hydraulicconditions that might result from partial regulation plans, two NiagaraRiver flows (upstream of the confluence), 200,000 cfs and 248,000 cfs, were usedfor design purposes. The resultsof these investigations for threealternative schemes are summarizedon Table G-12.

Design Considerations: A submersibletainter gate was selectedfor de- signpurposes. Ice anddebris could be passed over the submerged gate or, ifdesired, could be retained by a partiallyraised gate, thus providing operationalflexibility. The taintergate wouldbe chain operated with electric hoists andprovided with seal heatersand an air bubblersystem foryear-round operation. The controlstructure would be operated from the Black Rock Ship Lockby remotecontrol, using closed circuit television and existinglock personnel. A centerlineprofile of the control structure is shownon Figure 6.81. The diversionchannel would be riprapped upstream and downstreamof the control structure as necessaryto prevent bank erosion. Earthlevees, constructed to elevations 580.0 and 575.0 would be upstream anddownstream of the control structure, respectively, would be provided to protectagainst overtopping during extreme high levels. It was assumed that,

G-154 G-15 5 forthe flows considered in this study, no protective works toprevent ero- sionor undermining along the banks of the Black Rock Canalwould be required. Removal of part of an existing sheet pile wall alongthe Black Rock Canal and part ofan existingstone dyke alongthe Niagara River would be required tocomplete the diversion channel. Miscellaneous items whichwould be required includethe following: (1) stop logs to provide for dewatering of the control structure, (2) a footbridge across the controlstructure to provide access formaintenance personnel, and (3) a floatinglog boom at the upstream end of thediversion channel to prevent small pleasure craft from enteringthe channel.

Cost Estimates: Inorder that a validcomparison of cost between each of thethree schemescould be made, common designcriteria were utilized throughout.Costs were based on past projectsin the Buffalo area expressed in 1971 pricelevels. An estimate of 25 percent was applied as anallowance forcontingencies to obtain the total direct costs of works.Indirect costs whichinclude allowances for detailed investigations, foundation explorations, engineeringdesigns and construction supervision and administration were estimated at 15 percentof the total direct costs and added toobtain the totalestimated first costs. A summary of thecost estimates foreach of thethree schemes is shown on Table 613. A plot of channelcapacity increase versustotal first costs is shown onFigure G-82. In view of therequirement forwinter operation, operation andmaintenance costs are estimated at 0.5 percentof the total first costs. The constructionperiod is estimated at less thanone year and,therefore, interest charges during construction were neglected.

Additionalstudies are needed todetermine:

1. Actualeffects of increased currents in the canal onnavigation.

2. Effects of divertingadditional water on theoperation of the Chippawa-Grass IslandPool.

3. Erosionof shoreline adjacent and downstream of the diversion channel.

4.5 Data

The followingparagraphs list thedata pertinent to the design and cost estimates ofLake Erie regulatoryworks.

4.5.1 Basic Data

The followingparagraphs list thebasic data which existed prior to the studyand the collected data obtained during the course of thestudy.

Existing Data :

(1)Plans for regulation of Levelsof Lake Erie, TechnicalReport No. 2-46, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Plississippi, June 1957.

G-156 Table G-12 PARTIAL REGULATION OF LAKE ERIE DETERMINATION OF CHANNEL CAF'ACITY INCREASE FOR VARYING SIZEOF SQUAW ISLAND DIVERSION CHANNEL

SchemeA Scheme B Scheme C Q = 200,000 cfs Elevation at Black Rock Gauge* 565.65 566.01 566.18 Elevation at Buffalo Gauge 570.94 571.19 571.32 Channel Capacity Increase (cfs) 7,200 15,700 20,200

Q = 248,000 cfs Elevation at Black Rock Gauge* 567.59 567.98 568.19 Elevation at Buffalo Gauge 573.23 573.50 573.67 Channel Capacity Increase (cfs) 8,200 18,100 23,700

*This elevation is based on the flowin the Niagara River downstreamof the confluence with the proposed diversion channel. See Figure G-76 for gauge location.

Table G-13 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES - BLACK ROCK CANAL-SQUAW ISLAND DIVERSIONSCHEMES

, Estimated First Cost (Dollars) I tem Scheme A I Scheme B I Scheme C I 1 1. Excavation:Common 363,000 397,000 520,000 Rock 73,000 138,000 188,000 2. Levee Embankment 295,000 198,000 197,000 3.Riprap 142,000 319,000 298,000 4. Water Control During Construction 221,000 221,000 221,000 5. Reinforced Concrete 1,239,000 1,695,000 2,053,000 6. Steel Sheet Piling 279,000 260,000 260,000 7. Tainter Gate 270,000 675,000 991,000 8. Tainter Gate Machinery 88,000 132,000 199,000 9. Electrical Facilities 76,000 101,000 108,000 10. stop Logs 125,000 312,000 457,000 11. Miscellaneous Items 162,000 184,000 19 3,000 . - .._" .. SUB-TOTAL 4,632,0005,685,000 ,333,000 25 Percent Contingencies TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 15 Percent Indirect Costs TOTAL ESTIMATED FIRST COSTS

G-157 TOTAL FIRST COSTS (1971 PRICE LEVELS) (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) * P m a 4 a, u) 0 I I I I

C c

c rn C rnU (2) Water Levels of the Great Lakes,Report on LakeRegulation, U. S. Amy EngineerDivision, North Central, Corps of Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, December 1965.

(3) Soundings of the Upper NiagaraRiver, U. S. LakeSurvey Field Chart 1-1778, Scale 1/500. Soundingsin feet, U. S. LakeSurvey, 1932. 1940.

(4) HydrographicChart, Upper NiagaraRiver, U. S. LakeSurvey, No. 312, Scale 1/30,000, 1968 Edition.

(5) Topographic maps, NiagaraFalls, Fort Erie, Surveysand Mapping Branch, Department of Energy,Mines and Resources, Scale 1/25,000, 10-foot contour interval.

(6) Photogrammetricmapping of United States and Canadian shorelines of the NiagaraRiver between the International Railway Bridge and the head of the River,Department of PublicWorks, State of New York,Scale 1"-200', 5-foot contourinterval, September 1962.

(7) Aerial photographsof the Upper NiagaraRiver and adjacent shoreline, Surveyand Mapping Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

(8) Probingsextending from the head of the Niagara River to two miles downstream, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers.

(9) HydraulicDesign Criteria, U. S. AmyCorps of Engineers, Waterways ExperimentalStation, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

(10)Discharge Coefficients for Irregular Overfall Spillways, Engineering Monograph No. 9, U. S. Bureauof Reclamation.

(11)Movable Barrier Dams AcrossRivers, 10th International Conference on Large Dams, Rex Madoux, andothers, 1970.

(12) Manual of Standardsand Procedures for Planning Water ResourcesProjects inOntario, Canada--Ontario Committee on CWCAA Programs, July 1969.

(13)Table of Quantities for EstimatingCellular Coefferdams-2870, Special ProjectsBranch, Ministry of Transport, August 1951.

(14)Effects of Power Operationson the Niagara River and Lake Erie, Follow-up Reportto the International Niagara Board of Control, April 1969.

CoZ Zected Data

(1)Preliminary Foundation Investigations, Niagara River Flow ControlStruc- ture andAppurtenances, William Trow (Hamilton)Limited, March1970.

(2)Orthophotographic Mapping of the Area frombelow the International RailwayBridge to the head of the river, Lockwood SurveyCorporation Limited, Scale 1" = 400 feet, set of two maps takenon 8 April 1970.

G-159 (3) Real Estate Appraisal of landadjacent to the Niagara River (Canada Side),Projected to 1975 pricelevels, CanadaDepartment of Public Works, June1970.

(4) Flow measurementsand corresponding levels at several gauges, Lake Survey District, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers, and WaterSurvey of Canada, EnvironmentCanada, 1967, 1968 and 1969.

(5)Profile along the river bank and adjacent land area and details of storm drainage, water intakesand sewage disposal pipeline. Water Planning and Management Branch,Environment Canada, Field Notes 1-71, September 1971.

(6)Investigation of Seiche Effects on theRiver, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers,Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, December 1970.

4.5.2Derived Data

The following list of data was derivedfrom both the existing and col- lecteddata listed above.

(1)Cross-sectional areas, lengthand width of selectedcross sections in the Upper NiagaraRiver, Detroit District, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers.

(2) Manningsroughness coefficients for the various reaches in the Upper NiagaraRiver, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada.

(3) Topographicand hydrographic map of the Upper Niagara River between the Black Rock gaugeand the head of theriver and adjacent land area, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada, Scale 1" = 200 feet, contour interval 5 feet.

(4)Hydrographic map ofthe Upper Niagaraillustrating river bottom contours androck contours, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada, Scale 1" = 100 feet,contour interval 5 feet.

(5)Relationship between depth of rock excavation and unit cost, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,Buffalo District.

(6) Relationshipsbetween cost of gated structure versus length at both theupper and lower sites, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada.

(7) Relationshipsbetween channel capacity increase, volume of excavation andlength of structure, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada.

(8) Relationshipsbetween channel capacity increase, and total first cost of structure, ancillaryworks and channel excavation, Water Planningand Management Branch,Environment Canada.

G-160 Section 5

ST. LAWRENCE RIVER SYSTEM

5.1Description of theSystem

The St. Lawrence Riverforms the natural outlet of the Great Lakes Drainagebasin. From its headwaters on Lake Ontario at Kingston,Ontario, theRiver flows generally in a northeasterlydirection to its outlet onthe Gulfof St. Lawrence, at FatherPoint, Quebec, a distance of some 530miles. Between Kingston,Ontario and St. Regis, New York, theRiver establishes the internationalboundary between Canadaand theUnited States. Downstream of Cornwall,Ontario, and St. Regis, New York,the River lies whollywithin the Provinceof Quebec. A location map ofthe St. LawrenceRiver is shown on Figure (2-83.

5.1.1General

The St. Lawrence Riverpossesses some advantagesnot shared by many riversof comparable size andimportance. The regulatingeffect of the Great Lakes results in a remarkablyuniform flow inthe St. Lawrence; the ratio of maximum to minimum flow at its headwaters onLake Ontariobeing about 2:l as compared,for example, to the Mississippi River with a corresponding ratio ofabout 40:l. Over theperiod 1900-1967, the mean recordedflow was 232,000 cfs, the maximum 305,000 cfs andthe minimum 154,000 cfs.

From its outletof Lake Ontario at Kingston,Ontario, to Father Point, Quebec,which marks its transitionto the Gulf of St. Lawrence, theSt. LawrenceRiver fallsapproximately 245 feet.Throughout the first 67 miles of its length,the river is characterized by numerousrocky islands and reefs fromwhich the name, Thousand Islands Reach, is derived.With the constructionof the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Projects,between 1954 and1959, thephysical features of the River between Iroquois and Cornwall, Ontario, havebeen considerably changed. With the construction of the Saunders-Moses hydro-electricplants andappurtenances, a large man-made lake, named Lake St.Lawrence, was formed floodingout areas where entirevillages had been located.Inhabitants of the area which were flooded were subsequentlyrelo- cated,the costs of which were borne by theproject.

Below the power dam, theriver divides into two channelsaround Cornwall Islandwhich then reunite to formLake St.Francis. Downstream ofLake St. Francis,the river flows through the Beauharnois Canal and Cedars complex to Lake St.Louis. The Beauharnoispowerhouse is located at theend of the canal. At theoutlet of Lake St.Louis the river drops through the Lachine Rapidsinto the Laprairie Basin and thence through the short, swift flowing sectionnear Victoria Bridge to Montreal Harbour, falling a distanceof about 50 feet.In the 160 miles ofriver between Montreal and Quebec Citythe fall is about 25 feet at low tide. The rangeof tide at Quebec Cityaverages about 16 feet,but extreme high spring tides have exceeded 21 feet. The tidaleffect diminishes upstream until therange Is onlyabout 1-1/2 feet

G-161 W maximum at TroisRivieres and 1/2 foot maximum at theupper end of Lake St. Peter. Below Quebec City theriver gradually forms its transitioninto the St. Lawrence estuary and finallythe Gulf of St. Lawrence.

International Reach: For a distance of about 112 miles from Lake Ontario toSt. Regis, New York, the St. Lawrence River is partly in Canadaand inthe UnitedStates and, therefore, is subjectto the terms of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 betweenthe two countries.In its first 68 miles downstream to Chimney Point, New York, theriver falls onlyabout 1 foot. The river varies fromone to four miles inwidth and is slow movingand generallydeep. The numerous islands and shoals form the Thousand Islands.In the 44 miles from Chimney Pointto St. Regis, the river falls approximately 92 feet. Priorto the St. LawrenceSeaway and Power Project,this amount was concen- tratedin a series of rapidsbetween Chimney Pointand Long Sault. However, after thecompletion of theSt. Lawrence Seaway andPower Project, a major portionof the fall occurs at the Moses-Saunderspower generation station. Threelocks are providedfor navigation, one at Iroquoisand two in the power development area. Channelexcavation has been carried out in this section inorder to meet thecriteria in the Order ofApproval in 1955, issued by theInternational Joint Commission approvingconstruction of the project. The project was designed so that water velocities in thesection do notexceed 4 fpsduring the navigation season or 2.25 fps duringthe winter in order tominimize the difficulties ofpower generation.

Canadian Reach: Downstreamfrom theInternational Rapids Section, the St. Lawrence River lies whollyin Canadaand all improvements fornavigation downst ream toMontreal have been carried out by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. Below CornwallIsland, the navigation channel crosses Lake St. Francisfor a distance of 31 miles to the head of theBeauharnois Power Canal. The water level of Lake St.Francis is maintainedvery closely to 152 feet IGLD throughoperation of theBeauharnois Cedars Complex by Hydro-Quebec. Inauthorizing diversions of water for power purposes at Beauharnois,the Government ofCanada passed legislation in 1932 specifyingcertain conditions whichwould enable the power canal to be used ultimately as part of the Seaway System.Hydro-Quebec hasbeen required to maintain the canal to give a clear width of 600 feet on the bottom, a depth of 27 feet at low water datum stage, and toprovide adequate cross-sectional area so as toproduce average velocities notexceeding 2.25 fpsunder any condition of operation.

Two Seaway locks overcome the 84 feet fall betweenLake St. Francis and Lake St.Louis. Downstreamof Beauharnoisthe river widens into Lake St. Louiswhich extends for ten miles tothe Lachine Rapids. Below therapids theriver widens to form LaprairieBasin and then passes through a short, swift-flowingsection to Montreal Harbour where water levels are about 50 feetlower than those in Lake St.Louis. The Ottawa River joins theSt. Lawrence in the area southwest of Montreal. A portion of the Ottawa River flow entersthrough the Vandreuil and St. Anne Channels to Lake St.Louis and theremainder passes north of Montreal Island and joins the St. Lawrence belowMontreal. Navigation bypasses the Lachine Rapids and reaches Montreal through Seaway facilities whichconsist of two locks: one at CoteSte. Catherine;the other at St. Lambert.

G-163 5.1.2Existing Regulatory and Power Facilities

There are four major installations in the St. LawrenceRiver between theoutlet of Lake Ontarioand Montreal. These are theIroquois Dam, Long Sault Dam, Saunders-Moses Plantsand Beauharnois-Cedars complex. In addition,channel enlargements were carriedout for the seawayand power projects. Each will bebriefly described in the following paragraphs.

Iroquois Dam: About 1,980feet long, Iroquois Dam extends from Point Rockway inthe United States to the Canadian shore near Iroquois. The structure is equippedwith thirty-two 50-foot sluices designed to pass a maximum lake outflowin excess of the maximum flow of 310,000 cfs as specified by thecurrent regulation plan (1958-D). The sluicegates are operated by two 350-ton travellinggantry cranes. Elevation of topof sills is 200.0 feet IGLD. Ifnecessary, the dam canbe operated to control and regulate theoutflow fromLake Ontario,replacing the natural control provided by a rockledge which existed near Galop Island prior to improvements associated withthe project. The patternof gate settings for the dam was developed from hydraulic model tests and it hasbeen selected so as to minimizeadverse currentsin the navigation channel at thelower approach to Iroquois Lock. Duringperiods of strong westerly winds, the gates may bedipped to prevent excessivebuildup of water levelsin Lake St. Lawrence. The gates are also usedduring ice formationto assist inpromoting a stable ice cover.

Long Sault Dum: Long Sault Dam is locatedbelow the foot of Long Sault Island,about 25 milesdownstream of the Iroquois Dam. It measuresabout 2,960feet along its curved axis. Besides a non-overflowsection, it also has a sluicewaysection which consists of thirty 50-fOOt sluiceways. The sluicesdischarge flows in excess ofrequirements at the Saunders-Moses plants. It alsocan effectively control the river flows and water levels withinspecified ranges in the event that flows cannot be discharged through the Moses-Saunders plants. The spillway crest elevation is 217.0 feet IGLD.

Saunders-Moses Phts: TheSaunders-Moses Plants are locatedabout 3.5 miles downstream from Long Sault Dam and about 2 miles west ofCornwall, Onrario. The semi-outdoorplant, 3,300 feetlong, with a rated head of 81 feetconsists of thirty-two 57,000 kilowatt capacity generators. Sixteen generators are operated by the Power Authorityof the State of New York while the other sixteen are operated by the Hydro Electric PowerCommission of Ontario. Impounded behindthe concrete gravity dam ofthe power plants is the man-made Lake St. Lawrence,which extends upstream to Iroquois Dam. The lakehas a capacity of about750,000 acre-feet at a normalelevation of 241 .O feet.Covering an area of 37,500 acres, it is confined by a systemof earth embankments at thelower end totalling about 16 miles inlength.

Beauharnois and Cedars Complex: At thelower end of Lake St. Francis, about 32 miles east ofCornwall, Ontario, the major part of the St. Lawrence is divertedthrough a 15-mile navigation andpower canalto Hydro-Quebec's generating station at Beauharnois. The Beauharnoispowerhouse has thirty-six main generatingunits with a totalcapacity of 1,574,260 kilowatts at a rated head of 80 feet. The navigation channel in theBeauharnois canal consists

G-164 of a strip 600 feet widewith a minimum depthof 27 feet, runningalong the left bank of. thecanal. Two locks at theconfluence with Lake St.Louis allowships to enter the canal.

The remainingportion of St. Lawrence flow leaves Lake St. Francis throughthe Coteau Control Dam down thenatural river channel. Most of this water is utilized by generatingstation at Cedarswhich is alsooperated by Hydro-Quebec.The Cedars powerhouse has 18 generatingunits with a total capacity of 162,000kilowatts at a ratedhead of 35 feet.

c%anneZ Knlaroernents: An integral part ofthe St. Lawrence Seaway - Power Project was the channeldredging and excavations carried out to: (1) provide a channeldepth, width, alignment and water velocityfor 27-foot navigation, (2) reducevelocities to induce ice coverover most of theriver thusminimizing operational problems and enhancing the channel carrying capacity o€ theriver subsequent to the ice formingperiod, (3) distributethe flowin such a way as notto interfere with navigation and (4) more important fromthe standpoint of lake regulation, reducing head losses at specific pointto increase the channel capacity and to maximize the head available forhydro-electric power generation. For themost part, channel enlarge- mentscarried out for one interest were beneficialto the other interests.

The InternationalJoint Commission, in its 1952Orders of Approval, specifiedthat the Power Entities were requiredto undertake channel enlarge- mentswhich would ensure that velocities through the Galop do not exceed 4 fps andbelow Galop dmto Morrisburg, not to exceed2.25 fps during the ice formingperiod. Minimum depthsof 29.5 feet upstream of and 28.5 feet downstream of Iroquois were required. ThePower Entitiescarried out channel enlargementsin 9 principal areas whilethe Navigation Agencies carried out dredgingin 3. The principallocations of channel enlargements, carried out bythe Power Entities, were at Chimney Island,Galop Island, Lalone-Lotus Islands,Sparrow Hawk Point-ToussaintsIsland, Iroquois, Point Three Points, Ogden Island,headrace of Long Sault Dam and tailrace ofthe Moses-Saunders Dam. The principallocation of channelenlargements carried out specifically fornavigation were at theIroquois Lock, Wiley- DonderoShip Channel and Northand South of Cornwall Island.

A totalof approximately 107 millioncubic yards of material was excavated. The excavationscarried out by the power entities totaled 63 million cubicyards; the major locations being in the vicinity of Sparrow Point- ToussaintsIsland (12 million),Gaiop Island (16 million)and Point Three Points-0gden Island (11 million).The excavations carried out by thenavi- gationagencies totalled 44 millioncubic yards, with the principal locations beingWiley--Dondero Channel (25 million)and north and south of Cornwall Island(15 million).

As anexample of the channel capacity increase attained by theproject, a flow of 350,000cfs was dischargedout of Lake Ontario during part of 1973. Duringthe latter part of the summer of 1973, this was about 19,000 cfs in excess ofthe flow that would have discharged prior to the project. More water could havebeen physically discharged out of Lake Ontario; however, it wouldhave had very serious effects on navigation,shorefront properties

G-165 both upstream on Lake St. Lawrenceand downstream toMontreal and on the generation ofpower on theSt. Lawrence.

5.1.3Navigation Facilities

Works ofthe Federal Seaway agencies ofCanada and the United States provide a 27-footnavigation channel through the river between Lake Ontario andMontreal Harbour. At andbelow Montreal a 35-footnavigation channel is maintained by theCanadian Ministry of Transport.

St. Lawrence Seaway: From Montrealto Lake Ontario, a vesseltravels 182 miles and rises over 225 feet.This distance may beconsidered to consist offive sections, three of which aresolely in Canadian waters, the others in international boundary waters.

The firstsection, about 31 miles inlength, contains the St. Lambert andCote-Ste-Catherine Locks, which enable ships tobypass the Lachine Rapids and to rise 50 feet abovethe level of MontrealHarbour. After movingthrouRh Lake St.Louis, ships enter the second section, the Soulanges Section, which extendsfor a distanceof 16 miles into Lake St.Francis. The Lower and Upper Beauharnois Locks lift ships a totalof 82 feet aboveLake St.Louis. The thirdsection, Lake St.Francis, is 29 miles long and terminates just east of Cornwall,Ontario.

The internationalsection of the Seaway is entered at theupstream end of Lake St.Francis and extends to a pointjust east ofOgdensburg, New York. It is mainlythe man-made Lake St. Lawrence resulting from theconstruction ofthe Moses-Sauqderspower complex. The differencein elevation is overcome by theUnited States Snell andEisenhower locks near Massena and the Canadianlock at Iroquois. The remainingsection extends from hereonover 68miles into Lake Ontario. It is also known as the Thousand IslandSection.

Of theseven locks mentioned above, five are operated by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority of Canadaand two are operated by theUnited States St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.

Montreal Harbour and St. Lawrence Ship Channe 2: The Montrealseaport, located some one thousandmiles from the Atlantic Coast, is operated by the NationalHarbours Board, a semi-autonomousagency of theCanadian Marine TransportationAdministration, Ministry of Transport. Its deepharbour (about 35 feet at low water datum correspondingto a water surfaceelevation of18.0 feet IGLD); its strategiclocation; and its facilitiesvalued in excess of $150 million,exclusive of two major bridgesacross the St. Lawrence, havealtogether made Montrealan important seaport to serve its immediate population of two millionand a vasthinterland. There are about 6,000 vessel arrivals peryear on an average.Cargo tonnage in 1970 was slightly over 25 milliontons. Montreal can be generally considered open to shipping all yearexcept during the =st severe climatic conditions when ice jams in the river bring navigation to a halt.

The St. Lawrence ShipCanal, some 200 miles in length, refers to the main sailingcourse of the St. LawrenceRiver between the Port of Montreal

G-166 and 40 miles downstreamof Quebec City at which pointthe river is naturally deep. The main navigationchannel has a maintaineddepth of 35 feet below low water datumand a minimum width of 800 feet. The normal fall inwater surfaceelevation between Montreal and Quebec City is 25 feet.Velocities rangefrom eight to ten feet per second in certain critical reaches of the shipcanal but are as low at 1.5 feet per secondin the Lake St. Peter reach. The portion of theSt. Lawrence Riverdownstream of Lake St. Peter is con- sideredtidal, with a rangevarying from 1 footat Trois-Rivieres to 16 feet at Quebec City. A small tidaleffect canbe detected at Montreal.

From thePort of Quebecdownstream to Ile aux Coudres, a distance of approximately 60 adles, the St. Lawrence ShipChannel passes south of Ile d'0rleansand then swings northward through the North Traverse to take ad- vantage of thedeep water closeto the north shore. The NorthTraverse lies in a siltation area andconsiderable channel dredging has been required toprovide andmaintain advertized channel depths. Below thisreach there is naturallydeep water. Otherinteresting features ofthe Ship Channel ire thenon-existence of locks,the stability of theriver bed, practically no siltationin the channel upstream of Quebec City, and thevarying character of theriver bottom from solidrock at or close to the surface in several areas, toan overlying soft clay material ofmarine origin some 200 feet deep in Lake St. Peter.

Recreationaliiavigation: There is recreationalboating throughout theSt. LawrenceRiver. Among the most popular areas are: Thousand Islands; Lake St. Lawrence ; Lake St. Francis ; Lake St. Louisand various reaches between Montreal andQuebec City. Facilitiessuch as marinas,launching ramps and privateyachting clubs are well establishedin these areas. Navigational aides are established andmaintained in many ofthe shallow draft channels servingrecreational boating. There are a total of 36 marinasand yacht clubsalong the St. Lawrence River.

5.1.4 Bridges,Wharves, Ferries and Other Facilities

There are 15 bridgesspanning the St. Lawrence River all of whichpro- vide a verticalclearance of at least 120 feetabove high water to accommo- datecommercial vessels. The LouisHippolyte Lafontaine tunnel carries vehiculartraffic under the St. Lawrence River at thehead of Boucherville Islands, downstream of Montreal.Another tunnel carries vehicular traffic underthe Lower Beauharnoislock at Melocheville,Quebec.

Two cormnercialwharves with a depthof 27 feet belowlow water datum are locatedin Montreal, namely Port de Valleyfield and Lower LakesTerminal. There are 46 wharveswith a maintaineddepth of less than 27 feet, of which 44 are locatedin Canadaand two inthe United States.

There are a totalof 11 ferryroutes on the St. Lawrence. Below Quebec City,ferries traverse theRiver between: Quebec Cityand Levis ; Riviere-Du Loup andSt. Simeon; Trois Pistoles and Les Escoumins;Rimouski and Baie Comeau; Matane andGodbout and Ste. Anne-des-Monts andSept-Iles. Above Quebec Citythere are ferrycrossings between: Sore1 and Berthierville; the City of Domal and Ile Domal; Kingston and Wolfe Island withstops at Simcoe

6167 andGarden Islands; Simcoe Island and Wolfe Island; and Wolfe Island and Cape Vincent, New York. Inaddition, there are severalscenic boat tours inoperation during the tourist season throughout the river system.

There are numeroussubmarine cable and overhead transmission lines across theSt. Lawrence River;these being 16 submarinecables and four major over- headtransmission lines.

5.1.5 Ice Problems

Ice problems inthe St. Lawrencecan ingeneral be related to the restrictive effects of the ice on riverdischarge, the magnitude of which variesfrom reach to reach depending onthe configuration and hydraulic con- ditionsof the river. For example,the formation of ice jams upstreamof a generatingstation can seriouslyreduce the flow to the turbines, resultin? in a loss of generatedpower, while at the same time causingflooding above the jam. Therefore,to overcome theseproblems the formation of a stable andrelatively smooth icecover early in winter is animportant factor. Below Montrealthe problem is somewhat differentin that the aim is to main- tainan open channel for navigationand flood prevention. One ofthe attendant difficulties is tokeep flushing the ice downstreamthrough areas where flow velocities are low.

Geneml: At thepresent time theonly measures taken to control ice inthe St. Lawrencebetween Lake Ontario and Montreal relate tothe requirements ofhydroelectric power development at the Moses-Saunders plantsand theBeauharnois-cedars complex. At anddownstream of Montreal, operations are aimed at controlling ice toprevent flooding and to assist navigation. The use of floating wooden ice booms is a proven methodof establishing stable ice coverconditions in certain critical reaches,particularly in relation to powerdevelopment. Downstream of Montreal, where the emphasis is onmain- taining an openchannel for flood control and navigation, systematic ice- breakingoperations provide the main control. Some experimental work with ice booms is alsobeing conducted.

Ice Boom in InternationaZ Reach: The St. Lawrence Power Project was putinto operation in July 1958. Duringthe first winter prevailing ice conditions were suchthat a heavy ice jam formed nearCardinal, Ontario, resultingin severely restricted flows into Lake St. Lawrence. Water levels at the Moses-SaundersPower Dam droppedabout four feet, and generation was reduced by as mch as 20 percent. The effectof this jam was also felt in theMontreal area, where,for a shortperiod, several water intakes were uncovered.

To forestall a recurrence of the ice restriction experience, from Januar throughto March 1959, the power entitiesobtained approval from theInterna- tional St. Lawrence River Joint Boardof Engineers, a Board established by thegovernments of Canadaand United States, to install a series of booms to control the movement of ice inthe reach between Ogdensburgand Cardinal. The first boams were placed at thebeginning of the 1959-60 winter period andan additional boom was installed a year later. The overalllayout of the booms has remained unchanged since the winter of 1961-62 and consists of

6168 a boom acrossthe river at Ogdensburg-Prescott, a shortsection. at Chimney Point and four booms inthe Galops Reach.

These boom installations have ingeneral successfully retained ice and haveaverted ice jams such as thoseexperienced during the winter of 1958-59. The winterdischarges prescribed by the International Joint Commission plan of regulationfor Lake Ontariohave accordingly been released without difficulty, andno reductionsin power generationexperienced.

Ice Booms in CanadianReach: Ice booms are at presentutilized in two areas inthe Canadian reach. Booms are placedeach winter in theBeauharnois Canal by Hydro-Quebec,and in the St. Lawrence Riverdownstream of Montreal by theMinistry of Transport.

To prevent ice generatedin Lake St.Francis and in the upper reaches ofthe Beauharnois Canal frommoving downstream to jam againstthe power- houseand inthe approach to the Upper BeauharnoisLock, resulting in a con- siderableloss of energy to Hydro-Quebec duringthe remainder of the winter, a series of eight booms were installedto stabilize the ice cover.Five of these booms extendedacross the full width of the canal and closed off the portionof the canal used by navigation. . Initial installation of the ice booms inBeauharnois Canal was made in December 1954.

With theadvent of winternavigation to Montreal, additional measures are beingtaken by theMinistry of Transport, in conjunction with icebreaking operations,to effect better control of ice inthe St. Lawrence ShipChannel. About 50 miles downstreamof Montreal the St. Lawrence widens to form a shal- lowlake called Lake St. Peter, some eight miles wideand twenty miles long. The problemhere is thatonce a channelhas been opened by icebreakers there is a tendencyfor large pieces of the ice cover to break off throughwaves generated by windand passingships. These large masses of ice then move intothe channel and effectively block it at thenarrow outlet of thelake andan ice jam may beformed. To controlthis breakup of the ice cover, a series of booms were installed in the most critical area onan experimental basisin November 1967 andeach subsequent winter. Indications are that these booms do materially contributeto ice controlin Lake St. Peter.

As a furtherexperiment, an ice boom hasbeen installed at Lavaltrieto control ice moving throughthe channel north of VercheresIslands. This boom was installedfor the first time in November 1969. All booms are removed and stored onland each spring.

Montreal IceControl Structures: Constructionof the site for EXPO 67 at Montreal,involving development of St. Helen's Island and the creation of Ile Notre Dame alongthe SeawayDyke, resultedin restricting the river sectionin that area. Althoughcompensating dredging was carriedout to ensure hydraulicconditions during open water remainedrelatively unchanged, it was believedthat the river regime had been altered to the extent that there was a danger of more severe ice jams inMontreal Harbour which could result in greaterflooding. For thisreason, the Ice ControlStructure was builtin Laprairie Basin following unanimous agreement by a Federalinterdepartmental committeeon the World's Fair Site.

G-169 Constructedin 1964-65 by theDepartment of Public Works, the Ice Control Structure was put to a preliminary test duringthe winter of 1965-66 andtaken over by theMinistry of Transportin October, 1966. The structurespans the St. LawrenceRiver three miles abovethe EXPO site, parallelto and approximately onethousand feet upstream of the ChamplainBridge. It has a total lengthof 6,698 feet between abutments and consists of 72 concretepiers, founded fivefeet into bedrock anddesigned to withstand an ice thrustof tenKips per lineal foot of structure.Three spans, both of which are approximately 176 feetin width, were incorporated in the Ice ControlStructure to provide an early openingchannel for evacuating ice in the spring. Float- ing steel stop-logs,measuring 6 feet x 4 feetand 83 feet 1 in.long and weighing 40 tonseach are placed betweenthe piers. Rollers fitted to the endsof the stop-logs allow them to move freelyin the vertical guide slots inresponse to water levelfluctuations. The stop-logs are designedfor an icethrust of five Kips per linealfoot and are ballastedwith concrete to float with a draftof four feet. When notin use, thestop-logs are lifted out of theguide slots and stored on thepiers.

The earlyevacuation opening channel is fitted with special floating steel booms anchoredto the piers by 3-1/2 in.diameter cables.

The icecontrol structure is operatedin conjunction with ice breaking operations downstreamof Montreal. The Montrealharbour section of the St. Lawrence Riverdoes not freeze over due to the high velocity of the current. Laprairie Basinand the lower part ofLake St.Louis do not generally freeze overbut produce large quantities of frazil and loose ice, which float down past Montreal.

Ice jams will form readilyin the section immediately downstreamof Montreal.These ice jams, ifnot broken up by icebreakers, will proceed upstream beingfed by floatingloose ice and frazil and will eventuallyreach theMontreal harbour section. In such an event, the ice controlstructure canbe operated to cause an ice coverto form on Laprairie Basin andloose icecan be stored under the ice coverthus slowing down theprogress upstream ofice jams andgiving more time tothe icebreakers to demolish them.

5.1.6Current Operating Plan

Appendix B, Lake Regulation,discusses details of thecurrent operating plan.

5.2 Assumptions

All regulationplans are designedto meet the capacities of the existing works inthe St. Lawrence River as describedin Appendix B.

Based upon water suppliesfor the study period 1900-1967, theexisting regulatoryworks and channel capacities of the St. Lawrence River were judged tobe adequate for the regulation of Lake Ontariounder the existing Orders ofApproval of the International Joint Commission.However, evenwith the extraordinary discretionary deviation from Plan 1958-D, it was not possible

G-170 to accommodatethe record high supplies of 1972-73 and meet all theregula- tioncriteria and other requirements of theOrders. Recent studies of the International St. LawrenceRiver Board of Controlhave confirmed that it is notpracticable within existing physical constraints to design a planwhich will meet all suchcriteria and other requirements under the maximum supplies receivedto date.

G-171 Section 6

COST EVALUATION OF SELECTED REGULATION PLANS

6.1 Introduction

Of thenumerous regulation plans developed during the International Great LakesLevels Board Study, six were selectedfor detailed evaluation, namely: SO-901, SMIiG-11, SEO-901, SEO-33, SEO-42P and SMHEO-38. Thealpha- beticdesignation specifies the lakes that would be regulated under the plan, e.g., a SEO planspecifies that Lakes Superior, Erie andOntario would be regulated.The numerical designation is usedonly to identify the particular planselected from the array of plans developed. Each regulation plan has differentregulatory requirements which may include:channel improvements, regulatorystructures, modifications to existing regulatory facilities or combinationsof any of these three. A brief summary of regulatoryworks requirementsfor each of the selected plans is shownon Table G-14. The fol- lowingSections summarize the cost estimates ofregulatory facilities for eachof the selected regulation plans. All costfigures are expressed at 1971 pricelevels.

6.2 RegulationPlan SO-901

Of the SO-series ofregulation plans, SO-901 was selectedfor detailed benefitand cost evaluation. The following is a discussionof the hydraulic andoperational requirements of theplan and the design and cost estimates ofthe facilities needed to meet thoserequirements.

No majormodifications to existing channels or regulatory facilities at SaultSte. Marie were requiredfor the implementation of the selected regulationplan. However, frequent and reliable winter operation of the Lake Superiorregulatory works would be required. The hydraulic capacity of the St. Marys River.wasfound to be adequate. The required modifications to the existingworks for winter operation and the results of the check on the adequacyof the existing river channels are summarized in theensuing Sections.

The existing LakeOntario regulatory facilities are adequateto meet thechanged hydraulic regime resulting from the re-regulation of Lake Superior under Plan SO-901.

6.2.1 Modificationsto Existing Regulatory Works

Therecommended facilitiesfor winter operation are discussedin detail underSection 2.3.4. Theseinclude: electrical tubularheaters for gate andgain heating, electric powerand telephone lines to the structure, modificationsto provide motorized drives for all 16 sets ofgate hoist machinery. a metal-cladenclosure over 10 sets ofgates, and hinged sheet steel covers overopen gearing of all 16 gates. Theestimated capital costs of these work: is $574,000, which when amortizedover a project life of 50 yearsallowing fol replacementand salvage at aninterest rate of 7% representsan equivalent annualcost of $43,000. It is estimatedthat the annual operation and main- tenancecosts, Including hydraulic monitoring and communications, would be $27,000. The costs of therequired modifications to the Lake Superior control works are summarizedon Table G-15.

6.2.2 Capacity of ExistingChannels and Regulatory Facilities

The capacityof the existing regulatory facilities would be adequate bothto retard the flow during periods of lowsupply and to pass the maximum dischargeunder the hydraulic conditions required by Plan SO-901. The maximum water surfaceelevation at the U. s. Slip Gauge was computed tobe 582.1 IGLD for Plan SO-901 as compared tothe maximum allowableelevation belowthe locks of 582.9 IGLD as specifiedin the 1914 IJC Ordersof Approval. Therefore,the capacity of the lower St. Marys Riverwould be adequate for Plan SO-901.

