|
Great Lakes
Article:
08/28/2002
Feedback Letter from Great Lakes Research Consortium
Toward
a Sustainable Development Plan for Great Lakes Commercial
Navigation: Comments on the Reconnaissance Report for
the Great Lakes Navigation System Review
Dear Mr. Schloop:
I am writing as the Executive Director of the Great
Lakes Research Consortium with 16 member colleges and universities
in New York State and 9 affiliated schools in the province
of Ontario. These are not official comments from our Consortium,
but are instead my own opinions based on my knowledge and
experience with the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System
and my interest in sustainability. As the Director of an
organization dedicated to improving understanding of the
Great Lakes in all their aspects - chemical, physical, biological,
social, economic and political - I certainly support further
study and consideration of improving water transportation
on the Great Lakes Navigation System. I believe, however,
that the current Information Paper or draft reconnaissance
study published in June 2002 rests on a very limited concept
of "improvement" and "federal interest," and shows virtually
no understanding of the economic and ecological possibilities
of moving toward a sustainable water navigation system in
the Great Lakes. It is understandable that the Corps chose
to limit its reconnaissance to a narrow definition of "improvement"
and "federal interest" since these have specific meanings
in federal law and Corps experience, but it is long past
time for these concepts to be revisited. The GL Maritime
system could and should be improved along sustainable development
lines in ways that make it considerably more benign, even
environmentally beneficial. The interest in this is clearly
federal, transcending as it does any local or even state
jurisdictional interests. This is what a feasibility study
should address, not the obviously destructive and overly
simplistic path of building a 35-foot deep navigation system.
If we were to go ahead with a major expansion, we couldn't
expect results in less than a decade or more. By then the
need for an energy and resource conservation-based economy
in North America will be even greater. It is possible now,
and certainly desirable to plan for a Great Lakes Navigation
System as an important element of an energy efficient transportation
system in the future economy.
What would a feasibility study
based on concepts of sustainable development include? First,
it would consider the federal interest in a Great Lakes
restoration plan which, like the Everglades plan, would
move toward restoring as closely as possible the natural
flows and fluctuations of water levels in the system. It
would defer to the current Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River
study (another study the Corps personnel is leading) that
promises to consider and hopefully remediate the negative
environmental impacts of water level controls. Any deepening
and widening of navigation channels would have significant
impacts on water levels and would require compensating works
to further control fluctuations.
A sustainable
development plan for Great Lakes navigation would ask many
questions about present material and energy flows. The objective
of such a plan would be to capture the economic and environmental
benefits of water transport's energy savings while minimizing
or eliminating the environmental disruption. In other words,
the first feasibility study should be one
that broadly looks at alternatives to physical expansion.
One approach is a revitalized US and Canadian steel industry.
Iron ore is now and is likely to remain the largest commodity
flow in the system. It's decline by nearly 50% since the
1970s is also the leading cause of the shipping stagnation
the reconnaissance report is interested in stemming. Following
the logic of environmental sustainability, the industries
of the future are those that can produce better with much
less energy. Real progress in improving the energy efficiency
of US and Canadian steel plants will lead to a resurgence
of the industry, especially in a Greenhouse Gas limited
world, and especially once the U.S. and Canada adopt international
trade policies based on environmental criteria, as we eventually
must.
The Lake Carriers Association responding to proposals
to deepen and widen Great Lakes navigation channels predicts
15% increased hauling power per ore-hauling trip. These
are really small gains, especially considering how lower
water levels in a drier world might just undermine these
projected increased loads. Clearly we do not suffer from
a capacity problem under current conditions, and a revived
steel industry could quickly address the profitability
problem with increased volume. Most shippers would accept
lighter trip loads for greater volume.
What about opening new bulk commodities such as paper,
metal and plastics for recycling? Once gas prices
begin to reflect the true social and environmental costs
of fossil fuels, the energy efficiency gains from the
combination of water transport and recycling should make
these commodities flourish.
These are just two ideas about how to spur economic growth
in the Great Lakes Navigation System while helping rather
than harming the environment. If we put our minds together
we can think of many more.
Whenever the Great Lakes Navigation System Review publishes
traffic figures and volume figures you should compare
them with the volume at major US and Canadian East and
West Coast ports. This will make it clear that Great Lakes
shipping has never and will never compete with these larger
and ever expanding ports. Studies have indicated that
while international maritime traffic has increased 600%
over the past 30 years, the Seaway traffic has declined
by 20%. The Seaway has always carried a minute proportion
of all US port traffic, and this should be made clear
in the report and decision-making process. Baltimore shipping
channel is now 50 feet deep. Once the Great Lakes ports
go to 35 will we need to start the feasibility study for
50? Continual expansion of the system is not a viable
option.
The section of your report that discusses environmental
considerations makes the point that opportunities for
incorporating environmentally beneficial features into
the Navigation system would arise with the proposed "improvements."
But this opportunity already exists, especially if we
move forward with a study of navigation in the context
of a Great Lakes Restoration Plan. This section also refers
to the energy savings of using water transport rather
than truck or rail. While these savings are important
they only exist upriver from Montreal and can be gained
by the current system. Also under the section on
environmental considerations, the report's authors state
that, "The most dramatic impacts to the ecosystem have
likely already occurred.' Although we all hope this is
true, there is really no scientific or common sense basis
for this optimism; we really have no idea about what drama
yet awaits us. Deepening the connecting channels could
have extremely dramatic effects on St. Clair river wetlands,
where nearly half of all GL fish productivity may occur.
Here
are a few additional comments:
The report describes a stakeholder survey but it does
not include information about who was surveyed nor why
these people were chosen nor who is considered a stakeholder.
A thorough stakeholder analysis should be done before
any additional study occurs.
The report should be much clearer about what has changed
since previous Seaway studies concluded that there was
no economic justification for Seaway expansion.
Is the potential for $1.4 billion a year in benefits based
on year-round shipping? If so, the report should be clear
that this means a renewed attempt to open the channels
for winter navigation, something that has been clearly
rejected in the past.
I would enthusiastically support a feasibility study
on the Sustainable Development of the Great Lakes Navigation
System that would take account of the issues I've raised
here as well as many others. This should be completely
integrated with the development of a basin-wide Great
Lakes restoration plan. The WRDA authorization language
quoted in the report is clearly broad enough to make such
a study possible. It would be a great challenge and fun
besides.
Sincerely,
Jack Manno, Executive Director
Great Lakes Research Consortium
--
Jack Manno
Great Lakes Research Consortium
24 Bray Hall
SUNY ESF
Syracuse, NY 13210
315-470-6816 (work)
315-422-9633 (home)
315-470-6970 (fax)
jpmanno@mailbox.syr.edu
http://www.esf.edu/glrc/
|
