Miami Harbor Miami-Dade County, Florida Navigation Study
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MIAMI HARBOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA NAVIGATION STUDY Final General Reevaluation Report And Environmental Impact Statement U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Jacksonville District Jacksonville, Florida February, 2004 SUMMARY This report provides the results of engineering, economic, environmental, and real estate studies conducted on the advisability of improving Miami Harbor, Florida, for navigation. The Port of Miami, Miami-Dade County Seaport Department, the sponsor, requested the original study through a resolution from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives with an additional request in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill of 1999 to initiate a general reevaluation report to determine the feasibility of further port deepening. The general reevaluation report examines potential widening and deepening of the existing Federal system of channels. The following problems with the existing channel necessitated this reevaluation: the groundings of container ships at the entrance channel; difficulty in turning and handling of larger vessels in the inner harbor due to difficult currents; surge effects on docked ships; and transportation inefficiencies due to existing and future container ships not being able to fully load as a result of current channel depths. Study results concluded that a combination of measures, identified as components, to deepen and widen the existing Federal system of channels from the beginning of the entrance channel to the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin represents the National Economic Development (NED) plan of improvements; the Locally Preferred (LP) plan is also addressed in this study: • Component 1C – Widen seaward portion of Cut-1 from 500 to 800 feet and deepen Cut-1 and Cut-2 from a project depth of 44 to 51 feet for the NED plan and to 52 feet for the LP plan; • Component 2A – Add turn widener at the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman’s Channel and deepen to a project depth of 49 feet for the NED plan and to 50 feet for the LP plan; • Component 3B – Increase the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1200 to 1500 feet. Truncate the northeast section of the turning basin to minimize seagrass impacts. Deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 49 feet for the NED plan and to 50 feet for the LP plan; • Component 4 – Realign the western end of the existing 36-foot main channel about 250 feet to the south, no dredging required; and • Component 5A – Expand the Sponsor’s berthing area by 60 feet and widen the southern edge of Fisherman’s Channel (Lummus Island Cut) about 40 feet for a 100-foot increase in total width, reduce the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a 1500-foot diameter from the currently authorized 1600-foot diameter, and deepen from a project depth of 42 feet to 49 feet for the NED plan and to 50 feet for the LP plan. Proposed mitigation plans include restoration of seagrass beds and construction of artificial reefs. For seagrass impacts mitigation includes restoration of previously dredged borrow sites within northern Biscayne Bay. Construction of artificial reefs will offset impacts to low and high relief hardbottom/reef habitat. The total first cost of the NED plan is estimated at $148,821,000, including mitigation costs; there is an annual cost for aids to navigation of about $15,000. Interest during construction cost is about $19,262,000. For the NED plan the AAEQ benefit is about $16,231,000. The AAEQ costs total $10,140,000. The benefit to cost ratio for the NED plan is 1.60 to 1 with net benefits of about $6,091,000. The total first cost of the LP plan is estimated at $157,295,000, including mitigation costs; there is an annual cost for aids to navigation for about $15,000. Interest during construction cost is about $21,568,000. The estimated average annual equivalent benefits and costs are $16,262,000 and $10,789,000 respectively. The benefit to cost ratio for the LP plan is 1.51 to 1 with net benefits of about $5,473,000. Table 1 Displays the project features costs for both the NED plan and LP plan. Table 1 NED Plan LP Plan General Navigation Features Mobilization $4,141,921 $4,141,921 Channel Dredging $80,683,452 $87,881,252 Disposal Area $597,486 $597,486 Environmental Mitigation $7,791,156 $7,791,156 Mitigation Monitoring (Reef Construction) $120,000 $120,000 Planning, Engineering, and Design $3,380,000 $3,570,000 Construction Management (S&I) $9,570,000 $10,100,000 Total GNF: $106,284,015 $114,201,815 Aids to Navigation $165,300 $165,300 Lands, Easements, Rights of Way, and Relocations Real Estate, Administrative (Federal) $12,500 $12,500 Utility Relocations $4,617,577 $4,617,577 Associated Non-Federal Costs Berthing Area Dredging (Alt. 5A) $14,444,521 $14,999,907 Port Bulkhead Construction $22,800,000 $22,800,000 Mitigation Monitoring (Post-Const. Seagrass) 235,000 235,000 Mitigation Monitoring (Post-Const. Reef) 250,000 250,000 Real Estate, Administrative (non-Federal) $12,500 $12,500 Total Project First Cost $148,821,413 $157,294,599 Rounded : $148,821,000 $157,295,000 ii SUMMARY OF COORDINATION An environmental scoping letter was sent to interested parties on January 6, 2000 (EIS - Appendices A and B). In addition, all parties were invited to participate in the plan formulation process by identifying any additional concerns on issues, studies needed, alternatives, procedures, and other matters related to the project. A local, state, and Federal resource agency meetings occurred on March 13, 2000, and May 13, 2000, to determine the areas of coverage for an environmental baseline resource survey. A meeting followed on November 1, 2000, with those resource agencies to review preliminary results. An Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 66, No. 167, on August 28,2001. An Alternative Formulation Briefing occurred on June 20,2002. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS appeared in the Federal Register on March 14, 2003. A notice for a public meeting appeared in the Miami Herald on April 27, 2003. The public meeting followed on May 6, 2003, at Terminal 12 of the Port of Miami. A two day Blasting Workshop occurred from September 8 – 9, 2003, at the Port of Miami Terminal 12. Compliance with other environmental requirements is included in Section 6.0 of the Environmental Impact Statement. As a result of the information received through the coordination process, modifications to the proposed components resulted in reduced environmental impacts to reef and seagrass areas while increasing navigation safety. Four different versions of component one received consideration during the plan formulation process. Iterative reviews involving resource agencies, ship simulation results, and the Biscayne Bay Pilots resulted in a reduction in the length of the proposed entrance channel widener, which completely avoids one reef area resulting in component 1C. Continued dialogue with interested parties produced similar reductions in seagrass impacts and construction costs, which resulted in components 2A, 3B, and 5A, previously described on page i. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 STUDY AUTHORITY ...........................................................................................2 STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................2 PRIOR STUDIES AND REPORTS................................................................3 EXISTING WATER PROJECTS.....................................................................5 MIAMI RIVER......................................................................................................... 5 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, MIAMI TO JACKSONVILLE..... 5 VIRGINIA KEY AND KEY BISCAYNE BEACH EROSION CONTROL................................................................................................................. 6 DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEACH EROSION CONTROL............ 6 VIRGINIA KEY SECTION 111 STUDY ....................................................... 6 VIRGINIA KEY RESTORATION – CONTINUING AUTHORITY PROGRAM, SECTION 1135, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY........................ 7 PLAN FORMULATION .......................................................................................7 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 9 Existing Conditions..................................................................................................... 9 Bridges ...................................................................................................................... 11 Utilities...................................................................................................................... 11 Existing Terminal Facilities...................................................................................... 12 Cargo Movement and Fleet Composition................................................................. 13 Current Trade Routes/Vessel Itineraries/Historical Tonnage................................... 14 Prospective Future Conditions.................................................................................. 18 Problem Identification .............................................................................................. 19 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS................................. 23 SHIP SIMULATION TESTING...................................................................... 25 ALTERNATIVE