Winter Navigation on the Great Lakes
A Review of Environmental Studies
JAMES L. WUEBBEN, EDITOR
Concurrently a survey study was undertaken
INTRODUCTION
to determine how long a season extension was
In 1970, Congress authorized a three-part Great
feasible and whether it would be the same for all
LakesSt. Lawrence Seaway Navigation Season
reaches of the waterway. It soon became clear that
Extension Program in the Rivers and Harbors Act
there are three reaches with different problems
of 1970 (PL91-611) and subsequent amendments.
that had to be considered separately:
It authorized a demonstration program, a detailed
The St. Lawrence River section of the St.
survey study of season extension feasibility and
Lawrence Seaway and the Welland Canal
a study of ways to provide reasonable insurance
from Tidewater to Lake Erie;
rates to shippers. Since that time, there has been
The Detroit and St. Clair River portion; and
a series of investigations conducted by the U.S.
The upper lakes including the St. Marys River
Army Corps of Engineers on extending the navi-
and the locks at Sault Ste. Marie.
gation season on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Six time extensions were considered, ranging
Seaway system. From 1970 to 1979, with an expen-
from the status quo (with closure of the Sault Locks
diture of about million, a large number of envi-
and the St. Lawrence Seaway from late Decem-
ronmental and engineering studies and demon-
ber to early April) to year-round navigation on
strations were completed by the U.S. Army Corps
the entire system (except for a one-month closure
of Engineers (COE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
on the Seaway). An interim feasibility report was
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
completed in 1977 recommending season exten-
sion to 31 January 2 weeks on the upper Great
(SLSDC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
Lakes only. This would require very few engi-
tion (NOAA), Maritime Administration (MARAD),
neering measures. The final recommendation of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the final demonstration and survey reports (WNB
others.
1979, USACE 1979a) was that, from an engineer-
The demonstration program was administered
ing and economic standpoint, year-round navi-
by a Winter Navigation Board, which in turn set
gation was feasible on the upper two reaches, and
up seven working groups as follows: Ice Informa-
a two-month closure (from 7 January to 7 March)
tion, Ice Navigation, Ice Engineering, Ice Control,
would be necessary on the lower reach. The rec-
Ice Management, Economic Evaluation, and En-
ommended plan projected a total investment cost
vironmental Evaluation. Primary organizational
of 1 million with a 4.0 benefit-to-cost ratio.
responsibility was handled by the Detroit Dis-
The Office of Management and Budget, in response
trict, COE. Under the demonstration portion of
to the 1977 interim feasibility report, recommended
the program, the working groups, for example,
that, since the Corps already had authority to
developed ice cover reporting and prediction
operate the locks and maintain navigation, lim-
schemes, conducted studies of fish habitat and
ited extension be considered under operation and
winter shore damage, determined future needs
maintenance authority. Consequently the Detroit
for icebreakers and harbor improvements, and
District addressed operation of the locks at Sault
Ste. Marie, Michigan, to 8 January 1 week in an
found methods to overcome lockage delays due
to ice.
October 1979 environmental impact statement
Previous Page
