HomeMy WebLinkAboutBerths 1 & 2 (11-16-06)
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY
ADMI N ISTRATOR
DOUGLAS M. ANDERSON
November 16, 2006
SENT VIA FACSIMILE
Matthew G. Margotta, AICP
Director of Planning
Department of Planning
City of Fort Pierce
PO Box 1480
Fort Pierce, FL. 34954-1480
RE: Port of Fort Pierce - Berths 1 &2
Dear Matthew:
County staff has reviewed the conceptual plans for the proposed use of Berths' 1 &2 at the Port of Fort Pierce for
cargo operations. Attached to this letter are comments from the County's Environmental Resources Department,
Public Works Department, Growth Management Department, Engineering Department, and Parks and Recreation
Department.
The County's concerns and comments need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the plans for Berths 1 &2
being forwarded to the Fort Pierce City Commission for their review.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.
DMA/ab 06-183
c:
Board of County Commissioners
Dan Mcintyre, County Attorney
Fort Pierce Harbor Advisory Committee
Don West, Public Works Director
Robert Nix, Growth Management Director
Amy Mott, Environmental Regulation Manager
Debra Brisson, Parks & Recreation Director
Michael Powley, County Engineer
David Recor, Assistant City Manager, City of Ft. Pierce
Robert V. Schwerer, Esquire, City of Fort Pierce
Terry Lewis, P.A.; Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
Attachments
JOSEPH E. SMITH, District NO.1· DOUG COWARD, District NO.2· PAULA A. LEWIS, District No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District NO.4. CHRIS ŒAFT, District NO.5
County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 · Phone (772) 462-1450 · 10D (772) 462-1428
FAX (772) 462-1648 · email: dougo@co,st-Iucie.fl.us
web site: www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Hank Flores, AICP, Planning Manager
FROM:
Andrew Riddle, Planner
DATE:
November 16, 2006
SUBJECT:
St. Lucie County Port Project
After reviewing the above referenced project, staff has the following comments:
In accordance with Policy 2.8.14 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, please
coordinate with the St. Lucie County MPO and other appropriate local, state, and federal
agencies to ensure adequate intermodal access and adequacy of public facilities and
infrastructure.
The Existing Boundary Plan (Sheet X-04) states 63.995 total acres. According to Section
11.02.09(A)(4)(a)(1) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, a transportation impact
report is required for waterport terminals exceeding 28 acres. Please provide a Transportation
Impact Report in accordance with Section 11.02.09(A)(4) and demonstrate compliance with
Chapter 5 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.
Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the information provided in the revision.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert Nix, Growth Management Director
FROM:
Don West, Public Works Director
SUBJECT:Port of Fort Pierce
DATE:
November 16, 2006
Berth No 1 Site Plan - Comments Letter
1. The Port Master Plan only allows use of berth #1 as
industrial/cargo. Berths #2, #3, & #4 are reserved for
Mega Yacht usage. The site plan as drawn shows use of a
portion of berth #2 as a cargo berth. This is not consistent
with the Port Master Plan.
2. The impacts of anticipated truck traffic as a result of the
usage should be evaluated by the applicant. Impacts to
Second Street and other internal roadways should be
considered for needed improvements.
3. Currently the County is working closely with the City on
designing an improvement project to widen and reconstruct
North Second Street. The plan contemplates a 2 -lane
roadway with median divider within an 80' proposed right-of-
way. Funds are currently available for the design and right-
of-way acquisition, but not for the construction costs.
Perhaps a road contribution towards construction of Second
Street improvements should be considered.
4. Any proposed cargo that is granular in nature or subject to
creating dust could pose a threat to Mega Yacht facilities.
The plan should include a methodology for controlling dust
emissions that could be generated by handling of the
proposed cargo.
5. Environmental impacts of a cargo facility on the Indian River
Lagoon should be evaluated. The applicant should provide an
environmental study to evaluate the impacts and discuss how
these impacts would be addressed. Handling of stormwater
runoff, ballast water from ships, dredging impacts during
construction, turbidity controls, etc...should be addressed.
6. Anticipated traffic and usage of the railroad should be
evaluated by the applicant. Methods of traffic control at
railroad crossings should be addressed. Hours of operation
identified.
7. Proposed storage of shipping containers onsite should be
addressed. Limitations on stacking heights of containers
should be considered as a condition of site plan approval.
8. Methods for handling onsite stormwater runoff should be
considered. Impervious surfaces should be identified and
types of surface treatment should be specified for
cargo/industrial usage and heavy truck traffic.
9. Proposed crane operations and proposed structures should be
identified and details provided. Hours of operation should be
conditioned in the site plan approval process.
10. Proposed fencing and security measures should be provided
by the applicant. A security plan should be provided that will
address onsite security as well as cargo operations and shipping
containers.
C; Douglas Anderson, County Administrator
Ray Wazny, Assistant County Administrator
Michael Powley, County Engineer
Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Resources Director
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Robert Nix
Douglas Anderson
11/16/2006 10:11 AM
County Comments Port Concept Plan
Port of Ft. Pierce Engineering Comments 061114 Nov 16 06.doc; Port of Ft. P
ierce ERD comments Nov 16 2006.doc; Port Plan Park and Rec comments Nov 16
2006.doc; PortBerthComents fm public works Nov 16 2006.doc
cc: Faye Outlaw
Attached are comments from several county agencies regarding the concept for cargo use of the Port that we reviewed
yesterday.
The results of the Growth Management Department review are as follows:
1. The proposed conceptual plan is not consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed conceptual plan is not consistent with the Port Master Plan.
3. The proposed increased cargo use of the port has not been supported with any environmental assessment, even though
environmental impacts may be substantial.
4. The proposed increased cargo use of the port, as we understand it, is for bringing in aggregate material at the port.
However, there is nothing in the proposal that limits the cargo to aggregate material in any legally enforceable document.
Other cargo may create different environmental and transportation impacts, and different facilities demands.
5. The proposed use of the port includes no legally enforceable proposal to limit the size and number of vessels using the
port, or to limit the size and number of vessels lying at anchor in the Indian River Lagoon or waiting offshore to enter the
port. Significant demands for public facilities and services may result from uncontrolled expansion of shipments.
Significant environmental impacts, safety, law enforcement, security, and navigation issues may arise if traffic is not clearly
limited in a manner that is both clearly defined and legally enforceable.
6. The proposed increased cargo use of the port is inconsistent with species protection and habitat protection standards of
the adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. See the attached comments from the County Environmental Resources
Department.
7. There is no assessment of the impact of the pollutants that may be generated from the increase in cargo ships entering
the proposed commercial port on the Indian River Lagoon preserve area. See the attached report from our Environmental
Resources Division.
8. There is no assessment of the increase in heavy truck traffic on road maintenance costs or on transportation systems
capacity. An increase in truck traffic may have a substantial impact on road maintenance costs and on road capacity.
9. Finally, there is no assessment of how the project will be related to hurricane storm hazards and its impact, if any, on
coastal evacuation times, how cargo and vessels will be secured to prevent bridge damage, and pollution, etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposal.
Bob Nix, AICP, Director
st. Lucie County Growth Management
Port of Ft. Pierce 061114.doc
~over.nber16,2006
Engineering/Public Works Comments
1. Please provide the anticipated hours of operation for the facility.
2. Please provide a traffic study with estimated truck and rail trips to and from the
facility to evaluate any necessary off-site improvements that may be necessary.
3. Please provide additional information on the frequency and length of anticipated rail
traffic to and from the Port.
4. Please provide additional information on the anticipated truck traffic to and from the
Port.
5. Please provide additional information on the anticipated ship traffic in and out of the
Port.
6. The plans indicate that the entrance to the county park via Avenue M extension is to
be blocked off. This is unacceptable.
7. It appears that the existing rail spur will also be blocked. Please explain.
8. Secondary access to the facility is not provided. Please indicate how the Fire
Department will have access in an emergency.
9. Please provide additional information on the storm water treatment and storage
areas. Will a South Florida Water Management District permit be required for this
development?
10. Please provide a typical roadway section for your roadway construction.
11. Please provide additional information on the proposed 4-foot berm.
12. The area to be dredged for the proposed Berth 1 is indicated to be 701 feet by 100
feet. Please provide additional information on the estimated quantity of material and
how it is to be removed and processed.
13. The bulkhead as proposed appears to limit the future expandability of Berth 2. The
Master Port Plan limits cargo activity to Berth 1. Please modify the bulkhead
design to accommodate future expansion of Port Operations in accordance with the
Port Master plan.
14. Our comments are provided based on a very limited time to review the plans. We
request the opportunity to complete a more thorough review once our preliminary
questions have been answered.
0603310843JJP
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Debra Brisson
Nix, Robert
11/16/2006 8:38:14 AM
Port Plan
Bob,
Given the limited time to review the proposed plan, Parks & Recreation
comments are as follows:
The proposed plan appears to be inconsistent with the goals & objectives
outlined in the adopted Port Master Plan. Our concerns include
inconsistencies with Policies 2.4.1 and 4.1.2 which requires open access to
recreational fishing areas and policy 4.1.6 re: multi-use recreational areas.
Given additional time for a more thorough review we are certain that we could
provide you with additional inconsistencies and concerns.
Respectfully submitted
Debbie Brisson
Parks & Recreation Director
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
772-462-1518
fax: 772-462-1940
(772) 462-2548
Fax (772)462-1769
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
********************************************************************************************
TO:
Matthew Margotta, City of Ft. Pierce Director of Planning
FROM:
Amy Mott, Environmental Regulations Manager
DATE:
November 16, 2006
RE: Port of Fort Pierce - Conceptual Plans
********************************************************************************************
St. Lucie County Environmental Resources has been asked to review the Port of
Ft. Pierce conceptual plans for any possible environmental issues and
recommends that the City of Ft. Pierce consider the following issues prior to
granting approval of a final site plan for the Berth 1 & 2 Port operations.
The proposed plan will allow cargo to be transported to Berth 1 and Berth 2. The
anticipated cargo will be aragonite via two barges that will make alternating trips
to the Caribbean. The barges will measure approximately 225' long and 34' wide
and have an 18' draft and the tugs needed to bring the vessels in draft 9 feet.
The current depth is deep enough (average 28 feet) to avoid dredging. The
aragonite will be transported from the vessel to the uplands via a conveyor belt
system that will prevent loss into the Indian River Lagoon. Cargo is currently
imported into Berth 1 and the SLC Comp Plan and Port Master Plan implies that
cargo should be limited to Berth 1. The proposal for use of Berth 2 appears to be
the use of 350' of land to operate a conveyor belt system.
The fish and invertebrate fauna around the Ft. pierce and St. Lucie ocean Inlets
contain the most diverse aquatic species community within the Indian River
Lagoon ecosystem. The biodiversity is responsible for the designation of the
Indian River Lagoon as an estuary of national significance by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This estuary contains the richest estuarine
biota within the State of Florida, and within the United States.
Based on the important role that the Ft. Pierce Inlet plays and the far reaching
consequences that any adverse impacts would have, the entire Indian River
Lagoon within the City of Ft. Pierce and the Ft. Pierce Inlet should be designated
as part of the Aquatic Preserve. Applying the stricter standards of Chapter 18-20
F.A.C would help preserve the natural resources in this biologically diverse and
critically important aquatic habitat area. The Indian River Lagoon North - Vero
Beach to Ft. Pierce Aquatic Preserve - is less than % mile north of the site and
the Indian River Lagoon South - Jensen Beach to Jupiter - is less than 1 mile
south of the site. Most tidal exchange in the Indian River Lagoon occurs at the
Ft. Pierce Inlet because it is the largest of 4 Inlets along the Indian River Lagoon
(Sebastian, Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie, and Jupiter). According to local biological and
hydrological experts all potential environmental impacts have the potential to
impact both the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserves.
The topics of most concern among environmentalists include seagrass health,
water quality, and introduction of exotic invasive species through ballast water.
Seagrasses in and around the Ft. Pierce Inlet provide habitat for commercially
important juvenile fish species coming in from nearshore reefs and deeper
Oculina Bank spawning grounds. Seagrass health is directly related to water
quality. Excess turbidity produced by increased traffic will negatively affect the
health of the seagrass beds near the inlet. The seagrasses near Ft. Pierce Inlet
should not be subjected to any more turbidity or pollution than they already are.
Unfortunately, the majority of the submerged seagrass meadows in the St. Lucie
Inlet area have been recently extirpated by low quality water released from Lake
Okeechobee through the St. Lucie River. Recent studies indicate a substantial
(up to 80% loss of the seagrass fish fauna within 1-3 miles of the St. Lucie Inlet.
Although scientists expect seagrass to return to this section of the Lagoon when
and if Lake Okeechobee water management improves, the only extensive
remaining intact high diversity estuarine community remaining in the southern
Indian River Lagoon is associated with the seagrass meadows adjacent to Ft.
Pierce Inlet, including those historical seagrass meadows associated with the
port site. Increased deep draft cargo traffic at this location would not be
compatible with seagrass conservation or enhancement. If seagrass habitats
and their diverse associated marine biota are damaged or destroyed in the Ft.
Pierce Inlet area, then we can fully expect the rich biota of this prized American
Lagoon would be significantly reduced. Quantitative studies demonstrated that
at least 200 fish species depend on Ft. pierce Inlet habitats, most notably
seagrasses. Included in these species are grouper and snapper species that rely
on seagrass for juvenile nursery habitat and support regional fisheries. Anglers
come from around the state to the Florida east central coast for sport fishing.
Grouper and snapper fisheries support much of the recreational and commercial
fish economy along this coast. Loss of even an acre of seagrass can have
significant impacts on grouper and snapper nursery grounds and fish survival. If
all species of fish are totaled for an acre of seagrass for an entire year between 7
and 10 thousand fish of all types inhabit that acre of seagrass at least some
period during the year. Sand bottom does not support this same biomass
(Gilmore 2006, correspondence letter to Gov. Bush).
The Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the Ft. Pierce Inlet is faced with other
degrading factors such as the release of polluted water from the C-25 and Taylor
Creek just north of the proposed site and potential pipe failures associated with
the nearby waste water treatment plant. The Indian River Lagoon South
Feasibility Study proposes a reservoir and stormwater treatment area along the
C-25 to improve the quality of water entering the Indian River Lagoon. St. Lucie
County Commissioners are researching the possible relocation of the wastewater
treatment plant to an inland (off the island) location. The St. Lucie County
Environmental Advisory Committee has written a letter in support of eliminating
the water treatment plant from off of South Hutchinson Island.
Dr. Grant Gilmore, an Oceans Council member and long-term professional
biologist has reported that the largest and most valuable connection between the
Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Reserve, the Ft. Pierce Inlet
should be included in the Aquatic Reserve. His research shows that if the Ft.
Pierce Inlet were to become a major source of pollution it is highly likely that the
aquatic reserves dependent on the Ft. Pierce Inlet for miles north of and south of
the Inlet will be directly impacted. Since the Ft. Pierce ocean inlet is so large and
deep it is that portion of the Lagoon that gives the most direct support to (1)
offshore reef fish transit; (2) estuarine species migration to offshore spawning
sites; (3) juvenile migration into the Lagoon to utilize vital aquatic reserve nursery
habitats, seagrass and mangrove forests; and (4) contributes directly to the
Southern Lagoon's water quality and (5) high biodiversity, that allowed its
designation by the EPA as an "Estuary of National Concern", GG recommends
placing the FP Inlet seagrass and Lagoon reef habitats within the Florida Aquatic
Reserve System. It would be ludicrous to destroy any previous seagrass
bottoms in the southern Indian River Lagoon at this time simply because
seagrass meadows are not yet apparent, as this region of the Lagoon has
suffered from direct hurricane impacts for two years, 2004 and 2005. These
seagrasses supported a valuable and support this fauna in the future if the given
the opportunity.
The ecological threat related to ballast water discharges with the proposed
increase in shipping activity in the port could potentially be devastating to the
natural resources of the Indian River Lagoon and economy of the Treasure
Coast. Ballast water can contain foreign organisms capable of proliferating in the
absence of their natural predators or climate. Most shipments to the port of Fort
Pierce are to come from the Bahama Islands, where there are few if any
regulations and cruise ships and naval vessels landing from all over the world
and Caribbean. Dr. Grant Gilmore, an Oceans Council member and long-term
professional biologist stated that Court Rules for EPA to regulate ballast water
discharges. "U.S. District Judge Susan IlIston ordered the US EPA to begin
regulating ballast water just as if it were sewage pouring out of a factory."
Emptying ballast water tanks will pose an ecological threat. Invasive species
cause more than $5 billion a year in economic damage (Aquatic Nuisance
Species report).
Research conducted by scientists at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute
concluded that based on transport patterns of the Indian River Lagoon in the Ft.
Pierce Inlet and port areas, impacts are seldom truly local. The ebb and flow of
the tide, and especially with tidal mixing, seemingly distant areas can be
surprisingly well connected. Water in the Sebastian Inlet mostly arrives from the
FP Inlet. By that pathway, it comes right past the port. It would pick up any
dissolved or suspended material and that would be in the mixture by the time it
arrived. Therefore, the port activities can impact the lagoon at least as far north
as the Sebastian Inlet
Deepwater Port master Plan Policy 2.1.2 states "The Port of Ft. Pierce will
continue as a deepwater port that will accommodate limited cargo operations.
Gentrification of cargo areas shall be emphasized and flexibility shall be retained
in the Berth 1 area to allow either limited cargo operations or marine industries or
a combination of both. All such uses shall be consistent with the general mix of
uses described herein and compatible with adjacent land uses and natural
resources." Historically Berth 4 was operated by other industries (Marcona,
Union Carbide) until the importation was stopped in 1990 by the US Army Corps
of Engineers due to damage to seagrass habitat.
Opponents of a cargo operation at the port have discussed the common
development vision of a megayacht facility, hotels, and/or restaurants rather than
an "unsightly" and "dirty" cargo operation. The potential megayacht facility also
has the potential to degrade the natural resources of the Indian River Lagoon.
SLC ERD recommends that the Ft. Pierce City commission reject plans to
expand the port and further research the possibilities of designating the entire
port and Ft. Pierce Inlet area as Aquatic Preserve and possibly incorporating this
area into the concept of creating a world-class research and education region out
of the Treasure Coast. St. Lucie County and Ft. Pierce are extremely fortunate
to already have the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and the Smithsonian
Field Station in the area.
Should the City of Ft. Pierce consider reviewing any expansion plans for the port
(which SLC ERD strongly discourages), St. Lucie County recommends the port
developers to respond to, at a minimum, the following:
1) Should the City of Ft. Pierce consider recommending approval of any
expansion of port activities, the company receiving the approval should be
required to contribute substantially to the clean-up of existing sources negatively
impacting the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the Ft. Pierce Inlet is faced
with other degrading factors such as funding a reservoir and stormwater
treatment area along the C-25 to improve the quality of water entering the Indian
River Lagoon and/or relocation of the wastewater treatment plant to an inland (off
the island) location.
2) Prior to submittal of a site plan for this project it shall be reviewed by USFWS,
FFWCC, and NOAA to assess the potential impacts of essential fish habitat and
the fishing industry.
3) A complete and thorough environmental assessment and environmental
impact report should be submitted with the site plan package. The assessment
should include up-to-date and thorough seagrass surveys. Seagrass surveys
should be conducted according to appropriate state and federal protocol and
should encompass the entire port and Ft. Pierce Inlet areas.
4) The City should set a limit to the number of boats allowed to use Berth 1 per
day.
5) The City of Ft. Pierce should set guidelines pertaining to the type of materials
allowed to be transported through the port.
6) The applicant should be required to provide long-term monitoring of water
quality and sea grass health. Should a decline in either water quality or sea
grass health ever be documented then port traffic should cease and desist and
the impacts should be remedied at the expense of the applicant and monitored
until the area returns to pre-impact conditions.
7) The proposed bulkhead should be limited to Berth 1. As the use of Berth 2 for
cargo does not appear to be compatible with the Ft. Pierce Master Plan,
bulkheading that portion of the port will be unnecessary. Complete engineering
and construction plans for the proposed bulkhead should be submitted with the
site plan.
8) The applicant should explain and provide detailed plans demonstrating how
runoff from this site will be prevented. As portions of this site were previously
used as dredged spoil storage, the potential for contaminated
9) Stormwater retention areas were conceptually located on the plan. How large
will they be (depth & surface)? If they will hold water then native littoral shelves
and native upland buffers should be planted. If they will be dry detention then
native upland buffers should be planted. How will they be maintained? A
thorough long-term maintenance and management plan should be submitted.
10) The applicant should provide complete shoreline planting/restoration plans
with the site plan submittal.
11) The applicant should provide complete perimeter buffer and interior
landscaping plans with the site plan submittal.
12) The applicant should provide restoration plans for the area to be
implemented (at the expense of the applicant) when the cargo activities phase
out from the port.
cc: SLC
USACOE
FDEP
NOAA
USFWS
FFWCC