6.2.3 Summary andCosts

No major capital expenditureswould be required at theLake Superior compensatoryworks for Plan SO-901. However, sincenormal winter operation ofthe control works at SaultSte. Marie couldrequire frequent changes in gatesettings, modifications would be necessary so thatsuch changes could be made more effectivelyand safely. The totalfirst cost of therequired modifications was estimated at $574,000 which, when amortizedover a project life of 50 years,allowing for replacement and salvage, at an interest rate of 71, correspondsto an annual cost of $43,000. The total annual costs in- cludingOperations and Maintenance costs were estimated at $70,000. No capitalexpenditure would be required for the Lake Ontario regulatory facilities as they are alreadyadequate to meet thechanged regime resulting fromthe re-regulation of Lake Superior under Plan SO-901.

The capacityof all existingregulatory works, in both the St. Marysand theSt. Lawrence Rivers, were checkedand found to be adequate to accommodate thelevel and flow regime that would result from the implementation of Plan so-901.

6.3 RegulationPlan SMHO-11

RegulationPlan SMHO-11 was selectedfrom the SMHO-series ofregulation plansfor detailed benefit and cost evaluation. Unlike the SO-series, Plan SMHO-11 requiresextensive regulatory works in the St. Clair-Detroit River system. The followingsections describe the works required,with correspond- ingcost estimates forthe St. Marysand St.Clair-Detroit River systems.

No majorcapital expenditures would be required for the St. Marys River system toensure compliance under Plan SMHO-11. Winteroperation of the controlgates is required similar tothe requirements of Plan SO-901 and for the same costs.

The capacityof the Lower St. Marys River was checkedand found to be adequate.The maximum elevationbelow the locks was computed tobe 582.1 IGLD which is less thanthe maximu& allowableelevation of 582.9 IGLD as specified in the 1914 IJC Ordersof Approval.

G-173 Table G-14 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY WORKSREQUIREMENTS

Selected St. Clair and RegulationPlan St. Marys RiverDetroit Rivers Niagara River St. Lawrence Ril

so-901 394 0 0 4 SMHO- 11 394 192 0 4 SEO-901 394 0 1 4 SEO- 3 3 3.4 0 192 4 SEO-42-P 394 0 192 4 SMHEO-38 394 192 192 4 LEGEND: 0 - No Regulatory Works Required 1 - ChannelImprovements Required 2 - RegulatoryStructure Required 3 - Modifications(Heating and Mechanization) to existing regulatory structurerequired 4 - Hydrauliccavacitv of Riverand Reeulatorv Structures

Table 615 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATEDCOSTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO LAKE SUPERIOR COMPENSATINGWORKS FOR PLAN SO-901

Total First (1971Costs Price Levels)$574,000 Interest andAmortization 50-yearProject Period at a 7% Interest Rate $ 43,000 Annual OperationMaintenanceand Costs $ 27,000

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $ 70,000

G-174 The existing Lake Ontarioregulatory facilities wouldbe adequate to meet the changed hydraulicregime resulting from theregulation of Lakes Superiorand Michigan-Huronunder Plan SMHO-11.

6.3.1 LakesMichigan-Huron Regulatory Works

The designand cost estimates of regulatoryworks required for the regulationof LakesMichigan-Huron that are summarizedbelow forPlan SMHO-11 were developed from the methodologypresented in Section 3.

Channel Capacity Increase iiequiremnts: The maximum channelcapacity increasesfor the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers under Plan SMHO-11 were determined by comparingthe regulated flows with the flowsthat would be obtainedfrom the regulated levels under 1933 outletconditions. The critical designlevels and flows are summarized on Table 6-16.

The maximum channelcapacity increase for theSt. Clair River,discussed inSection 3.3.7, was determinedto be 11,000 cfs.Since this is already built-in due tothe 25- and27-foot navigation improvements carried out in theSt. Clair Riversubsequent to 1933, theexisting channels are considered adequate.Consequently, no dredging would berequired in the St. Clair River for Regulation Plan SMHO-11.

Similarly,the maximum channelcapacity increase for the Detroit River was determinedto be 11,000 cfs. However, only 6,000 cfsof this amount is built-in relative to 1933 outletconditions because of compensationprovided inthe lower Detroit River as discussedin Section 3.1.7. Therefore,dredging would berequired in the Detroit River, the most optimallocation of which is in theTrenton Channel.

Channel Capacity Decrease Requirements: The monthly mean regulated flow resulting from Plan SMHO-11 were compared withthe flows that would bedetained from the regulated levels of Plan SMHO-11 appliedto the 1933 outletconditions. The critical designlevels and flows are summarized in Table G-17.

The maximum channelcapacity decrease required for both the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers was computed to be 29,000 cfs. However, additional retardation is requiredto compensate for the 11,000 cfschannel capacity increase requirements of theplan. Therefore, the maximum channelcapacity decrease requiredfor Plan SMHO-11 is 40,000 cfs for the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers.

RegulatoryStructures Required: Tests made utilizingthe mathematical modelsof the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers indicated that the water surface profiles (1933 outletconditions) generally wouldbe obtained by construction of four structures in the St. Clair Riverand five structures in the Detroit River. The fourstructures for the St. Clair River are thoselocated at Port Huron,Stag Island, St. Clair andNorth and Middle Channels as shownon thelocation map, Figure 6-39. The fivestructures for the Detroit River are thoselocated at PeachIsland (North and South), West Belle Isle, Zug Island, East FightingIsland and Trenton Channel also shown on the location map, Figure 639.

G-175 Table G-16 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE DESIGN CONDITIONS LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATORY WORKS PLAN SMHO-11

A. ST. CLAIR RIVER 1. LakesMichigan-Huron Regulated Level ...... 579.39 feet 2. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 574.58feet 3. St. Clair RiverRegulated Flow ...... 206,000 cfs 4. St. Clair River Flow* ...... 195,000cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Increase ...... 11,000cfs

B. DETROIT RIVER 1. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 574.58 feet 2. Lake Erie DesignLevel ...... 571.86 feet 3. DetroitRiver Regulated Flow ...... 211,000 cfs 4. DetroitRiver Flow* ...... 200,000 cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Increase ...... 11,000cfs

*Relativeto 1933 outlet conditions of Lakes Michigan-Huron.

Table G-17 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL CHANNEL CAPACITY DECREASE DESIGN CONDITIONS LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATORY WORKS PLAN SMHO-11

A. ST. CLAIR RIVER 1. LakesMichigan-Huron Regulated Level ...... 578.51 feet 2. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 573.41 feet 3. St. Clair RiverRegulated Flow ...... 165,000 cfs 4. St. Clair River Flow* ...... 194,000cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Decrease ...... 29,000 cfs B. DETROIT RIVER 1. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 573.41 feet 2. Lake Erie DesignLevel ...... 570.27 feet 3. DetroitRiver Regulated Flow ...... 170,000cfs 4. DetroitRiver Flow* ...... 199,000 cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Decrease ...... 29,000 cfs

*Relativeto 1933 outlet conditions ofLakes Michigan-Huron

G-176 The total first costsfor the ninestructures were estimated at $152.1 million.

YotuZ First, Capital and lquiualent Annual Cost of Re.platory Works: The total first costsof regulatory works, dredging and structures, required inthe St. Clair andDetroit Rivers for Plan SMHO-11 were estimated at $198.1 million. A summary of totalfirst, capital, annual interest and amortizationand Operation and Maintenance costs are shown onTable G-18.

6.3.2 Summary andCosts

Modificationsto the existing compensating works at SaultSte. Marie are requiredto permit safe and reliablewinter operation of the control gates. The costsof these modifications are summarized inSection 6.2.3. The capacityof the existing channels and regulatory facilities at SaultSte. Marie were checkedand found to be adequate.

Theworks required on the St. Clair-Detroit River system consist of ninecontrol structures located at strategicpoints along the river system anddredging in the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River. The costs of regulatoryworks for the St. Clair-Detroit River system are summarizedon Table G18.

No capitalexpenditure would be required for theexisting regulatory facilities inthe St. LawrenceRiver, the capacity of which were checkedand foundto be adequate to accommodate the changed inflow regime as a result of regulatingLakes Superior and Michigan-Huron.

The totalfirst, capital andequivalent annual costs of regulatory work requiredto meet thehydraulic requirements of RegulationPlan SHHO-11 are summarized on Table G-19. The regulatoryworks required for SMHO-11 would require a totalcapital investment of approximately $240 millionwhich, when amortizedover a 50-yearproject life at aninterest rate of 72, wouldbe equivalentto an annual expenditure of approximately $18 millionincluding operation andmaintenance costs.

6.4 RegulationPlan SEO-901

Duringthe course of the study, it becameevident that a largepropor- tionof the benefits associated with the regulation of Lake Erie wouldnot be''regulation benefits", per se, but rather would resultfrom a lowering of theentire range of levels onLake Erie, which,due to backwater effects, alsowould result in a minorlowering of Lakes Michigan-Huron. Regulation Plan SEO-901 was selectedfor detailed benefit and cost evaluation as being representative of thistype of plan. The regulation of Lakes Superiorand Ontario,under SEO-901 wouldfollow the same operatingpolicies as doesPlan SO-901 andwould require the same modificationsto the compensating works.

6.4.1 Lake Erie Regulatory Works

RegulationPlan SEO-901 requiresthat the channel capacity of the Niagara River be increased by approximately 4,000 cfs relative to the existing Table G-18 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SMHO-11

T otal First Costs (1971 Price Levels) $198,100,000Levels) Price (1971 Costs First Total TotalCapital Costs (End of 6-yearConstruction Period) 239,700,000 Annual Interest andAmortization (50-year Project Period at7%) 17,369,000 Annual OperationMaintenanceCosts and 564 ,000 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $17,933,000

Table G-19 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTSOF REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SMHO-11 ($ Thousands)

LAKE OUTLET Michigan- Superior Huron Ontario -TOTAL TotalFirst Costs (1971Price Levels) 57h 198,100 0 198.6; Total Capital Costs at End of Construction Period 574 2 39 ,700 0 240,2i Annual Interest & Amortization (50-yearProject Period at17,369 7%) 43 0 17 ,I1 Annual Operation & Maintenance 27 564 0 55 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 70 17,933 0 18 ,O(

G-178 hydraulicregime. Provision of this channel capacity increase would result in a generallowering ofLake Erie levels by 0.19 footas specified by Regu- lationPlan SEO-901. To accomplishthis, approximately 49,000 cu.yds. of rockwould have to be excavated from the Niagara River just belowthe Peace Bridge. The totalcapital costs wouldbe $1,360,000 which when amortized overthe 50-year project life at an interest rate of 71 areequivalent to an annualcost of $99,000. A summary ofcost estimates for Lake Erie regulatory works is shown on Table G-20.

TABLE G-20

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF LAKE ERIE REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SEO-901

Total First Costs (1971 PriceLevels) $1,270,000

Total Capital Costs at end of 2-year ConstructionPeriod 1,360,000

Annual Interestand Amortization (50-yearProject Period at 72) 99,000

6.4.2 Summary andCosts

Modificationsto the existing compensating works at SaultSte. Marie are requiredto permit safe and reliable winter operation of the control gates. The costsof these modifications are summarized inSection 6.2.3. The capacity of theexisting channels and regulatory facilities at Sault Ste. Marie were checkedand found tobe adequate.

Approximately 49,000 cu.yds. of channel excavation would berequired inthe Niagara River to increase its dischargecapacity by 4,000 cfs as re- quiredunder Regulation Plan SEO-901. The cost estimates ofLake Erie regulatory works are summarized In Table G-20.

No capitalexpenditure would berequired at the existing regulatory facilitiesin the St. Lawrence River. The regime of outflowsfrom Lake Erie wouldbe essentially the same as forPlan SO-901.

The regulatory works requiredfor Regulation Plan SEO-901 would require a total capital Investment of approximately $1,934,000 which when amortized over a 50-yearproject period at an interest rate of 7% Is equivalentto an annualcost of $142,000. The operation andmaintenance costs of the Lake Superiorregulatory works, for winter Operation has been estimated at $27,000 bringingthe total annual cost to $169,000. The cost estimates forregulatory worksrequired for Regulation Plan SEO-901 are summarizedon Table G-21.

G-179 6.5 Regulation Plan SEO-33

Of theSEO-series of regulation plans, Regulation Plan SEO-33 was selectedfor detailed benefit and cost evaluation. Unlike Regulation Plan SEO-901, RegulationPlan SEO-33 requires, inaddition to channel excavation, a regulatorystructure and shoreprotection works suchthat Lake Erieout- flows may beretarded during period of low levels. The regulation of Lake Sup.erior,under SEO-33, is similar inphilosophy to SO-901.

No major capital expenditure would berequired for the St. Marys River Systemunder Plan SEO-33. Winteroperation of thecontrol works atSault Ste. Marie would beacquired similar to the requirements of Plan SO-901 and couldbe achieved for the same costs.

The capacities of the Lower St. Marys River and thecompensating works at SaultSte. Marie were checked and foundto be adequate. The maximum elevationbelow the locks was computed to be elevation582.0 IGLD as compared tothe maximum allowableelevation of 582.9 IGLD as specified by the 1914 IJC Ordersof Approval.

