Dredging the Port of Miami: Environment vs. Expansion

Introduction to Port of Miami Dredging

Dredging refers to the activity of removing unwanted deposits from water pathways. Although this activity facilitates marine traffic and commerce, it is not without significant drawbacks. Dredging poses a serious threat to the aquatic environment and must be carried out carefully, using appropriate equipment and methods. As a major international cargo hub, the Port of Miami is a critical component of Miami's economy. A project to expand the port by means of dredging has been planned to provide passage for the larger post-Panamax vessels that will transit the improved Panama Canal. This expansion is expected to draw increased cargo shipping business to South Florida.

The proposed expansion zone is, however, also the site of a significant ecosystem. As a result, environmental concerns and legal arguments have emerged regarding the project. Whether and how the area should be dredged has been a central point of debate, alongside concerns about the potential environmental consequences of large-scale dredging operations. Discussions, case law analyses, and agency consultations have all been employed to assess the issue.

Environmental Impact and Reasons Against Dredging

The Port of Miami, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the state's largest container port. It is situated within a biologically diverse aquatic ecosystem. The Port is surrounded by Biscayne Bay, portions of which have been designated as the Florida Aquatic Preserve, a Florida State Critical Wildlife Area, and a unit of the U.S. National Park system. The bay is home to numerous protected, endangered, and threatened species, including five species of sea turtles, the Florida manatee, bottlenose dolphins, and American crocodiles, as well as commercially and recreationally important fish species.

Congress authorized the expansion and deepening of Miami Harbor in 1999, including deepening of Fisherman's Channel and the Dodge Island Turning Basin to –42 feet. The Port initially attempted to complete this work without underwater blasting; however, the contractor and surety company were unable to finish the authorized work, largely because of the dredging-resistant limestone bedrock. In 2000, the Port approached the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Jacksonville District, to complete the project. The District determined that blasting would be necessary as a construction technique.

Miami Harbor is home to numerous species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including two sea turtle species and the manatee. Accordingly, the District consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the ESA. The District also determined that bottlenose dolphins, protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), were documented transiting through the Port area, and that the planned blasting could affect them. An application for Incidental Harassment Authorization under the MMPA was submitted in June 2002, with authorization issued in 2004 and renewed in April 2005. Construction blasting commenced in June 2005 and was completed in August of that year. A key finding by USFWS and NMFS supporting the blasting go-ahead was that protected marine species were unlikely to be seriously harmed by the detonations, provided that the District adhered to conservative mitigation and monitoring procedures designed to ensure that endangered species would not be within a predetermined protection zone at the time of detonations.

In 2013, government agencies developed a strategy for protecting marine species from suspended sediment and debris by maintaining exclusion distances from the dredging site. This approach was intended to balance Miami's economic interests with ecologists' concerns. Protecting staghorn corals — a variety listed under the Endangered Species Act — was central to the strategy. However, the majority of staghorn coral in the area was not effectively protected. Either staghorn corals in the area were entirely missed during the 2010 preliminary survey by Army Corps specialists, or they had in fact propagated by the time work began in 2013. Federal officials indicated that the USACE should remove dredging-damaged corals from Miami Harbor to underwater nurseries. The Miami Herald reported that, according to an internal email dated September 10, fishery officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that restored corals might be relocated again following completion of the proposed Port expansion.

The USACE did relocate 924 other, non-endangered coral specimens. The Caribbean and Florida have been rapidly losing portions of their reef systems — among the most biologically diverse environments in the world. The damage caused by the project fueled significant criticism regarding the manner in which the USACE managed the dredging operations.

Environmental groups sought to block the Port of Miami from dredging its channel and harbor to accommodate larger vessels transiting the widened Panama Canal. This represented a potential setback to the Port's efforts to compete with other East Coast ports as docking facilities for the mega-sized container ships expected to use the expanded canal. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had already granted approval to initiate the 150 million dollar dredging project, which aimed to deepen the port channel from 42 to 50 feet and widen it by up to 300 feet in certain areas.

Regulatory Acts and Legal Framework

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), enacted on October 21, 1972, protects all marine mammals. With specific exceptions, the MMPA prohibits the "taking" of marine mammals found in U.S. waters by American citizens, the taking of marine mammals on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States.

The MMPA was passed by Congress on the basis of the following policies and findings: certain marine mammal stocks or species may be threatened with depletion or extinction due to human activities; these stocks or species must not be allowed to fall below their optimum sustainable population level; measures must be taken to replenish such stocks or species; existing knowledge of population dynamics and ecology is inadequate; and marine mammals are assets of significant global importance. Specific exceptions to the "take" prohibitions include small-scale incidental takes associated with particular activities, takes by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes, scientific research permits, a program for authorizing incidental takes during commercial fishing operations, the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters, and investigation of pinniped-fishery interactions.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat. The Act also prohibits actions that result in the "taking" of any listed endangered fish or wildlife species, and generally prohibits the export, import, and interstate or foreign commerce of listed species.

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) establishes a national framework for managing, protecting, beneficially using, and developing the land and water resources of America's coastal zones — encompassing regions bordering the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans, Long Island Sound, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. A distinctive feature of the CZMA is voluntary state and tribal participation. To encourage participation, the Act makes federal financial assistance available to coastal states, territories, and tribes — including those bordering the Great Lakes — that are willing to develop and implement comprehensive coastal management plans. NOAA approved the Florida Coastal Management Program in 1981; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection serves as the lead agency, with an alliance of eight state agencies and five water management districts enforcing 23 distinct statutes. The coastal zone of Florida encompasses the entire state but is divided into two tiers, with only coastal counties and municipalities that include or adjoin state water bodies eligible to receive coastal management funds.