In cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: 

History and Environmental Consequences

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5122

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Construction of Shipping Channels 

in the Detroit River: History and 

Environmental Consequences

By David H. Bennion and Bruce A. Manny

In cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5122

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Bennion, D.H., and Manny, B.A., 2011, Construction of shipping channels in the Detroit River—History and 

environmental consequences: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5122, 14 p.

Cover photo:

View of the Detroit River after construction of the Livingston Channel.
iii

Contents

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................2

History..............................................................................................................................................................5

Environmental Consequences...................................................................................................................11

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................11

References....................................................................................................................................................12

Figures

1. Map showing location of Detroit River study area .................................................................3

2. Photographs showing Detroit River bed before and 

after Livingstone Channel construction....................................................................................4

3. Map showing Lower Detroit River shipping channels ...........................................................6

4. Photograph showing Livingstone Channel rock cut within the cofferdam.........................7

5. Map showing extent of Detroit River channel construction and 

dredged spoil disposal works in 2003......................................................................................10
iv

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 2.54 inch (in.) 

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

Water-withdrawal or flow rate

liter per minute (L/min) 0.2642 gallon per minute (gal/min)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)
Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: 

History and Environmental Consequences 

By David H. Bennion and Bruce A. Manny

Abstract 

The Detroit River is one of the most biologically diverse 

areas in the Great Lakes basin. It has been an important 

international shipping route since the 1820s and is one of the 

busiest navigation centers in the United States. Historically, it 

supported one of the most profitable Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes. 

Since 1874, the lower Detroit River has been systematically 

and extensively modified, by construction of deepwater channels, to facilitate commercial shipping. Large-scale dredging, 

disposal of dredge spoils, and construction of water-level 

compensating works has greatly altered channel morphology and flow dynamics of the river, disrupting ecological 

function and fishery productivity of the river and influencing 

Great Lakes water levels. From 1874 to 1968, major construction projects created 96.5 kilometers (60 miles) of shipping 

channels, removed over 46,200,000 m3 of material, covered 

4,050 hectares (40.5 square kilometers) of river bottom with 

dredge spoils, and built 85 hectares of above-waterline compensating works at a total cost of US$283 million. Interest 

by industries and government agencies to develop the river 

further for shipping is high and increasing. Historically, as 

environmental protection agencies were created, construction impacts on natural resources were increasingly addressed 

during the planning process and, in some cases, assessments 

of these impacts greatly altered or halted proposed construction projects. Careful planning of future shipping-channel 

construction and maintenance projects, including a thorough 

analysis of the expected environmental impacts, could greatly 

reduce financial costs and ecological damages as compared to 

past shipping-channel construction projects.

Introduction

As noted in Steedman and others (1996), “There is 

little doubt that retrospective study of Great Lakes aquatic 

ecosystems, including human uses and abuses, can underpin 

future efforts to conserve and restore aquatic habitats.” Here, 

we review the historical development of deep-draft shipping 

channels in the Detroit River, including past decision making, and examine ecological ramifications of the St. Lawrence 

Seaway and proposed expansions of the seaway on the Detroit 

River. 

The Detroit River is one of the busiest navigation centers 

in the United States (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004) 

and is one of the most biologically diverse areas in the Great 

Lakes basin (Bull and Craves, 2003). However, conflicting 

uses of the river and its connecting waters for commercial navigation, waste disposal, fishing, and recreation have resulted in 

many detrimental environmental changes in the river (Manny 

and others, 1988; Manny and Kenaga, 1991). Coupled with 

shoreline encroachment and the loss of coastal wetlands, 

alteration of riverbed substrates has reduced habitat for fish 

and wildlife in the Detroit River, leading to designation of the 

river as a binational Area of Concern (Manny, 2003). Such 

natural resources have high intrinsic value to society and are 

linked to sustainable economic prosperity in southeast Michigan (Hartig, 2003a). Restoration of fish spawning and nursery 

habitat in the Detroit River will require an understanding of 

where and why habitat for fish and wildlife was sustained in 

the river historically (Goodyear and others, 1982; Bull and 

Craves, 2003; Schloesser and Manny, 2007), how changes in 

the river environment affected fish and wildlife habitat and 

reproduction (Bull and Craves, 2003), and what conditions 

fish and wildlife require to reproduce and sustain themselves 

(Manny and Kennedy, 2002; Wei and others, 2004; Manny and 

others, 2005b; Schloesser and Manny, 2007).

Interest in expanding the Great Lakes seaway system is 

high and increasing. In June 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) released a reconnaissance report on expanding the Great Lakes Seaway system entitled “Great Lakes 

Navigation System Review” (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2003a). That report listed the following planning objectives: 

(1) contribute to the development and efficient utilization of 

the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway commercial navigation system infrastructure; (2) contribute to an increase in 

output of goods, services, and external economics of the Great 

Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway system; (3) contribute to the 

maintenance of existing water levels and flows for the Great 

Lakes; and (4) contribute to the quality of the Great Lakes/

St. Lawrence Seaway environment, giving particular attention 
2 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

to the ecosystem and water quality of the lakes. The report 

explores options for increasing the depth of shipping channels 

in the Detroit River from 8.0 m to 9.1 and 10.7 m. In November 2007 “The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study Final 

Report” (Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study, 2007; 

http://www.glsls-study.com/English%20Site/home.html) was 

released. This study involved Transport Canada, the Corps, the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Management Corporation (Canada), Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (United States), Environment 

Canada, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The objectives 

stated in the Memorandum of Cooperation that initiated this 

study are (1) evaluate the condition and reliability of the Great 

Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system, including the relative 

benefits and costs of continuing to maintain the existing transportation infrastructure; (2) assess the engineering, economic, 

and environmental factors associated with the current and 

future needs of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system 

and the transportation infrastructure on which it depends; 

and (3) identify factors and trends affecting the domestic and 

international marine transportation industries serving the Great 

Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway, including evolving intermodal 

linkages and transportation technologies. The purpose of our 

investigation was to evaluate the history and environmental 

consequences of past and proposed shipping channel construction in the Detroit River.

