| Author |
Message |
    
Delaware_riverkeeper
New member
Username: Delaware_riverkeeper
Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 11:51 am: | 
|
I hope I am posting to the right location. I'm new to this Forum so my apologies if i've done it wrong.
But i wanted to be sure folks were aware that the deepening proposal puts at risk alot of fish species, their habitat and foraging grounds. Summer flounder, winter flounder, scup, skate and wide variety of sport fish are at risk of harm. So are sturgeon, oysters, and crabs. If folks want to learn more i'd be happy to share. But in the immediate present there is an opportunity to speak to the issue with DNREC and to urge them to protect the fish of the River for us all by not allowing this project to move forward. If you go to the DNREC web site it is on the home page how to comment and the documents. There is also information at www.delawareriverkeeper.org. I am really concerned that there are so few of us speaking for the fish. |
Gimli
New member
Username: Gimli
Post Number: 37
Registered: 03-2006
Thick ain't they boys!
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 02:32 pm: |
|
Please explain exactly how dredging the main shipping channel 5 feet will have a negitive impact on any one of the species you mention. Please cite peer reviewed studies to back up your assertions. |
Jay
Board Administrator
Username: Jay
Post Number: 5299
Registered: 05-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 03:14 pm: |
|
Gimli,
This group had a representative present @ a winter Tidal Finfish Advisory Council meeting when they requested a vote of support from the TFFAC to oppose deepening the channel. Dr. Dewayne Fox, current Chair of the TFFAC was away on a Sturgeon research mission so I was acting Chair. At that time I asked the DNREC officials present if they were in "process" with permitting or challenging/defending their denial of the permit. It was stated this was active. Since the TFFAC works with Fisheries in an advisory capacity then moving to a vote would have been redundant or superflous as DNREC was doing what the Riverkeepers Rep. wanted. Anyway that is what my recollection is.
There is actually quite of bit of "paper" written on this issue and if I may direct you to this "summary" letter from NOAA to the Army Corp.s it outlines concerns covers the effect or potential effect on fisheries. Go here:
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Info/Documents/NMFS%20EFH%20Letter%204-16-09.pdf
For more information I suggest reveiwng published documents here concerning the application for dredging:
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Info/Pages/US_Army_Corps_of_Engineers_2010_Dredging_Application.aspx
Jay
BTW Thank you and your son, Roger for helping us out in our recent Cobia trip out of Cape Charles.
I know we will get it right next summer.
Jay Little, Board Administrator
admin@saltfish.net
|
Gimli
New member
Username: Gimli
Post Number: 38
Registered: 03-2006
Thick ain't they boys!
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 04:58 pm: |
|
Jay, I don't want to drag this out, but in reviewing the information you suggested I did not read anything but opinions and possibilities, no hard science. There is no doubt in my mind that the dredging project will have some effect on wildlife, but not to the degree that should prevent the project from moving forward, but,of course, that is only my opinion. |
Jay
Board Administrator
Username: Jay
Post Number: 5302
Registered: 05-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 05:13 pm: |
|
Gimli,
I think this is a good topic for discussion and personally learn from your point of view.
Go to page 13 of the first link.
The DNREC biologists produce studies that are based on the scientific process. They are cited here as well as peer reviewed articles the best I can tell.
Jay Little, Board Administrator
admin@saltfish.net
|
Ridgerunner
Founding member
Username: Ridgerunner
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 08:58 pm: |
|
In my view the real question isn't the dredge operations and deepening of the channel, but the disposition of the spoils. This whole saga is just pure Ed Rendell politics and the topic has beeen beaten to death on this site over two years.
If you are inclined to facts and math the reaity is that Norfolk is a hands down better port from a logistics and economic point of view. How much will it cost to preserve longshoreman employment in the ports of Wilmington, Philadelpia, and Camden when the entry to Norfolk / Hampton Roads takes an hour versus a day each way in and out of the the Delaware Bay?
Another reality is that ultimately this will kill jobs in the lightering business. To say more will land this in the dead horse forum.
(Message edited by ridgerunner on July 14, 2010) |
Gimli
New member
Username: Gimli
Post Number: 39
Registered: 03-2006
Thick ain't they boys!
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 11:11 am: |
|
Jay, What I want to see are documents that prove dredging the main shipping channel will have a lasting negative impact on fish. One document I read estimated dredging would kill 50 turtles and 50 sturgeon. How? |
Frank
Junior member
Username: Frank
Post Number: 164
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 12:39 pm: |
|
What I want to see are documents that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that dredging the main shipping channel WILL NOT have a negative impact on the environment or it's inhabitants.
I think to require proof of the opposite before proceeding is totally illogical from the standpoint of anyone who is the least bit conservation-minded. |
Delaware_riverkeeper
New member
Username: Delaware_riverkeeper
Post Number: 2
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 01:17 pm: |
|
So sorry to have been absent from this discussion until this point. I have been working on my comment in which i reference multiple agency and expert documents articulating the vast array of ways that deepening threatens and harms fish, shellfish, marshlands and more. In addition, there is ample evidence on the record that deepening is not needed to support the maintenance of growth of ports in the region.
In the Corps' own words (and remember they are desperate to justify this project so it is telling that this is the best they can say)
• “the mix and volume of cargoes coming to the benefiting terminals will be the same for either the current 40 foot or proposed 45 foot channel depths."
• The project’s navigation benefits from the channel deepening are based upon transportation cost savings from more efficiently managing vessel-operating costs.
• "There is no induced tonnage as a result of the deepening project ….”
“The future volume of cargo passing through the Delaware River port system is determined by macroeconomic factors that are not affected in any measurable way by the channel depth. " ….
• With the deeper channel, fewer total vessel calls will be required...."
With regards to Delaware facilities the only DE facility they ascribe benefits to is Magellan LP terminal and for the berth from which that benefit is to come the Corps says “construction of the berth is not dependent on implementation of the 45-foot project”
The Corps is clear no other Delaware facilities are considered by Army Corps as beneficiaries from deepening in the State of Delaware.
Not
Port of Wilmington,
Delaware City Refinery,
Sunoco Refinery,
Oceanport Industries,
General Chemical,
Delmarva Power and Light,
Logan Generating Station
DuPont Edgemoor and Chambers Works facilities
Delaware facilities are so unlikely to receive any benefits from deepening that the Corps says “there is no rational economic basis to postulate that they will dredge their access channels/berthing areas to 45 feet.”
The oil facilities that are to receive 50% of benefits from the project in the form of reduced lightering have said at best that they will study what to do if the project goes through -- no commitment to do anything to take advantage.
And there is lots of growth going on in the ports today not dependent upon a deepened channel. We have a successful port -- 4th largest in the country according to the Phila Inq this week -- and we can do it with the methods of operation used today. Deepening is about making money for oil companies and big business in the form of reduced costs, not bringing more goods up the river.
But what about the lost fishery jobs -- oysters $80 mil a year, horseshoes $34 mil a year in ecotourism, sturgeon if the caviar industry were to be restored could be as much as $400 million if the figures of the past were to hold true in present value. And the list goes on for other commercial and recreational fisheries and more.
The science and studies are on the record. Every comment i make refers to them, including my 80 some page document in the works.
See the recent letters from DNREC to the Corps -- you can find them on the DNREC web site.
Multiple letters from the National Marine Fisheries service including April, 2009.
The GAO when it comes to economics -- 2002, 2006, 2010
multiple letters from NJDEP experts over the past two years.
Sturgeon studies cited showing the sturgeon use the reach of the river at times, places and locations where they will be impacted by deepening, blasting and a moving salt line in terms of reduced spawning habitat.
letters on the record from the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Papers by Kahn and sommerfield regarding erosion of the marshlands.
It is the job of the Army Corps to present credible, up to date and defensible science. They have not done so, as per reviews by agencies and experts throughout the region.
The list goes on but this post is already too long.
Every issue, concern, question, threat, harm that is raised by challengers of this project from the environmental perspective relies upon the findings of the agencies and experts charged with reviewing and researching this project. It is all documented.
Once the damage is done it can't be undone. That is why the one post was correct -- It is up to the Army Corps to prove no harm.
If the Corps is so sure then why not provide an up to date environmental impact statement based on all the available up to date science, rather than relying on a 13 year old EIS that has been challenged many times over?
When it comes to the deepening it is the size of the project, the wealth and vast array of harms and threats to such a large number of species, habitats and environmental elements that makes this an unacceptably damaging project. Especially when the Army Corps has been totally unable to demonstrate any need. |
Delaware_riverkeeper
New member
Username: Delaware_riverkeeper
Post Number: 3
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 01:18 pm: |
|
P.S. the public comment period was extended to September 13. Sounds like there are some good views to be shared with DNREC so i'd really like to encourage you to submit a letter with your thoughts.
The address is:
Public Hearing Officer
c/o Laura Herr
Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands Section
DNREC
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
Re: Delaware Deepening Application |
Gimli
New member
Username: Gimli
Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2006
Thick ain't they boys!
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 03:47 pm: |
|
What about the lost fishery jobs...
I have no idea where you got the figure of 80 million dollars in revenue from the oyster fishery in Delaware Bay, but I do know some watermen who would like to know who caught all those oysters. As for ecotourism associated with horseshoe crabs, that kind of figure can be calulated with so many variables that is nothing but a guess. As for the caviar fishery you, me and our great grandchildern will never see a commercial fishery for sturgeon, dredging or not.
