Two environmental groups have released a study that questions the benefits of allowing bigger boats on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. Save the River and Great Lakes United paid for the report because they fear deepening the channels and allowing ocean-going vessels on the Great Lakes would harm the ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:
Transcript
Two environmental groups have released a study that questions the benefits of
allowing bigger boats on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. Save the River
and Great Lakes United paid for the report because they fear deepening the
channels and allowing ocean-going vessels on the Great Lakes would harm the
ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:
Researchers at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute critiqued a study done by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The critique focused on the idea of making the
locks and canals big enough to handle container ships. These boats now dock on
the East Coast and their cargo comes into the Midwest by rail or truck. The new
report says there’s no evidence that it would be more efficient for container ships to
unload at Great Lakes ports.
Lead Author Evelyn Tomchick says moving containers into the Midwest by water
would be slower.
Also the longer transit times are usually associated with greater unreliability. That
is, there’s variation in the time of arrival, the actual time of arrival.”
Tomchick says unreliability has costs that weren’t calculated.
A spokesman for the Army Corps agrees further study is needed to know the costs
and benefits of any expansion. The Corps of Engineers is currently studying what
it will cost to maintain the locks and channels the way they are.
For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.
Despite warmer weather, the St. Lawrence Seaway will open six days late because there’s too much ice on the St. Lawrence River. Icebreakers will begin work clearing a shipping channel this week. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:
Transcript
Despite warmer weather, the St. Lawrence Seaway will open 6 days late because there’s too much
ice on the St. Lawrence River. Icebreakers will begin work clearing a shipping channel this week.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:
Ice fishermen on the St. Lawrence are drilling through more than three feet of ice in some places.
[drilling sound]
It’s the thickest ice buildup they’ve seen in decades. It’s causing the St. Lawrence Seaway to
postpone its opening from March 25th to March 31st this year. It’s the first time that’s happened in
the waterway’s 44 year history.
Seaway Administrator Albert Jacquez says the decision was made after consulting weather experts
and officials in Canada.
“If we can’t ensure to the best of our ability that a ship can get through without damage to either
our facilities or the ship itself and ultimately to the environment around us, we shouldn’t be
opening and so that’s what is the determination.”
When there’s too much ice on the river, a freighter’s wake can damage
vegetation, cause shoreline erosion, and disturb fisheries. Shippers say an
idle freighter can cost them 100,000 dollars a day.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.
A freighter navigates the American Narrows in the St. Lawrence River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to embark on a $20 million study to look at expanding the St. Lawrence Seaway's locks and channels, but they first need Canada's support. Photo by David Sommerstein.
The St. Lawrence Seaway is a major economic engine for the communities of the Great Lakes. Shippers and ports say a deeper channel for bigger freighters will add billions of dollars in trade and create new jobs. Environmentalists say replumbing the Seaway would devastate the region’s ecology. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to move ahead on a 20 million dollar study of Seaway expansion. But it’s waiting for support and money from Canada. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:
Transcript
The St. Lawrence Seaway is a major economic engine for the communities of the Great Lakes.
Shippers and ports say a deeper channel for bigger freighters will add billions of dollars in trade and
create new jobs. Environmentalists say replumbing the Seaway would devastate the region’s
ecology. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to move ahead on a 20 million dollar study of
Seaway expansion. But it’s waiting for support and money from Canada. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:
The Army Corps of Engineers’ study will set the Seaway’s agenda for years to come. That’s why
ports on both sides of the border say it’s important to update a system that’s almost fifty years old.
Keith Robson is president and CEO of the port of Hamilton, Ontario.
“You know, when it was first built, it was probably the right size and now the world has moved
on, so we need to take a look at what we need to do for the future.”
The world of shipping has moved on to so-called “Panamax” size. That’s the term used for huge
freighters that carry cargo containers to coastal ports and through the Panama Canal. A preliminary
study says if those Panamax ships could squeeze into the Seaway, a billion and a half dollars more a
year could float into ports such as Hamilton, Duluth, Toledo, Chicago, and Detroit.
But while bigger may be better in the Corps’ projections, shippers first want to make sure the old
locks keep working as is. Reg Lanteigne of the Canadian Shipowners Association says Canadian
shippers rely on the Seaway to handle 70 million tons of cargo a year.
“None of our economy could sustain a catastrophic failure of that waterway. The only issue here
is not how deep, how wide, how long the ditch should be, but the most important issue is how
long the current ditch can last.”
