Included are his concerns and some of the feedback he has already gotten from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Since there was large scale destruction of 5 acres of sea grass beds during the last port dredging project (1995 - 1997), by Dutra dredging, he is right to be concerned about the project's impact on Biscayne Bay. We got mitigation from that horror about 15 miles North -- a lot of good that did the Miami's downtown waters. I am not a fan of mitigation, it is like putting a bandage on a amputation...the cost of doing business. - GoD
1. What is the status of the local sponsor agreement?
FDEP: Local sponsorship agreement “out of their hands” at this time. There is currently no date set for finalized agreement but it will be finalized before the Final Permit is issued. There are pieces yet to be put in place; however, all conditions are outlined in the draft permit and then those will be lifted and transferred to local sponsor agreement. Local Sponsor is the Port of Miami.
When will the local sponsor agreement be finalized? FDEP has no date at the moment. *Between Draft and Final version, changes technically can happen including additions to the Draft e.g. Condition #23, which is currently missing. This is good and fine for the expedited permitting to begin work BUT, there is a requirement that local sponsorship agreement be executed before construction and this would normally be finalized before the Draft was issued, but, because they were trying to expedite, it has not been finalized.
*FDEP explained local sponsorship agreement drafting process as a partnership between the County, Port and the State. USACE (Army Corps) is not able to fund any post-construction monitoring or mitigation efforts (90 days post construction), USACE no longer involved after construction. Therefore, Local Sponsor will have sole responsibility for post-construction monitoring. MORE TAX $$$
2. Has the work described in the permit been approved by the State Board of Trustees?
Activity was delegated to DEP, they are acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees This means DEP does not have to take issues before Board of Trustees as all authority has been transferred. This means that the Cabinet has signed off on WHATEVER FDEP and the Corps decide to do.
3. What is the estimated cost for all work described in the permit? Has all of this work been fully funded? Who pays for what?
FDEP does not have these figures nor are they “numbers” people in this scenario. The number thrown out is estimated at $150 million as referred to Corps documents.
Subsequent conversation with the Corps representative Reichold expressed figures as very sensitive and due to “bidibility” issues, would likely not be able to be released in detail although some allocation information and general cost expenses may be able to be released sometime in the future.
How is it possible that we are funding a project of this magnitude and no one knows what it will cost, or if they do, they won't release the figures?
This makes it very difficult for NGO's and citizens to be involved in the project. One would think that if the government has allocated $150 million of tax payers money, bidders should know that they need to fall within those figures. In the past I had heard a figure of $178 million. That was 8 years ago. Do the inflationary math!!
4. Who is responsible for mitigation and mitigation funding?
The County/Port/State will share funding. State may be eligible for future reimbursement from the Corps, City and County not. The Corps will be advertising for mitigation contract and selecting the contractor. State and County are funding, but funding will be funneled through the Corps. Local Sponsor Agreement conditions will read that post mitigation monitoring is required.
5. Who pays for additional mitigation, if required, due to:
a. Sea grass mitigation failure
b. Artificial reef mitigation failure
c. Secondary Impacts to hard bottom or sea grass failure
d. Transplanted coral failure The Local Sponsor will pay for mitigation and monitoring if mitigation fails. More tax $$$
6. Are HEA (Habitat Equivalency Analysis) and UMAM ( Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method) interchangeable? Since this has changed would this not require a recertification?
HEA’s are commonly used by federal agencies, however, now most federal agencies use UMAM’s. FDEP is required by law to use UMAM ( Feb. 2004). FDEP position is that HEA and UMAM are NOT interchangeable. Corps wants to go back to the 2004 HEA agreement as it is less stringent than DEP’s current analysis. Corps has not accepted DEP’s analysis and will not accept DEP’s more stringent mitigation requirements. Corps is pushing back hard on this. Why, when the State is providing both permit and funds?
Response from FDEP – “Ask Corps”. Apparently there is a long history of push back on these types of issues between State and Corps. FDEP is concerned with success criteria proposed by the Corps.
