Excellent Vis Threatened

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

GTADiver

Contributor
Messages
231
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississauga
In case you missed this article, the dredging of the seaway will destroy the 100 + visibility we are now enjoying. It will also drop the river level as the dredged area fills, leaving shallow water areas at a low water level at the beginning of the season. We all know how bad it gets toward the end of the summer with the water levels dropping. Just imagine how bad it will be once the season begins that way.

U.S. Corps to proceed with study of seaway

By MARK CALDER

Staff Writer


Before pressing ahead with a proposal for a massive expansion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wants to find out how much it will cost to fix what's there now.

The corps hopes to use $1.5 million approved by the U.S. government to help fund a new review supplementing a recent $1-million reconnaissance study into whether the seaway should be expanded, said Wayne Schloop, a corps engineer and project manager for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Review Project.

The exact cost of the new study and when it will start will depend on what kind of agreement the U.S. government can get from Canada to fund or support it, as well as its final scope.

However, Schloop expects the 30-month study could cost $5-$8 million, adding the corps hopes to start as early as this spring.

The studies are being undertaken as groundwork to support a corps' proposal to expand the system and fix aging locks, some dating back to the 1950s.

Preliminary plans peg the cost of proposed work at $87 million for dredging alone to $1.44 billion to install larger locks and guarantee passage of ships with drafts up to 35 feet.

The supplemental study could provide basic data needed in order to sell the concept of expansion to governments on both sides of the border.

It could also provide a less expensive option to preserving the current seaway for navigation should governments refuse the expansion.

"The basic idea here is that before any case can be made for expansion or alterations or any type of improvements or modification to the existing system, you really have to know what state the existing system's in and the amount of investment it will take to sustain the existing system," he said.

The study will look at the state of the existing locks, what repairs or improvements are needed, as well as details on how the seaway operates. Engineers also intend to build a library of data from existing environmental studies.

The study would also allow an investigation of the Canadian assets along the system, something that wasn't done in the earlier reconnaissance study.

Plans to expand the system have raised the ire of environmentalists and homeowners on both sides of the river.

They fear a range of problems from the impact on tourism to environmental problems such as introduction of invasive species


Published in Section A, page 3 in the Thursday, February 20, 2003 edition of the Brockville Recorder & Times.
Posted 4:32:18 PM Thursday, February 20, 2003.
 
It all depends Wetman how you define quickly: they dredge the upriver portion before our locks here about every 2 years. Not a real big section either, however, all our preferred sites are above the locks instead of below. Even with current it takes 2-3 weeks after the dredging is done maybe even more to get vis back to normal. Diving during the dredging is a wasted dive. Apparently though, this is all for the greater good, right???

SS
 
GTADiver once bubbled...
In case you missed this article, the dredging of the seaway will destroy the 100 + visibility we are now enjoying. It will also drop the river level as the dredged area fills, leaving shallow water areas at a low water level at the beginning of the season.
You'd have to dredge incredibly quickly to make much of a drop in water levels, so I can't see that as a concern. I sympathize about the viz.

Plans to expand the system have raised the ire of environmentalists and homeowners on both sides of the river.

They fear a range of problems from the impact on tourism to environmental problems such as introduction of invasive species
[/B]

NIMBY Let's shut down the seaway, and add thousands more trucks to our roads. Anyone got any idea how many train cars/transport trucks it would take to carry the same load as a single oil tanker from the beginning of the seaway up to the refineries? (I suppose we could build a pipeline :) ) Not to mention iron ore to the mills in Hamilton, grain going the other way (and you can't carry grain away in the train car or truck trailer the ore arrived in so it's deadheading back). in time delivery.

Some of these environmentalists should talk to each other. Ships are absolutely the cheapest (per pound/per ton) method of moving materials, least fuel used per weight, thus more environmentally friendly, but touching the bottom is not acceptable. Simple fact the seway needs to be maintained and in some cases, updated/expanded. The consequences from this need to be minimized as much as possible, but stopping it is not the answer. Compare the einvironmental impact of a doubling of seaway capacity to the impact of increasing our road capacity to haul the same cargo and I'm quite sure you'll find the seaway expansion much more palatable.

How many dive sites down Kingston & Brockville way, such as lock 21, would even not exist, if not for previous expansions and the dams that make the seaway deep enough to transit.
 
I think the NIMBY approach is to eliminate the admission of Panamax size ships into the seaway as well as their suspicion that the expansion would allow increased US Naval usage of this seaway.

I agree with your point, but must say that if it was your backyard, you would have a different opinion on the direct impact of blasting, dredging and increased shipping.

Forget the diving aspect, I am not going in water when there are super tankers potentially cruising overhead.
 
Groundhog246 once bubbled...


Some of these environmentalists should talk to each other. Ships are absolutely the cheapest (per pound/per ton) method of moving materials, least fuel used per weight, thus more environmentally friendly, but touching the bottom is not acceptable.

I like it when they touch bottom :) After all this is a DIVING forum :wink:
I wouldn't worry about dredging yet. They need to do a study on the study to see if a study on the need for a study on the study for dredging is needed to do a study.
Or is that just in Canada they do that?
 
SneakyB'tard once bubbled...
I think the NIMBY approach is to eliminate the admission of Panamax size ships into the seaway as well as their suspicion that the expansion would allow increased US Naval usage of this seaway.
Unfortunately, the same crew that runs a small ship can run a big one and not much more power to push a bigger ship, so it's big ships they're building. The costs to transfer goods to a smaller vessel to continue the trip upstream make it prohibative. With today's really big ships, even the Panama ditch has become too small. Not sure where the US Navy would be going on the Seaway. An attack on Casino Niagara? I think that's just a scare tactic, possibly related to the fact that US Seaway operations fall under the US Army Corps of Engineers.

I agree with your point, but must say that if it was your backyard, you would have a different opinion on the direct impact of blasting, dredging and increased shipping.
Perhaps not so major, or so long, but I have lived close to some quite large, noisy, disruptive construction. The only high volume traffic route inot/out of our city has been under construction with slow downs, accidents and major headaches for about a year now, with another year to go. At the end we'll have a better, safer road, until then.... They had to remove the bridge over it that connected a sizeable commercial/residential area, several stores have closed and much hardship on others. I feel for them and think they deserve some compensation (how do you adequately compensate someone whose business they've worked years to build has gone under?), but the needs of the majority mean the work must be done.

Forget the diving aspect, I am not going in water when there are super tankers potentially cruising overhead.
On that I would agree. Of course, big ships or small, so far I've avoided diving in shipping lanes or small boat channels. The seaway is historically a commercial shipping route. Most of the wrecks we dive are freighters, barges, tugs, with a few dredges, whose job is to make depth for the former. It's hard for me to agree with a claim that the seaway should change now to become a tourist/dive attraction, instead of a shipping route.
 
I haven't given this issue alot of thought simply because it probably won't happen for quite a while, if ever. The point I was trying to make from what I read on the NIMBY site was that their chief concern is environmental impact on an already unstable ecosystem.

As for US Naval activity, with a base in the Great Lakes already functional, though rear echlon in nature, Why wouldn't they increase partol and presence in the area if they consider it to be their weak flank?

But I doubt this will be a concern for any of us. Like divedude said, study of a study of a study...... :)
 
And besides that they would have to move the AE Vickery and the America. Maybe they could put them in Canadian waters and we would not have to do all the US Customs garbage.

Yes the sky is purple in my world today. LOL
:D
 
Purple sky...

Mine will be blue for 8 days in the Dominican (T-21 hrs)

Enjoy the cold weather Bubble Boy. ROTFL

:eek:ut:
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom