§ 4.2.4. Environmental Resources
Permitting Overview. The expansion of Port operations is a water-dependent need that meets the public benefit criteria defined in Florida Statutes. Regardless, the permitting of 19 acres of seagrass impacts for the Berths 3 and 2 channel and slips, and the 18-acre container expansion in the south area, both envisioned beyond the five-year time frame, may require significant mitigation. The Port Authority recognizes that this mitigation should take place in the most proactive environment conceivable. This proactive philosophy creates an environment of cooperation between the Port and environmental entities for the net improvement of the environmental system as well as potential funding sources, including the Port, to look at greater environmental enhancements. Preplanning and mitigation also generate a new resource prior to major impacts to the existing seagrass, enhancing the overall system from inception of the mitigation proposal.
Both federal and state agencies have a goal of no net loss of wetlands. Manatee County's policies and regulations require preservation of wetlands wherever possible, and protection of wetlands is preferred to destruction and mitigation due to the temporal loss of ecological value and uncertainty regarding the ability to recreate certain functions associated with wetlands. Impacts to wetlands and seagrass are regulated by DEP (Environmental Resource Permit) and the USACE (Section 404 Permit). These agencies stress minimization and avoidance measures for wetland and seagrass impacts.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Marine Fisheries (NMFS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will review and comment on both the federal and state permit applications. In addition to reviewing environmental impacts, the FDEP will provide proprietary authorization to use sovereign submerged lands in accordance with Chapter 18-21 of the Florida Administrative Code.
A conceptual permitting scheme that will allow a mitigation plan to be folded into a program while overall project permits are being secured will allow the mitigation to reach a maturity level during the permitting process and before berth construction begins. Credits could possibly be available for project impacts prior to the impact occurring, significantly reducing the mitigation risk and the ratio of mitigation credits to impact required for the project.
Proactive Mitigation Opportunities. Several mitigation opportunities were identified in the 2009 Master Plan for the Port to pursue, as applicable, during the planning period. Most of the opportunities are still relevant for this 2016 Plan Update, but will require more thorough analysis for actual application and implementation.
Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method. Wetland and seagrass impacts anticipated from future Port development beyond the five-year program will be assessed using the Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) as per Chapter 62-345 of the Florida Administrative Code. UMAM is used to assess the current functions of wetland or seagrass habitat versus some future condition, whether that future condition is degraded (impact) or improved (mitigation).
Waterside-UMAM. A preliminary functional loss score was developed for the Port's north development area for the 2009 Port Manatee Master Plan. At that time, impact calculations were established from information provided by the Port and represented current available data. Future impacts may be different from those presented in that document, given modifications that will have been performed to promote seagrass establishment and increase seagrass bed density. Present day impact areas are a mixture of consolidated and patchy seagrass beds that may include areas of soft bottom benthic habitat currently devoid of aquatic vegetation. The estimated UMAM value in 2009 for 19 acres of seagrass impacts was 11. The preliminary functional loss was derived by scoring the impact areas as fully functional (mitigation success) taking into account their location within a seagrass and manatee management area.
Waterside Mitigation Options. The Port Authority recognizes the importance of environmental protection and minimization of impacts. The Port Authority is expected to identify a proactive mitigation strategy that establishes new seagrass or creates opportunities for new seagrass beds to be established before allowing the dredging of Berths 3 and 2. The mitigation program will be designed and constructed to create a net ecosystem benefit for the region.
For wetlands, new on-site options are limited; therefore, teaming with Manatee County to develop a program to secure credits for improvements to wetlands on county-owned conservation lands would provide the greatest overall benefit. To arrive at an appropriate mitigation plan, the following steps are anticipated:
• Investigate potential mitigation alternatives.
• Develop a comprehensive mitigation program.
• Proceed with conceptual permitting.
• Begin mitigation planning and construction as soon as possible prior to impacts.
The focus of the investigation for potential mitigation alternatives will be regional, radiating from the Port area. In particular, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) has a focus of expanding seagrass beds within the Bay by both water quality improvement and large-scale restoration projects.
The selected alternatives will be advanced into a comprehensive mitigation plan with program/project expectations. The plan will include the proposed design, costs, timeline, monitoring requirements, and credit scheme that will include a projected number of credits and the time when they will become available.
For the 2009 Master Plan, three off-site mitigation options were explored as potential mitigation for anticipated seagrass impacts. These options are again presented to demonstrate that there are opportunities for large-scale mitigation which could have a net benefit to this area.
• Restoration of propeller (prop)-scarred seagrass: Restoration of prop scars can be accomplished by planting or backfilling to natural grade to allow natural recruitment. Successful programs have included the use of sediment-filled fabric tubes, which help maintain the sediments in place. Planting would involve harvesting of plant material from an impact site or other donor site and transferring the material to prop scars. In general, restoration of prop scars is of medium risk, with many successful projects completed throughout Tampa Bay.
• Restoration of dredged holes: The extent of borrow areas within the Lower Tampa Bay remains unknown. Prior reviews of available aerials identified areas of past dredging within the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve. These areas may provide limited restoration potential, given their size. Further study is required to adequately identify borrow areas in proximity to the Port and the efficacy of this mitigation option.
Preliminary UMAM analysis completed for the 2009 Master Plan for this restoration method generated a mitigation ratio of 5.8 to 1. Although the estimated mitigation ratio is much less than for the restoration of propeller scars, the extent of dredge holes available for mitigation is likely limited. This mitigation option, as a stand-alone, is unlikely to provide full compensation for expansion alternatives with greater seagrass impacts. In addition, because this method has been used in limited circumstances, the risk to implement this option is higher than for the restoration of prop-scarred seagrass.
• Restoration of a long shore bar system: This restoration option is for longshore bars that were once prevalent in Tampa Bay. It is theorized that the longshore bar system provided a physical barrier, reducing the wave and storm energy providing a sheltered area that would support seagrass colonization. Another benefit that the restoration of longshore bars may provide is a beneficial use of dredged material. Preliminary UMAM analysis that was completed for the 2009 Master Plan indicated a mitigation ratio of 12.5 to 1. This mitigation option presents the opportunity to restore large areas of seagrass habitat, but has not been established as a restoration method. Because the method has not been tested, the risk of implementing this option is high.
Each of these mitigation options was discussed in detail in the 2009 Master Plan.
Off-Site Mitigation. In general, mitigation is best accomplished when located on-site or in proximity to the area being impacted. Off-site mitigation is allowed in cases where on-site mitigation or preservation is not feasible, as determined by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), as per Chapter 62-330, Florida Administrative Code for environmental resource permitting. Based on a review of applicable rules, administrative guidance for mitigation, Port property currently available for mitigation projects, and in consideration of the Port's expansion needs, mitigation projects conducted off-site would be of greater function and value than typical on-site mitigation.
Off-site mitigation may require the Port to acquire property for the express purpose of mitigation. Opportunities exist to partner with federal, state, and local agencies working on restoration projects in the Tampa Bay area. Manatee County, through its Parks and Natural Resources Department, in particular the Natural Resources Division, may be an instant partner. The off-site mitigation needed to mitigate expansion alternatives with larger wetland impact acres may require substantial land area. Based on preliminary UMAM analysis completed for the 2009 Master Plan, off-site restoration yields a mitigation ratio in the range of 4.2 to 8.4 acres of mitigation per acre of impact. Costs associated with this option typically include land acquisition, mitigation design, and mitigation implementation.
Mitigation Banking/ROMAS. Mitigation banking and the use of regional off-site mitigation areas (ROMAs) are alternative methods to perform off-site mitigation. Mitigation banks are generally set up by private industry, whereas ROMAs, as per Section 373.4135 of the Florida Statutes, are set up by public entities to mitigate several projects. Mitigation banks and ROMAs generate credits by improving a site. Those credits are then available to use as mitigation for projects. Mitigation banks and ROMAs reduce both risk and the time needed to fully offset an impact.
Dredge Material Management. Management of dredge material is an important component of Port operations. Management strategies must focus both on regular maintenance activities performed to ensure navigability, and on new dredging planned for Berths 3 and 2. The Port's current policy is to utilize upland disposal in designated areas.
Dredged material management is handled by the USACE. The current Dredged Material Management Area (DMMA) near Harlee Road is available to handle the disposal of dredged material. As a partner, the USACE is currently working with the Port to dewater the site that will result in additional capacity. The USACE is also considering other options, including an offshore site that is shared with Port Tampa Bay; and the Port has been researching potential sites with the USACE which are closer to shore.
Stormwater Management. Port Manatee maintains a comprehensive stormwater management system approved by Manatee County and the SWFWMD. The system consists of a network of swales and other conveyance structures and stormwater management ponds. The existing stormwater system meets the requirements for flooding attenuation and water quality; and adequately serves the Port.
As the south area of the Port is further expanded, the existing storm-water pond and conveyance may need to be modified to meet the new geometry and development. The components of the system currently in place meet local and state regulatory requirements. Expansion in the Port's north area, namely at Berths 3 and 2, will require additional stormwater management consideration in the form of water quality controls and conveyance. With the proximity to the Bay, conveyance issues are localized and will not affect properties outside the Port jurisdiction. Water quality will continue to be a critical issue, due to the existence of aquatic preserves north and south of the Port and the viable seagrass bed immediately offshore. The Port has identified water quality objectives and policies to address this issue (see Chapter 6, Objective 3, Policy 3.2.2).
The Port will initiate a conceptual permit process over the next few years to prepare for the anticipated construction. Market forces will drive the actual schedule of construction and stormwater design will be conducted to meet the requirements imposed by construction. These designs will follow the blueprint agreed upon in the conceptual permit.