Major General John Peabody

Chairman
Civil Works Review Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
441 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Re: Port Everglades Expansion, Broward County, Florida
Feb 25, 2015
Dear Major General Peabody and Members of the Civil Works Review Board,
The purpose of this communication is to provide you with requisite information that the
Civil Works Review Board should consider prior to approving the Feasibility Study
Report (Study) for the expansion of Port Everglades, Florida.
The Jacksonville District has done a great disservice by bringing this project to you in the
incomplete manner in which it has been developed. Of primary concern is the
estimated project costs that are used in the Cost Benefit Analysis, which do not
include a number of issues that will greatly impact the cost of the project. The Board
should consider the significant new information arising out of the Port of Miami
dredging, which is relevant to environmental concerns and estimated costs to the
proposed project at Port Everglades1. The following issues have neither been directly
addressed by the Study, nor appropriately factored into the estimated project cost used in
the Cost Benefit Analysis, outside of the use of contingency money:
1. Sedimentation impacts from the dredging will exceed the estimated 150
meter indirect impact area that is accounted for in the Study. We know this
because sedimentation is occurring beyond 150 meters of the expansion of the
Port of Miami (currently under construction), which is only 30 miles south of Port

1 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) & 40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b), 1502.1

Everglades2. The sedimentation impacts currently occurring in the Port of Miami

are the center of ongoing litigation3, state Water Quality Certification (WQC)
violations4, and documented impacts to listed coral species and Essential Fish
Habitat5. These conditions are highly likely to reoccur during the Port Everglades
expansion. However, the cost associated with monitoring and mitigation for
impacts beyond 150 meters has neither been acknowledged nor addressed in the
Feasibility Study, which includes estimated project costs and Cost Benefit
Analysis. A full survey to identify the scope of the sedimentation impacts beyond
150 meters should be conducted in Miami, and mitigation and monitoring costs
associated with such impacts need to be factored into the estimated project cost
and the Cost Benefit Analysis for Port Everglades.6
2. The biological monitoring plan for Port Everglades has not yet been
developed and estimated costs associated with such a plan have not been
factored into estimated project costs or Cost Benefit analysis. The biological
monitoring plan and associated cost that were factored into the estimated project
cost and Cost Benefit Analysis are the same plan and the same cost that were used
for the Port of Miami. The Port of Miami monitoring plan has proven to be
completely ineffective with regard to detecting impacts7, and will have to be
reconsidered as required by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
biological opinion issued for the Port Everglades expansion8. A new, more robust
biological monitoring plan will, of course, require additional funding. The
additional funding necessary for this more robust biological monitoring plan
required by the NMFS Biological Opinion has not been factored into estimated
project costs of the Cost Benefit Analysis for Port Everglades.
3. The listed coral species survey conducted for the Port of Miami9 project
severely underestimated the amount of listed coral species present by almost
ten times. The comparable survey in Port Everglades10 conducted in 2010 should
be updated to avoid the same underestimation of the number of listed species and
avoid take. This study should also be updated to include the six additional coral

2 National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 13 February 2014. Port of Miami Acropora

cervicornis Relocation Report, Final Report. 15pp.
3 Biscayne Bay Waterkeeeper et. al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Case No. 14-CV-23632-FAM
(2014)
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 12 December 2014. Letter to Eric Summa, Environmental
Branch Chief, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers. 2pp.
5 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 13 February 2014. Port of Miami Acropora
cervicornis Relocation Report, Final Report. 15pp.
6 40 C.F.R. 1502.22.
7
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 18 August 2014. Field notes on impact assessment in
Miami Harbor Phase III Federal Channel Expansion Permit #0305721-001-BI. 39pp.
8 National Marine Fisheries Service. Biological Opinion: Port Everglades Exapansion Project, Broward
County, Florida. 7 March 2014. 180pp.
9
Dial Cordy & Associates, Inc. 2010. Miami Harbor Acropora Survey Report. Final Report May 2010.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 13 pp.
10
Dial Cordy & Associates, Inc. 2010. Port Everglades Feasibility study Acropora Coral Survey Report.
Final Report October 2010. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 13 pp.