A few issues of DEP's concern:
a. with seagrass - couldn't coordinate with seagrass expert at that point to get numbers.
b. Coral? Corps maintains that they will not be affected because the corals are on seawall or the jetty and out of the project site. How about turbidity affecting the corals? This was not addressed in biological opinions. The Corps maintains that newly found hybrid corals are not protected under the endangered species act even though it is a mix of two endangered species. As per Edminston, Coastal Area Managment Act (CAMA) memo and per tab A, pre application response to DEP April 4th 2011, “We believe that the ACOE and DEP and other agencies should abide by the November 2004 Coastal Zone Consistency Agreement. Any HEA updates would entail recertification (as required by ACOE regulations), and would delay this project.....It would be important to establish a base line and then a post survey."
7. It is suggested in the permit that the main channel is outside Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Are waters in the channel – an Outstanding Florida Water body - Why not?
The channel is undetermined as of now and this has been sent to FDEP legal department. In Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (BBAP) rules, federal channels are in the preserve. FDEP review assumes that the channel is in the Preserve and is an OFW. Corps asserts that channels are not part of OFW Preserve. The Corps argument is that it is a federal project and therefore falls outside of BBAP or OFW purview, and Corps cited “Right of Use/Maintenance” that the Corps has (statutory) to do work within the federal channels and does not need to comply with State law. We asked for citation and were unable to get it. This will have a huge affect on turbidity mixing zones, Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).
Right now FDEP and the Corps are unclear on how they determine what the number is – based on past projects data there seemed to be no definitive process they could point to except to come up with limitations "that protect resources yet make project possible according to them". Problems with this approach (or lack thereof) is that this has not been achievable in the past as shown by the issues raised by massive turbidity plumes and NTU overruns from the 2006 Phase II dredging project. To possibly avoid NTU overages, variances are given for OFW. For example, FDEP gives a variance from a 150 meter mixing zone within the OFW to a 750 meter mixing zone that is now in the Draft Permit.
In 2006 there was never a determination as to whether the channel was within a OFW. To have operated on this scenario during the Phase II dredging and then propose to repeat this omission again is contrary to both State and Federal law.
8. If this is fully funded by the State and County, why can’t FDEP specify Best Management Practices’ (BMP) in contract documents (i.e., does DEP have a say in BMPs)?
This debate between the Department and Corps has persisted for many years. The Corps leave BMP up to their contractors. The Corps will tell contractors to use BMPs but not specifically which ones to use. FDEP has tried to mandate BMPs but the Corps has not accepted. Ultimately, the Contractor is responsible. According to FDEP, the Corps will only accept the least restrictive NTU determination the the contractor can reasonably be accepted to achieve.
9. What are the sea grass criteria for the sea grass mitigation?
These are currently under development and will be added before the permit is issued.
How are we supposed to respond to this???
10. Why is there no mitigation outlined for fish kills due to blasting, destruction of rock/rubble habitat on channel walls and floor (123.8 acres)?
The 4/4/11 comments by the CAMA stated "floors and walls of channels including secondary impacts should be mitigated".
To date there has been not discussion of these issues.
2 comments:
asking these questions play right into the hands of the agencies, they can deal with these one at a time and flick them away as they go along to issuance. the overriding criteria is that when these types of resources are to be destroyed the project be clearly in the public interest. and it's not obviously, but look out for playing the piecemeal game.
And what's really missing is a well placed lawsuit. what the hell is the problem in Dade and Broward counties that the relatively small amount of funds can't be raised to challenge these permits and attack the permitting process from the very beginning. these agencies can be had in court cause they're so bad at what they do.
Sue the bastards!
Have any shipping companies which operate the
big ships Miami is dredging for actually signed
contracts with the Port Of Miami to bring their ships
here? Shouldn't that be a prequisite for raping our
sea bed? Or are we palying: If we build it they will
come? I hope not. We should have firm long term
contracts in place before going forward.
Post a Comment