Debate Over Port of Miami Expansion

Dredging the Port of Miami

Dredging refers to the activity needed to be conducted for removal of unwanted deposits present in water pathways. However, even though this activity facilitates marine traffic regularity, it isn't without its drawbacks[footnoteRef:2]. Dredging poses a great threat to the aquatic environment, and should be carried out very carefully, facilitated only using the assistance of the appropriate dredges and dredgers. As a port for international cargo, the Port of Miami is a significant section of the Miami economy. A project, to expand the port area by means of dredging, has been planned for. This is intended to provide ingress and egress for the new larger PanaMax ships that will be coming through the improved Panama Canal, and thus is expected to draw more business in cargo shipping to the locality[footnoteRef:3]. The proposed expansion zone is, however, also the site of a key ecosystem. Thus, arguments and environmental concerns have cropped up regarding this project. Whether or not the area should be dredged has been one area of concern, as well as concern about the potential environmental impact of dredging. Consequently, discussions, case law analyses, etc. are underway to assess the issue. [2:

Effects of Dredging on the Marine Environment] [3:

Writer Thoughts]

Environmental Impact of Dredging/Reasons Against Dredging

The Port of Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Port) represents Florida State's biggest container port. However, it is situated in the middle1 of an aquatic ecosystem that is diverse in nature. The Port is surrounded by Biscayne Bay; parts of this bay have been identified as the Florida Aquatic Preserve, a Florida State Critical Wildlife Area, and a United States National Park. The bay marks the home of various protected, endangered and threatened species. These include five species of sea turtles, the Florida manatee, bottlenose dolphins, and American crocodiles, as well as important commercial and recreational species of fish. Congress, in 1999, authorized the expansion and deepening of the Miami Port, with deepening of 'Fisherman's Channel' and the 'Dodge Lummus Island Turning Basin' as far as -42 feet. Earlier, the Miami Port attempted to complete the project without using underwater blasting. However, the surety company and the contractor were unsuccessful in completing the authorized work, mainly because of the dredging-resistant limestone bedrock. In 2000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) of Jacksonville District were approached by the Port to finish the project[footnoteRef:4]. It was determined by the District that it would be necessary to employ blasting as a technique of construction. [4:

Terri L. Jordan et.al]

However, the Miami Harbor holds numerous species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including two sea turtle species and the manatee. Therefore there was consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. It was maintained by the District that bottlenose dolphins, protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), were recorded to be transiting across this Port; thus, the planned blasting project could affect them. An application was submitted by the District, in June of 2002, under MMPA, for Incidental Harassment Authorization, issued in the year 2004; it was renewed in April of 20051. In June of 2005, construction blasting was started, with completion in August of the same year. A crucial deduction made by USFWS and NMFS supporting the blasting go-ahead, was that the protected marine species were unlikely to be seriously harmed by the detonations, due to District procedures. These procedures of conservative mitigation and monitoring, adopted by the District, were planned to ensure that endangered species would not be in a pre-determined protection zone at the time of detonations.

Government companies, in 2013, came up with a strategy for safeguarding pets from spinning stone and sand, by keeping these species at a distance from the dredging site. This technique was supposed to stabilize the financial passions of Miami, with ecologists' worries. Ecologists stressed over coral reefs' rapid deterioration. Protecting staghorn corals, a variety covered under the Endangered Species Act[footnoteRef:5] or Endangered Types Act of the government, was very important for the strategy. However, the majority of staghorn coral located in the area wasn't ever impacted. Either staghorn coral in the area were completely missed, that is not found or observed, all throughout the 2010 preliminary study by Military Corps of Engineers specialists, or the staghorn coral had, in fact, generated evenly, as the work began in 2013. It is stated by federal officials that the USACE ought to remove dredging-damaged corals from Miami Port to nurseries underwater[footnoteRef:6]. The Miami Herald reported that, as per an internal email of September 10, fishery officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that restored corals might again be relocated following completion of proposed Miami Port expansion. [5:

Despite Protections, Miami Port Project Smothers Reef in Silt] [6:

NOAA "Recommends Moving" Coral Damaged by Miami Dredging]

The company responsible for this project, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, did relocate 924 other, non-endangered diverse coral reefs. The Caribbean as well as Florida appears to be swiftly shedding potions of their reefs, some among the most diverse environments worldwide. Damages have actually fuelled extreme objection regarding the manner in which the project was actually handled by the USACE2.

Environmental interests worked towards blocking the Miami Port against dredging its channel and harbor for accommodating bigger vessels passing through a widened Panama Canal. This move by environmentalists is a potential setback to efforts by the Miami Port. The Port hopes to rival other ports on the East Coast as docking sites for the mega-sized container ships that will sail across the deepened and widened Panama canal, after its opening in under three years[footnoteRef:7]. Approval has already been received from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of Florida state, to inaugurate the 150 million dollar dredging project. This project aims at deepening the port's channel and harbor from 42 to 50 feet, and widening it, in particular places, by up to 300 feet. [7:

Mark Solomon (2011)]

Acts Called Into Question from Protesters for Dredging Project

21st of October, 1972 marks the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Every marine mammal is protected under this Act[footnoteRef:8]. With specific exceptions, the MMPA forbids 'taking' marine mammals found in American waters, by citizens of USA into the open ocean, as well as importing marine- mammal-related products, and marine mammals, into the country. [8:

