The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has completed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Jaxport's proposal to deepen 13 miles of the St. Johns River from 40 to 47-feet. Unfortunately, the impression has been given that all environmental concerns have been resolved, federal funding will likely be approved, and this is a done deal.
This is far from the truth.
The USACE analysis is flawed and incomplete with major concerns and questions that remain. Also, the USACE report won't be finalized until September, federal funding is not guaranteed, and Jacksonville has no idea where the local share of close to $400 million will come from.
Here are some of the concerns raised by St. Johns Riverkeeper:
• Salinity will move farther upstream, impacting hundreds of acres of wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs) and killing or stressing numerous trees in some sections of the river, especially in areas like the Ortega River, Julington, Durbin, and Black Creeks.
• The Corps acknowledges the limitations of its models: "Actual conditions will deviate from those used to drive the models. These deviations introduce additional uncertainty in the models' ability to predict future conditions and impacts."
• Water may remain in the river for a longer period of time, increasing the probability of algal blooms.
• Larger ships will create larger wakes, increasing the likelihood of shoreline erosion.
• The mitigation plan is woefully inadequate, failing to offset damage incurred from dredging.
• The impacts from dredging are expected to significantly exacerbate and expedite the inevitable affects of sea level rise (SLR). Unfortunately, the Army Corps evaluates the effects of the minimum value for SLR and never considers either the Intermediate or the worst-case scenario.
• The Independent Expert Peer Review (IEPR) of the EIS raised significant concerns stating that the analysis of salinity results "provide an incomplete understanding of the impacts of channel enlargement" and the sediment modeling results "do not provide a reliable estimate of the annual sedimentation rates" and "are assumed to be unreliable indicators of future conditions."
• The Corps report only evaluates the benefits of larger vessels having access to a deeper harbor. These transportation cost savings would accrue primarily to the shippers and carriers, not the local economy.
• Local job projections are from a report by a paid consultant of Jaxport. The Martin Associates report has not been evaluated by the Corps and the assumptions and methodology used by Martin have not been independently peer-reviewed and validated.
• Nearly 66% of the jobs cited by Jaxport are "related jobs." The Martin study clearly states: "It is to be further emphasized that when the impact models are used for planning purposes, related jobs should not be used to measure the economic benefits of a particular project. Related jobs are not estimated with the same degree of defensibility as direct, induced and indirect jobs."
• No cost estimate has been provided for the annual maintenance dredging that will be required.
• The Dames Point Bridge has a vertical clearance of 174 feet and the Blount Island overhead power cables have a clearance of 175 feet. Some of the post-Panamax ships require an air draft of 190 feet or more.
• The IEPR concluded that "The Regional Economic Development (RED) benefits are incorrectly attributed to the harbor deepening and therefore overemphasize regional benefits of the Jacksonville Harbor Project."
• The Army Corps has failed to conduct a multi-port analysis. As a result, the IEPR identified this omission as a "showstopper" issue.
http://www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org/blog/get-the-facts-about-dredging-proposal-/
I hope the Jacksonville community and our leaders will take a hard look at this project and carefully scrutinize all of the costs, environmental impacts, risks, and job claims before jumping on the bandwagon. This is a high stakes decision that shouldn't be taken likely. We can't afford to get it wrong - the future of the St. Johns and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are on the line. If we build it, don't think that means they will come. The odds are against Jacksonville ever becoming a first and last port of calls, so the community needs to be prepared for the dire consequences if that doesn't occur after making such a huge investment.
As a result, we also need to be evaluating our other options for the port and our local economy. What is our backup plan if dredging to 47 feet isn't found to be a good investment for Jax? Are there better ways to invest $400 million to create high paying job? The port will remain an important part of the local economy, so how do we make the port the best it can be without dredging? This should all be part of the ongoing analysis and public dialogue.
Would it not be cheaper to raise the dames point bridge?
I have not seen many ACE projects that have not had major problems. New Orleans levees, and the everglades come to mind.
They are raising the Bayonne Bridge in NY to accommodate larger ships and it is costing an estimated $1.3 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/nyregion/long-review-of-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0