Army Corps to Expand Mississippi Locks

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with
recommendations to expand locks on the Mississippi River despite
an earlier report that found the Corps’ calculations in making a similar
plan were wrong. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with recommendations to expand
locks on
the Mississippi River despite an earlier report that found the Corps’ calculations
in making a
similar plan were wrong. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Corps of Engineers proposes spending 8.3 billion dollars to expand navigation
locks for
heavier barge traffic and restore the ecosystem of the upper Mississippi River. The
National
Research Council was highly critical of an earlier plan, saying the Corps’
projections of greater
traffic on the river were flawed. In a statement, the Corps says this new plan
balances the need
for economic growth and environmental sustainability.


Environmentalists say it’s still wrong. Melissa Samet is with the group American
Rivers.


“The Corps has done a great disservice to the nation by recommending this project.
We have
other needs. It’s a significant amount of money. The recommendation is based on
unsound
science and unsound economics. And that’s just not the way a federal agency should
be working.
It’s certainly not serving the American people.”


Critics say they expect the Corps of Engineers to lobby Congress hard for funding
the expansion
of the locks and not as hard for the environmental restoration.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Army Corps and Enviros Spar Over River Levels

Court battles over the Missouri River have subsided… for now. The debate has focused on whether the Corps of Engineers should drop water levels to protect endangered species… or keep a normal flow to ensure barges would be able to ship cargo. In the end… levels went down… but not for nearly as long as courts had ordered. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports… this summer’s fight might just be the first battle in a war over the river’s management:

Transcript

Court battles over the Missouri River have subsided… for now. The debate has focused on
whether the Corps of Engineers should drop water levels to protect endangered species… or keep
a normal flow to ensure barges would be able to ship cargo. In the end, levels went down, but not
for nearly as long as courts had ordered. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber
reports, this summer’s fight might just be the first battle in a war over the river’s management:


On paper, the Corps of Engineers lowered the Missouri River this summer because of three
things: The piping plover and the least turn, two birds hat nest on sandbars, and the pallid
sturgeon, a fish that lays eggs in the shallow water.


Lawsuits by environmental groups like Chad Smith’s argued having too much water flowing in
the summertime disrupts and essentially washes away those nesting areas.


But Smith, who’s with the group, American Rivers, says the issue is much larger than two birds
and a fish…


“What we’re trying to do is to restore some semblance of the river’s natural flow, along with a lot
of habitat and try to make the Missouri River look and act more like a river. Right now it’s
managed like a ditch and it looks like a ditch.”


Smith says years of management by the Corps of Engineers – building dams and levees and
controlling river flows – have made river depths fairly consistent. But he says, really, that’s just
not how rivers work.


“You would have snow melt and rain coming into the river in the springtime, increasing the
flows, and then throughout the rest of the year, particularly during the hot summer months, the
levels would be very much lower, and that’s the kind of natural dynamic that fish and wildlife
adapted to.”


And so when a federal judge in Minnesota told the Corps of Engineers to lower water levels on
the Missouri, it was an attempt to get the river back to its natural ebb and flow. The court order
was for a four-week drop in levels, but the Corps only lowered the water for three days towards
the end of the endangered species’ nesting periods.


But even those three days upset business interests along the river, particularly the barge industry.
Towboats can be seen pushing barges up and down the Missouri River between Sioux City Iowa
and St. Louis. A group of politicians and business leaders, in fact, recently met at the Gateway
Arch in St. Louis to criticize the judge’s order. It’s actually the Mississippi River that passes in
front of the Arch, but because the Missouri spills into the Mississippi just north of St. Louis, the
group noted that lowering one would lower the other. And Missouri Senator Jim
Talent says that has a negative effect on jobs and the local economy.


“When that river goes down the barges can’t move. We’re inhibiting barge traffic already and if
this continues it’s going to stop. And we really need to step back from the brink of an action that’s
really just unreasonable and being forced on us by an extreme interpretation of the law by the
courts.”


Congresswoman JoAnn Emerson, whose district borders the Mississippi, wonders why the
Endangered Species Act that essentially won the lawsuit to lower levels is of higher importance
than people’s livelihoods.


“My mandate in Congress is from the people up and down the Mississippi River, people from my
Congressional district. My mandate isn’t from the piping plover or the least tern or the pallid
sturgeon.”


The debate over the Missouri River might have been moot if not for one other factor: A drought
has plagued parts of the Midwest for more than a year and made the rivers even lower.


A few days after the group met at the Arch, the Mississippi River got too shallow for any barge
traffic and closed for a weekend. Having cargo just sitting there, not getting to market, cost the
economy a million dollars a day by some estimates.


Barge groups blamed the lowering of the Missouri; environmental groups blamed the drought.
Barge traffic is moving again and the nesting season is over for the endangered species named in
the lawsuit. But the fight is far from over as both sides appear ready for another round. Once
again, Chad Smith with American Rivers.