For the 20 million dollar study to proceed at all, Canada must fund half of it. Canada owns 13 of
the Seaway’s 15 locks. And the shipping channel is partially in Canadian waters. But even though
a decision was expected months ago, Canada has yet to sign on. Critics believe that’s because
Canada sees problems in the Corps’ approach.
Dozens of environmental groups across the Great Lakes have slammed the study. They say it’s
cooked in the shipping industry’s favor. They say it’s predestined to support expansion with dire
environmental consequences.
Expansion foes gathered recently at a meeting organized by the New York-based group ‘Save The
River.’ Their ears perked up when Mary Muter took the floor. She’s vice-president of the
Georgian Bay Association, an Ontario-based environmental group. She says Canada is wary of
expansion. The first time the Seaway was dug, water levels dropped more than a foot. With even
lower levels today, Muter says places like Lake Huron’s Georgian Bay can’t afford to lose more
water.
“Wetlands have literally dried up, converted into grass meadows in some locations. Another
concern is access for shoreline property owners to get to their cottages that are on islands.”
There are also concerns of invasive species depleting fisheries and channel dredging stirring up toxic
sediment.
But Muter says Canada is also wary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has developed a
reputation of skewing studies to justify more work. Muter says Canada’s Transport Minister has
assured her one thing. He’s not interested in an expansion study that leaves environmental issues as
an afterthought.
“If the U.S. transport department wants to involve the Army Corps, that’s fine. But Canada is not
giving money directly to the U.S. Army Corps to replumb the Great Lakes.”
Both transportation departments have remained tight-lipped through months of negotiations, leaving
interest groups on both sides of the debate to speculate.
Stephanie Weiss directs Save The River. She says Canada’s delay may mean a chance to broaden
the scope of the study beyond shipping.
“Y’know, is this an opportunity to change the shape of the study into something that more interest
groups and more citizens around the Great Lakes can buy into?”
Reg Lanteigne of the Canadian Shipowners Association says the delay is just a bureaucratic one.
“The mandate has been agreed, the scope and governance has all been agreed. All we’re looking
for now is a suitable location and time and date to sign this off.”
On the U.S. side of the border, Congress has allocated 1.5 million dollars for the first year of the
study. That’s less than the Corps had asked for. And the legislation includes a special warning. It
directs the Corps to pay more attention to the environmental and recreational impacts of building a
bigger Seaway channel.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.
A coalition of environmental groups and others doesn’t want the Army Corps of Engineers to even study the idea of widening and deepening channels for larger ships on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A coalition of environmental groups and others doesn’t want the
Army Corps of Engineers to even study the idea of widening
and deepening channels for larger ships on the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Great Lakes United represents organizations across the Great Lakes region who oppose
opening up the lakes to larger cargo vessels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
considering a 20-million dollar study to see if expanding channels makes economic sense
for shipping. Jennifer Nalbone is with Great Lakes United. She says it would be a waste
of money and time.
“Why spend five years to investigate what previous studies of the Great Lakes navigation
system have already told us, that expanding shipping capacity costs too much and gives
us too little.”
Nalbone says any economic benefit of expanding the channels could be offset by hurting
other economies such as tourism and fishing. Nalbone indicates Great Lakes United
doesn’t trust that the Army Corps of Engineers will give those industries and the
environment proper consideration.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering expanding canals, channels, harbors, and locks to make way for larger ocean-going ships to enter the Great Lakes. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports, not everyone thinks that’s such a good idea:
Transcript
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering expanding canals, channels, harbors and locks to make way for larger ocean-going ships to enter the Great Lakes, but as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… not everyone thinks that’s such a good idea:
An Army Corps of Engineers’ draft report indicates the Corps wants to determine the feasibility of dredging and widening connecting channels to allow ships that are 250 feet longer and 30 feet wider than the biggest ship entering the Great Lakes today. Jennifer Nalbone is with Great Lakes United, a U.S. and Canadian consortium of environmental and other groups. She says there are lots of concerns. They include the disruption to the environment that the expansions would require, and concerns about larger foreign ships bringing more exotic invasive species into the Great Lakes.
“All of these environmental problems that we’re seeing in the basin could be amplified quite significantly if we allow larger foreign ships to gain access to the basin.”
Expansions at every connecting channel between the Great Lakes are being considered.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
