St. Johns Riverkeeper will challenge river-dredging project in federal court

[Tacachale]

Goddamn it. Just great.

[Know Growth]

Another Jacksonville battle cry to "ADVANCE TO THE REAR!"

Prepare To Prepare!   Grit our teeth!  Grimace Ardently!  Haul the drag anchor! Come About! Full speed astern! Drop the hook!
Prepare the Mitigation papers!  Keel haul the Guests! Abandon Ship! Don't forget the hull plug!

[Kay]

Goddamn it. Just great.

Maybe this is why Riverkeeper is suing.  Is Curry the reason the Chamber has pulled out as he only seems to care about deepening and not about any effects on the river? 

[Tacachale]

Goddamn it. Just great.

Maybe this is why Riverkeeper is suing.  Is Curry the reason the Chamber has pulled out as he only seems to care about deepening and not about any effects on the river?

They're pulling out because the only reason they were in in the first place was as a compromise with the Riverkeeper. Now the Riverkeeper has decided to sue the Army Corps, so the port's taking the out.

In other words, we're getting the thing we always going to get as soon as the city stopped sitting on its own hands, the deepening project, but now there's going to be less investment in mitigation. Oh well, at least there's an unwinnable lawsuit to make people feel better.

[Kay]

Are there other options for the Riverkeeper and others who want to protect the river?  What are they?  It appears the business community and the mayor are not willing to put political muscle into protecting the river. 

I was hoping for a win/win not a win/lose. 

[Tacachale]

Sounds like they're out of ideas beyond lawsuits, which aren't a particularly good way to get people to compromise with you.

[ChriswUfGator]

They attempted the latter option for well over a year already, to mostly deaf ears. I don't blame them, even if they do lose. It's funny how everybody is all for accountability in city developments until it goes against their personal desires. Then all of a sudden it's 'anti-progress.'

No, the city, port and Army Corps of Engineers jumped right on board with demolishing the Rodman dam, for instance. There's plenty more they'd be willing to do. But obstructionism will just make them say screw it, they're going win this suit and the project will go ahead anyway, but everyone will have spent a lot of money and time.

Yeah, I thought they reached an agreement that traded the demolition of the rodman dam (reopening the rest of the Ocklawaha for boat traffic and restoring significant flow to the saint johns) for not opposing this project? I'm honestly curious to know, which side is reneging on the deal? I thought it was a good deal.

Regarding the dredging, they're only dredging the commercial areas from mayport to downtown, not the entire 200 miles of the river, there will probably be marginally increased salinity in that area, plus the problem of what they intend to do with all that spoil. But aside from that, I'd expect the impact to be marginal at best, and if it brings more shipping through then it's a positive.

Regarding the lawsuit, I wouldn't discount it so readily. Private groups suing over a political issue has been the root cause of many 'back to the drawing board' moments. Once they establish standing they've probably got a decent shot if the ACOE study is flawed. A group like this filing a lawsuit like this just resulted in our legislature spending the last 2 years redrawing our statewide legislative districts.

I really am curious, I've donated to the riverkeeper, I always respected their work. But I want to know which side reneged on this deal so I can make an informed decision about that in the future.

[thelakelander]

Is it safe to assume at the very least, a suit has the potential of delaying federal approval and funding? I ask, because I also assume there's a certain window of opportunity, in terms of competition. It seems like we're already behind and at some point, the feds will quickly find out if it's worth investing more money in dredging depending on the increase (or lack of) in shipping for the ports ahead of us.

[icarus]

I am 100% in the River Keeper's camp on this because:

a.) no one has really been able to quantify the real economic benefit of dredging the port to compete with every other port on the east coast doing the same (if I am going to prostitute my natural resources, at least lets understand at what price).

b.) Several other ports including Miami and Charleston have invested in facilities for efficient movement of containerized shipping.  We are already two steps behind.

c.) The Union has effectively created a gridlock at the Port on daily rail traffic but we have also blocked every attempt to establish short line rail facilities to bridge the gap and Union blockage by creating a different rail path.

d.) Maybe, Curry disbanded the commission because they have gotten the community feedback and its continued existence creates an unnecessary encumbrance to a strong leader capable of making decisions.

e.) Really dig into the science, the proposed dredging creates cascading environmental issues some of which have yet to be addressed in the environmental reports.

f.) Scott has gutted the water management districts to the point that we have Central Florida and Billionaire Canadian Cattle Ranchers siphoning off the watershed for the river.

Honestly, God bless the SJRK for believing in their cause and protecting the economic and cultural source of much of what makes Jacksonville .. Jacksonville ... the St. Johns River.

