Criticism of Study Floods in from Conservation Groups

A U.S. and Canadian study released this spring was supposed to be the final word on whether a 1960s Army Corps of Engineers dredging project in the St. Clair River helped unleash an uncontrollable erosion problem that has led to a permanent - and ongoing - water loss from Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Led by an Army Corps of Engineers employee, the study concluded that the lakes' low water for most of the past decade is only natural, and nothing needs to be done about it.

The problem is lots of people at this point aren't buying that.

The public comment period for the draft study ended Saturday, by which time a host of environmental groups had come forward with blistering complaints about how the study authors reached their conclusions and how the authors failed in their stated goal to be "transparent at all stages" during the two-year process.

"They have cherry-picked the science that they want to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations that they want," said Mary Muter, of the Canadian conservation group Georgian Bay Forever.

Muter said there is evidence provided in the study itself that contradicts the conclusion that the riverbed erosion was a one-time deal caused by an ice jam in the 1980s and that it cost the lakes only about 4 inches - an amount the study authors decided is not large enough to justify installing some type of water-slowing structure to recapture the lost water.

"They've actually produced research that is contrary to what they are saying," said Muter, who serves as a member of the study's citizen advisory panel.

The study authors are not responding to that criticism or to other concerns flooding in from such influential Great Lakes conservation groups as the Alliance for the Great Lakes, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club's Great Waters Group, Great Lakes United and Midwest Environmental Advocates.

Study spokesman John Nevin said it would be inappropriate to respond to any public comments until the study authors have a chance to give detailed responses, probably in late September.

The final study is expected to be handed over to the International Joint Commission on Oct. 1.

That decision to stay mum until just days before the draft study is finalized poses a big problem for a coalition of conservation groups whose main complaint is that the public comment period expired before the release of all the scientific reports that drove the study board's conclusions.

Some of those reports were still incomplete as of Wednesday, according to the study's Web site.

The conservation coalition isn't complaining about the science in the report; it's complaining about not being able to see it.

"We view the process as incomplete and cannot make an informed decision as to whether or not we support the study board's recommendation to take no remedial action," wrote the coalition, which included many of the aforementioned groups, as well as the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and Milwaukee Riverkeeper. "It is a disservice to not provide thorough and publicly accessible reports for those who work with a common goal to protect the Great Lakes.

Read the full article at JSonline.com.