There are many other so-called facts that you site that I have a problem with and still no one has answered my original question; how will dredging have a lasting negative impact on fish in the Delaware Bay? |
Wissahickon
New member
Username: Wissahickon
Post Number: 63
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 14, 2010 - 08:15 pm: |
|
I am not saying these people do not do good work on some issues but a point of view from a concerned party is the Delaware River Keepers may not always truly be friends to recreational fisherman as it has been pointed out to me that your Org. has sided with PEW in repealing Bill # HR1584...http://www.endoverfishing.org/resour...ing_HR1584.pdf |
Delaware_riverkeeper
New member
Username: Delaware_riverkeeper
Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2010 - 10:22 am: |
|
HI Wissahickon,
Sure, there may be issues and times when we might disagree on an issue or item. But many more times I think we are like minded and share many of the same concerns. Whenever we can i think it serves us all well to join voices and share information and work together. And in those instances when we don't agree on the right path forward we can agree to disagree respectfully. Whether or not I agree with you on a particular issue i am always appreciative of care for the River and always want to hear the other perspective so that i can better inform my thinking and decisions.
On the deepening, for example, why is it the Army Corps be allowed to kill any horseshoe crabs or sturgeon that get in their way when everyone else is subject to stringent regulation? If we are so concerned about these species (which I believe we should be) that we put in place strong protections then shouldn't government agencies be held more accountable to protect them rather than less accountable? |
Cbason
New member
Username: Cbason
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2010 - 09:22 pm: |
|
Good work riverkeeper. It's not an easy task assembling the information, my hats off to you. Looking forward to reading your report. |
Sandman
Senior member
Username: Sandman
Post Number: 660
Registered: 02-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2010 - 09:12 am: |
|
First off, I question the politics and the money being spent on this particular project. Is this a good use of taxpayer resources or just pork?
But on the environmental catastrophe of dredging, I am very skeptical. We heard the same thing for 20 years before the man-made Assawoman canal was/is finally being re-dredged. During that time the Assawoman continued to silt up and die due to lack of water flow. A group sued and stopped the dredging of a boat channel at my development years ago (fortunately they had already completed the part by my future house at that point). Always it is the same arguments. 1) Everything in the direct path of the dredging will be killed, 2) the silt stirred up is toxic and will pollute the water for years to come, 3) the spoils are toxic and there is no safe place to keep them and the cost is prohibitive to keep them isolated. The opposition will want study after study to prove that there will be absolutely no adverse effects, which is almost impossible to prove and therefore paralyzes the project.
But let's look at what dredging is. It is the removal of mud and soil from one location to another, for the purpose of deepening an area for navigation. This is mud. Dredging happens in nature, albeit far less frequently now that man has built up jetties and rock piles and other coastal defenses to anchor coastal land. Now that the periodic movement of inlets up and down the barrier islands has been for the most part stopped by man, shallow bays are no longer being occasionally scoured deep by new inlets and many of our bays will eventually become marshes and meadows short of rising sea levels.
Now about those arguments. 1) Most things with fins or claws will get the heck out of the way of a dredge. I do not imagine many sturgeon will just sit there by a noisy, muddy dredge operation until they are killed by the process, and the bay is plenty big for them to seek refuge elsewhere. Some crabs and horseshoe crabs won't move out of the way quick enough, and clams and corals in the way are toast. Most of these creatures have short life spans and reproductive cycles, and the minor losses will be replenished in a short time. Also, let's not forget that this is a shipping channel where large freighters are churning up the bottom just a few feet off the present depth. The shipping channel is not a pristine marine sanctuary.
2) Granted, in some areas there are some man-made chemicals that have settled in that mud that ideally would never be disturbed, but these chemicals will settle again in days, weeks or at most months, not years and decades. The Delaware Bay and the Chesapeake are not just natural treasures. They are also surrounded by heavy population and industrial centers and traversed by the commerce that comes with that. We as a nation and a species have to balance nature with the needs of civilization and come up with a good compromise. In the case of dredging, that means occasionally mud will be stirred up in the short term for long-term benefits to the people in the area. That deeper water also will create new habitat for different species as well, as any fisherman around here can attest to when they look at where some of the most productive fishing holes are in the area.