[jumpingfish]

Chamber walks away...

JAX Chamber is not an advocate for the river. Chambers are advocates for developers, Florida Builders Association types and JaxPort. Advocating for unbalanced  capitalism and for the banks that fund the expansion. Like JaxPort, playing the diluted and overused "job card" over and over again (and starting to sound like a pouting child), sabotaging the future of our long term quality of life and the river in the name of unchecked and unsustainable expansion. What do we have to show for it? A bulkheaded, blocked off river with no shoreline. All bubbles burst and Liberty Street falls into the sea. Jim

###
CHAMBER BACKS OUT OF COMMITMENT TO OCKLAWAHA

Without notifying us of their decision, the Jacksonville Area Chamber Commerce has apparently backed out of the Memorandum of Understanding to restore the Ocklawaha. 

We are disappointed in the Chamber for walking away from such an important opportunity to work together to fortify our river and provide real mitigation for the proposed dredging. 

We have heard Chamber leaders consistently say that they are committed to more mitigation and a "balanced approach" that does not cause significant harm to the St. Johns.  However, this decision raises serious concerns about their commitment to this goal and demonstrates the importance of our lawsuit to hold the Army Corps and the proposed dredging project accountable. 

We remain committed to working with other organizations to achieve our goals, but we also remain committed to vigorously defending the river.   
As a result, we will forge on, using all of the tools in our toolbox to effectively represent the interests of our river and work towards her protection.

Thank you for making this important advocacy work possible.  With your ongoing help, our St. Johns River continues to have a strong and powerful voice.

For the River,

Your St. Johns Riverkeeper

[riverkeepered]

No, the city, port and Army Corps of Engineers jumped right on board with demolishing the Rodman dam, for instance. There's plenty more they'd be willing to do. But obstructionism will just make them say screw it, they're going win this suit and the project will go ahead anyway, but everyone will have spent a lot of money and time.

While restoring the Ocklawaha is by far the most cost effective option to help mitigate the damage from the dredging, numerous other options for mitigation exist, such as creek restoration in Duval County. However, the Army Corps refused to seriously consider the Ocklawaha or any other options, besides land acquisition and monitoring.    While land conservation is a good thing, it does nothing to offset any of the damage, since that land is already in a natural state.  Monitoring is not mitigation.  It is a permit condition that is routinely required anyway.  Monitoring is necessary but will only let us know there is a problem after the damage has been done, and the Corps indicated that it would be very difficult to single out dredging as the culprit.  The bottom line is that St. Johns Riverkeeper has worked with the Corps for over 2 years, trying to get our concerns addressed regarding the environmental impacts and deficiencies in their analysis and proposed plan.  Unfortunately, it didn't work.

We were also upfront with the Corps, City, Jaxport, and the Chamber that we would be forced to go to court, if our concerns were not satisfied and more mitigation was not provided.  Once the Record of Decision was signed by the Corps in April, we had a 120-day window to file a legal challenge.  The Chamber and the City had the chance to avoid the lawsuit and help fortify our river by acquiring funding and authorization for the Ocklawaha restoration, but they failed.  We even agreed to drop our lawsuit if they were able to get the job done in the near future, but they decided to walk away.  They did so without any notice.  We actually found out from the media.  We held up our end of the bargain and are just following through with what we said we would do all along. 

Along with the fact that they had made little progress towards acquiring the funding necessary to restore the Ocklawaha, I suspect the lack of federal funding support for the project had something to do with the Chamber's decision.   The proposed dredging project only has a Benefit to Cost ratio of 2.7, while the minimum required for funding consideration is 2.5.   That is why the Port recently floated the idea of scaling back the scope of the project in an attempt to boost the BCR and increase their chances of funding.  Savannah has a BCR of 5.5 and Charleston's is 3.79, so Jaxport and the Chamber know that many of our competitors are in a much better position to receive support from a limited pot of money.   

[riverkeepered]

Here is another reason why we need more mitigation for the St. Johns to help offset the impacts of dredging and why we can't just blindly trust the Army Corps' assessment of the proposed plan. 

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/08/18/portmiami-dredge-project-damaging-more-coral-than-expected/

The damage to Biscayne Bay and the coral would have actually been much worse had it not been for two separate legal actions taken by the Miami Waterkeeper that successfully secured more mitigation.  Remarkably, the damage described in this article is after those additional protections were put in place by the Corps.   

Unfortunately, the Corps has a long track-record of overestimating costs and underestimating environmental impacts. 

[The_Choose_1]

Here is another reason why we need more mitigation for the St. Johns to help offset the impacts of dredging and why we can't just blindly trust the Army Corps' assessment of the proposed plan. 