Study Area

The Detroit River is 51.5 km long, ranges from 1.2 

to 6.6 km in width, and has an average discharge of 5,200 

m3/s (Manny and others, 1988). It is part of the boundary 

between the United States and Canada and is spanned by three 

international crossings over which about US$100 billion in 

trade is exchanged annually between Canada and the United 

States (Hartig, 2003b; fig. 1). The river supplies drinking 

water for over 5 million people and is used for recreational 

boating, hunting, and sport fishing that contribute significantly 

to local economies (Manny and others, 1988; Hartig, 2003b). 

Historically, the river supported a large fishing industry (Roseman and others, 2007), and today, it is home to the Detroit 

River International Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/

midwest/DetroitRiver/). The river once provided spawning 

habitat within the honeycombed limestone bedrock that has 

since been removed during creation of the shipping channels 

(fig. 2). The river now provides habitat to over 60 species of 

fish (Manny and others, 1988; LaPointe, 2005), 16 of which 

are threatened or endangered (http://www. huron-erie.org), and 

it is part of a Great Lakes flyway used by millions of migratory birds (Manny, 2003). It is also one of the busiest shipping 

lanes in the world. Approximately 68 million metric tons of 

commercial cargo is shipped on the river annually (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 2000, 2004). The river has been an important shipping route since the early 19th century. In 1907, more 

tonnage passed through Detroit than through London and 

New York combined (Nolan, 1997). The lower Detroit River 

has undergone extensive modifications, including construction of deepwater channels, to facilitate commercial shipping. 

Large-scale dredging and dumping of spoils and construction of compensating works has greatly altered flow patterns 

and destroyed historically and commercially significant Lake 

Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) spawning grounds in the 

Detroit River (Roseman and others, 2007). This heritage fishery has begun to reestablish itself in the river during the past 

few years (Carl and others, 2007; Roseman and others, 2007). 

The lower river contains the Fighting Island, Trenton, Livingston, and Amhurstburg Channels (fig. 3).
Study Area 3

Lake Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake Erie

Michigan

Ohio

Indiana

Ontario

Lake St. Clair

86°W 85°W 84°W 83°W

45°N

44°N

43°N

42°N

87°W

Detroit River

Study Area

0 5025 Kilometers

0 25 50 Miles

Figure 1. Location of Detroit River study area.
4 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

Before

After

Figure 2. Detroit River bed before and after Livingstone Channel construction.
History 5

History

The Detroit River has a long history of channel modifications, which were constructed from the late 1800s to 1968. In 

1874, the first construction project on the river started at Limekiln Crossing (fig. 3) near Bois Blanc Island (Larson, 1981). 

The original goal of a curved channel 914 m long, 91 m wide, 

and 6 m deep was modified in 1883 to create a straightened 

channel (Mansfield, 1899). In 1886, work to expand the channel to 122 m in width started, and in 1888, work to secure a 

width of 134 m and a depth of 6.4 m began. Between 1901 and 

1904, this channel was widened to 183 m. The River and Harbor Act of 1892 called for a channel roughly 8 km long, 6.4 m 

deep and 244 m wide through soft sediments and limestone 

bedrock at the mouth of the Detroit River (fig. 3) and removal 

of shoal areas at the entrance to the river from Lake St. Clair. 

Partly in response to encouragement from shipping interests 

(Livingstone, 1891), this act also called for modification of a 

shipping channel in the Ballards Reef area (fig. 3) to a depth 

of 6.4 m and a width of 91 m from the head of Grosse Ile to 

the north end of Limekiln Crossing, just east of Stony Island. 

Previous work in the southern Ballards Reef area had created 

a smaller, 5.3-m-deep channel through solid rock (Horton and 

Grunsky, 1927; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1938). 

The River and Harbor Act of May 3, 1899, authorized a 

survey by the Corps to “secure a safe and convenient channel 

21 ft (6.4 m) deep” from Detroit to Lake Erie (U.S. House of 

Representatives, 1900). All construction work on the Detroit 

River shipping channels between the head of Grosse Ile and 

the Detroit River lighthouse in Lake Erie was to achieve a 

minimum depth of 5.6 m. Ongoing projects are outlined in this 

report, as well as three plans for a “safe and convenient” channel. The River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902, selected one 

of the proposed routes, creating what has become the Amherstburg channel (fig. 3) in Canadian waters. The plan called for 

a channel with a minimum width of 183 m and 6.4 m depth 

(using the newly adjusted lowest mean monthly water stage 

of November 1895 as a reference). An estimate of cost shows 

that 79,400 m3 of bedrock needed to be removed from the 

areas of Ballards Reef (fig. 3) and Limekiln Crossing (fig. 3) 

(U.S. House of Representatives, 1904). 