86 Stat. 1027 (1972)]

The MMPA Act, 1972, was passed by the Congress, on the basis of the following policies and findings[footnoteRef:9]: [9:

Marine Mammal Protection Act, NOAA FISHERIES]

A few marine mammal stocks or species might be under the threat of depletion or extinction, owing to human activities;

These stocks or species mustn't be allowed to 'deplete' or decrease below their ideal sustainable level of population;

Measures to replenish such stocks or species must be taken;

Inadequate knowledge exists regarding population dynamics and ecology; and Marine mammals prove to be assets having great global significance. Specific exceptions to 'take' prohibitions, counting small takes supplementary to specific activities, when accessed by Natives of Alaska for marine mammal subsistence supplies can be upheld, and authorizations and permits for scientific studies;

A program for controlling and authorizing marine mammal 'taking' incidental to operations of commercial fishing;

Preparing stock evaluations for every marine mammal stock in U.S. waters; and Investigating pinniped-fishery interactions.

The 1973 Endangered Species Act[footnoteRef:10] requires national agencies, in consulting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the NOAA Fisheries Service, to make sure that actions authorized, funded, or executed by them are unlikely to threaten any registered species' continued existence, or cause adverse modification, or destruction of selected critical habitats of these species[footnoteRef:11]. Also prohibited by the law are actions that result in 'taking' any listed endangered wildlife or fish species. Similarly, export, import, foreign and interstate commerce of species listed are all, as a rule, prohibited. [10:

87 Stat. 884 (1973)] [11:

Summary of the Endangered Species Act]

A national strategy is established by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)[footnoteRef:12], in addition to development of a country-wide program to manage, protect, use beneficially and develop the water and land resources of America's coastal regions, as well as for other purposes. It includes regions that border the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, Long Island Sound, Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico. This law possesses a unique aspect, namely, voluntary participation by tribes/states[footnoteRef:13]. To encourage tribes/states to take part, this Act makes available federal financial aid to all coastal states, territories or tribes, inclusive of those residing on the Great Lakes that are ready to create and put into action an all-inclusive coastal management plan. Most eligible tribes/states will be, or are, engaged in this program. NOAA approved the Florida Coastal Management Program in 1981; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection serves as leading agency. An association of 5 water management districts and 8 state agencies enforce 23 distinct statutes together[footnoteRef:14]. The coastal zone of Florida represents the whole state; however, it is split into 2 tiers. Only counties and cities on the coast, that include or connect water bodies in the state, are entitled to receive funds for coastal management. [12:

86 Stat. 1280 (1972).] [13:

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)] [14:

Coastal Zone Management Programs]

Government Approval for Port Expansion/Reasons for Expansion

Congress has gradually progressed in the direction of approving a Water Resources Development Act that would give free rein to expenditures on dredging ventures. Members of Florida are pressurizing the USACE to sanction plans for dredging at Everglades Port, as well as other ports[footnoteRef:15]. Also, President Obama has taken hold of the opportunity of port construction for developing private-public partnerships, for building the country's infrastructure and generating jobs; he sounded this theme during his State of the Union address. This message was reinforced by Florida State Governor Scott on Thursday; he welcomed the President's visit, but accused him of being late to arrive at the Miami Port investments party. [15:

Gibson (2013)]

Scott stated that in the last three years, Florida has spent 425 million dollars on ports, in order to ready itself for more commerce from Latin America and Asia; he commented that Florida looks forward to partial federal reimbursement, including 75 million dollars to deepen the Miami Port4. Scott expressed hopes that the money spent by Floridian taxpayers will be reimbursed. The governor further asserts that what is being done by Florida is clearly turning into an example for the nation. He maintains that expansion of ports could give rise to 143,000 fresh jobs, and 21.5 billion dollars of business.

While publicizing this Port tunnel venture, President Obama is anticipated to make an analogous statement. The tunnel in question is intended to enhance access to the Port of Miami, by connecting it to I-395 and MacArthur Causeway4. The 1.1 billion dollar venture is funded by federal as well as state funds, private financiers and banks, including Miami's Meridiam Infrastructure. Higher up America's coastline, Port Everglades is struggling to find funding for channel-widening from 42 to 50 feet to accommodate Panamax ships. This venture has been held up by changing demands from Army Corps regarding how a cost-efficiency research should be carried out. Steve Cernak, the Port director, in his address to Floridian Congress members, states that this was the manner in which Port Everglades had been rewarded for following the rules for 16 years. Cernak complains that rules change, resulting in them starting once again from scratch. He further went on to wonder whether it is surprising that the environmental research cost has now become more than 14 times more than the original estimates.

Officials state that the Miami Port has won government / congressional approval for dredging the 50 ft. channel. This channel, together with constructing a port tunnel, would aid the Miami Port facility in doubling the annual 8.6 million cargo tons it now handles[footnoteRef:16]. According to Luis Perez, a USACE project manager, approval by the Congress for this 50 ft. channel arrived the previous month, when the port was included by lawmakers in the Water Resources Development Act. This constituted the ultimate approval that needed to be cleared for the venture. The above act makes a provision for development and conservation of water as well as connected resources, to empower the Army Secretary to construct several projects to improve harbors and rivers of the country, and for other intents[footnoteRef:17]. The dredging venture, in this instance, technically applies for protection under this Act, as it will endeavor at improving the water zone because of businesses. [16: