Channel Dredging: It’s Not Just A Study

On Wednesday, I listened to Jennifer Hulse, spokesperson for the KW Chamber of Commerce PAC on  Bill Becker’s morning show and would like to challenge her on a couple of points.

1. Hulse states, “the modern ships” — the type we want”, all have advanced wastewater treatment.

I would like to point out that the Carnival Magic which has only been in service for two years, is over 1,000 feet long and carries over 4,000 passengers and has no advanced wastewater treatment.

There is nothing in the agreement that states if we dredge the channel, we will stop getting the type that we don’t want. The cruise lines will continue to run the ships that are servicing the Caribbean Market until they decide that they no longer wish to. It has virtually nothing to do with whether our port expands to facilitate the largest ships. For the Carnival Magic, that is likely to be for at least another 15 to 20 years. What we will get is everything that we currently get PLUS the biggest ships that are now or soon coming on the market.

2. Hulse states that “Modern Ships don’t carry more passengers…”

Than what? Only the Carnival Magic carries as many passengers as the Royal Caribbean Freedom Class (the size of ship “and comparable”) that is specifically mentioned in the Key West Harbor Reconnaissance Study, as the rationale for dredging a wider channel, because they cannot presently call on Key West.

The City of Key West annual disembarkation figures (http://www.kwsalliance.com/cruise-ship-facts.html) show that until the year 2003, cruise ships visiting Key West never had an average manifest of over 2000 passengers. Ten out of the past eleven years showed an average of slightly over 2,000 passengers — the average of all those years is 2,172 passengers carried per vessel. In fact, the city predicts that the final for the year 2013 will be 2,138 passengers per landed cruise ship.

Prior to that, the figures show that the average disembarkation per vessel was 1,684. These are the first vessels that the industry will voluntarily replace with “Modern Ships” which all carry in excess of 4,000 passengers. The Chamber says the new ships aren’t carrying more passengers, but the only honest statement they can make is that the “new ships” don’t carry [many] more passengers than one ship which already calls on Key West.

Finally,the Army Corps Recon Report concludes that the economic benefit outweighs the known environmental damage and legislative / permitting obstacles, because it projects an increase in passenger disembarkation figures for the city, Table 4: Benefits of Widening Key West Harbor Channel which presents low, medium and high projections. The low projection estimates over 150,000 new passengers and crew. The high projection estimates that over 1,280,000 total new passengers and crew would result.

The Medium Projection assumes that widening will result in 3 new ships, making 48 calls each in Key West, increasing new passengers and crew arrivals by 626,400. This is the economic benefit that the Army Corps believes outweighs the environmental damages and legislative / permitting problems that the project will present. Yet, the Chamber denies that the larger ships will result in more passengers.  In essence, the Chamber refutes the economic data that formed the basis of the Army Corps decision that a Feasibility Study is warranted.

3. Hulse states that Dredging is legal. There is a simple permitting process that could allow the project. Support the Study’s argument rests on this “eye of a needle” argument, which has been promoted by John Dolan-Heitlinger:

(a) National Marine Sanctuary General Permit. (see: 15 CFR 922.166 )

(2) The Director, at his or her discretion, may issue a General permit under this paragraph …, if the Director finds that the activity will:

(vi) Otherwise further Sanctuary purposes, including facilitating multiple use of the Sanctuary, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection.”

There you have the pipe dream.  The “simple process” requires the Director to conclude that dredging live coral is compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, rather than what the same regulations find constitutes an adverse effect.”Adverse effect means any factor, force, or action that independently or cumulatively damages, diminishes, degrades, impairs, destroys, or otherwise harms any Sanctuary resource.”

Further, Section 922.163 listsProhibited Activities, including: (3) Alteration of, or construction on, the seabed. Drilling into, dredging, or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary,

The Recon Report concludes that any removal of threatened coral species from critical habitat would be considered adverse and states, “It is expected that resource agencies would oppose any channel modifications outside the existing footprint.”

4. Hulse states that it is “absolutely untrue” that the Feasibility Study is anything more than just a study and that it does not commit the city to any further action in any way.

This is complete balderdash. The very first paragraph of the Army Corps Reconnaissance Report states,

“Project implementation and thus further study would however, require relief from regulations implemented under Public Law 101-605 which prohibits “…drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary).” 33 CFR 922.163(a)(3). The City of Key West has expressed interest in becoming the cost-sharing sponsor for the feasibility phase of the study. The City indicates a desire to use this analysis as documentation for a request to their Congressional representatives asking for modification, or a waiver for one time relief from regulations implemented under Public Law 101-605.”

Further amplifying the point, the report restates in the final paragraph, “It is likely that the Corps would be restricted from entering into a Feasibility Study with the current proposed channel widening recommended plan design until relief from regulations implemented under Public Law 101-605 has been granted.

So, even though Pro-Study advocates claim the city is not committed to anything if voters approve the referendum, in reality, the city must obtain permission to dredge the channel before the Army Corps will even begin the study. It is utterly absurd to agree to seek approval to do something with such potentially devastating impacts, before you have even decided that it is something that you wish to do.

Since, if passed, the binding referendum requires the city to request the Army Corps to conduct a Feasibility Study and since the Army Corps requires the city to first obtain relief from regulations prior to commencing the study, the referendum does come with strings attached.  If passed on October 1, the City of Key West is required to obtain Congressional permission to dredge within the National Marine Sanctuary.