The existing Lake Ontarioregulatory facilities are adequateto meet the changed hydraulicregime resulting from the regulation of Lakes Superior and Erie underPlan SEO-33.

6.5.1 Lake Erie Regulatory Works

An analysis ofLake Erie regulatedlevels and flows was carried out to determinethe critical designconditions, the results of which are shown in Table622. In summary, theregulatory structure must becapable of decreas- ingthe Lake Erie outflow by 40,000cfs at a stage of570.52 feetand the channel must beenlarged to overcome thehead loss across the structure while at the same time providing a channelcapacity increase of 27,000 cfs at a stageof 570.61 feet.

The total first costs of regulatoryfacilities were optimized,the resultsof which are summarized as follows:

(1) A controlstructure consisting of: (a)an ungated section with a span of 255 feet,(b) 8 gates(1 gate for standby) with 15 foot piers 90 feet c/c, and(c) a rock-fill dykeover the remaining 925 feet; at a total first costof $43,326,000.

(2) Channelexcavation amounting to 2,570,000 cubic yards of rock at a totalfirst cost of $40,709,000.

(3) Shoreprotective works at a totalfirst cost of$4,952,000. The totalfirst costs ofregulatory facilities would be$88,986,000. The above cost estimates are presentedin detail in Table G-23.

Since it is necessaryto maintain substantially the present Lake Erie stage-dischargerelationship during the construction period, the dredging and control structure construction program would have to be closely integratec

G-180 Table G-21 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATEDCOSTS OF REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SEO-901 ($ Thousands)

LAKE OUTLET Superior- Erie Ontario TOTAL

Total First Costs (1971 Price Leve1.s) 574 1,270 0 1,846 TotalCapital Costs at Tnd of C onstruction Period 574 1,360 574 PeriodConstruction 0 1,934 Annual Interest 6 Amortization (50-yearProject Period 99 at 7%) 43 0 162 AnnualOperation and Maintenance 27 0 0 27 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 70 99 0 169

Table G-22 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL DESIGNCONDITIONS LAKE ERIE REGULATORY WORKS PLAN SEO-33

DESIGN CONDITION ChannelCapacityChannel Capacity Increase Decrease

Lake Erie Regulated Level 570.61feet 570.52feet Niagara River Regulated Flow 226,000cfs 158,000cfs Lake Erie Natural Level 571.87feet 568.55feet Niagara River Natural Flow 199,000cfs 198,000cfs Hy draulic Requirements 27,000 cfsRequirementsHydraulic 27,000 40,000 cfs

Forthe purposes of this discussion, "Natural Conditions" refers to 1953 preprojectoutlet conditions of the Niagara River.

G-181 Table G-23 ESTIMATE OF FIRST COST (1971 PRICE LEVELS), LAKE ERIE CONTROL WORKS REGULATION PLAN SEO-33

LIS IT ITEM rNUANT I TY UNIT COST :IPlOU9T TOT 11.7 - s 5 CONTROL STRUCTURE- 1, Diversions F1 Cofferdams a) SheetPiling 2,615 ton 500.00 L, 307,500 b) Fill 318,280 1, yd. 1.00 319,300 c) Pumpingc) job 584,000 d) Removald) job 325,000 7,533,50 2. Excavation a) Overburdena) 30,000 1. yd. 2.50 75,000 b) Rock 215,000 1. )Id. 6 .OO 1,290,000 c) Rock SurfaceFreparation 17,700 I. yd. 3.00 53,100 1,419,lO

3. Grouting 47,750 1.f. 8 .OO 382,000 352 ,@O 4. Concrete(Including Formwork) a) Base Slab 127,000 1. yd. 40.00 i ,090,000 b) Rollway 27,570 1. yd. 115.00 1,’40,7@0 c) Piers 67,350 1. yd. 60.00 l,041,000 d)Retaining Wall 35,500 1. yd. 55.00 I,952, 500 e) Bridge 3,095 1. yd. 70.00 216,700 L2,530,9@

5. ReinforcingSteel 4,150 ton 400.00 1,660,000 1,660,OO 6. Gatesand Hoists a)Stoplog Gates 780 ton 1,360.00 . ,061,000 b) StoplogGuides 260 ton 1,1100.00 564,000 c)Stoplog Crane job 400,000 d)Tainter Gates 3,800 ton 1,360.00 ;,168,000 e)Tainter Gates - Embedded Parts 1,320 ton 1,400.00 .,548,000 f) TainterGates Hoists 8 unit 00.000.00 l,400,000 1,251,oo 7. Rock Fill Dam a)Stripping Common 27,400 u. yd. 0.80 21,900 b) Rock Fill & Riprap LO5,OOO u. yd. 6 .OO 630,000 c) Gravel Roadway 6,710 9. Yd. 4.00 26,800 678,70 8. Co:ntrolBuilding (5,000sq. ft.) job 150,000 150.00 9. Miscellaneous,Mechanical and Electrical job 800,000 800,OO 10 Contingcnciesat 20% job 1,279,100 6,279,lO 11 Engineering Design, Supervision andAdministration at 15% job ,651,200 5,651,200

Total First Cost 3,325,800 -SHORE PROTECTION WORKS 12 PropertyAcquisition and LandDevelopment job 284,000 284,000 13 GuardGate for Black Rock Canal a)Sector Gate 175 ton 1,360.00 238,000 b) Embeddedb) Parts 62 ton 1,400.00 86,800 c)Concrete Guides job 100,000 423,800

G-182 TableG-23 (Cont'd) ESTTXATE OF FIRST COST (1971 PRICELEVELS), LAKE ERIE CONTROL WOWS REGULATION PLAN SEO-33

UNIT ITEM IIJANTII" US IT COST AMOUNT TOTALS r ~ $ iaising of Concrete-masonry Wall (Canadian Side) 3) Removal of existing cap 8,50 1.f. 2.00 17,000 3) Concrete 1,50 cu. yd 45.00 67,500 z) ReinforcingSteel 1 ton 400.00 6,000 90.500

Rockfill Dykes 3) Stripping 14,40 cu. yd 0.60 8,640 3) Rockf i 11 218,30 cu. yd 6.00 1,309,800 c) Gravel Roadway 14,OO Sq- Yd 4 .OO 56,000 1,374,400 loncrete Facing 4 Kcy a) FaceSlab 1.80 cu. yd 45.00 81,000 b) Key 5,20 cu. yd 40.00 208,000 c) ReinforcingSteel 3 ton 400.00 14,800 . 303,800 Crib Wall a) Timber Crib 10 ,oo cu. yd 30 .OO 300,000 b) Concrete Cap 6 Wall 10,20 cu. yd 55.00 561,000 c) ReinforcingSteel 9 ton 400.00 38,400 899.400 Concrete-stone Breakwater 37.40 cu. yd 6.00 224,400 224,300 Contingencies at 259, job 900,300 900,300 Engineering Design, Supervision and Administration at 10; job 450,200 450,200

Total First Cost 4,951,800 c CHANNEL " Rock txcavation ,570,OO cu. yd 12 .oo 0,840,000 30,840,000 Contingencies at 20; job 6,168,000 6,168,000 Engineering Design, Supervision and Administration at 10% job 3,700,800 3,700,800 Total First Cost -40,708,800

TOTAL FIRST COSTS FOR REGULATORY WORKS $88,986,400

G-183 It is estimatedthat this restriction and those imposed by theforces of nature would extendthe construction period to 6 years. At aninterest rate of 7X, thetotal capital cost at the endof construction would be$107,673,000 which when amortizedover a 50-yearproject period amounts to an equivalent annualcost of$7,802,000. It is estimated that theOperation andMaintenance costs wouldbe $287,000 increasing the annual costs to $8,089,000. The cost estimates for Lake Erie regulatory works are summarized on Table G-24.

6.5.2 Summary andCosts

Modificationsto the existing compensating works at Sault Ste. Marie arerequired to permit safe and reliablewinter operation of the control gates. The costs of thesemodifications are summarized inSection 6.2.3. The capacity of theexisting channels and regulatoryfacilities at Sault Ste. Marie were checkedand found tobe adequate.

The regulatoryfacilities required to satisfy the hydraulic requirements ofPlan SEO-33 consistof a controlstructure composed ofungated, gated and dyked sections,channel excavation, and, shore protective works alongboth shorelinesto protect low lying areas locatedbetween the structure and the headof the river. The costs of Lake Erie regulatory works are summarized onTable 624.

No capitalexpenditure wouldbe required at theexisting regulatory facilities in the St. Lawrence River,the capacity of which were checkedand foundto be adequate for the water supplies 1900-67.

The regulatory worksrequired for Regulation Plan SEO-33 would require a totalcapital investment of $108,247,000which when amortizedover the 50-yearproject life at an interest rate of 7% is equivalentto an annual costof $8,159,000 including Operation and Maintenance costs estimates at $314,000. The cost estimates forregulatory worksrequired for SEO-33 are summarizedon Table G-25.

6.6 RegulitionPlan SEO-42P

Of thepartial regulation plans developed for Lake Erie Regulation, Plan SEO-42P was selectedfor detailed benefit and cost evaluation. Unlike RegulationPlan SEO-33, Plan SEO-42P doesnot require anychannel capacity decreaserelative to the existing hydraulic regime of the Niagara River. However, theregulation plan requires that flows be restored to preproject conditions when level andsupply conditions permit. The regulationof Lake Superior,under Plan SEO-42P is similar inphilosophy to Plan SO-901.

No majorcapital expenditure would berequired for the St. Marys River System.Winter operation of the control works at SaultSte. Marie is required similar tothe requirements of Plan SO-901 andwould beachieved at the same costs.

The capacityof the Lower'St. Marys Riverand the compensating works at Sault Ste. Marie were checkedand found to be adequate. The maximum elevationbelow the locks was computed tobe 582.0 IGLD as compared tothe

G-184 Table G-24 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF LAKE ERIE REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SEO-33

Costs (1971 Price Levels) $88,986,000Levels)Total Price First (1971 Costs TotalCapital Costs at the End of 6-yearConstruction Period 107,673,000 Annual Interest andAmortization (50-year Project Period at 7%)7,802,000 O peration and Maintenance Costs 287,000 CostsMaintenance Annual and Operation TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $8,089,000

Table G-25 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SEO-33 ($ Thousands) LAKE OUTLET Superior Erie Ontario TOTAL Total First Costs (1971 PriceLevels) 5 76 88,986 0 89,560 Total Capital Costs at End of ConstructionPeriod 5 74 107,673 0 108,247 Annual Interest andAmortization (50-yearProject Period 7,802at 7%) 43 0 7,845 Annual Operation andMaintenance 27 287 0 314 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 70 .8,089 0 8,159

G-185 maximum allowableelevation of582.9 IGLD as specified by the 1914 IJC Orders of Approval .

The existing Lake Ontarioregulatory facilities are adequateto meet thechanged hydraulic regime resulting from the regulation of Lakes Superior and Erie underPlan SEO-42P.

6.6.1 Lake Erie Regulatory Works

RegulationPlan SEO-42P requiresthat the Lake Erie outflowsbe in- creasedby 8,000 cfs when supplyand level conditions go beyondcertain threshold limits. At other times, Lake Erie outflowswould be returned to prepro ject (1953outlet) conditions. The requiredregulatory works consist of a 1,500-footlong diversion channel through Squaw Islandwith a bottom width of 35 feet andan attendant control structure with a 35-footwide submersibletainter gate. Earth levees wouldbe constructed on bothsides of thediversion channel to provide adequate freeboard. The diversionchannel andearth levees would be riprapped or otherwise protected to prevent bank erosion. The totalcapital costs of regulatoryworks are estimated at $4,900,000.Operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $25,000. The totalannual costs are estimated at $380,000over a 50-yearproject period at aninterest rate of 7%. The cost estimates for Lake Erie regulatoryworks requiredfor Plan SEO-42P are summarizedon Table G-26.

6.6.2 Summary andCosts

Modificationsto the existing compensating works at SaultSte. Marie are requiredto permit safe and reliable winter operation of the control gates. The costs of thesemodifications are summarized inSections 6.2.3. The capacitiesof the existing channels and regulatory facilities at Sault Ste. Marie were checkedand found tobe adequate.

The regulatoryfacilities required for Lake Erie consist of a gated diversionchannel through Squaw Island.Flows would be routed through the Black Rock Canal and thencethrough the diversion channel thus bypassing the constriction in the UpperNiagara River nearthe Peace Bridge. The cost estimates for Lake Erie regulatoryworks are summarizedon Table G-26.

No capitalexpenditure would be required at theexisting regulatory facilities in the St. Lawrence River, thecapacity ofwhich were checkedand found to beadequate.

