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 #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 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 Stanley Pannaman Programs Chair Broward Group of Sierra Club P.O. Box 550561 Davie, FL 33355 Doug Young President South Florida Audubon Society P.O. Box 9644, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310

Miyoko Sakashita Oceans Director and Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, #600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Laura Reynolds Executive Director Tropical Audubon Society 5530 Sunset Drive Miami, FL 33143 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