In 1906, at the request of Congress, the options for 

increasing the depth of all Detroit River shipping channels 

from 6.7 to 7.6 m were explored by the Corps. Within this 

investigation, it was noted that work had been in progress at 

the mouth of the Detroit River and at Limekiln crossing for 

the previous 30 years and that the full capacity of these channels had never been realized, because of the ongoing work. 

Ultimately, the increase in depths was not recommended by 

the Corps because the constant construction obstructed the 

full use of existing channels, and most harbors at the time 

were dredged to a depth of only 6 m. While exploring these 

options, the Corps determined that the amount of freight 

passing through the river warranted construction of a second 

channel, with a depth of 6.7 m and extending from the deep 

water of Lake Erie, west of Bois Blanc Island, to the existing 

Ballards Reef channel. It was estimated that construction of 

this channel would require initial removal of 5,666,116 m3 of 

material (U.S. House of Representatives, 1906). The River and 

Harbor Act of March 2, 1907, officially approved construction of the Livingstone Channel (fig. 3) for downbound traffic 

west of the Amherstburg Channel, with a depth of 6.7 m and 

a width of 91 m across Limekiln Ridge (fig. 3) to Bar Point 

and 244 m from there to the 6.7-m depth contour of western 

Lake Erie. To facilitate the removal of bedrock in the Limekiln Ridge area, a 1,768-m-long cofferdam was constructed 

to allow excavation in the dry (fig. 4). In 1909, the Corps and 

shipping interests proposed that the section of channel within 

the cofferdam be widened to 137 m to help avoid blockage in 

the event of vessel grounding and that a dike be constructed 

from the lower end of the dam to Bois Blanc Island to “avoid 

injurious cross currents.” This dike was not built. These cross 

currents were the result of a natural channel that crossed 

the Livingstone Channel above Bois Blanc Island and carried 35 to 40 percent of the river’s flow east of Stony Island 

(U.S. House of Representatives, 1910). This document also 

states that, when completed, the channel would provide a 

depth of about 7 m through Limekiln ridge where the original 

depth was approximately 1.2 m. Before channel modification these rock shoals at Limekiln Ridge and Ballards Reef 

were a natural flow-control point for the water levels of lakes 

Michigan-Huron, because more than 60 percent of the total 

flow in the Detroit River passed between Stony Island and 

Canada (Horton and Grunsky, 1927). 

The unmodified channel that ran from Fighting Island 

to the north end of Grosse Ile required vessels to make five 

turns within 5.3 km. In 1911, directed by Congress, the Corps 

recommended straightening, widening and deepening this section of river. The new channel would be 6.7 m deep and 244 m 

wide (fig. 3) and provide a straight course from the head of 

Fighting Island to the head of Grosse Ile. The Corps estimated 

that about 1,277,877 m3 of material would need to be dredged 

to improve the existing channel but that this material would 

be removed from shoal areas mostly near the base of Fighting Island and the east side of Grassy Island (U.S. House of 

Representatives, 1911). The Report of the U.S. Commissioner 

of Fisheries for the fiscal year 1914 stated, “The whitefish 

fisheries of the Detroit River have been undergoing a steady 

decline for years” (Smith, 1915). The Grassy Island area was 

known for its productive capacity as a fishery for Lake Whitefish (Milner, 1873; Farmer, 1884). With approval by the River 

and Harbor Act of March 4, 1913, construction by the Corps 

of the Fighting Island channel from 1914 to 1915 removed the 

whitefish spawning habitat there, and spawning runs of Lake 

Whitefish disappeared from the Detroit River shortly thereafter (Smith, 1917; Roseman and others, 2007).
6 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

!

!

!

!

!

Wyandotte

Gibraltar

Amherstburg

Trenton

Riverview

Ballards Reef Channel

Amherstburg Channel

Livingstone Channel

Coffer Dam Area

Fighting Island Channel

Livingstone Channel

Limekiln Crossing

Amherstburg Reach

Bar Point

Wyandotte Channel

Trenton Channel

Bois Blanc Island

Grosse Ile

Fighting Island Grassy Island

Stony Island

Celeron Island Sugar Island

83°15'W 83°10'W 83°5'W 83°0'W

42°10'N

42°5'N

42°0'N

41°55'N

Lake Erie 0 2.5 Kilometers 5

0 2.5 5 Miles

Michigan

Ontario

Figure 3. Lower Detroit River shipping channels. 
History 7

Figure 4. Livingstone Channel rock cut within the cofferdam. (Library of Congress [n.d.])

