Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Port Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proponent pitches multimodal port project; commissioners agree to consider letter of support
Summary
A developer outlined plans for a four‑purpose port on the St. Marys River, including aggregate processing, dredged‑material recycling and a public import/export dock; commissioners said staff would prepare a draft letter of support for next steps.
Get email alerts on the Port Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jerome Weber, identifying himself as the owner of Stoneboat, asked the Chippewa County Board of Commissioners to provide a letter of support for a proposed port project on the St. Marys River.
Weber told the board the project would be a “four‑purpose port” to process aggregates, act as a contingency shipping outlet should the Soo Locks become unavailable, serve as a public import/export dock and accept dredged material for recycling. He said the site sits over a reported two billion‑ton aggregate reserve, that the company estimates a $70 million capital investment and about 50 jobs at projected capacity, and that the deposit could sustain 5 million tons per year for several centuries. “We’re building the port to be able to load up to thousand‑foot vessels,” Weber said.
Weber also said the project team has discussed using the site to reprocess dredged material from the St. Marys River in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and that the port could help meet Corps recycling directives. He said local governments and maritime operators, including Detour Township and representatives of existing ports, have expressed support.
After the public comment, commissioners asked staff to prepare a draft support letter for distribution to elected officials and state port‑infrastructure programs. Commissioner comments during the meeting indicated the board expects the county administrator to circulate a proposed letter for consideration and possible signature.
No formal county funding, permits, agreements or approvals for the project were made at the meeting; commissioners limited action to directing staff to prepare a draft support letter and to coordinate with regional and state contacts named by the proponent.
The proponent provided project drawings to commissioners and said regional economic and workforce benefits were a key objective.