The costs of regulatory works requiredto meet thehydraulic and opera- tionalrequirements of Plan SEO-42P are summarizedon Table G-27. Theregu- latoryworks required for Regulation Plan SEO-42P wouldrequire a total capitalinvestment of $5.5million which when amortizedover a 50-yearproject period at aninterest rate of 7% wouldbe equivalent to an annual cost of$450,000, including operation and maintenance.

G-186 TABLE G-26 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS OF LAKE ERIE REGULATORYWORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SEO-42-P

Total$4,900,000Levels) PriceFirst (1971 Costs TotalCapital Costs at the End of l-yearConstruction Period 4,900,000 Annual Interest & Amortization(50-year Project Period at 7%)355,000 Annual Operation25,000 & Maintenance TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $380,000

Table G-27 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COCTS OF REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SEO-42-P ($ Thousands)

LAKE OUTLET Superior Erie Ontario TOTAL Total First Costs (1971Price Levels) 5 74 4,900 0 5,474 Total Capital Costsat End of ConstructionPeriod 5 74 &,900 0 5,474 Annual Interest & Amortization (50-yearProject Period at 7%) 43 355 0 398 Annual Operation & Maintenance 27 25 0 52 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 70 380 0 4 50

6187 6.7 RegulationPlan SMHEO-38

Plan SMHEO-38 was selectedfrom the SMHEO-series ofregulation plans fordetailed benefit and costevaluation. Unlike any of the regulation plans previouslydiscussed, SMHEO-38 requiresregulatory facilities in the outlet riversof each of the Great Lakes includingLake St. Clair. Thefollowing Sectionsdescribe the extentof these works and corresponding cost estimates.

No majorcapital 'expenditure would be required for the St. Marys River System.Winter operation of the control works at SaultSte. Marie is required similar tothe requirements of Plan SO-901 and at the same costs.

Thecapacity of theSt. Marys Riverand the compensating works at Sault Ste. Marie were checkedand found to be adequate. The maximum elevation belowthe locks was computed tobe elevation 582.0 IGLD as compared tothe maximum allowableelevation of 582.9 IGLD as specified by the 1914 IJC Orders of Approval.

The existing Lake Ontarioregulatory facilities are adequateto meet thechanged hydraulic regime resulting from the regulation of eachof the upper Great Lakesunder Plan SMHEO-38.

6.7.1 LakesMichigan-Huron Regulatory Works

The designand cost estimates ofregulatory works required for the regulation ofLakes Michigan-Huron that are summarizedbelow for Plan SMHEO-38 were developedfrom the methodology presented in Section 3.

Channel Capacity Increase Requirements: The maximum channelcapacity increasefor the St. Clair andDetroit Rivers under Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 were determined by comparingthe regulated flows with the flows that would be obtainedfrom the regulated levels under 1933 outletconditions. The critical designlevels and flows are summarized on Table G-28.

The maximum channelcapacity increase for the St. Clair River was com- putedto be 11,000 cfs.Since this is alreadybuilt-in due to the navigation improvementscarried out in the St. Clair Riversubsequent to 1933, the existingchannels are consideredadequate. Consequently, no dredging is required in theSt. Clair Riverfor Regulation Plan SMHEO-38.

Similarly,the maximum channelcapacity increase for the Detroit River was computed tobe 11,000 cfs. However,only 6,000 cfs of this amount is built-inrelative to 1933 outletconditions because of compensation provided inthe lower Detroit River as discussedin Section 3.1.7. Therefore,dredging is requiredin the Detroit River, the optimallocation of which would be in theTrenton Channel, at a cost of $46.0 million.

ChannelCapacity Decrease Requiremnts: Themonthly mean regulated flowsresulting from Plan SMHEO-38 were comparedwith the flows that would beobtained from the regulated levels under 1933 outletconditions. The critical designconditions are shown onTable G-29.

G-188 Table G-28 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL CHANNEL CAPACITY INCREASE DESIGN CONDITIONS LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATORY WORKS PLAN SMHEO-38

A. ST. CLAIR RIVER 1. Lakes Michigan-Huron RegulatedLevel ...... 578.99 feet 2. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 574.17 feet 3. St. ClairRiver Regulated Flow ...... 203,000 cfs h. St. ClairRiver Flow* ...... 192,000 cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Increase ...... 11,000 cfs B. DETROIT RIVER 1. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 574.17 feet 2. Lake Erie DesignLevel ...... 571.39 feet 3. DetroitRiver Regulated Flow ...... 208,000,cfs 4. DetroitRiver Flow”...... 197,000 cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Increase ...... 11,000 cfs

*Relativeto 1933 outlet conditions of Lakes Michigan-Huron

Table G-29 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL CHANNEL CAPACITY DECREASE DESIGN CONDITIONS LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATORY WORKS PLAN SMHEO-38

A. ST. CLAIR RIVER 1. Lakes Michigan-Huron RegulatedLevel ...... 577.91 feet 2. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... i...... 572.84 feet 3. St. ClairRiver Regulated Flow ...... 151,000 cfs 4. St. Clair River Flow* ...... 188,000 cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Decrease ...... 37,000 cfs

B. DETROIT RIVER 1. Lake St. Clair DesignLevel ...... 572.84 feet 2. Lake Erie DesignLevel ...... 569.59 feet 3. DetroitRiver Regulated Flow ...... 156,000 cfs 4, DetroitRiver Flow* ...... 193,000 cfs 5. Maximum ChannelCapacity Decrease ...... 37,000 cfs

*Relativeto 1933 outlet conditions ofLakes Michigan-Huron

G-189 The maximum channelcapacity decrease required for both the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers was computed tobe 37,000 cfs. However,additional retardation is requiredto compensate for the channel capacity increase requirements of theplan. Therefore, the maximum channelcapacity decrease requiredfor Pian SMHEO-38 is 48,000 cfs forthe St. Clair andDetroit Rivers.

Regulatory StructuresRequired: Tests made utilizingthe mathematical models ofthe St. Clair andDetroit Rivers indicated that the water surface profiles (1933 outletconditions) wouldbe obtained by constructionof five structuresin each of the two rivers. The fivestructures for the St. Clair River are thoselocated at PortHuron, Stag Island, St. Clair, andNorth and MiddleChannels, all of which are illustrated onFigure G-39 withthe fifth structurelocated at Fawn Islandwhich is discussedin the following sub- section. The fivestructures in the Detroit River are thoselocated at PeachIsland (North and South), West Belle Isle, Zug Island, West Fighting Islandand Trenton Channel as shownon Figure G-39.

The totalfirst costs for the ten structures are estimated at $183.1 million.

Fawn IslandStructure - St. ClairRiver: Thehydraulic studies carried outfor the preparation of the preliminary cost curves considered a structurelocated at Fawn Island. However, thestructure, incorporatinE a rela- tivelyshort training wall, was foundto be relativelyineffective as aninstr ment toreturn the water surfaceprofile to 1933 conditions.Furthermore, the remainingfour structures provided sufficient retardation for what was assumed tobe the upper limit basedon the economic evaluation of very preliminary regulationplans. Since the maximum flowretardation required for Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 exceededthis upper limit establishedfor preliminaty design purposes,the Fawn Island structure was modifiedby extending the training wall. The design of therequired works and corresponding cost estimates was carriedout on the same basis,utilizing the same basic elements, as forthe othernine sites describedin Section 3. The locationof the Fawn Island structuretogether with pertinent hydraulic design data are shown on Figure G-b4. The totalfirst cost of the structure was estimated at $31.0 million.

Total First, Capital and Equivalent Annual Cost of Regulatory Works: The totalfirst costs of regulatory works, dredging and structures required inthe St. Clair andDetroit Rivers for Plan SMHEO-38 were estimated at $229.1 million. A summary of theestimated costs of Lakes Michigan-Huron regulatoryworks is shownon Table 630.

6.7.2 Lake Erie Regulatory Works

An analysisof Lake Erie regulatedlevels and flows was carried out to determinethe critical designconditions, the results of which are shown in Table G-31. In summary, theregulatory structure must be capable of decreas- ingthe outflow by 25,000 cfs at a stageof 569.78 feetand the channel must beenlarged to overcome the head loss across the structure while at the same time providing a channelcapacity increase of 22,000 cfs at a stageof 571.96 feet. I I ST. CLAIR RIVER CHANNELDESIGN FOR REGULATION OF LAKEMICHIGAN-HURON (SMHEO-38)

STRUCTURE (C.F.S.) WALL-FT.

1,500 7,700

'EXCEPT 2000 CFS THROUGH CONTROLSTRUCTURE FOR FLUSHING PURPOSES

Figure G-84 ST. CLAIR RIVER-PROPOSEDREGULATORY STRUCTURE AT FAWN ISLAND G-191 Table G-30 SUMMARYOF ESTIMATED COSTS OF LAKES MICHIGAN-HURON REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SMHEO-38

Total First(1971 Costs Price$229,100,000 Levels) TotalCapital Costs at End 6-yearof Construction Period 277,211,000 Annual Interestand Amortization (50-year Project Period at 7%)20,087,000 A nnual Operation and Maintenance Costs 687,000 CostsMaintenance and Operation Annual TOTAL ANNUAL. COSTS 20,774,000

Table G-31 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL DESIGNCONDITIONS LAKE ERIE REGULATORY WORKS PLANSMHEO-38

ChannelCapacity ChannelCapacity Increase Decrease

Lake Erie RegulatedLevel 571.96feet 569.78feet NiagaraRiver Regulated Flow 250,000cfs 158,000cfs Lake Erie NaturalLevel 572.95feet 568.55feet Niagara River Natural Flow 228,000 cfs 183,000cfs HydraulicRequirements 22,000cfs 25,000cfs

Forpurposes of this discussion, "Natural Conditions" refers to 1953preproject outlet conditions of the Niagara River. The total first costsof regulatory facilities were optimized,the results of which are summarized as follows:

(1) A controlstructure consistine, of: (a) an ungated section with a spanof 255 feet, (b) 8 gates (1 gatefor standby) with 15 foot piers 90 feet c/c,and (c) a rock fill dykeover the remaining 925 feet; at a total first costof $43,326,000.

(2)Channel excavation amounting to 2,090,000 cubic yards at a total first cost of $33,106,000.

(3)Shore protective works at a total first costof $4,952,000. The abovecost estimates are presentedin detail on Table (2-32. The total first costsof regulatory facilities wouldbe $81,384,000.

Since it is necessaryto maintain substantially the present Lake Erie stage-dischargerelationship during the construction period, the dredgine and controlstructure construction program would have to be closely inte- grated. It is estimatedthat this restriction and those imposed by the forcesof nature wouri extend the construction period to 4 years. At an interest rate of72, the capital cost at theend of construction would be $92,778,000which when amortizedover a 50-yearproject period amounts to anequivalent annual cost of $6,723,000. It is estimatedthat operation andmaintenance costs would be $287,000 thereby increasing the total annual costto $7,010,000. The cost estimates for Lake Erie regulatoryworks are summarized on Table G33.

6.7.3 Summary andCosts

Modificationsto the existing compensating works at SaultSte. Marie are requiredto permit safe and reliable winter operation of the control gates. The costsof these modifications are summarized inSection 6.2.3. The capacityof the existing channels and regulatory facilities at Sault Ste. Marie were checkedand found to be adequate.

The works requiredin the St. Clair-DetroitRiver System consist of 10 controlstructures located at hydraulicallystrategic points along the river systemand channel excavation in the Trenton Channel of the Detroit River. The costsof regulatory works required for the St. Clair-Detroit River System are summarized inTable (2-30.

Theworks required in the Niagara River consist of a control structure, shoreprotective works on both sides of the river channel between the controlstructure and the head of the river inthe channel excavation. The costsof regulatory works required for the Niagara River are summarized in Tab le G- 33.

No capitalexpenditure is required at theexisting regulatory facilities inthe St. Lawrence River, the capacity of which were checkedand found tobe adequate for the change in inflow regime resulting from the regulation of the upstreamlakes.