In 1917, the focus shifted back to the Livingstone Channel. The Corps recommended work to enlarge the portion 

through the rock cut from below the cofferdam to the junction 

with the Amherstburg Channel (fig. 3) from 91 m to 137 m 

in width and to enlarge the lower 3.6 km of the channel to 

a width of 244 m and a depth of 6.7 m. Also proposed with 

this work was the construction of a dike along the west side 

of the rock-cut portion below the cofferdam and creation of a 

spoil bank to a height 0.3 m below water surface east of the 

cofferdam (creating Crystal Bay) between the Livingstone and 

Limekiln Channels. The new dike was 6,340 m long, with a 

457-m gap just north of Bois Blanc Island. These works were 

recommended to both reduce the cross current (described as 

a “serious menace to navigation”) and maintain water levels 

upstream of the channels. By 1937, in addition to the dike 

along the western side of the rock-cut portion, a dike along 

the eastern side of the channel had been added and a second 

cofferdam created to dewater this area for excavation. A cross 

dike running from the middle of the western dike towards 

Sugar Island was also constructed to help maintain water 

levels. Of note are the comments that “ . . . the argument for 

widening this [Livingstone] channel at the present time does 

not rest upon the question of its capacity, but entirely upon 

the desirability of making the passage less dangerous,” and 

regarding water levels, “As the data are not sufficient for an 

exact determination of the lowering due to the increase in 

section of the Livingstone Channel and of the extent of the 

compensation required, careful hydraulic and water-level measurements should be started at the time the proposed widening 

is undertaken, and these should be continued until the completion of the work” (U.S. House of Representatives, 1917). The 

report further discusses the new datum plane for project works 

and mentions that this new plane of reference leaves almost 

all previous works 0.06 m deficient in depth. In 1928, work 

was recommended by the Corps and approved by Congress 

to deepen the Livingstone and Fighting Island Channels to 

7.6 m in soft material and to 7.9 m in ledge rock. Widening the 

rock-cut portion of the Livingstone Channel to 183 m was also 

suggested but not undertaken. By 1928, US$160 million had 

been spent by the United States on navigation improvements 
8 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

throughout the Great Lakes (U.S. House of Representatives, 

1928). In 1927 and later, the Detroit River channel modification, combined with the work that was done upstream in the 

St. Clair River, was reported to be responsible for a permanent 

20- to 25-cm drop in the water levels of Lakes Michigan and 

Huron (Derecki, 1985; Quinn, 1985).

Prior to federal involvement, Detroit Edison Co. had 

dredged an area of the river bottom in the Trenton Channel in 

front of their electric power generating plant in Trenton, Mich. 

In 1935, construction began on a short channel to Wyandotte, 

Mich., 6.4 m deep and 91 m wide (fig. 3) through the shoals 

just north of Grassy Island from the deep water at the head of 

the Fighting Island channel to Wyandotte. In 1937, construction in the Trenton Channel of a turning basin west of Grosse 

Ile was approved by Congress (U.S. Senate, 1949). This 

channel extended from the upper Grosse Ile Bridge south to 

a turning basin 518 m below the lower Grosse Ile Bridge and 

was 6.4 m deep and 76 m wide, with a width of 91 m below 

the lower Grosse Ile Bridge (fig. 3). The turning basin was the 

same depth and occupied an area of 7 ha. Also as part of this 

project, the shoal area at the head of Grosse Ile was removed. 

Built mostly to transport materials to industry and the Detroit 

Edison powerplant (U.S. Senate, 1949), these channels were 

opened for commerce on July 22, 1940 (U.S. Senate, 1949). 

The north end of the river received Federal government attention again with a 1941 investigation into improving an existing, privately funded channel north of Belle Isle from Windmill Point to Fairview slip, just west of the Detroit Edison 

Conner’s Creek powerplant. This is a side channel extending 

from near the end of the Lake St. Clair shipping channel, 

which extends into the mouth of the Detroit River. The existing channel had a controlling depth of 5.9 m. (U.S. House of 

Representatives, 1946). The inbound tonnage in 1941 for the 

section of river in question was reported to be 999,718 metric 

tons, whereas outbound tonnage was only 74,843 metric tons. 

The proposed project was for a channel 6.4 m deep (with a 

0.6-m overdepth) and 61 m wide. A 1942 Report to the Board 

of Engineers of Rivers and Harbors stated, “In view of the 

urgent nature of the requests for enlarging the channel, no 

public hearing was held, but written communications urging, 

or signifying approval of, the proposed improvements were 

received from practically all of the local industries making 

use of the terminal facilities . . . .” (U.S. House of Representatives, 1946). Also within this report is one of the earliest 

environmental impact statements made in reporting Detroit 

River projects to the U.S. Congress. It states, “No questions 

of water power, protection from floods, wildlife preservation, 

abatement of pollution, irrigation, or land reclamation are 

encountered in connection with the improvement proposed 

herein” (U.S. House of Representatives, 1946). This project 

was approved by the congressional act of March, 2, 1945 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003b). 

In 1946, an extensive review of existing conditions and 

recommendations for improvements throughout the Great 

Lakes seaway system was made. The improvements proposed for the river included deepening the western 91 m of 

the Amherstburg Channel and the section of Ballards Reef 

Channel above the Livingstone Channel to 8.2 m with a 

0.6-m overdepth. To compensate for the increased water flow 

through the bigger channels, large-scale compensating works 

between Gibraltar, Mich., and the southern end of Grosse Ile 

were proposed. The proposed works consisted of a series of 

dikes and a weir to close off most of the outlets to Lake Erie 

from the Trenton Channel reach of the river. The end result 

of these works would have reduced the outflow of the river 

from the Trenton reach to a confined channel 183 m wide 

and approximately 3 m deep. The location of these works 

was selected because “Reduction in flow by constricting 

works in the navigation channels is undesirable and impractical” (U.S. House of Representatives, 1948) and “The most 

satisfactory method, and probably the only practical one, of 

effecting (water level) compensation seems to lie in reducing 

the flow through Trenton Channel” (U.S. House of Representatives, 1948). Several companies, including Detroit Edison 