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/08/18/portmiami-dredge-project-damaging-more-coral-than-expected/

The damage to Biscayne Bay and the coral would have actually been much worse had it not been for two separate legal actions taken by the Miami Waterkeeper that successfully secured more mitigation.  Remarkably, the damage described in this article is after those additional protections were put in place by the Corps.   

Unfortunately, the Corps has a long track-record of overestimating costs and underestimating environmental impacts.

This is very true ask the people who live along the Mississippi River, how bad the Army Corps of Engineers really are. We don't need to dig so deep down for the largest ships Jaxport will never see. Come on people lets save the St Johns River for generations to come not just the Rich people and the Politicians GREED!

[riverkeepered]

Guest Column: Riverkeeper explains opposition to current dredging plans

St. Johns Riverkeeper has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for more than three years in an effort to protect the St. Johns River and ensure the community has the information necessary to make a fully informed decision about the proposal to deepen the river channel from 40 to 47 feet.

By removing 18 million cubic yards of rock and sediment to make the river nearly 18 percent deeper, we know salt water will move farther upstream.

It has occurred with previous dredging projects and will happen again this time. This increase in salinity will likely damage or destroy hundreds of acres of wetlands, submerged grasses and trees in parts of the river and its tributaries, such as Julington Creek and the Ortega River. Critical habitat for fisheries and pollution filters for the river will be lost.

When the Corps of Engineers released the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement in June 2013, the study of the proposed dredging lacked critical analysis and data that were essential to the decision-making process.

In addition, the proposed mitigation plan to offset the anticipated damage to the river was woefully inadequate. As a result, we assembled a team of highly qualified experts to help us independently review the analysis and reports that were being conducted.

After careful evaluation of the impact statement and proposed plan by our experts and staff, we concluded the impacts to the river are being significantly underestimated, proposed mitigation would do nothing to offset damage, the projected economic benefits have been dramatically overstated and relevant information and facts have been excluded from analysis and/or public debate.

In July 2013, an independent expert peer review commissioned by the Corps of Engineers raised serious questions about some of the modeling results and conclusions of the impact statement, validating our concerns about the thoroughness and accuracy of the Army Corps' evaluation.

For instance, the peer review determined that "the analysis and presentation of salinity results ... provide an incomplete understanding of the impacts of channel enlargement."

The independent expert panel also took issue with the economic analysis that was conducted, concluding regional benefits are overemphasized and "federal interest has not been demonstrated ... because a multi-port analysis assessing competition among regional ports is not provided."

Unfortunately, the Corps released its final impact statement in April 2014 without addressing many of the shortcomings of previous drafts. In addition, the Corps slashed the mitigation budget from $80 million to less than $3 million, putting our river at even greater risk.

We have gone to great lengths over the last three years to hold the Army Corps accountable, achieve meaningful mitigation for our river and collaborate with the Port Task Force, Chamber and others to seek a viable solution.

Our goal has never been to stop dredging. Our goal has always been to ensure a thorough evaluation of the project, a fully informed public dialogue and adequate protections for the St. Johns River.

The current plan for dredging doesn't accomplish these objectives and instead exposes our river to untenable and unacceptable risk. We must look no further than Miami for evidence of the Corps' propensity for mistakes, the potential for unintended consequences and why we need more mitigation.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrative recently said the dredging of Biscayne Bay has resulted in damage to the coral reefs that "greatly exceeds" the Corps' projections by up to 10 times.

There is simply too much at stake to get this decision wrong. In accordance with our mission, we will continue to use all of the tools available to us to defend and protect our community's greatest natural resource, the St. Johns River.

Lisa Rinaman is the St. Johns Riverkeeper.

http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2015-09-03/story/guest-column-riverkeeper-explains-opposition-current-dredging

[riverkeepered]

If you are still wondering why it is so important to hold the Army Corps accountable and seek more mitigation....

For the last few years, we at Miami Waterkeeper and our allies have been pressing local, state, and federal officials to enhance coral-reef protections during this project. We have filed two lawsuits to force the Corps to implement better management practices. Last October, after months of resisting, the Corps finally agreed to pay NMFS more than $400,000 to relocate several hundred staghorn corals from the dredging site to a secure nursery run by the University of Miami. These corals are listed as threatened.

But, when the NMFS divers arrived on site, the Corps and its contractor had anchored the dredge ship directly atop the reef, preventing the divers from accessing most of the threatened corals. Despite repeated pleas from NMFS, the Corps refused to move its ship, even for one day, claiming the diversion would be too costly.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article36067368.html#storylink=cpy