Taxpayers may need to come up with some local cash quick to keep this dream alive.
QuoteBy Carole Hawkins, Staff Writer
Container cargo through JaxPort could triple by 2035. Nearly 14,000 new jobs could be created. The regional economic impact could top $850 million per year.
But before that can happen, $684.2 million must be spent to deepen JaxPort's shipping channel. A bit less if the scope of the project is scaled back.
The first installment of that money needs to be on the table within a year or else JaxPort will fall off a timeline, an outcome that would affect market confidence.
"I don't think we're running out of time as we sit here today," said JaxPort CEO Brian Taylor. "On the other hand, if we were to reach a point in time where our customers see we're not moving and other ports are, then I think that's the tipping point."
With the federal government slow to spend money on infrastructure, state and local funding will likely play a larger role than normal in starting the deepening project on schedule.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546086
That's been the case for years. About time we have some real movement.
Now, where is the City going to come up with a couple hundred million dollars (or more )?
600 million and a devastating environmental cost. Just ask Miami.
QuoteRe the Aug. 18 article Port dredge damages more coral: As one of the original litigants opposing the PortMiami deep-dredge project as it was permitted, I say, with no satisfaction, We told you so.
Our original contention, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers couldn't conduct this project without grave consequences to precious reefs and inshore grass prairies, has been shown to be correct. Unfortunately, damage far exceeds boundaries the Corps used to justify the environmental permit pitched to Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The article estimated reef damage to be more than 260 acres. In reality, siltation has occurred 1.5 miles to the north and 2 miles south of the work site.
Additionally, the Corps' barges used to take dredge material offshore for disposal leaked, spilling even more sediment over a much-larger area. National Marine Fisheries cited only 13 violations in March and April. In reality, barges were leaking on every trip.
Add to that the fact that the barge operators were "short dumping" on the way to the official dump site. Time is money and a shorter trip pays with larger profits.
The original litigants have been prohibited by the courts from contesting this environmental travesty, holding that our settlement before the projects started with the Corps precluded any future challenges.
It will now be up to Miami-Dade County, the Corps, FDEP, National Marine Fisheries, EPA and NOAA to hash out where to place the blame and eventually determine what mitigation or penalties will be assessed.
Dan Kipnis, Miami Beach
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article31827711.html#storylink=cpy
The key word here is "could" triple by 2035.
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 08, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?
Quote from: Tacachale on September 08, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
The money does indeed appear to be a big issue. We do not have it. It is unlikely the Feds are going to fund much of it and I suspect that the figures used by the advocates of dredging do not include the mitigation cost of the damage the dredging will do.
From what I have seen, the standard upon which the funding could be based puts us last among the other regional ports which seems to mean that we will be unlikely to be successful at attracting the jobs and money the advocates of dredging like to talk about. In my mind, that puts the whole concept in question. Perhaps the port would be better off making sure we become the best alternative for the smaller vessels as the costs rise for those ports that put out the hundreds of millions it takes to deepen their channels.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on September 08, 2015, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 08, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?
I don't think at 47 feet we will get the really big ships. I think that has to be 52 feet.
Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting today 9/9/15 at 9:30 am in council chambers. Open to the Public. Anyone going? Anybody care? The Deep dredge is ON the agenda.
The Backroom FIND update is NOT on the agenda. Not good. Especially when discussed at the COJ Finance budget hearings. Can't make this stuff up.
We are so LOST.
HEY JACKSONVILLE! We have a BARGE! Does Putnam county know about this?
Plan on doing a RICO loop in our highly restricted unamerican RIO St. Johns river Downtown.
May throw in some environmental Ethics- Vince Seibold.
A Vivian Harrell KJB Bluebag cleanup.
The year of the Regional taxpayer subsidized boat ride?
Quote from: strider on September 09, 2015, 07:11:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 08, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
The money does indeed appear to be a big issue. We do not have it. It is unlikely the Feds are going to fund much of it and I suspect that the figures used by the advocates of dredging do not include the mitigation cost of the damage the dredging will do.
From what I have seen, the standard upon which the funding could be based puts us last among the other regional ports which seems to mean that we will be unlikely to be successful at attracting the jobs and money the advocates of dredging like to talk about. In my mind, that puts the whole concept in question. Perhaps the port would be better off making sure we become the best alternative for the smaller vessels as the costs rise for those ports that put out the hundreds of millions it takes to deepen their channels.
The news cycle has a short memory, but the federal money was already committed last year and it still hasn't been spent or reappropriated. That's the least of our worries. The state contribution is also ready. It just leaves the $200 million or so local contibution, which can be bonded. All that remains is for the local interests to get their act together, which seems to be happening. Of course, the opportunity cost is a separate issue. Is this really the most impactful use of $200 million? The economic impact is probably overstated, but on the flip side, the environmental concerns are also overstated.
I think Congress has "authorized" the project, but has yet "appropriate" any money, beyond the Corps study. Identifying and securing a local source is critical. I don't think the fed money will come without the local doll2. I am assuming the state share will be available when needed.
Quote from: sheclown on September 09, 2015, 07:24:41 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on September 08, 2015, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 08, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?
I don't think at 47 feet we will get the really big ships. I think that has to be 52 feet.
But I don't think we're going too 52 feet? I sure hope not the St Johns River at this depth would screw up the river pretty bad. Just so some fat cats can make a buck.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on September 09, 2015, 07:56:03 PM
Quote from: sheclown on September 09, 2015, 07:24:41 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on September 08, 2015, 09:39:32 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 08, 2015, 08:57:13 PM
It'll be $680 million split between local, state and federal sources. The money isn't that much of an issue in and of itself. It's more a matter of opportunity cost. And the environmental cost is unlikely to be as bad as some fear. It's small beer compared to waste runoff and sprawl and any number of other impacts already threatening the river. Let alone climate change.
I've said it before, but this project is coming. The mayor wants it, his predecessor wanted it, as does the State, the port and the business community. Our congressional delegation is willing to go to bat for it. The only real question will be what we do to mitigate the negative impact and maximize the positive impact.
Your still wrong and I hope the St Johns Riverkeeper bogs this project down. You will Never get the really big ships into the St Johns River even when you dig down to what 47 feet?
I don't think at 47 feet we will get the really big ships. I think that has to be 52 feet.
But I don't think we're going too 52 feet? I sure hope not the St Johns River at this depth would screw up the river pretty bad. Just so some fat cats can make a buck.
52' Was the depth we needed to compete with the new larger ships. It is my understanding that Super Post Panamax megaships need 50 feet. These were the ships were we hoping to bring to Jax. New York, Norfolk and Baltimore are at this depth now, I believe.
The cost to dredge to 52 feet soon made it unfeasible, but I don't know how this changes our goal of being a major port --
47' is now the new goal. But we can't compete with the deeper ports at this depth.
So not really sure how dredging to 47 feet is the "game changer" -- but I don't know that much about it.
QuoteThe economic impact is probably overstated, but on the flip side, the environmental concerns are also overstated.
I'd agree with the economic impact overstatement, lest we forget all the promises a Super Bowl would bring, ugh.
The environmental issues are real, and in digging down and allowing more salt water into the river, we are changing the river as we know it. Look at how far down the river the shrimp are being caught. We are seeing a lot more salt water in the river. Once you go to 47, you can't go back and fix the river, what's done is done.
Of course the Corps environmental impact is understated. That's what they do. Look at their Miami project. Massive damage, that is, killing, of coral reefs - that was stated in the Corps study as "minimal ". Why would "minimal " salt water intrusion be any different here?
PortMiami's Gantry cranes
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Miami-River-2015/i-XzVcHCW/0/L/DSCF7393-L.jpg)
PortMiami's new FEC intermodal railyard
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Downtown-Miami-2015/i-kFbXR23/0/L/DSCF7409-L.jpg)
When I say the environmental concerns are overstated, I mean those voiced by the anti-dredging advocates. It's possible that the Army Corps' study on the environmental impacts are *under*stated, but to my knowledge it's the only study that's actually been done. There was a peer review that addressed a number of the concerns with the project, but aren't nearly as serious as it's been made out to be. Anti-dredging advocates such as the Riverkeeper have expressed some other specific concerns with elements of the study, some of which are compelling, and some of which are not. In general, really any impact this project could have will pale in comparison to much more serious issues facing the river. Polluted runoff all along the river and its tributaries is one of them, as I'm sure the environmentalists will agree. Withdrawals from communities south of us are another. The impact from sprawl, including not only the threat of more runoff but also sedimentation from new construction and the destruction of even more green space, is maybe the most significant problem facing the river. And all of that is *besides* the changes coming to the river due to climate change. However, the environmental community seems focused on this one unwinnable cause.
Here's a reminder of what the Riverkeeper really has to say about this: Feel free to post the opposing view.
ST. JOHNS RIVER: TO DREDGE OR NOT TO DREDGE
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently studying the proposal to dredge the St. Johns River
from 40 to 47-feet to accommodate larger post-Panamax ships.
St. Johns Riverkeeper has serious concerns that:
The impacts to the river are being significantly underestimated,
The economic and environmental risks have been ignored or downplayed,
The projected economic benefits have been dramatically overstated by Jaxport and some of its
partners, and
Relevant information and facts have been excluded from the analysis and/or public debate.
Here are some of the facts you should know:
Overview
Thirteen miles of the river would be deepened, from the mouth of the St. Johns River to just
west of the Dames Point Bridge near Blount Island.
Two areas of the channel close to Chicopit Bay and Ft. Caroline National Memorial would be
widened.
The widening and 17.5% increase in depth would require the removal of 18 million cubic yards
of dredged material, the equivalent of over 1.6 million dump truck loads.
Up to 56 million cubic yards of dredge material would be removed from annual maintenance
dredging over the 50-year life of the project.
The dredged material will be placed in a newly created Offshore Dredged Material Disposal
Site (ODMDS), located in the Atlantic Ocean southeast of the mouth of the river.
The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was fast-tracked by President Obama's "We Can't Wait
Initiative," reducing the timeframe by 14 months and limiting the ability of the Corps to
thoroughly evaluate this complex issue.
The federal government shutdown further compromised the ability of the Army Corps and
other partner agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, to thoroughly evaluate
the impacts of the proposed deepening.
Environmental Impacts
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.
The most significant impacts to wetlands are expected to occur along the St. Johns, within 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."
The models estimate the exact same impact to wetlands (394.57 acres) and submerged aquatic
vegetation (180.5 acres) for every depth analyzed (44, 45, 46, 47, and 50-ft deep channel).
2
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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that a volume of 4,309,677 cubic yards
of rock may need to be removed, potentially exposing the surficial aquifer to saltwater
intrusion.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission have expressed concerns regarding the potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species from the blasting that will be necessary.
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."
Economic Considerations
The harbor deepening is projected to cost at least $684 million, with Jaxport and the local
community responsible for over $371 million.
This total does not include the cost of fixing Mile Point, annual maintenance dredging, and
road and other infrastructure improvements that will be necessary.
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 canal expansion will not provide any benefits to shippers that are not already available
today, so there will be no unfulfilled demand for East Coast ports to fulfill. For that reason,
many ports that are relying on the canal expansion to generate astronomical post-2014 growth
will be very disappointed." www.supplychainquarterly.com/topics/Logistics/201201panama/
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 12, 2015, 01:35:10 PM
When I say the environmental concerns are overstated, I mean those voiced by the anti-dredging advocates. It's possible that the Army Corps' study on the environmental impacts are *under*stated, but to my knowledge it's the only study that's actually been done. There was a peer review that addressed a number of the concerns with the project, but aren't nearly as serious as it's been made out to be. Anti-dredging advocates such as the Riverkeeper have expressed some other specific concerns with elements of the study, some of which are compelling, and some of which are not. In general, really any impact this project could have will pale in comparison to much more serious issues facing the river. Polluted runoff all along the river and its tributaries is one of them, as I'm sure the environmentalists will agree. Withdrawals from communities south of us are another. The impact from sprawl, including not only the threat of more runoff but also sedimentation from new construction and the destruction of even more green space, is maybe the most significant problem facing the river. And all of that is *besides* the changes coming to the river due to climate change. However, the environmental community seems focused on this one unwinnable cause.
Let's talk a bit about those other environmental issues involving the river and what's being done about them. Programs are in place to address some amount of the runoff issue. The Riverkeeper and organizations like JEA are involved with this. The polluted tributaries are also being looked at. Hogan's Creek clean up for example. The Army corps of engineers is also involved with this and this type of project moves very, very slowing due to cost and the litigation often involved. Least we forget, the Riverkeeper is not totally against the dredging, but rather has fought for proper mitigation of the impacts, including the removal of the Rodman Dam, which we can see is off the table, mostly likely for political reasons.
The impact of Sprawl is an interesting one. One would normally not connect the fight of preservationists to save the old houses, to stop the Blight Committee from bulldozing every house empty for 2 years or more, as helping the health of the river, but it does. Because saving the old houses and getting them back to a productive use fights sprawl and that can slow down the loss of green space. However, the policies of this city promotes that sprawl rather than limits it in any way. By the way, the Riverkeeper does speak out and does try to mitigate impacts from new developments. You can see that from the minutes of the various meetings.
The amount of effluent piped into the river from Downtown. The effluents from the many boats on the river due to the lack of practical pump out facilities. Just to list two small things that impacts the river in a negative manor that few even think about. I understand tests are being done but the process is very slow and with larger things going on, like the dredging issues, hard to get the smaller things noticed enough to get the needed study done to determine the damage being done. A local non-profit has tried to address a part of this with the idea of a pump out boat but that takes money and a state that will enforce the laws governing that issue. No joy to be had there.
Overall, I think everything that potentially damages the river in some way is being pursued by someone in some manor. But as it takes decades to get here, it will take decades to fix the problems. Everything has to be fought for, even the small and apparently "simple" solutions. Like a pump-out boat. There is resistance to everything that helps the river, not necessarily because no one wants to help the river, but because it costs money and perhaps the harder to come by political capital to do it.
So when a project like the Dredging that will cost untold hundreds of millions by the time it is done and precious little of it is for addressing the multiple negative impacts on the river and it's entire ecosystem, one has to question the very reason it is being done. The reduction in the scope of the project doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the leadership of Jaxport either. It reeks of desperation to get a deepening project at all costs, regardless of how little benefit there is probably to be had by doing it. At this point, it does not appear to me that the public is the one who will be profiting from this project, we the public will simply be paying the huge cost for many decades to come.
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. Open your eyes and see. This has nothing to do with who is Mayor as "your" Mayor wanted the dredging as well. And while those eyes are open, go read what Lori Boyer has to say about the budget and this administration. Will this Mayor be perfect? Of course not but if one single thing is better and nothing else ends up worse, the change will have been worth it.
Meanwhile, let's get back to the river. And how to preserve it for everyone that comes after us. Not a bad idea to at least try to do that, is it?
Quote from: strider on September 14, 2015, 10:59:42 AM
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. Open your eyes and see. This has nothing to do with who is Mayor as "your" Mayor wanted the dredging as well. And while those eyes are open, go read what Lori Boyer has to say about the budget and this administration. Will this Mayor be perfect? Of course not but if one single thing is better and nothing else ends up worse, the change will have been worth it.
Meanwhile, let's get back to the river. And how to preserve it for everyone that comes after us. Not a bad idea to at least try to do that, is it?
Stephen's mayor wanted this project as bad as anyone, he just couldn't get things together enough to actually pull it off.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 14, 2015, 11:17:14 AM
Quote from: strider on September 14, 2015, 10:59:42 AM
Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. Open your eyes and see. This has nothing to do with who is Mayor as "your" Mayor wanted the dredging as well. And while those eyes are open, go read what Lori Boyer has to say about the budget and this administration. Will this Mayor be perfect? Of course not but if one single thing is better and nothing else ends up worse, the change will have been worth it.
Meanwhile, let's get back to the river. And how to preserve it for everyone that comes after us. Not a bad idea to at least try to do that, is it?
Stephen's mayor wanted this project as bad as anyone, he just couldn't get things together enough to actually pull it off.
Yep, regardless of what Stephen is trying to spin in his last couple of posts, who is Mayor has little to do with the dredging. Both candidates said they wanted dredging, so that makes them equal in that regard. And the Mayor is but one small cog in the wheel that is moving he dredging forward. None of that changes the fact that it most likely will cause substantial damage to the river with very little return to the tax payers paying for it. Even the Army Corps of Engineers has rated our chances at success pretty low, about half that of Charleston and Savannah. Which I take to mean they will get more funding than we will. And is I think the reason behind the reduced scope of the project. It comes across as: Hey, since you don't think we can be successful getting everything we believe we need to have a real chance at being competitive, let's settle for less than we really need and see how that works for us.
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2015, 12:00:41 PM
you should take it up with your candidate.
He decides this anyways doesn't he? How is that whole Kim Scott thing working out btw?
The current Mayor is but one part of this equation, and YOUR candidate (you know, the one that lost.....) would have signed off on it as well, but you know that. You just sometimes dumb down because you think it's cool or something. It's not.
Quote from: strider on September 14, 2015, 05:08:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 14, 2015, 12:00:41 PM
you should take it up with your candidate.
He decides this anyways doesn't he? How is that whole Kim Scott thing working out btw?
The current Mayor is but one part of this equation, and YOUR candidate (you know, the one that lost.....) would have signed off on it as well, but you know that. You just sometimes dumb down because you think it's cool or something. It's not.
Thank You for your answer Stider you also have figured out how the pest of Metrojacksonville really works. ;)