3) The spoils are mud. They used to build islands or pump the stuff directly on the beach, yet where are all the biohazard areas roped off around the bay where this occurred in the past? And the cost of isolating the spoils for a year and following all the regulations regarding them is a circular argument. The same groups who want to use the argument of cost are the ones that lobbied to label spoils as toxic waste and to pass the absurd requirements in place for the treatment of removed bottom mud today. Just look at how expensive and slow the Assawoman Canal project is due to all the studies, isolation of spoils, special seasons where the dredging can't occur, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I am not for the wholesale rape of our natural resources. I just see the pendulum swung so far the other way that it is another example of how we have become a nation of do-nothings. Look at all the engineering wonders that have helped make our country strong and great in the past and think how prohibitive the cost would be to do them again today. During times of war, we could throw up a bridge to support a battalion of tanks in a few days, yet look at the cost and time it is taking to build the new IR inlet bridge. Not exactly a fair comparison, but is that really a $200 million dollar bridge?
Anyway, rant over. I don’t buy that if this project goes forward that it will have any long-term effects on the fishing industry, recreational fishing, sturgeon or horseshoe crabs, and like Gimli I’d like to see some proof that it would before accepting a mountain of studies that shows dredging affects the creatures near the dredge and equating that with the total collapse of the bay ecosystem. As a rec fisherman, this could mean increased fish advisories for a few years as certain species are likely to accumulate toxins that are stirred up. I don’t like that, but it is a far cry from the disaster being touted and a reasonable discussion of the merits of this project would include those costs without lumping in all fishing usage of the bay in the opposition column. |
Jay
Board Administrator
Username: Jay
Post Number: 5308
Registered: 05-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2010 - 01:03 pm: |
|
Sometimes I need to think in medical terms to get a better understanding of the issue...
Once upon a time there was a patient named Philadelphium (named changed due to HIPPA Reg.s). We will call her Philly for short. Philly had a problem with her Glands of Rendle. Seems that there was insufficient vital fluids for Philly's hypertrophied (overly enlarged) glands. Two surgeons, Dr. R.ME. Core and Dr N.G. Near decided to scrape, blast and suction out the major Petroliatum artery to increase delivery of vital lubricants to the Glands of Rendle. Since this was a radical procedure they had to ask for a review by federal and local consultants, Dr Noah and Dr Dan Wreck. Many lab studies were performed and indicated that collateral damage would likely occur to perpherial and related organ systems and supporting metabolic processes. The good surgeons respond, Let us do the procedure and see what happens. We can fix anything.
Dr Dan Wreck and Dr. Noah say you will save the glands of Rendle but we may have multi organ pathology and may lose the patient. That is to much of a risk.
Yes, This is a fairy tale or perhaps it is more of a fable.
Jay Little, Board Administrator
admin@saltfish.net
|
Frank
Junior member
Username: Frank
Post Number: 165
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2010 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Nice analogy, Jay. However, the procedure presents absolutely not risk to Philadelphium. It is her next door neighbor Delawobegone who would be in danger if it is performed. Philly gets all the benefits and Dela takes all the risk of catastrophic organ failure. Where's the upside for Dela in this whole deal? Having "Nice Neighbor" written on her tombstone? |
Rm2
Senior member
Username: Rm2
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 05-2003
Enjoying my boatless status!
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 02:26 am: |
|
Ahhhh so poop does flow down hill 
Great arguments by both sides of the issue, one that will undoubtedly keep this project stalled for years.
Rob IR Delaware
Member:Indian River Captains Assoc - DMS # 2252 - Dana Lynn Charters
|
Partfish
New member
Username: Partfish
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2010 - 09:19 am: |
|
Gimli we are still waiting for the facts on how it will not hurt. |
Ridgerunner
Founding member
Username: Ridgerunner
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 09:32 am: |
|
In my opinion, you are correct Sandy that the economic facts indicate it is a poor investment of tax dollars. Just another prime example of why the other 90% of Pennsylvania wants to annex Philadelphia to New Jersey. It's a bottomless pit of political corruption and a rat hole where everyone elses money gets sent.
The destination of the spoils do matter. Successful spawning of several species in the estuary is dependent upon particular environmental conditions, and dumping extraordinary amounts of silt in all probability will create poor spawning habitat in any river. I know with ceretainty that this is the case in freshwater with trout, bass, and other species.
I believe it speaks volumes that no adjoining states wanted the stuff and Rendell volunteered to have it trucked and dumped into empty coal mines. The people in the coal patch don't want it either. |
Eight_knots
Senior member
Username: Eight_knots
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 02-2006
an aged thrush, frail, gaunt and small, in blast-beruffled plume, Had chosen thus to fling his soul upon growing gloom
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 06:12 am: |
|
To Think that Man wont destroy us is silly, in the name of Prosperity. History 101. Destruction is far ahead of everything so far.. well other than Gun Powder used to erase the unwanted enemy. I do not suppose he (DuP) makes that anymore does he? Oh well he can kill us other ways. I do like Teflon though. Could you tell me who Won?
DDD
"Hold on we are going around a TURN"
|