species listed in 2014 to appropriately account for additional mitigation and

monitoring costs. These additional costs should be factored into the estimated
project cost and the Cost Benefit Analysis for the Port Everglades Feasibility
Study.
4. Mitigation for seagrass impacts has not been addressed. NMFS and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) have raised the
seagrass mitigation issue in several instances over multiple years in comment
letters to the USACE (see attached comment letters from NMFS and FWC), but
this issue remains unresolved11. The estimated project cost and the Cost Benefit
Analysis only include the cost of conducting a specific type of seagrass mitigation
in a specific location for which there are no seagrass mitigation options available
(West Lake Park), and does not account for the true cost of seagrass mitigation.
Specifically, the FWC states in their August 7, 2013 comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement as follows:
A portion (one functional unit) of seagrass mitigation in West Lake Park is
credited from establishing a manatee/seagrass protection area (MPA). The
mitigating value of this MPA has been in question, and the FWC maintains that
protecting existing seagrass resources does not replace the ecological functions
of the seagrass resources permanently removed by the project. Additionally, the
FWC is not clear by which legal mechanism this zone has been created. The FWC
originally identified this issue for the USACE in June of 2008. Subsequently the
issue has been identified by FWC staff during a number of project meetings, and
was again documented in the FWC Second Interim IDEIS Comments, dated May
31, 2011 (comment #37). At this time, the FWC recommends an alternative
mitigation approach be developed for this one functional unit of mitigation credit.
The option for seagrass mitigation needs to be clearly identified, along with the
associated costs. These costs should be factored into the estimated project cost
and the Cost Benefit Analysis.
5. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement only received a conditional
consistency determination by the State of Florida for the Coastal Zone
Management Act consistency review, and the State deferred a final
consistency determination until such time as the WQC was obtained. The
Feasibility Study, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
has not yet been released for agency or public review, nor have the relevant state
agencies determined the FEIS to be consistent with Floridas Coastal
Management Program. The conditions that were established by the State of

11 Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 7 August 2013. SAl #FL201306266640CDepartment of the Army, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers- Draft Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement, Navigation Study for Port Everglades Harbor - Fort Lauderdale,
Broward County, Florida 15pp.

Florida for the Port Everglades FEIS to be consistent with Floridas Coastal
Management Program are as follows12:
1. Flooding and Flushing Model Demonstration that the project will not
cause flooding of properties within the confined interior water body. [
373.414(1), F.S.]
2. Hardbottom Impacts Data in sufficient detail to perform a Uniform
Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) analysis. [ 373.414(1), F.S.]
3. Mangrove/Seagrass Impacts Identification of any potential secondary
impact areas where mangroves and seagrasses are in close proximity to
the project boundaries. [ 373.414(1), F.S.]
4. Monitoring and Mitigation Plans Mitigation plans that quantify and
adequately offset both the direct and secondary impacts from construction
and resulting sedimentation and within seagrass, hardbottom and
mangrove resource areas adjacent to the proposed work sites. [
373.414(1) and 161.041(4), F.S.]
5. John U. Lloyd Beach State Park Impacts Details on avoidance and
minimization, offset any impacts to the park and necessary authorization
to use state lands. [ 253.03, 253.034 and 253.04, F.S.]13
These are conditions with significant associated costs, and should be factored into
the estimated project cost and the Cost Benefit Analysis.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We are requesting that impacts are
accurately identified and properly mitigated for, and this is not possible with the level of
funding currently reflected by the Feasibility Study. The Port Everglades expansion
project is not part of President Obamas We Cant Wait Initiative, and therefore there is
time to ask the Jacksonville District to revisit these issues and return with a more accurate
estimate of the project costs that is reflected in the Cost Benefit Analysis. An updated
Feasibility Study for Port Everglades would avoid the unplanned damage to
environmental resources, compliance issues, and litigation that is currently taking place
30 miles away in the Port of Miami expansion project.
We are available to discuss any of the above-mentioned issues in further detail at your
convenience. Please keep us informed about any available information regarding this
project in the future.

12

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 13 June 2014. SAl #FL201306266640C- Department

of the Army, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers- Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
Statement, Navigation Study for Port Everglades Harbor - Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 3pp
13
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 13 June 2014. Letter to Eric Summa, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Environmental Branch Chief, Jacksonville District SAl #FL201306266640C- Department of
the Army, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers- Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
Statement, Navigation Study for Port Everglades Harbor - Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida 3pp

Sincerely,
Rachel Silverstein
Executive Director and Waterkeeper
Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper
12568 N. Kendall Dr.
Miami FL 33186

Miyoko Sakashita
Oceans Director and Senior Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, #600
San Francisco, CA 94104

Stanley Pannaman
Programs Chair
Broward Group of Sierra Club
P.O. Box 550561
Davie, FL 33355

Laura Reynolds
Executive Director
Tropical Audubon Society
5530 Sunset Drive
Miami, FL 33143

Doug Young
President
South Florida Audubon Society
P.O. Box 9644,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310

Ed Tichenor
Executive Director
Palm Beach County Reef Rescue
PO Box 207
Boynton Beach, FL 33425
Dan Clark
Cry of the Water
P.O. Box 8143
Coral Springs, FL 33075

cc:
USACE Members of the Civil Works Review Board:
Mr. Stephen Stockton, USACE
Mr. Theodore A. Brown, USACE
Mr. James Dalton, USACE
Mr. Edward Belk, USACE
Brigadier General David Hill, USACE
Brigadier General Richard Kaiser, USACE
and

Brigadier General C. David Turner, USACE

Eric Summa, USACE
Terri Jordan-Sellers, USACE
Eileen Sobeck, NOAA (NMFS)
Roy Crabtree, NOAA (NMFS)
David Bernhart, NOAA (NMFS)
Virginia Fay, NOAA (NMFS)
Mark Thomasson, FDEP
Martin Seeling, FDEP
Joanna Walczak, FDEP
Scott Sanders, FWC