G-193 Table G-32 ESTIMATE OF FIRST COST (1971 PRICE LEVELS), LAKE ERIE CONTROL IJORKS REGULATION PLAN SMHEO-38

UNIT ITEM JUANT I TY UNIT COST AIIOUNT TOTAL! " - " CONTROLSTRUCTURE S > 1. Diversions E Cofferdams a)Sheet Piling 2,615 ton 500.00 I, 307,500 b) Fillb) 318,280 u.yd. 1.00 313,300 c) Pumping job 584,000 d) Removald) job 325,000 2,534,

2. Excavation a) Overburdena) 30,000 u. yd. 2.50 75,000 b) Rock 215,000 u. yd. 6.00 1,290,000 c) Rock Surface Preparation 17,700 9. yd. 3.00 53,100 1,415,: 3. Grouting 47,750 1.f. 8.00 382,000 352,( 4. Concrete(Includ ingFormwork) a)Base Slab 127,000 u. yd. 40.00 5,080,000 b ) Rollwayb) 27,570 u. yd. 45.00 1,?40,700 c) Piers 67,350 u. yd. 60.00 4,041,000 d)Retaining Wa 11 35,500 u. yd. 55.00 1,952,500 e ) Bridgee) 3,095 u. yd. 70.00 216,700 2,530,s 5. ReinforcingSteel 4,150 ton 400.00 1,660,000 1,660,C

6. Gates and Hoists a)Stoplog Gates 780 ton 1,360.00 1,061,000 b) StoplogGuides 260 ton 1,400.00 364,000 c)Stoplog Crane job 400,000 d)Taintcr Gates 3,800 ton 1.360.00 5,168,000 e) Tainter Gates - Embedded Parts 1,320 ton 1,400.00 1,848,000 f) Tainter Gates Hoists .8 unit 00,000 .oc 2,400,000 1,241 ,O 7. Rock Fill Dam a)Stripping Common 27,400 cu. yd 0.80 21,900 b) Rock Fill G Riprap 105,000 u.yd. 6 .OO 630,000 c) Gravelc) Roadway 6,710 9. Yd. 4.00 26, SO0 673,: 8. ControlBuilding job 150,000 150,( (5,000 sq. ft.)

9. Miscellaneous,bfechanial and Electrical job 800,000 800 ,:

0. Contingencies at 20% job 6,279,100 6,279,: 1. EngineeringDesign, Supervision andAdministration at 15% - j ob 5,651,200 5,651,;

TotalFirst Cost 13,325.8

SHORE PROTECTION WORKS 2. PropertyAcquisition and LandDevelopment job 284,000 284,

3. Guard Gate for Black Rock Canal a)Sector Gate 175 ton 1,360.00 238,000 b)Embedded Parts 62 ton 1,400.00 86, SO0 c)Concrete Guides job 100,000 424, -

G-194 Table G-32 (Cont'd) ESTIMATE OF FIRST COST (1971PRICE LEVELS), LAKE ERIE CONTROL WORKS REGULATION PLAN SXHEO-38

UNIT r BUST TOT.1I.S ITEM IJANTI TY IIN I T COST -I 14 Raising of Concrctc-masonry wall (Canadian Sidc) a) Rcmovnl of cxisting cap 8.50C 1.f. 2 .oo 17,000 b) Conc rc tc 1.50C ,u. yc 45.00 67,500 c) ReinforcingStccl 15 ton 400.00 6,000 90,500

15 Rockf i 11 Dykes a) Stripping 14,40( cu. yc 0.60 8,640 b) Rockfill 218,30( cu. yc 6.00 1,309,800 c) GravclIload~ay 14,00( sq. Y' 4.00 56,000 1,374,400 16 Concrete Facing & Kcy a) FaceSlab 1,80( cu. yc 45.00 81,000 b) Key 5,20( cu. yc 40.00 Z08.000 c) ReinforcingSteel 3: ton 400 .OO 14,800 303,800

17 Crib Wall a) Timber Crib lO,OO( cu. yc 30.00 300,000 b) Concrctc Cap & Val1 10,20( cu. yc 55.00 561,000 c) ReinforcingSteel 9( ton 400.00 38 ,JOC 899,400

18 Concrete-stone Breakuatcr 37,40( cu. y' 6.00 224,40C 224,400

19 Contingencies at 254. job 900,30C 900,300

20 Engineering Design, Supervision and Administration at 102 job 450,2011 450,200 Total First Cost 4,951,800 CHANNEL 21 Rock Excavation ,090,001 cu. y' 12.00 5,080,000 5,080,000 22 Contingencics at 200 job 5,016 ,OOC 5,016,000

2: Engineering Design, Supervision and Administration at 10% job 3,010,OOC 3,010,000 Total First Cost i3,106,@00

TOTAL FIRST COSTS FOR REGULATORY WORKS $81,383,600

G-195 The regulatory worksrequired for Regulation Plan SMHEO-38 would require a total capital investment of $371 million which when amortizedover a SO-year projectperiod at aninterest rate of 7% is equivalentto annual costs of $27,854,000 includingoperation andmaintenance costs estimated at $1,001,000. The estimatedcosts of regulatory worksrequired for Plan SMHEO-38 are summarized on Table G-34.

6-196 Table G-33 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTSOF LAKE ERIE REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SMHEO-38

C osts (1971 Price Levels) $81,384,000Levels)Total Price First (1971 Costs TotalCapital Costs at End of 4-yearConstruction Period 92,778,000 Annual Interest andAmortization (50-year Project Period at 7%)6,723,000 and Maintenance Costs 287,000Annual CostsOperationMaintenance and TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $7,010,000

Tab le G-34 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATEDCOSTS OF REGULATORY WORKS REQUIRED FOR PLAN SMHEO-38 ($ Thousands)

LAKE OUTLET Michigan- Superior Huron Erie Ontario TOTAL

Total First Costs (1971Price Levels) 5 74 81,384229,100 0 311,058 TotalCapital Costs at End of ConstructionPeriod 5 74 277,211 92,778 0 370,563 Annual Interestand Amortization (50-yearProjectPeriod at 7%) 6,72320,087 43 0 26,853 Annual Operationand Maintenance costs 287 27 687 0 1,001 TOTAL, 70ANNUAL, COSTS 7,010 20,774 0 27,854 ANNEX A

September 21, 1967

Terms ofReference

Regulatory Works Subcommit tee

1. To prepare a detailed workprogram, schedule and preliminary estimates ofstudy costs.

2. To preparepreliminary designs, plans, estimated first costs and annual costs(including operation andmaintenance) of regulatory works and associatednavigation locks, alterations to existing works and to channeldesign as may berequired to discharge critical highand critical lowflows at specifiedlake levels under various regulation plans. The works oralterations to be considered are inthe following areas of the Great Lakes - St.Lawrence System:

(a)Outlet of Lake Superior;

(b)Between Lakes Huron and Erie;

(c)Outlet of Lake Erie;

(d)International Reach of St. Lawrence River; and

(e) CanadianReach of St. Lawrence River.

3. To performsurface and sub-surface surveys at theproject sites as xt quiredto prepare the necessary preliminary plans, designs and cost estimates .

4. To coordinate its activities withthe Subcommittees on Navigationand RegulationSubcommittee.

G-198 ANNEX B

MEMBERSAYD ASSOCIATES REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE (1967-1973)

d -NAME AGENCY" PERIOD OF SERVIS FROM " -TO 1 J. Bathurst EnvironmentCanada Sept . 1967 Completion C. J. R. Lawrie Ministry of Transport Feb. 1970 Completion

K. A. Rowsell Can.Dept. of Public Works June 1972 Completion

J. D. Keefe EnvironmentCanada Dec. 1971 Completion 2 J. D. Bouchard St. LawrenceSeaway Authority Sept . 1967 Completion 1 B. Malamud U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers Feb. 1972 Completion

K. Hallock U. S. Army Corps of Engineers May 1971 Completion

J. Raoul U. S. Army Corps of Engineers May 1973 Completion

I. M. korkigian (Deceased) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Sept. 1967 Completion 2 C. A. Aune U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Sept. 1967 Completion 3 G. Millar (Deceased) Can. Dept. of Public Works Sept. 1967 June 1972

N. H. James EnvironmentCanada Sept. 1967 Dec. 1971 3 V. G. Goelzer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Sept. 1967 Apr. 1970

R. H. Gallinger U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Sept. 1967 May 1970 3 A. E. Wanket U. S. Army Corps of Engineers May 1970 Jan. 1972

R. B. McKee U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Apr. 1970 May 1971

S. H. Fonda, Jr. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Sept. 1967 Apr. 1973

1 Chairman,Respective Section

'Long-Term Associates

3PastChairman, Respective Section

G-199 ANNEX C

ABSTRACTS CONTRIBUTARY REPORTS TO APPENDIX G

OF CONTENTS "__I""TABLE

Report Page

WinterOperations at the Lake SuperiorRegulatory Works, SaultSte. Marie, WINTERSOF 1968-69,1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, Regulatory Works Subcommittee,Annual Reports ..... G-202

Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structures, Report on Present Conditions and Terms ofReference for Feasibility Study ofWinter Operations, Ad Hoc Group, Regulatory Works Subcommittee, May 1971...... G-203

Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structure. Feasibility Study forImprovements to Lake SuperiorControl Works,Acres ConsultingService, March 1972...... G-204

PreliminarySubsurface Investigation, Proposed Flow ControlStructures, St. Clair River, Ontario, 4 Vols., William Trow Associates(Hamilton) Limited, April 1971.. ... G-205

SubsurfaceInvestigation, Proposed Regulatory Structures BetweenLake Huron, Lake St. Clair andLake Erie, U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers, November 1971 ...... G-206

Supplement.Preliminary Subsurface Investigation, ProposedRegulatory Structures for Detroit River, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1971...... G-207

RegulatoryStructures on theSt. Clair-Detroit Rivers, Development of ConceptualDesigns, Terms ofReference, Ad Hoc Group,Regulatory Works Subcommittee, November 1971...... G-208

St.Clair-Detroit Rivers, Conceptof Regulatory Struc- tures, Volume 1 - ConceptualDesign and Estimates, Volume 11 - Criteria and Selectionof Elements, Acres ConsultingService, April 1972...... G-209

St. Clair-Detroit Regulatory Works,Report on Channeliza- tionRequirements for the St. Clair-Detroit River System, Ad Hoc Group,Regulatory Works Subcommittee,January 1974.. G-210

G-200 Development, Calibration and Application of Mathematical Models for the St. Clair,Detroit and NiagaraRivers, Regulatory Works Subcommit tee, January 1974...... G-211 PreliminaryFoundation Investigation, NiaRara River Flow ControlStructure and Appurtenances,Fort Erie, Ontario, William Trow Associates(Hamilton) Limited, March 1970.. ... G-212 PreliminaryCost Studies, Lake Erie Regulation, Environment Canada, April 1972...... G-213 WINTER OPERATIONS AT TllE LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATORY WORKS, SAULT STE. MARIE, WINTERS OF 1968-69,1969-70, 1970-71 AND 1971-72, REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE,ANNUAL REPORTS

ABSTRACT

Wintergate tests were conducted at theLake Superior compensatingworks during the 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72win- ter periodsto determine: (1) if a maximum winterflow of 85,000 cfs is tooconservative, and if so, can it beincreased?, (2) if theSt. Marys Rivercan carry higher flows during the winter period orduring part of it, and if so, when andto what limit?, and (3) if it is practicalto change the gate settings and vary the flow as a normalprocedure during the winter months, and if so, by whatmeans and howmuch would it cost? The reportsdescribe the equipmentused, the maintenance carried out and the equipment problems encounteredand how they were solved.The hydrologic condi- tionsleading up tothe tests were outlinedand reviewed from the contextof the overall planning for each winter period. The hy- draulicmonitoring and communication system established to identi- fyincipient ice jamming conditionsand its application are described. The actionstaken under winter conditions are outlined anddiscussed. In general, these included preliminary tests on themechanical equipment to ensure their adequacy, an increased flow test wherebythe flow was increasedbeyond 85,000 cfs when feasible and a simulatedemergency gate closing operation to de- termineif the gates could be closed in sufficient time toovert an ice jam. Duringthe latter two winterperiods, actual emergen- cies aroseand were respondedto adequately. Hydrologic, hydraulic, meteorlogicaland ice surveydata collected during the gate test program are presentedand analyzed. The time takento carry outeach gate movement operation was analyzedin light of the pre- vailingconditions at thecompensating works. The costs of the wintergate test program are presentedand discussed. The costs ofeach gate movement were analyzed so as toprovide a basis for thecosting of the selected regulation plans.

6202 LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATORY STRUCTURE, REPORT ON PRESENT CONDITION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY OF WINTER OPERATIONS, AD HOC GROW,REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE, MAY 1971

ABSTRACT

The Regulatory Works Subcommitteeestablished an Ad Hoc Group to'(a) provide an assessment of thepresent condition and remain- inglife of the Lake SuperiorRegulatory Structure, and(b) tofor- mulate Terms ofReference for a studythat would investigate alternate methodof winteroperation and other modifications which would improvethe safety and efficiency of thecompensating works. A fieldinspection was carriedout onDecember 16, 17, 1970. A brief description of thecompensating works is provided. The gates,piers, mechanicalequipment and sills were investigatedand reported on. Photographs are provided to document findings. It was concluded thatthe remaining life of the structuce should be 50 years if not indefinite provided a maintenanceprogram be undertaken to bring theCanadian portion of thestructure up tothe same standards as the American portion. Terms ofReference for a studyof modificationsto the compensating works topermit safe and reliable winter operation are alsoincluded.