“We’re prepared to stay in court for as long as it takes if the Corps is going to continue to be
obstinate about this. The Corps is now on notice through the court actions this summer that these
things are serious and they can’t hide from them.”


For its part, the Corps has said it will work with other government agencies, namely the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, to come up with a plan for managing the river for both wildlife and the
barges in time for next year. But it has said that before, and the two sides seem just as
far apart as they’ve ever been.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tom Weber.

Related Links

Battle Plans for Asian Carp

Asian carp are the new poster fish in the campaign against invasive species. For years, foreign invaders like the zebra mussel, the round goby, and now the carp have been threatening the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. Like their fellow species of concern, the carp have no natural predators to keep their numbers in check. Ecologists report that they are now closing in on Lake Michigan from the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. This has authorities in the U.S. and Canada stepping up efforts to control them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Diantha Parker reports:

Transcript

Asian carp are the new poster fish in the campaign against invasive species. For years, foreign invaders like the zebra mussel, the round goby, and now the carp have been threatening the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. Like their fellow species of concern, the carp have no natural predators to keep their numbers in check. Ecologists report that they are now closing in on Lake Michigan from the Mississippi and Illinois rivers. This has authorities in the U.S. and Canada stepping up efforts to control them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Diantha Parker reports:


The Asian carp now in the spotlight are the silver and bighead varieties, and they share traits that worry environmentalists.


For one thing, they’re large…sometimes reaching up to a hundred pounds in less than three years. They escaped from fish farms in Mississippi about twenty years ago, and have been making their way up the Mississippi River ever since.


The carp voraciously consume the same microscopic organisms that native fish depend on.


They’ll out-eat anything in their midst. That means game fish won’t have as much to eat, and their populations will suffer.


And the carp are invasive in other ways, too. At a recent news conference a few yards from Lake Michigan, journalists and curious passersby inspected three enormous dead carp laid out on a folding table…glistening in the sun next to Pam Theil, a project leader at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


“It sounds sensational, but they can jump out of the water into your boat. A gentleman who works for the Illinois Natural History Survey has gotten hit four times, the last time he had to file for workman’s compensation with a neck injury. A commercial fisherman on the Caskaskia River got his nose broken. And there are reports of people on the Caskaskia, who are going out fishing, or just recreation in their boat…they’re taking cookie sheets with them to act as a shield, so that they don’t get hit.”


The newest weapon in the Great Lakes Fight against the carp is an electronic barrier.
It was built in April by the Army Corps of Engineers and the International Joint Commission, an organization that oversees the use of waterways between the U.S. and Canada.


The electronic barrier sits in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal about 30 miles downstream from the city. The Canal is a manmade link between Lake Michigan and the Chicago River. This particular spot was chosen for the barrier because it’s a revolving door between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.


The barrier itself consists of about one hundred and sixty wires, spaced a few feet apart, that lie crosswise along the bottom of the canal. The wires emit electrical impulses to deter all fish that approach them.


“There is a charge that is applied to those cables.”


Dennis Schornack is U.S. chairman of the International Joint Commission.


“Not a real strong charge, not one that would be harmful to people, if they fell into the
canal, but strong enough for fish to sense it, and when they sense this charge in the water they turn, and turn back down the river.”


Right now, the electronic barrier is only in an 18 month test phase. The authorities involved say after that time is up, funding from Congress will be needed to keep it in operation.


Some people wonder why we can’t just catch these invasive carp and eat them. But while the carp are a popular food source in Asia, they’ve been slow to catch on here, says Pam Theil.


“I think that there is a mentality that we’d rather be eating walleye or something than carp.”


But a chicken processing plant in southern Illinois has looked into processing the carp…they’ve taste tested it as a product similar to tuna, but are still deciding whether it’s marketable.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Diantha Parker.

Validity of Corps Study Questioned

The Upper Mississippi River is a key navigation route for
commercial vessels traveling to and from the Great Lakes. The U-S
Army Corps of Engineers is studying ways to enhance the river’s traffic
capacity. One option is to expand some of the locks. That would reduce
the time it takes for barges to travel between ports. But one Corps
economist says the benefits of lock expansion don’t outweigh the costs.
Now, he’s blowing the whistle on those whom he says have fixed the
numbers to justify a one billion-dollar construction project. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Kevin Lavery reports:

Transcript

The Upper Mississippi River is a key navigation route for commercial
vessels traveling to and from the Great Lakes. The U-S Army Corps of
Engineers is studying ways to enhance the river’s traffic capacity. One
option is to expand some of the locks. That would reduce the time it takes
for barges to travel between ports. But one Corps economist says the
benefits of lock expansion don’t outweigh the costs. Now, he’s blowing the
whistle on those whom he says have fixed the numbers to justify a one
billion-dollar construction project. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Kevin Lavery reports:


Lock and Dam number 25 near Winfield, Missouri straddles the upper
Mississippi 40 miles north of St. Louis. Last year, 39 million tons of
grain, soybeans and other cargo passed through here. Though it’s winter,
water continues to rush through the dam. However, ice on the river farther
north has slowed barged traffic here to near non-existence.