Co., Monsanto Chemical Co., and Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 

expressed concern about increased pollution and higher river 

water temperature that these proposed changes would generate in the river. This stretch of the river was their source of 

cooling water. Detroit Edison alone used 2,271,247 L/min, and 

an increase in temperature would mean a decrease in cooling 

efficiency. An increase in pollution would require the companies to install additional water-filtering mechanisms. The village of Trenton also lodged concerns about the project saying 

that “ . . . reduction in flow in Trenton Channel to any extent 

approaching the stated percentages will have an adverse effect 

on the general health and welfare of the village and adjoining 

community, and will retard future civic and industrial development of the area . . .” (U.S. House of Representatives, 1948). 

Governor Kelly of Michigan also included a letter stating his 

unfavorable opinion of the proposed works and suggesting that 

a study be undertaken to locate the necessary works entirely 

on the Canadian side of the river (U.S. House of Representatives, 1948). This plan was not completed (U.S. Senate, 1955). 

The project to deepen sections of the Amherstburg 

and Ballards Reef channels was revisited in 1955 and again 

approved by Congress with the additions of a 0.6-m increase 

of depth to the Fighting Island Channel and an 8.7-m depth 

throughout downbound and two-way channel except Lower 

Livingstone Channel, which was to be 8.8 m deep. A depth of 

8.7 m was called for in the western portion of Hackett Reach 

and in Lake Erie from the mouth of the Detroit River through 

Pelee Passage Shoal. The Trenton Channel turning basin also 

would be extended. The plan for the compensating works, 

however, was greatly altered. It declared that “ . . . Lake St. 

Clair water levels at the present time are 0.07 ft (0.02 m) 

higher with respect to Lake Erie stages than they were 50 

years ago as a result of overcompensation in the Detroit 

River when the Livingstone Channel was deepened to 27 feet 

(8.2 m)” (U.S. Senate, 1955). Instead of works at the mouth 

of the Trenton Channel, a dike extending downriver from 

the northern junction of the Livingstone and Amherstburg 

Channels, running to the west and parallel to the Amherstburg 
History 9

(Limekiln) Channel, reaching the existing dike at the head of 

the cofferdam was constructed. Also, starting at the southern 

tip of Bois Blanc Island, a dike would be constructed parallel 

to the Amherstburg Channel running 1,829 m downstream. 

Michigan’s Governor Williams voiced his support for this 

project. However, no comments from private companies 

appear in the report. For the first time in these government 

reports, concerns about the possible ecological impacts of 

dredged-spoil placement were expressed, as well as concerns 

about losses of fish and wildlife habitat. It noted that although 

the dredging activities should have minimal impact to wildlife 

because they were to take place in existing shipping channels, 

disposal of spoils “could have effects of much greater concern 

to wildlife interests” (U.S. Senate, 1955) and that definite 

spoil-disposal plans should be created. In terms of the compensating works, it was stated that small changes in lake levels 

could affect extensive lake-fringe marshes, and the Corps of 

Engineers should consult with the Department of Conservation about the installation and operation of the compensating 

works. The report further states that cost of improvements in 

the Detroit River to June 30, 1954, totaled US$22,595,148 and 

cost of maintenance totaled US$2,075,039 (U.S. Senate, 1955; 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003b).

In a 1959 report to Congress, plans for dredging the 

Trenton Channel were laid out. The plan called for an 8.2-m 

depth from the junction of the Wyandotte Channel and main 

river channel for 8.9 km to the upper Grosse Ile Bridge and an 

8.5-m depth in the Trenton Reach extending 1,558 m downstream from the upper bridge. The 8.5-m depth was to end at 

a 6-ha turning basin opposite the Gibraltar, MI McLouth Steel 

plant outside of the channel limits. The spoils would be placed 

in Lake Erie. The estimated cost of the project was US$10.4 

million, of which US$8.6 million was to come from Federal 

funds. Concerns about environmental issues are mentioned 

throughout the report. A letter from the Department of the Interior in the report stated “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

reports that dredging operations will have an adverse effect on 

fish and wildlife resources downstream from the project due to 

the disturbance of deleterious materials including oil, sludge, 

and mill scale which lie in the channel bed. Damaging effects 

may extend into Lake Erie” (U.S. House of Representatives, 

1959). The area was also recognized in this report as being 

important to fish and wildlife and for recreation in general. 

The Service requested that the dredging be done in the winter 

and that the Corps work with the Michigan Department of 

Conservation in the selection of spoil disposal areas. This 

work was completed in 1964 (U.S. House of Representatives, 

1968). Major construction of the 96.5 km of shipping channels in the Detroit River was completed by 1964, although 

maintenance work is ongoing. From 1963 to 1998, a total of 

11,671,163 m3 of material was dredged from the Detroit River 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003b) as part of maintenance efforts by the Corps. Projects that had been authorized 

but not completed were decommissioned by Congress in 1983. 

As of 2003, US$283 million had been spent on construction 

and maintenance of the Detroit River shipping channels (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 1915, 1938, 2003b). Estimates indicate that approximately 46,200,000 m3

 (Moulton and Thieme, 

2009) of material was removed from shipping-channel areas, 

4,050 ha (40.5 km2) of river bottom was covered with dredge 

spoils, and 85 ha of above-waterline compensating structures 

were built (fig. 5; Manny and others, 2006). 
10 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Detroit

Trenton

Wyandotte

Gibraltar

Riverview

Windsor

Amherstburg

Michigan

Ontario

Lake Erie

0 52.5 Kilometers

0 2.5 5 Miles

83°15'W 83°10'W 83°5'W 83°0'W 82°55'W

42°20'N

42°15'N

42°10'N

42°5'N

42°0'N

41°55'N

Lake St. Clair

Explanation

Dredged spoils disposal area

Shipping channels

Figure 5. Extent of Detroit River channel construction and dredged spoil disposal works in 2003.
Acknowledgments 11

Environmental Consequences

The International Workshop on the Science and Management for Habitat Conservation and Restoration Strategies 

(HabCARES) suggests that there are three choices society 

can make when determining how to respond to a degraded 

ecosystem like the Detroit River: (1) No changes can be 

made, leading to continued degradation; (2) a policy of no net 

change can be put in place to maintain the current state; or 

(3) the policy of no net change can be used as a placeholder 

until habitat-restoration efforts exceed net habitat destruction 

(Kelso and Wooley, 1996). Recently, a consortium of Federal, state, and local partners has chosen to use retrospective 

analysis to guide habitat restoration in the Huron-Erie Corridor 

(HEC) and fulfill the goals of the Huron Erie Corridor Initiative (www.huron-erie.org). 

Although environmental and habitat consequences of 

Detroit River construction activities were not quantified at 

the time, primary ecological consequences of these channel alterations included losses of fish spawning habitat and 

more focused (rather than diffuse) discharge of the Detroit 

River into Lake Erie (Manny and others, 2005a). This latter 

effect could reduce the survival of fish larvae drifting out of 

the Detroit River (cf. Manny and others, 2007; Roseman and 

others, 2007). As of 2003, a total area of 5,925 ha has been 

affected by shipping channel projects in the Detroit River 

(fig. 5). Water levels upstream of the Detroit River in Lake St. 

Clair and Lake Huron are another factor that is influenced by 

channel construction. Upstream water level was an important issue to the shipping interests because any deficiency in 

project depth would result in financial loss due to decreased 

cargo load sizes. Although considered in construction projects 

starting with the Livingston Channel, the long-term aspects of 

lake-level variability were and are not now fully understood. 

This uncertainty is indicated by the frequent recommendations 

in the congressional reports to continue or enhance extended 

monitoring and study of upstream water levels as projects progressed. The 1946 uncompleted project to deepen and widen 

the Amherstburg and Ballards Reef channels involved extensive compensating works that would have severely reduced 

the outflow of the Trenton Channel. When these projects were 

revisited and expanded in 1955, it was stated that Lake St. 

Clair water levels had risen 2.1 cm because of overcompensation in past projects and that less extensive compensating 

works were needed for current projects (U.S. Senate, 1955). 

These judgments were based on the best science available 

at the time, but current water-level issues demonstrate that 

even after 100 years of study, the magnitude of change various causes exert on lake levels is still debated (Wilcox and 

others, 2007). 

 As agencies were created to address environmental 

impacts of channel-construction projects, the environmental 

effects of these works were considered to a greater extent in 

the construction planning process and, in some cases, environmental assessments greatly altered or halted proposed plans. 

Recovery time for natural resources from environmental 

alteration on the scale that occurred in the Detroit River can 

be over 100 years (Petts, 1987). Perhaps the appearance of 

spawning Lake Whitefish and their successful reproduction 

in the Detroit River in 2005 for the first time in 80 years was 

not a coincidence (Roseman and others, 2007). Implementing 

the projects to enlarge the Detroit River’s shipping channels 

recently studied by the Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2003a) would entail blasting and dredging of large amounts of 

river-bottom material. For example, the deepening of shipping channels in the Detroit River to 9.1 m or 10.7 m would 

require that approximately 152,910,000 m3 or 382,200,000 

m3 of river-bottom materials, respectively, would need to be 

excavated and disposed of. Although the dredging would take 

place in existing channels, the impacts of resuspended polluted 

sediments and the large areas required to dump the dredged 

material could again adversely affect ecological functions and 

productivity of fish and wildlife resources throughout large 

portions of the Detroit River. Careful forecasting of needs, 

planning of projects, and a thorough understanding of project 

environmental impacts could help minimize the financial and 

ecological costs in future channel-construction projects.

Acknowledgments

We thank Chris Schmuckal and Jeffrey Allen for 

assistance in finding historical reports and Dan Benes and 

Sandra Morrison for technical assistance; all are our fellow workers at the USGS Great Lakes Science Center in 

Ann Arbor, Mich. This research was supported in part by the 

USGS Great Lakes Science Center, the USGS Science Support Program, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

This article is Contribution 1604 of the USGS Great Lakes 

Science Center.
12 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

References

Bull, J.N., and Craves, J., 2003, Biodiversity of the Detroit 

River and environs—Past, present, and future prospects, in 

Hartig, J.H., ed., Honoring our Detroit River: Bloomfield 

Hills, Mich., Cranbrook Institute of Science, p. 141–169.

Carl, L., Bennion, D., Roseman, E., Morrison, S., and Todd, 

T., 2007, Importance of historical data in the development 

of fish restoration strategies: Poster presented at the Second 

National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration, Kansas 

City, Mo., April 23–27, 2007.

Derecki, J.A., 1985, Effect of channel changes in the St. Clair 

River during the present century: Journal of Great Lakes 

Research, v. 11, p. 201–207.

Farmer, Silas, 1884, The history of Detroit and Michigan: 

Detroit, Mich., Silas Farmer & Co., p. 16, accessed July 10, 

2007 at http://books.google.com/books?id=2dtMHBxD6R

8C&dq=SILAS+Farmer+History+of+Detroit&pg=RA1-

PR27&ots=n9tLi00OuV&sig=TuYakMLuSyuqqKD5Ck3Sl

itiFt0&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den

%26q%3DSILAS%2BFarmer%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDetro

it%26safe%3Dactive&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1#

PRA1-PA16,M1.

Goodyear, C.D., Edsall, T.A., Demsey, D.M., Moss, G.D., 

and Polanski, P.E., 1982, Atlas of the spawning and nursery 

areas of Great Lakes fishes: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

FWS/OBS–82–52, v. 1–14.

Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Study, 2007, accessed 

November 27, 2007 at http://www.glsls-study.com/

English%20Site/home.html. 

Hartig, J.H., 2003a, The Greater Detroit American Heritage 

River Initiative and the future, in Hartig, J.H., ed., Honoring our Detroit River: Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Cranbrook 

Institute of Science, p. 199–223.

Hartig, J.H. 2003b, Introduction, in Hartig, J.H., ed., Honoring our Detroit River: Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Cranbrook 

Institute of Science, p. 1–8.

Horton, R.E., and Grunsky, C.E., 1927, Hydrology of the 

Great Lakes: Report of the Engineering Board of Review of 

the Sanitary District of Chicago on the Lowering Controversy and a Program of Remedial Measures, part 3, appendix 2.

Kelso, J.R.M., and Wooley, C., 1996, Introduction to the 

International Workshop on the Science and Management for Habitat Conservation and Restoration Strategies 

(HabCARES): Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, v. 53, suppl. 1, p. 1–2.

LaPointe, N.W.R., 2005, Fish-habitat associations in shallow 

Canadian Waters of the Detroit River: Windsor, Ontario, 

University of Windsor, M.S. thesis, 139 p.

Larson, J.W., 1981, Essayons—A history of the Detroit 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1981–0–750–976, 215 p. 

Library of Congress [n.d.], Prints & Photographs Division, 

Detroit Publishing Company Collection, reproduction no. 

LC–D4–72002.

Livingstone, W.A., 1891, The Great Lakes Problem; or The 

“twenty foot channel”...: Detroit, Mich. [work housed at 

University of Michigan Library, Buhr Shelving Facility, 

HE398.L79], 38 p.

Manny, B.A., 2003, Setting priorities for conserving and rehabilitating Detroit River habitats, in Hartig, J.H., ed., Honoring our Detroit River: Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Cranbrook 

Institute of Science, p. 121–139. 

Manny, B.A., Bennion, D., Allen, J., and Roseman, R., 2006, 

The Livingstone Channel Project: Presentation to the 2006 

Annual Meeting of the International Association of Great 

Lakes Research, Windsor, Ontario, May 24, 2006.

Manny, B.A., Carl, L.M., Morrison, S., Nichols, S.J., Roseman, E.F., and Riley, S.C., 2005a, The U.S. Geological Survey Huron-Erie Corridor Initiative, in Eedy, R., Hartig, J., 

Bristol, C., Coulter, M., Mabee, T., and Ciborowski, J., eds., 

State of the Strait—Monitoring for sound management: 

Windsor, Ontario, University of Windsor, Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, Occasional Publication 

No. 4, p. 92–97.

Manny, B.A., Edsall, T.A., and Jaworski, E., 1988, The Detroit 

River, Michigan—An ecological profile: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.17), 86 p.

Manny, B.A., and Kenaga, D., 1991, The Detroit River—

Effects of contaminants and human activities on aquatic 

plants and animals and their habitats: Hydrobiologia, v. 219, 

p. 269–279.

Manny, B.A., and Kennedy, G.W., 2002, Known lake sturgeon 

(Acipenser fulvescens) spawning habitat in the channel 

between Lakes Huron and Erie in the Laurentian Great 

Lakes: Journal of Applied Ichthyology, v. 18, p. 486–490.

Manny, B.A., Kennedy, G.W., Allen, J.D., and 

French, J.R.P., III, 2007, First evidence of egg deposition 

by walleye (Sander vitreus) in the Detroit River: Journal of 

Great Lakes Research, v. 33, p. 512–516.
References 13

Manny, B.A., Read, J., Denison, D., Reider, R., Kennedy, G., 

Caswell, N., Boase, J., and McClain, J., 2005b, Creation 

of lake sturgeon spawning habitat in the Detroit River, in 

Eedy, R., Hartig, J., Bristol, C., Coulter, M., Mabee, T., 

and Ciborowski, J., eds., State of the Strait—Monitoring 

for sound management: Windsor, Ontario, University of 

Windsor, Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, 

Occasional Publication No. 4, p. 98–100. 

Mansfield, J.B., ed., 1899, History of the Great Lakes, Volume 

I: Chicago, J. H. Beers & Co. 

Milner, J.W., 1873, Report on the fisheries of the Great Lakes; 

The results of inquiries prosecuted in 1871 and 1872: 

U.S. Commission of Fisheries, Annual Report, p. 12–13.

Moulton, R., and Thieme, S., 2009, History of dredging and 

compensation—St. Clair and Detroit Rivers, accessed 

06/10/2010 at http://pub.iugls.org/en/St_Clair_Reports/

Sediment/Sediment-05.pdf.

Nolan, Jenny, 1997, How the Detroit River shaped lives and 

history: Detroit News, February 11, 1997, accessed October 

25, 2006, at http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.

cfm?id=186&category=locations.

Petts, G.E., 1987, Time-scales for ecological change in regulated rivers, in Craig, J.F., and Kemper, J.B., eds., Regulated 

streams—Advances in ecology: New York, Plenum Press, p. 

257–266.

Quinn, F.H., 1985, Temporal effects of St. Clair River dredging on lakes St. Clair and Erie water levels and connecting 

channel flow: Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 11, no. 3, 

p. 400–403.

Roseman, E.F., Kennedy, G.W., Boase, J., Manny, B.A., 

Todd, T.N., and Stott, W., 2007, Evidence of lake whitefish 

spawning in the Detroit River—Implications for habitat 

and population recovery: Journal of Great Lakes Research, 

v. 33, p. 397–406.

Schloesser, D.W., and Manny, B.A., 2007, Restoration of wildcelery, Vallisneria americana Michx., in the lower Detroit 

River of the Lake Huron-Lake Erie Corridor: Journal of 

Great Lakes Research, v. 33 (suppl. 1), p. 8–19. 

Smith, H.M., 1915, Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries: 

Report for the fiscal year 1914, with appendixes.

Smith, H.M., 1917, Report of the Commissioner of Fisheries. 

Report for the fiscal year 1916, with appendixes.

Steedman, R.J., Whillans, T.H., Behm, A.P., Bray, K.E., Cullis, 

K.I., Holland, M.M., Stoddart, S.J., and White, R.J., 1996, 

Use of historical information for conservation and restoration of Great Lakes aquatic habitat: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 53 (suppl. 1), p. 415–423.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1915, Annual Report of the 

Chief of Engineers 1915: Washington, D.C., Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1938, Annual Report of the 

Chief of Engineers 1938: Washington, D.C., Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000, Waterborne commerce of the United States, calendar year 2000. Part 3—

Waterways and harbors, Great Lakes: New Orleans, La., 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce 

Statistics Center.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003a, Reconnaissance report, 

Great Lakes Navigation System Review: Detroit, Mich., 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003b, Annual report of the 

Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, on Civil Works Activities 

for 2003: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing 

Office.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, Waterborne commerce of the United States, calendar year 2004. Part 3—

Waterways and harbors, Great Lakes: New Orleans, La., 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce 

Statistics Center.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1900, Preliminary report on 

survey of the Detroit River, Michigan: U.S. Congress, 56th, 

1st session, House Document No. 712, 6 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1904, Detroit River, Michigan: 

U.S. Congress, 58th, 3d session, House Document No. 40, 

6 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1906, Ship Channel Connecting Waters of the Great Lakes: U.S. Congress, 59th, 

2d session, House Document No. 266, 20 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1910, Livingstone Channel 

Detroit River, Michigan: U.S. Congress, 61st, 2d session, 

House Document No. 676, 25 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1911, Detroit River, Wyandotte Channel, Mich.: U.S. Congress, 62d, 1st session, 

House Document No. 17, 7 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1917, Livingstone Channel, 

Detroit River, Mich.: U.S. Congress, 65th, 1st session, 

House Document No. 322, 25 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1928, Great Lakes-Connecting 

Waters, Principal Harbors, and River Channels: U.S. Congress, 70th, 1st session, House Document No. 253, 96 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1946, Detroit River, Mich.: 

U.S. Congress, 79th, 2d session, House Document No. 734, 

11 p.
14 Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences

U.S. House of Representatives, 1948, Great Lakes Connecting 

Channels: U.S. Congress, 80th, 1st session, House Document No. 335, 115 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1959, Great Lakes Harbors 

Study-Interim Report on Detroit River, Trenton Channel, 

Mich.: U.S. Congress, 86th, 2d session, House Document 

No. 319, 51 p.

U.S. House of Representatives, 1968, Detroit River, Trenton 

Channel, Michigan: U.S. Congress, 90th, 2d session, House 

Document No. 338, 126 p.

U.S. Senate, 1949, Improvement of the Trenton Channel, 

Detroit River, Mich.: U.S. Congress, 81st, 1st session, Senate Document No. 30, 30 p.

U.S. Senate, 1955, Great Lakes Connecting Channels: U.S. 

Congress, 84th, 1st session, Senate Document No. 71, 88 p.

Wei, A., Chow-Fraser, P., and Albert, D., 2004, Influence of 

shoreline features on fish distribution in the Laurentian 

Great Lakes: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, v. 61, p. 1113–1123. 

Wilcox, D.A., Thompson, T.A., Booth, R.K., and Nicholas, 

J.R., 2007, Lake-level variability and water availability in 

the Great Lakes: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1311, 

25 p.

y—Construction of Shipping Channels in the Detroit River: History and Environmental Consequences—Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5122