G-203 LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATORY STRUCTURE, FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO LAKE SUPERIOR CONTROL WORKS, ACRES CONSULTING SERVICE, MARCH 1972

ABSTRACT

The ConsultingEngineering Firm ofAcres Consultinp, Services wereengaged by theSubcommittee to investigate alternate methods, and theircorresponding costs, of modifyingthe Lake Superior compensatingworks to permit safe and reliable winter operation of thecontrol gates. The methodsexamined forheating the gates andlorgains included Hot Air, Electric TubularHeaters, Air Bub- blers,Radiant Heating and Steam Heating or combinations thereof. Eachmethod was examinedfrom the point of view of efficiency, practicability,energy source, safety and costs and related to the problem at hand. Electric tubularheaters for both gate and gain heating was selectedprimarily for efficiency and cost reasons but also in view of theirpast performance in climates notunlike those of SaultSte. Marie. Variousmethods of energy supply to the site were examinedincluding electrical powerfrom the Great Lakes Power Company and/orEdison Sault Electric Company, Natural gasfrom NorthCentral Gas Corp.Ltd., Steam Power and Diesel Generator Power. Electrical energyfrom the Great LakesPower Company Limited was selected on thebasis of cost and reliability as well as safety reasons. The cost of telephoneservice to the site was determined. An electric motordrive was chosenover the gasoline engine drive to motorize the existing manual gate movingequipment on the basis of reliability and operational ease. The gatescould be moved either from a central control panel or from thebridge with the man- ualsystem retained as back-up. All opengear machinery would be coveredwith hinged sheet steel covers. The hoistbridge for the middle 10 gates would be fully enclosed in a continuous,weather- proofhousing. A prepainted metal cladenclosure was selected overthe asbestos clad enclosure on thebasis of durability and lowercapital andmaintenance costs. Various preliminary Lake SuperiorRegulation Plans were costedbased on the recommended f ac il it ies .

G-204 PRELIMINARYSUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURES, ST. CLAIR RIVER ONTARIO, 4 VOLS ., WILLIAM TROW AND ASSOCIATES(HAMILTON) LIMITED, APRIL 1971

ABSTRACT

Part I is a summary ofthe subsurface soil investigations performed forthe Subcommittee along the St. Clair Riverbetween Pt. Edward andSombra, Ontario, for four proposed Flow ControlStruc- tures. The structures are tobe located at PointEdwards, Stag Island(Corunna) St. Clair, Michigan (Mooretown) and at Fawn Island (Sombra). The subsurfacesoil investigations determined the geo- technicalconditions at each site. The data is presentedin this report. The reportalso covers preliminary foundation designs at thestructures and includespreliminary designs of varioustypes oftraining walls foreach structure. Construction methods for the foundations and training walls are discussed. The character of the material tobe dredged is given in thereport. The material tobe dredgedcan be summarized as looseto very loose sands, gravels and softto stiff clays. Thechemical characteristics of theground water as water in a concrete mix was investigated.Part 11 of William Trow Associates work is a set of drawingsshowing where the subsurfacesoil investigations were made. The reportconsists of sevendrawings. Part 111 is a set of sixdrawings, three of which are geotechnicalprofiles and three are drawingsthat contain a graphicalrepresentation of eachboring. Part IV contains a gra- phical representation of each boring with shear strength data and natural moisture content data plotted opposite the boring log. Thispart of thereport also contains all thedetailed laboratory plotted test data.

G-205 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED REGULATORY STRUCTURES BETWEEN LAKE HURON, LAKE ST. CLAIR AKD LAKE ERIE, U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, NOVEMBER 1971

ABSTRACT

Thisreport covers those Regulatory Structures and the dredging areas betweenPort Huron and Lake Erie that are located in UnitedStates waters. The reportcovers site geologyfor the St. Clair andthe Detroit Rivers andthe subsurface soil investigations. Boring logs withthe corresponding soil data plotted adjacent to theboring logs and individual laboratory test dataresults are includedin the report. Thls report also covers a foundationanaly- sis andrecommendations for foundation design for the flow control structures.and training walls. The reportdiscusses the type of material to be dredgedin the channels that are proposedto be deepened. The majorityof the material tobe dredged in order to achieverequired channel depths, will be a loose to medium dense sandto silty sands and soft to medium clays.

G-206 SUPPLEMENT, PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED REGULATORY STRUCTURES FOR DETROIT RIVER, U. S . ARMY CORPSOF ENGINEERS, DECEMBER 197 1

ABSTRACT * Thisreport was preparedto supplement the November 1971 Sub- surfaceInvestigation report and covers the Detroit River proposed regulatorystructures. The purpose of thesubsurface soil investigations was todetermine the soil conditions at eachstructure site and toanalyze the subsurface conditions at each site. The report coversstructures at the Belle Isle, Zug Island,and Grass Island locationsand training dikes at eachstructure location. Site Ge- ology of theDetroit River Basin is includedin the report. Foun- dationconditions and recommended foundationdesign, dredging and channelexcavation conditions are described.The material that wouldbe excavated consists of an alluvium and soft to medium glacio - lacustrine material. Thealluvium consists of sandy silt, silty clayand combinations of soft to medium grayclay.

G-207 REGULATORY STRUCTURES ON THE ST. CLAIR - DETROIT RIVERS, DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUALDESIGNS, TERMS OF REFERENCE, AD HOC GROUP, REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE

ABSTRACT

The purposeof the "Terms ofReference" was toprovide poten- tial consultingfirms the background fundamental information necessary to developdesigns and cost estimates ofRegulatory Structures on the St. Clair - DetroitRiver System. The documentincluded a briefdescription of theregulation studies, a descriptionof the river system, objectives required fordesign, data required including hydraulic results, design criteria and finallygeneral administrative conditions.

G-206 ST. CLAIR - DETROIT RIVERS, CONCEPT OFREGULATORY STRUCTURES, VOLUME 1 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND ESTI- MATES, VOLUME 11 - CRITERIA AND SELECTIONOF ELEMENTS, ACRES CONSULTING SERVICES, APRIL 1972

ABSTRACT

The necessaryengineering studies to prepare structure designs and cost estimates forregulatory structures in the St. Clair - DetroitRiver System were provided by theconsulting firm of Acres ConsultingServices Limited, Niagara Falls, Canada. Terms of refer- encefor the study and concepts were provided by theRegulatory Works Subcommittee in a document entitled "Regulatory Structures on theSt. Clair - Detroit Rivers, Development of ConceptualDesign, Terms ofReference," an abstract of which is contained in this sec- t ion on Appendix G .

Thisstudy was presentedin two volumes. Volume 1, entitled "ConceptualDesign and Estimates," containsthe layouts, conceptual designsand cost estimates forthe regulatory structures and their associated workssuch as the small boatpassage, shore protection works, etc., at each of nine sites. Volume 11, entitled "Criteria and Selection ofElements," presents factors and criteria thatgovern thedesign of theparts or elementsof the structures. Various con- ceptsof the elements of thestructures are described,and background environmentalconsiderations and construction methods that relate to the conceptsare referredto.

G-209 ST. CLAIR-DETROIT REGULATORY WORKS, REPORT ON CHANNELIZATION REQUIREMENTSFOR THE ST. CLAIR-DETROIT RIVER SYSTEM, AD HOC GROUP, REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE, JANUARY 1974

ABSTRACT

Thepaper presents the dredging requirements in the St. Clair - Detroit River systemin order to increase the hydraulic capacity ofthe system. Types of. material tobe dredged and proposed methodsof dredging are discussed. Maps showingthe locations of reaches to bedredged, and locations of dredgedisposal sites are shown. Disposal sites are selected in orderto minimize transportation cost as well as adverseeffects on marine environment. Methods to prepare andenhance disposal sites are discussed. The totalcosts of dredging, whichinclude hauling, dumping, site preparation,utility relocation, etc., are summarized.The paper also discusses the effects ofdredging and proposed regulatory works on theenvironment, and concludeswith a recommendationthat a workingmodel be built to access andevaluate the effects of regulation on theenvironment. DEVELOPMENT, CALIBRATION AND APPLICATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODELS FOR THE ST. CLAIR, DETROIT A!!D NIAGARA RIVERS, REGULATORY WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE, JAVUARY 1974

ABSTRACT

Mathematicalmodels, or digitized abstractions of the hydraulic characteristics of the Upper Niagara and St. Clair/Detroit Rivers, were employed by the Subcomnitteeto determine the location,nature and extentof regulatory works required to satisfy certainhydraulic requirements. Basic openchannel flow relationships were used.Manning's roughness coefficients were applied to estimate friction losses while variable coefficients were applied to estimate lossesdue to expansion and contraction. A kinetic energycoefficient was appliedto the Velocity head at eachsection to approximatefor the use of mean Velocity.The basic hydraulic characteristics were determined at each of the selected sections basedon the most up-to-datehydrographic and topographic data. The models were calibratedusing recent discharge and corresponding water levelmeasurements taken in each river. The resultsof thecalibration are indicated. Tests were also made to determine the applicability of the model over a widerrange of flow using adoptedopen-water gauge relationships. The applicationof the models indetermining the optimal location and quantity of thepro- poseddredging as well as thelocation of the proposed flow control and appurtenantstructures is discussedfor each river system. It was assumed thatManning's roughness coefficient would notchange significantlyunder slightly modified channel hydrography.

6-211 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION, NTAGARA RIVER FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE AND APPURTENANCES,FORT ERIE, ONTARIO, WILLIAM TROW ASSOCIATES(HAMILTON) LIMITED, MARCH 1970

ABSTRACT

The field work consisted of coredrilling 7 boreholesinto bedrock, 4 ofwhich were locatednear the axis ofthe proposed control structure at thelower site and 3 alongthe Canadian shoreline whereshore protective works wouldbe required.In addition, 25 boreholes were augeredto refusal along the Canadian shoreline. Soil and rocksamples were analyzedto determine the textural clas- sification andgeologic origin. Standard tests were conductedto determinethe prevailing geotechnical conditions. All collected andanalyzed data are containedin the report. Three types of soil were encountered: (a) alluviumconsisting of very loose to dense silts, sands and gravels,(b) glacial till consistingof very stiff tohard silty clay andclayey silt sand,(c) sanitary land fill on the U. S. shoreline on Squaw Island andsandy silt, ashes,bricks, etc., on a portionof the Canadian shoreline. The surficialbedrock at thestructure site consisted of cyclicallydeposited anhydrite/ gypsum, dolomiteand shale of the salinaformation. The top 10 feet is weathered, stress relieved and water bearing.Considerable quantities ofanhydrite-gypsum evaporites are presentwhich may besub- ject tointernal erosion as a resultof a differential head across thestructure. An echosounder and sparkersurvey was conductedin thevicinity of the flow control structure to establish the river bottomand bedrock profiles. Recommendations concerningthe nature ofthe structure foundation andshore protective works were made. PRELIMINARY COST STUDIES, LAKE ERIE REGULATION, ENVIRONMENT CANADA, APRIL 1972

ABSTRACT

The design and cost estimates of two alternatecontrol structures and appurtenancesrequired for the regulation of Lake Erie outflows are presented. Common designcriteria were usedthrough- out so that a validcomparison could be made. Both structures were designedover a widerange of hydraulic requirements, +60,000 cfs. The NiagaraRiver mathematical model was used todetermine the nature and extent of the requireddredging and toaccess the hydraulic adequacyof the regulatory works, both structure and dredging. The predominantforces which influenced the selection of the basic com- ponents of thecontrol structure were those imposed by ice and seiche. A submersibleTainter gate was selectedin view of the requirement to pass icewith thicknesses up to 20 feet. At each site, thespan was made as large as practicableto ensure the passage, to the de- greepossible, of ice floes.In view of therequirements of the 1950 NiagaraDiversion Treaty, anungated section of the structure was designedfor thus realizing significant cost savings and providing a relativelylarge opening for the passage of iceflows. A sill block, 20 feetin thickness, would berequired for the base of the structureto provide an adequate safety factor against floatation. Otherfeatures of thecontrol structure included15-foot concrete piers recessedupstream and downstream of the tainter gate for stop- logsthat wouldbe required for maintenance. The layout of the structure at either site would consistof: a rockfilled dykeex- tending from theCanadian shore overlain by a gravel roadway for site accessand a series of piers and taintergates over which a bridgedeck and crane would beprovided and an ungated section. The gatedand ungated section would befounded on a 20-footthick concrete sill tiedinto splayed wing walls at eitherend. A controlbuilding would beconstructed on theCanadian shoreline. Unit costsfor both the structure and channel excavation were developed from pastprojects conducted in the Great Lakes area. Costcurves were developedrelating the length of gatedand ungated structure requiredto their cost. These cost curves were thenintegrated withchannel excavation costs and related to the range of hydraulic requirements. The lower site, 1000 feetsouth of the International Bridge, was selected on thebasis of a costsaving of approximately $30 million.Shore protective works were requiredalong both shorelinesto prevent innundation of low lyingproperties as a result of the changed hydraulicregime upstream of the control structure. Thesestudies formed a basisfor the final design of selected regulation plans as well as forthe development of preliminary regulation plans.

G-213 *U,S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1974-651-029/02