A lock is essentially a watery elevator that raises and lowers boats to
different depths. Each lock is 600 feet long, but a typical 15-barge tow is
12-hundred feet long. Walter Feld is with the Corps of Engineers’ St.
Louis District. He says a tow has to break apart to negotiate the lock’s
narrow chamber:


“One lockage would take about 30 minutes. When you break that tow
apart and put two pieces together, it takes probably closer to 90 minutes.
So all that delay adds up to triple the length of time to get through
it.”


In 1993, the Corps began a 58-million dollar study of the upper
Mississippi in an attempt to plan for the needs of the navigation industry
over the next 50 years. Dr. Donald Sweeney was named the lead economist
for the study:


“The feasibility study is a planning and implementation
study.
You’re required to investigate the economic effects and environmental
consequences of whatever actions you might propose.”


At the start of the study, Sweeney says his team was told to give its best
unbiased estimate of the situation:


“And I believe that was truly the spirit of the study up
until
late 1997, at which it turned 180 degrees.”


Among other alternatives, the Corps looked at doubling the size of seven
locks to reduce congestion on the river. But the economics team concluded
the benefits gained would not be worth the cost of construction. Sweeney
says the analysis showed such a project would result in a loss of up to
20-million dollars a year.


In a written affidavit, Sweeney testified that top Corps officials
the economists to alter their analysis to justify spending a billion
dollars to expand the locks. The report points to a number of internal
memos indicating the Corps’ desire to appease the barge industry. In 1998,
Sweeney was relieved as head of the economics team, five years after the
study began.


Corps spokesman Ron Fournier says the media has underplayed the full scope
of the navigation study, and that lock expansions are not the only option at
the agency’s disposal.


“The study is actually navigation improvements, which is
variety of alternatives for the river. We have alternatives such as
extending the guide walls, adding mooring cells or buoys for barges to
tie up to, and then again also the expansion of the lock chambers
themselves.”


Fournier says Sweeney failed to take into account some of those
alternatives, many of which he says were added since the economist left the
study team.


“The navigation study has been evolving for the past seven
years; and as new data is received from the shipping industry, from the
farm growers and from a variety of other economists throughout the
country, new calculations are being used and different results are
being obtained.”


Aside from the financial issues associated with large-scale construction,
environmentalists say lock expansion would jeopardize wildlife on the river.


Washington D.C. based Environmental Defense has taken a leading stance in
the issue by releasing many of the internal Corps documents to government
officials. Senior attorney Tim Searchinger says the papers clearly show
most of the people in the study had a great deal of professional integrity,
and that some may have been pushed into doing the wrong thing.


“There is a top ranking leadership that’s willing to cause
environmental harm, even when the analysis clearly shows that from a
purely economic standpoint, the project isn’t justified either.”


Another reason why economist Donald Sweeney says the Corps is pushing
expansion is because such projects would bolster the agency’s stagnant budget.


“They’re trying to become a bigger, more vital agency.
And
sometimes that conflicts with a purely unbiased scientific analysis of
potentially a billion dollars worth of expenditures.”


Late last month, the Office of Special Counsel declared the Corps likely had violated the law in

catering to the interests of commercial navigation. The OSC is the independent federal agency with

whom Sweeney filed his affidavit. The office has ordered Defense Secretary William Cohen to

conduct an investigation and report back by the end of April. Spokesman Ron Fournier says from the

start, the Corps has been forthright about the
study both with Congress and the public.


“We feel that when this investigation is complete,
they’ll
find there’s no wrongdoing, and of course the
study has been done in an above
Corps will prove that the
board, upright manner.”


The investigation has also reached the congressional level. The Senate
committee on Environment and Public Works is conducting a number of public
hearings on the study this month.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium,
I’m Kevin Lavery in St. Louis.

Is Race Behind Effort to Block Development?

The battle of the Humbug Marsh is being fought just south of Detroit.
Developers have said they want to build upscale homes near the last stretch
of undeveloped wetland on the U-S side of the Detroit River.
Environmentalists are lobbying to defeat the deal. But developers say race
is the real reason for opposition to the project. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has more:

New Ideas for Sediment Removal

The Corps of Engineers spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year
dredging harbors and river shipping channels nationwide to keep them
open. For more than 30 years conservationists have been yearning for
ways to do more than just keep barge canals open. They want to save
vulnerable river backwaters and ever-shallower lakes. Until recently
there has never been a technology capable of moving the amount of
sediment at reasonable costs while keeping the environment safe. But,
as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charlie Schlenker reports, that
may be changing: