2019-08-09 FEC Slip Fill Feasibility - Feasibility Report

FEC Slip Fill Assessment
City of Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Presented to:
City of Miami, Office of Capital Improvements
August 2019
Final
Prepared by:
2937 SW 27th Avenue, Suite 101A

Miami, Florida 33133
(305) 239-1324
www.moffattnichol.com
FEC Slip Fill Assessment City of Miami
Document Verification
Client City of Miami Office of Capital Improvements

Project name FEC Slip Fill Assessment
Document title Assessment Report
Document sub-title N/A
Status Final – Revised
Date 2019-08-07
Project number 9450-12
File reference 2019-08-09 FEC Slip Fill Feasibility - Feasibility Report.pdf
Revision Description Issued by Date Checked

00 Draft CJB/LJ 2019-07-09 TKB
01 Final CJB/LJ 2019-07-28 TKB
02 Final – Revised CJB/LJ 2019-08-05 TKB
03 Final – 2nd Revision CJB/LJ 2019-08-07 TKB
04 Final – 3rd Revision CJB/LJ 2019-08-09 TKB
Produced by:
Moffatt & Nichol
2937 SW 27th Avenue, Suite 101A
Miami, Florida 33133
(305) 239-1324
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol ii

Table of Contents
Document Verification ........................................................................................................................... ii
Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................... x
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................xii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Land Ownership Considerations ............................................................................................. 2
2.1.1. Chapter 6961 (No. 155), Laws of Florida (1915) .............................................................. 3
2.1.2. Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida (1918) – Section 1................................................ 4
2.1.3. Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida (1918) – Section 2................................................ 4
2.1.4. Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919) .............................................................. 6
2.1.5. TIITF Deed No 19447 ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1.6. Other Deeds, Encumbrances, Easements and Right-of-Way Documents ....................... 6
2.1.7. Sovereignty Submerged Lands ......................................................................................... 7
2.2. Marine Resources .................................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Water Depths and Quality ....................................................................................................... 9
2.4. Sediment Quality ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.5. Historical Permits .................................................................................................................. 10
2.6. Project Site History ................................................................................................................ 11
3. Conceptual Project Design ............................................................................................................ 12
3.1. Bulkhead ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2. Reclamation ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.3. Upland Development ............................................................................................................ 14
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol iii

4. City Permitting Considerations ..................................................................................................... 14
4.1. Zoning - Miami 21.................................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1. Zoning Designation ......................................................................................................... 14
4.1.2. CS Allowed Uses ............................................................................................................. 15
4.1.3. CS Density, Intensity and Parking ................................................................................... 15
4.1.4. Art in Public Places ......................................................................................................... 16
4.1.5. Waterfront Design Guidelines ........................................................................................ 16
4.2. Select Public Works and Building Codes ............................................................................... 17
4.2.1. Bulkhead Elevation ......................................................................................................... 17
4.2.2. Flood Zone Designation .................................................................................................. 17
4.3. Downtown Development Authority ...................................................................................... 17
5. Previous Funding Sources ............................................................................................................. 18
5.1. FIND ....................................................................................................................................... 18
5.2. Other Sources ........................................................................................................................ 19
6. Environmental Permitting Considerations.................................................................................... 19
6.1. Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act ....................................................................................... 19
6.1.1. Purpose........................................................................................................................... 19
6.1.2. General Management Criteria ....................................................................................... 19
6.1.3. Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 20
6.2. Water Dependency/Site Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................... 21
6.3. Public Interest ....................................................................................................................... 23
6.4. Miami-Dade County Minimum Dredge/Fill Criteria .............................................................. 24
6.5. Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 25
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol iv

6.5.1. Impact Avoidance/Minimization .................................................................................... 25
6.5.2. Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat ................................................................................ 25
6.5.3. Manatees ........................................................................................................................ 26
6.6. Miami-Dade County Shoreline Development Review........................................................... 26
6.7. Compensatory Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 28
6.7.1. Vertical Bulkheads/Seawalls .......................................................................................... 29
6.7.2. In-Kind Mitigation........................................................................................................... 29
6.7.3. Out-of-Kind Mitigation ................................................................................................... 30
6.7.4. Mitigation Bank Credits .................................................................................................. 31
6.8. Navigation ............................................................................................................................. 31
6.9. Water Quality and Sediment Management .......................................................................... 32
6.9.1. Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................... 32
6.9.2. Sediment Management .................................................................................................. 33
7. Regulatory Processes .................................................................................................................... 34
7.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ................................................................................... 34
7.1.1. Applicable Federal Rules and Regulations ..................................................................... 34
7.1.2. Other Federal Agencies .................................................................................................. 34
7.1.3. Corps Regulatory Process ............................................................................................... 34
7.2. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)........................................................... 36
7.2.1. Applicable State Rules and Regulations ......................................................................... 36
7.2.2. Other State Agencies ...................................................................................................... 36
7.2.3. SFWMD Regulatory Process ........................................................................................... 36
7.3. Miami-Dade County DERM Class I Permit ............................................................................. 37
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol v

7.3.1. Applicable County Rules and Regulations ...................................................................... 37
7.3.2. Other County Agencies................................................................................................... 37
7.3.3. County Regulatory Process............................................................................................. 38
7.4. Other Permits ........................................................................................................................ 38
7.5. Permitting Timeframes.......................................................................................................... 40
8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 41
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol vi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Depiction of three State of Florida property grants in the vicinity of Maurice Ferré Park and
the FEC Slip ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Illustration of the FEC Slip Parcel conveyed to the City via Order of Taking in the Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, March 6, 1978................................................ 5
Figure 3: Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919), State of Florida land grant to the City of
Miami for municipal purposes ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Article 4, Table 4 Density, Intensity and Parking, Miami 21 (2018) ...................................... 15
Figure 5: Project Environmental Permitting Process Flow Chart ......................................................... 39
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol vii

List of Photos
Photo 1 - Port of Miami circa 1940’s (courtesy Historical Association of Southern Florida)............... 12
Photo 2 - Half Moon Kayak Event in April 2018 sponsored by DDA (courtesy of DDA) ...................... 18
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol viii

List of Appendices
Appendix A – City Resolution dated June 9, 2019
Appendix B - FDEP Division of State Lands Title Determinations and Title Search Report with
Attachments
Appendix C – Marine Resource and Hydrographic Survey Maps
Appendix D – Historical Site Aerial Photography
Appendix E - Conceptual Design Drawings
Appendix F – Article 4, Table 3 of Miami 21
Appendix G - FWS Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work
Appendix H - Miami-Dade County Soil Reuse Guidelines
Appendix I – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC)
Appendix J – Environmental Agency Meeting Minutes
Appendix K – Museum Park Baywalk and Promenade Figures
Appendix L – Zoning Verification
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol ix

Disclaimer
Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) devoted effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised
by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii)
the time and budget available for its work, to ensure that the data contained in this report is accurate
as of the date of its preparation. This assessment is based on estimates, assumptions and other
information developed by M&N from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the
industry, and information provided by and consultations with the client and the client's
representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, the Client's
agents and representatives, or any third-party data source used in preparing or presenting this
assessment. Moffatt & Nichol assumes no duty to update the information contained herein unless it
is separately retained to do so pursuant to a written agreement signed by Moffatt & Nichol and the
Client.
Moffatt & Nichol’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither Moffatt & Nichol, nor its
respective affiliates, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or
methods disclosed in this document. Any recipient of this document other than the Client, by their
acceptance or use of this document, releases Moffatt & Nichol and its affiliates from any liability for
direct, indirect, consequential or special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty (express
or implied), tort or otherwise, and irrespective of fault, negligence and strict liability.
This report may not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt,
equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than
the Client. This assessment may not be used for purposes other than those for which it was prepared
or for which prior written consent has been obtained from Moffatt & Nichol.
Possession of this assessment does not carry with it the right of publication or the right to use the
name of "Moffatt & Nichol" in any manner without the prior written consent of Moffatt & Nichol. No
party may abstract, excerpt or summarize this report without the prior written consent of Moffatt &
Nichol. Moffatt & Nichol has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any
expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the assessment,
or any use of the assessment not specifically identified in the agreement between the Client and
Moffatt & Nichol or otherwise expressly approved in writing by Moffatt & Nichol, shall be at the sole
risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol x

This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except
the Client or a party so authorized by Moffatt & Nichol in writing (including, without limitation, in the
form of a reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the
document in its entirety and not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document
is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding Moffatt & Nichol
liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from the project resulting from
changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and
materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers
or competitors and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects.
This assessment is based on Moffatt & Nichol’s experience, an initial review of pertinent regulations
as they apply to this specific Project site, permitting precedent, guidance documents, current physical
and environmental site conditions, and initial consultations with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and DERM staff. This Assessment does not constitute a
legal opinion. This assessment is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these
limitations, conditions and considerations.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xi

Executive Summary
Purpose of the Assessment
The City of Miami (City) Commission issued in May of 2019 Resolution R-19-0191, which directs the
City administration/staff to assess the viability of filling the FEC Slip [large boat basin on the south
side of Maurice Ferré Park (fka Museum Park, Bicentennial Park)] (Park), as well as the indentations
into the east shoreline of the Park, to create a greater area of public recreational space (Project or
Project area). This Assessment provides an initial concept, opinion of probable construction costs,
and environmental permitting assessment relative to the potential fill Project. This Assessment was
completed in a short amount of time, in less than two months, utilizing readily available data. The
information presented in this Assessment is preliminary and is not a complete feasibility assessment.
The Assessment presents the viability of filling the slip. To further evaluate the feasibility of the
Project, additional field data collection is required along with preliminary architecture/engineering
design.
The Assessment presents the technical and regulatory requirements associated with the Project. The
Assessment does not address the potential public opinion of the Project through the various public
hearings, county/city commission meetings, environmental permitting public notices, and other
meetings that will be required as part of the Project implementation. The Assessment does not
address the business case relative to the fill Project and resulting green space.
Assessment Methodology
The City retained the consulting engineering firm, Moffatt & Nichol (M&N), to prepare the Project
Assessment. Moffatt & Nichol is a global infrastructure advisory firm. The firm provides practical
solutions to clients in the marine terminal, transportation, energy, environmental, federal, and urban
development markets around the world. The firm practices engineering in accordance with Chapter
471, F.S. and was retained as an uninterested third party. As part of the Assessment, M&N
collaborated with several organizations including the Bayfront Trust, Miami Parking Authority,
Downtown Development Authority (DDA), PortMiami and Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND).
M&N worked closely with City staff throughout the Assessment through frequent progress and review
meetings. Coordination calls and/or meetings were conducted with the various regulatory agencies
that would have jurisdiction over the Project, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the Miami-Dade County Division of
Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The Project was also reviewed with the City Planning
Department.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xii

M&N researched the Project site’s environmental permitting history, available submerged biological
resource surveys, bathymetric surveys, as-built surveys, selected site environmental reports, and
construction plans for the adjacent park to compile the Assessment. An initial analysis of this data
was completed and updated bathymetric and marine resource surveys were conducted. A title search
was conducted and a formal state lands determination from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) was obtained. The collected data was evaluated, and the Assessment was compiled
based on the preliminary findings. Conclusions are provided based on extensive local Project
experience designing, permitting, and implementing waterfront projects in Miami-Dade County.
Description of FEC Slip
The site has operated with port and maritime uses since the late 1890’s. The “pier” and adjacent ship
berths were reclaimed and dredged, and the original shoreline was generally in alignment with the
east edge of Biscayne Boulevard. In the 1960’s and earlier, the Project area was used as a port and
shipping facility. By 1977, port operations had transitioned to PortMiami, operated by Miami-Dade
County. The site was converted into a public space known as Bicentennial Park. In the 1980’s, the site
briefly hosted the Miami Grand Prix racetrack. In the early 2000’s, efforts were initiated to redesign
Bicentennial Park. The park was then renovated and renamed Museum Park in 2014 and then again
renamed to Maurice A. Ferré Park in 2018. The Florida East Coast (FEC) railway slip is at the south end
of the Park which generally consists of a three-sided slip measuring approximately 1,200 feet long by
290 feet wide. Depths in the slip vary between 5 to 27 feet (Mean Low Water).
In the 1980’s, the south side of the FEC was modified to include a 730 foot by 12-foot-wide public
pier, with 35 boat slips and three finger piers. However, these piers were later removed and do not
reside in the Project area. In the 1990’s, a project in conjunction with the development of the
American Airlines Arena was permitted to stabilize the south shoreline of the FEC slip. In the early
2000’s, a 12-Slip temporary dock was permitted, but later removed in 2002. From 2004-2007, the
Bicentennial Park Shoreline Stabilization Project occurred on the east, north and south side of the FEC
Slip, in addition to new bulkheads. In 2009, a large vessel mooring facility was permitted along the
north bulkhead of the FEC slip, which comprised of 16 in-water concrete pile supported mooring
structures. These mooring structures still exist today. In 2013, the installation of a new soil anchor
system and repair of cracks, spalls and corrosion occurred along the east side of the Park and within
the Shoreline Inlets. In addition, a seawater intake project was permitted to install pipes along the
bay bottom and 4 feet waterward of the existing seawall adjacent to the Shoreline Inlets. Lastly, in
2016, a floating dock was permitted within the FEC Slip, which still exists today.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xiii

Based on the information collected as part of this Project assessment, the Project appears to be
proposed on lands held in fee simple title by the City of Miami. However, there may be deed
restrictions that require further review. The FDEP issued a State Lands Title Determination noting that
the FEC Slip basin is not located on State-owned lands.
An updated marine resource survey was conducted as part of this Assessment in June 2019. No
seagrass was observed. Various fouling organisms have colonized on hard surfaces including the face
of the sheet pile bulkheads. Several species of coral were identified at the Project site, however most
corals could be effectively relocated as part of any slip fill Project. Based on the water depths and
length of the slip, the water quality within the slip is generally poor as compared to other areas in
Biscayne Bay. The slip is a “dead end” configuration, and the SFWMD permit issued for the vessel
mooring facility requires regularly schedule trash removal and water filtration within the basin.
The slip was likely dredged to depths of approximately 30 feet when the site was previously the Port
of Miami. Over the last 40+ years, the slip has silted/shoaled to depths as low as 7 feet at the west
end of the slip. The adjacent park is in the process of completing the No Further Action with
Conditions (NFAC) through DERM as park improvements have been completed. The construction
required remediation for several contaminants and based on the history of the FEC Slip use, similar
and potentially additional, contaminants would be expected in the silt layers. The Phase I
Environmental Assessment for the area completed in 1994 was provided by DERM. To the south of
the slip, a dry dock operated for 14 years and the City operated a sewage treatment plant in the area
until 1975. Furthermore, five gas stations were located generally at the west end of the slip. The 1994
report did not have any sampling or testing of the soils within the slip.
Requirements to Fill FEC Slip and East Shoreline Inlets
A concept was prepared for the reclamation of the 8.67-acre FEC slip along with the two inlets that
formed the original slips of the Port of Miami. Quantities of major line items were compiled based on
the concept to estimate “order of magnitude” construction costs. The concept would include the
installation of a new bulkhead to close off the slip, and then reclamation of the slip with select fill. An
allowance for the removal of and proper disposal of undesirable silt/soil is included in the line items.
However, the quantities would need to be verified along with any special handling or disposal. Similar
hardscape and landscape elements would be provided to generally match the adjacent park
improvements and the Baywalk would continue along the new bulkhead. Based on a review of the
zoning requirements, a new 300-space parking garage would need to be constructed within the new
green space.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xiv

Pursuant to the City’s Zoning Map, the site does not have a zoning designation. The old zoning
designation was Parks and Recreation. Zoning of the site would require staff analysis and submittal
of a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board (PZAB). City staff would likely
recommend a zoning designation of Civic Space (CS). The zoning would be subject to a public hearing
before the PZAB.
Along with the environmental regulatory permits from county, state and federal agencies, City of
Miami permits would be required for the Project. The City of Miami would review the reclamation
and parking garage design relative to planning/zoning, flood plain, public works, as well as the various
trades which would include structural for the marine works and architectural, mechanical, plumbing,
electrical, fire protection, etc. for the parking garage. The City may also require a historical review
relative to any preservation concerns.
The Project would require minor modifications to the adjacent infrastructure including curb cuts for
entry to the parking garage. Connectivity with the existing parking lot may be possible to only require
a single driveway entrance for the parking garage. Other infrastructure would include water main,
sanitary sewer and electrical service. The stormwater management for the Project could generally
consist of drainage vaults for water treatment prior to discharge to drainage wells as were designed
for the adjacent park.
Significant Challenges
Cost: Based on the concept and limited analysis, an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC)
was compiled and summarized in the below table.
OPCC Summary
1 Demolition $960,400
2 Bulkhead $2,345,800
3 Civil Works $29,310,800
4 Parking Garage $10,500,000
5 Mitigation $203,034,000
6 Mobilization $4,311,700
7 Art in Public Spaces $646,800
8 Contingency (20%) $8,623,400
9 Reimbursement Items $24,100,000
Total Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $232,092,500
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xv

The total cost for the Project is estimated at approximately $232M. The major line items are the
compensatory mitigation and the reimbursement items which are described in the below paragraphs.
The reimbursement total is based on information provided by the City from various grants and other
sources of funding dating back to the 2004 time frame. The City implemented Maurice Ferré Park (fka
Museum Park) and associated improvements with the support of funding and grants from several
entities. Based on the resolution that was passed by the City, several entities have indicated that the
City will have to repay some, if not all, of the grant funds received. The line item should be considered
as a baseline and negotiations with the various entities may be able to better approximate
reimbursement cost. Funding sources include Homeland Defense Bond, Sunshine State, City Debt
Proceeds, Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Impact Fees, Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), and the Downtown Development Agency (DDA).
Environmental Permitting: The Corps is the Federal permitting agency with jurisdiction over all
proposed work in or affecting navigable waters and all discharges of dredged or fill material in U.S.
waters. The Corps must address all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements during
their regulatory review of an application prior to making a permit decision. Corps review of a permit
application for the proposed Project will primarily focus on alternatives analysis review to ensure that
impacts to environmental resources are avoided/minimized to the greatest practicable extent,
including review of both alternative Project sites and designs. The Corps will require appropriate
mitigation of unavoidable impacts.
The SFWMD is the State agency with jurisdiction over construction activities (including dredge and fill
activities) which take place in, on, over, or upon surface waters of the State. It also regulates the use
of State-owned submerged lands when the proposed Project meets certain conditions of the
Operating Agreement between the FDEP and the SFWMD. The SFWMD permit application review of
the proposed Project will primarily focus on avoidance/minimization of impacts to environmental
resources, mitigation of unavoidable impacts, and any proposed use of State-owned submerged
lands.
The Miami-Dade County DERM Coastal Resources Section is the County permitting action agency with
jurisdiction over construction activities (including dredge and fill activities) which take place in, on,
over, or upon tidal waters, submerged bay bottom lands, wetlands, or within canal rights-of-way,
reservations or easements in Miami-Dade County. The Class I Permit review will focus on
avoidance/minimization of impacts to environmental resources and mitigation of unavoidable
impacts. The Class I permit from this agency would also require processing of a Soil Management Plan
through the DERM’s Pollution Remediation (POLREM) division. Miami-Dade County has established,
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xvi

under Chapter 33D of the County Code, a Biscayne Bay Management Area and a Shoreline
Development Review Committee (SDRC). The Miami-Dade County Commission has “declared
Biscayne Bay to be a County aquatic park and conservation area for the use and benefit of all citizens
of Miami-Dade County and has adopted the Biscayne Bay Management Plan …” The Project would
likely be subject to review by the SDRC, as compliance with the minimum dredge/fill standards in
Chapter 24 of the County Code can likely not be demonstrated.
As noted above, processing environmental permits through all three agencies will require negotiation
of compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts after it has been demonstrated that impact
avoidance and minimization efforts have been exhausted. Mitigation projects must meet the
requirements of Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., Compensatory Mitigation Requirements of 33 CFR Part 332,
and Chapter 24 of the County Code. A successful mitigation strategy will clearly demonstrate that the
plan has: 1) an achievable objective, 2) the mitigation site is appropriate, 3) the mitigation site will be
protected from further impacts by a conservation easement or similar protection measure, 4) an
accurate biological baseline for both the impact and mitigation sites, 5) a functional assessment to
determine the appropriate amount of mitigation, 6) well defined work and maintenance plans, 7)
ecological/mitigation performance standards including clearly defined monitoring requirements, 8) a
long-term management plan, 9) an adaptive management plan, and 10) a financial assurance
plan to ensure the mitigation Project will be implemented successfully.
Compensatory mitigation consists of restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of similar

habitat to the type of habitat being impacted. Based on feedback from Miami-Dade County DERM in
particular, they are advising that their office will require an equivalent amount of submerged benthic
habitat to be created to compensate for the benthic habitat proposed to be filled and converted to
uplands. This type of mitigation is called “in-kind” mitigation, matching habitat creation or restoration
with the same type of habitat lost through the proposed Project/activity. The Project cost line item
for this mitigation includes acquisition of waterfront property based on property appraisal
information ($16M per acre), and an allowance is included for construction of the mitigation. Like the
reimbursement line item, this estimate of compensatory mitigation should be considered a baseline
for budgeting purposes. The mitigation would be subject to extensive environmental and engineering
studies and then negotiations with the three permitting agencies.
A key strategy for initiating environmental permitting for the Project is to improve water quality. The
proposed bulkhead construction and backfill activities will require the use of best management
practices during construction. After construction, the Project will eliminate stagnant waters, trash
accumulation, and cut off exposure of impacted sediments to greater Biscayne Bay. Sediment testing
will be required by Miami-Dade County DERM in accordance with their “Soil Reuse Guidelines” to
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xvii

determine the levels of contaminants within the sediments to be de-mucked or displaced during the
basin fill process.
Outline of Findings
The following factors summarize the outline of the Assessment’s findings:
Cost: The estimated cost of $232 million to construct the bulkhead, fill the basin, and create
waterfront green space are consistent with current construction costs. However, other driving factors
significantly raise the costs of the total Project including compensatory mitigation, the zoning need
for a parking garage, and reimbursement of funding/grants.
Time: Based on feedback from the agencies and experience with complex waterfront projects,
environmental permitting would likely require 3-5 years. Architectural/Engineering design and
building permitting would be completed concurrently with the environmental permitting process, as
the permitting would be on the critical path for implementation. Construction would likely require 2
years. For planning purposes at this assessment level, an overall duration of 7 years is estimated
before the Project would be complete and open to the public.
Efforts: A multi-disciplined team of planners, engineers, architects and scientists would be required
to design and permit the Project. It would be suggested that lobbying and legal support be retained
by the City to facilitate permitting this complex Project. Agencies including FIND and the DDA have
verbally indicated they are not in support of the Project, and other entities would also likely object to
the Project through various public hearings throughout the design and permitting process.
Approvals: The regulatory permitting process is a public process with various opportunities for public
and other entities to object to the Project. The environmental constraints for permitting projects
within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve are extremely stringent. The federal, state and local
agencies presented many regulatory challenges that will need to be overcome. In Miami-Dade
County, ultimately the Class I Permit would need to be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. There is no guarantee of permit issuance for this Project.
Opportunity Cost: The Project implementation cost of approximately $232M is extremely high. The
Project’s substantial costs, time, effort and agency coordination would require the City to significantly
shift its resources to this single project to the detriment of many other critical City requirements and
initiatives. Other green space projects may provide a higher benefit to cost ratio and be a more
prudent use of funding and staff effort.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xviii

Conclusions
The probability of obtaining environmental permits for the Project concept from the federal, state
and local agencies with jurisdiction appears to be relatively low. Environmental impact mitigation
costs, if the permitting effort is ultimately successful, are anticipated to be very high. The permitting
process is subject to public input/review and the DERM Class I Permit requires approval of the Miami-
Dade Board of County Commissioners. Tasks for architectural and engineering design would be
sequenced with the lengthy environmental permitting schedule. If a preliminary comfort level with
permitting success is achieved, the final design and construction procurement could also be
sequenced as environmental permits are being obtained so the Project could be shovel-ready while
the longer-duration permits are being finalized. The projected cost for the Project at $232M equates
to approximately $26.5M per acre of reclaimed land.
To further evaluate the Project viability and to refine this Assessment, the following steps would be
recommended working towards a full feasibility assessment:
1. Producing a survey map and legal review/opinion relative to the deeds, easements, etc.
2. Preparing conceptual designs, background exhibits, and an alternatives analysis
3. Drafting a mitigation assessment of the impact site and potential mitigation sites
4. Conducting further consultations with environmental permitting agencies to discuss the initial
alternatives analysis and feasibility of potential mitigation alternatives
5. Conducting an updated Phase I and Phase II site environmental assessment
6. Completing conceptual architectural/engineering design of the Project to refine budgets
7. Reviewing the potential estimated reimbursements of funding received by the City
8. Conducting a more comprehensive financial performance/risk analysis
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol xix

1. Introduction
This Maurice Ferré Park Shoreline Indentations and Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Slip Fill
Assessment (Assessment) was prepared for the City of Miami (City) pursuant to the City Commission’s
Resolution R-19-0191 (Resolution) dated May 9, 2019. A copy of this Resolution can be found in
Appendix A. This Resolution notes that, pursuant to Policy PR-1.1.2 of the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, the City prioritizes the acquisition of park land according to four (4) equal
priorities: “land with water views and/or water access; land for ‘walk-to’ parks, including
neighborhood parks, in underserved areas of the City identified in Citywide and NET-area maps in the
2007 Parks Master Plan and any subsequent updates to these maps; land to expand destination and
community parks; land for expansion or creation of linear park segments”. The Resolution directs the
City administration/staff to assess the viability of filling the FEC Slip [large boat basin on the south
side of Maurice Ferré Park (f.k.a. Museum Park, Bicentennial Park)], as well as the indentations into
the east shoreline of the Park, to create a greater area of public recreational space (Project area). This
assessment provides an initial conceptual plan, opinion of probable construction costs, and
environmental permitting feasibility assessment relative to the potential fill Project.
Construction in Waters of the United States/tidal waters in Miami-Dade County typically requires
authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the State of Florida, and the Miami-
Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Division of Environmental
Resources Management (DERM). Key environmental permitting regulatory criteria are summarized
herein; specifically, alternatives analysis, avoidance/minimization of impacts to natural resources and
compliance with other management criteria within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (BBAP) Act,
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to environmental resources, and compliance with soil
management guidelines. Potential permitting challenges and timeframes are summarized.
Potential land use considerations are noted, including City Planning and Zoning regulations and
potential deed restrictions that may be applicable to the Project area.
A conceptual plan was prepared for the reclamation of the 8.67-acre FEC slip along with the two inlets
that formed the original slips of the Port of Miami. Quantities of major line items will be compiled
based on the conceptual plan to estimate “order of magnitude” construction costs. Since no
architectural/engineering design has been completed for this level of assessment, the cost estimate
is limited and will need to be refined after field data collection and preliminary design.
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol 1

2. Existing Site Conditions
M&N has reviewed the Project site’s environmental permitting history, available submerged
biological resource surveys, bathymetric surveys, as-built surveys, selected site environmental
reports, and construction plans for the adjacent park. The existing site conditions based on the
information available at the time of this Report issuance are described in the following sections.
2.1. Land Ownership Considerations
Based on the information collected as part of this Project feasibility assessment, the Project appears
to be proposed on lands held in fee simple title by the City of Miami. However, there may be deed
restrictions that require further review. Production of a survey map and legal review of the deeds,
easements and other encumbrances affecting the Project area is recommended to confirm
boundaries and any use restrictions.
On May 31, 2019, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) issued a State Lands
Title Determination noting that the FEC Slip basin is not located on State-owned lands. Pursuant to
an additional State Lands Title Determination issued by the FDEP on June 21, 2019, both the FEC Slip
and indentations into the shoreline of the Park are located on filled and submerged lands that were
conveyed in Chapter 6961 (No. 155), Laws of Florida (1915), Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida
(1918), and Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919). Figure 1, below, illustrates the
approximate boundaries of the State’s land conveyances. A copy of both Title Determinations and
associated attachments can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 1: Depiction of three State of Florida property grants in the vicinity of Maurice Ferré Park and
the FEC Slip. The yellow diagonal hatch area in Biscayne Bay indicates the area of TIITF Deed No.
19447. Source: FDEP.
2.1.1. Chapter 6961 (No. 155), Laws of Florida (1915)
Pursuant to Chapter 6961 (No. 155), Laws of Florida (1915), the State of Florida conveyed to
the City of Miami “all of its rights and title in and to the water front, riparian rights, submerged
lands and oil in or on Biscayne Bay between the south line of Bay street and the center line of

Second street, extended east, in the City of Miami, as shown on the map of said city.” This
area appears to encompass approximately the northern two-thirds of the existing Park land,
including the north indentation into the shoreline and the north half of the south indentation
into the shoreline. East of this parcel in Biscayne Bay is the State of Florida’s Trustees of the
Internal Improvements Trust Fund (TIITF) Deed that was conveyed to the City of Miami in
1949.
2.1.2. Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida (1918) – Section 1
Pursuant to Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida (1918), Section 1, the State of Florida
conveyed “for dock and wharf purposes, in fee simple, to the City of Miami, all that portion of
the water and submerged and filled land in Biscayne Bay lying between the center line of
Second Street extended and the center line of Third Street extended, and between the high
water line as it existed in the year 1890 of Biscayne Bay on the West and the channel of said
Bay on the East …” This area appears to encompass approximately the south one-third of the
existing Park land, including the south half of the south indentation into the shoreline. Most
of this area has already been filled, except the shoreline indentation. East of this parcel in
Biscayne Bay is the TIITF Deed No. 19447 that was conveyed to the City of Miami in 1949.
2.1.3. Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida (1918) – Section 2

Pursuant to Chapter 7726 (No. 1), Laws of Florida (1918), Section 2, the State of Florida
granted “in fee simple to the Florida East Coast Railway Company that portion of the water
and submerged and filled lands in Biscayne Bay lying between the center line of Third Street
extended and the South line of Sixth Street extended, and between the high water line
aforesaid of Biscayne Bay on the West and the channel of said Bay on the East …” This area
appears to encompass the FEC Slip. East of this parcel in Biscayne Bay is the TIITF Deed No.
19447 that was conveyed to the City of Miami in 1949.
The FEC Slip tract of land was fought over in Court for many years before the City finally gained
control of the property through eminent domain (Order of Taking in the Circuit Court of the
11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida dated March 6, 1978). The Order of Taking
is an attachment to Paramount title Services, Inc.’s Title Search No.: 19-497-1, which is in
Appendix B. The “Eminent Domain Parcel” is also illustrated in Figure 2, below.

Figure 2: Illustration of the FEC Slip Parcel conveyed to the City via Order of Taking in the Circuit Court
of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, March 6, 1978. Source: FDEP.

2.1.4. Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919)

Pursuant to Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919), the State of Florida granted “to
the City of Miami, in Dade County, Florida, for municipal purposes only, all its right, title and
interest, insofar as the same can be granted, to all submerged lands, including water front and
riparian rights, to a parcel as depicted in Figure 2, below. The western boundary of this parcel
is the “mainland or shore-line”. The Chapter 8305 grant appears to overlap, in part, the three
above-references conveyances to the City of Miami and the FEC. East of this parcel in Biscayne
Bay is the TIITF Deed No. 19447 that was conveyed to the City of Miami in 1949.
2.1.5. TIITF Deed No 19447

It appears that the lands to the east of the above-referenced deeds in Biscayne Bay were
conveyed to the City via Special Act by the State of Florida – Chapter 11616, Laws of Florida
(1925) and TIITF Deed No. 19447. The Special Act requires that the submerged lands be used
for municipal purposes only; however, the Deed, which was issued more recently, states that
the submerged lands “…shall be used solely for public purposes, including municipal purposes
and not otherwise.” Violation of the Deed restrictions would render the Deed invalid and the
submerged lands would revert back to State ownership. The Deed only authorizes use of the
submerged lands for public purposes and does not allow the City to permit commercial
activities on the submerged lands or to sell the lands to a private entity or corporation.
2.1.6. Other Deeds, Encumbrances, Easements and Right-of-Way Documents

Additional deeds, encumbrances, easements and right-of-way documents that may affect the
Project are referenced in the Title Search Report by Paramount Title Services, Inc. It is
recommended that the City review all of these documents and have the boundaries of the
same mapped out by a surveyor with appropriate legal review and/or for the City to obtain a
legal opinion from the City attorney’s office or special counsel as to ownership/use rights and
restrictions for each area of the proposed Project areas (i.e. the FEC Slip and the Park shoreline
indentations) relative to these restrictions, covenants, easements, etc.
M&N recommends that the City review the Title Search Report documents with their legal
counsel to confirm that the proposed Project meets all conditions and parameters of all
applicable laws, deeds and other legal documents that convey ownership/use rights and
restrictions to the City for the Project lands.
Copies of the FDEP Division of State Lands Title Determinations, the 2019 Title Search Report,
and associated attachments are in Appendix B.

2.1.7. Sovereignty Submerged Lands

Any mitigation for unavoidable Project impacts that is proposed to be located on State-owned
submerged lands would require separate proprietary authorization from the FDEP Division of
State Lands. Proprietary authorization for any mitigation projects on State-owned submerged
lands will be included in the State regulatory permit issued for the Project.

Figure 3: Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919), State of Florida land grant to the City of
Miami for municipal purposes. Source: FDEP.

2.2. Marine Resources

The marine biological resource survey information collected within the Project area by Olin
Hydrographic Solutions, Inc. (as M&N subconsultant) on June 7, 2019 (see map in Appendix C),
indicates that no seagrasses were observed. The face of the bulkhead, unconsolidated rock
rubble/riprap and other hard surfaces are colonized by various fouling organisms. Coral types
identified at the Project site include diffuse ivory bush, starlet, lesser starlet, brain coral, sea plume
and knobby starlet. For impact avoidance/minimization, the environmental permitting agencies
typically require relocation of corals within a project impact area that are greater than 10 cm in
maximum diameter with a non-encrusting morphology. Most corals identified within the Project area
range from 15 to 61 cm, increasing the likelihood of potential relocation.
2.3. Water Depths and Quality

The bathymetric survey conducted by Olin Hydrographic Solutions, Inc. on June 7, 2019 (see map in
Appendix C), indicates that substrate elevations range from approximately -5 to -27 feet MLW within
the Project’s proposed reclamation areas.
As the FEC Slip is a dead-end basin, the rate of water circulation is anticipated to generally decrease
moving inland. Trash and natural detritus have also been observed to accumulate in the basin. The
regulatory agencies historically noted concerns related to the addition of activities in the FEC Slip with
the potential to negatively impact water quality. For the Museum Park Large Vessel Mooring Project
in the FEC Slip, the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit conditions required regularly scheduled
trash removal and water filtration in the basin using a boat-based system.
2.4. Sediment Quality

The FEC Slip and the two inlets to the former slips of the Port of Miami were likely dredged to depths
of 25 to 30 feet based on reported channel depths in the 1930’s of 30 feet. Measured depths in the
hydrographic survey completed for this survey are as deep as 27 feet. Due to the minimal circulation
within the FEC Slip, and extensive amount of sedimentation has likely occurred over the years since
PortMiami became operational in the 1960’s on Dodge and Lummus islands. No data on sediment
layers was available for this assessment. The adjacent redevelopment of Museum Park (nka Maurice
Ferré Park) required environmental site remediation based on past uses of this area of the waterfront
dating back to the 1890’s. The remediation was completed for the art and science museums along
with the MetroMover station as a separate phase of remediation, as this northern area of the former
Bicentennial Park area was formerly occupied by the Belcher Oil Company fuel terminal. The
remediation was completed by the museums. The park remediation, essentially the southern 2/3 of

the former Bicentennial park, was completed in 2016 by the City of Miami as part of the park
improvements project. Based on a review of the Soil Management Plan compiled by EE & G
consultants for Museum Park dated September 30, 2011, contaminants in the upper soil layers were
observed based on sampling. The contaminants generally consisted of arsenic concentrations
exceeding residential-use direct exposure, but not exceeding commercial-use direct exposure. The
areas with the higher concentrations were remediated as approved by DERM with use of engineering
controls and based on feedback from DERM the park area is in the final stages of environmental
remediation through the No Further Action with Conditions (NFAC) process. Given the presence of
contaminants in the adjacent park areas and the past port/maritime uses of the site, some
contaminants can be expected within the upper layers of sediment.
DERM provided the Phase I site assessment report completed for Bicentennial Park as compiled by
Law Engineering & Environmental Services dated September 13, 1994. The report referenced several
former gas stations that were located at the west end of the slip, and a dry dock company was located
on the south side of the slip and operated for approximately 14 years. The City also operated a sewage
treatment plant to the west of the Project site that reportedly pumped into the adjacent Biscayne
Bay. This plant reportedly operated until 1975. The Phase I report summarized the former
industrial/commercial operations at the Project site that included sea port operations, five gasoline
stations, a coal/charcoal company, a pesticide extermination company, 2 rental car agencies and the
Dade Dry Dock operations.
2.5. Historical Permits

Dredging and filling of the subject submerged lands was performed in association with historical
seaport activities prior to development of the current State and County environmental permitting
regulations. The Project is proposed to be located within areas previously dredged and/or filled. A
preliminary review of the historical environmental permits for construction activities on the Project
site Island indicates that various permits have been issued by the State, Federal, and County
environmental regulatory agencies over the years for stormwater management systems associated
with various developments including the existing museums, water and sewer construction/repair
activities, shoreline improvements and mooring activities.
Copies of the historical permits issued in the vicinity of the Project area that were available at the
time of this Report are summarized below. Initial consultation with the SFWMD, Corps, and DERM
indicated that new proposed fill activities must comply with all current environmental regulations.
In the 1980’s, the south side of the FEC was modified to include a 730 foot by 12-foot-wide public
pier, with 35 boat slips and three finger piers. However, these piers were later removed and currently

do not reside in the Project area. In the 1990’s, a project in accordance with the development of the
American Airlines Area was permitted to stabilize 535 linear feet of the south shoreline of the FEC
slip. This included the placement of approximately 300 cubic yards of clean fill waterward of the MHW
line and 770 cubic yards of natural lime rock riprap boulders.
In the early 2000’s, a 12-Slip Temporary Dock was permitted, but was later removed in 2002. From
2004-2007, the Bicentennial Park Shoreline Stabilization Project Phase I, II and III occurred in which
riprap consisting of lime rock boulders were placed on the east, north and south side of the FEC Slip,
in addition to new bulkheads.
In 2009, a large vessel mooring facility was permitted along the north bulkhead of the FEC slip, which
comprised of 16 in-water concrete pile supported mooring structures. These mooring structures still
exist today. In 2013, the installation of a new soil anchor system and repair of cracks, spalls and
corrosion occurred along the east side of the Park and within the Shoreline Inlets. In addition, a
seawater intake project was permitted to install pipes along the bay bottom and 4 feet waterward of
the existing seawall adjacent to the Shoreline Inlets. Lastly, in 2016, a floating dock was permitted
within the FEC Slip, which still exists today.
2.6. Project Site History

A review of historical aerials available for the property indicates change in shoreline boundaries and
morphology of the Project area. The site has operated with port and maritime uses since the late
1890’s. The “pier” and adjacent ship berths were reclaimed and dredged, accordingly, and the original
shoreline was generally in alignment with the east edge of Biscayne Boulevard. In the 1960’s and
earlier, the Project area was used as a port and shipping facility.

Photo 1 - Port of Miami circa 1940’s (courtesy Historical Association of Southern Florida)
By 1977, port operations had transitioned to PortMiami as operated by Miami-Dade County. The site
was converted into a public space known as Bicentennial Park. In the 1980’s, the site briefly hosted
the Miami Grand Prix racetrack. In the early 2000’s, efforts were initiated to redesign Bicentennial
Park. The park was then renovated and renamed Museum Park in 2014 and then again renamed to
Maurice A. Ferré Park in 2018. Please refer to Appendix D, which includes select historical aerial
photographs of the site from 1951 through 2018.
3. Conceptual Project Design
M&N developed a conceptual site plan depicting the proposed Project bulkhead alignments and
reclamation areas, along with appropriate sections. Figures contained within Appendix E illustrate the
existing site conditions and conceptual Project design.
3.1. Bulkhead
To facilitate the reclamation of the FEC Slip, a steel sheet pile bulkhead will be required to connect
the existing bulkheads along the east side of Maurice Ferré Park and the east side of the American
Airlines Arena (Parcel B). Due to the water depths and anticipated geotechnical conditions, the sheet
piling will most likely be a “combi-wall” system with tie backs just above the Mean High Water (MHW)
line. The replacement bulkhead installed in 2006-time frame along the existing park had to be
retrofitted with grouted tie backs to address deflection and stability issues. Installing the sheeting will
also facilitate the reclamation with appropriate backfill and control turbidity from demucking and
backfilling during construction. Similarly, the two inlets will be closed with steel sheet piling.

Conventional tie backs will be utilized with tie rods appropriately spaced and attached to a deadmen
system.
3.2. Reclamation
Once the sheet piling closes off the FEC Slip, a process of demucking will likely be required to address
any contaminated sediments. Depending on the results of a site environmental investigation along
with appropriate geotechnical evaluation, the select fill may be able to be placed directly in the
reclamation area. Below mean high water (MHW), free draining coarse material that is generally self-
compacting would be required. Once above the MHW, the tie back system can be installed, and
backfilling completed with appropriate select fill placed in layers and compacted. For construction
sequencing, some underground utilities may be placed at the appropriate elevations during the
backfilling process. Some overfilling may be required depending on the amount of demucking
completed and the poorer quality sediment overlying competent material under the seabed.
Filling the slip and inlets will require a large amount of fill, currently estimated at over 350,000 cubic
yards (cy). A digital terrain model (DTM) was established based on the updated hydrographic survey.
An allowance for demucking of 2 feet was included in the quantity estimates, and then volumes were
calculated to reclaim the FEC Slip and the two inlets to existing grades. The volume estimates for this
level of assessment do not include bulk or swell factors; the estimates are based on a 1:1 ratio of
cut/fill. Several quarries and mines in the western part of the County have appropriate sources of fill,
however more economical sources of fill should be evaluated. Trucking that quantity of fill, requiring
in excess of 20,000 dump trucks, will have an impact on roadways and traffic for the duration of
construction. M&N met with PortMiami representatives to discuss the Project and the potential for
barging excavated material. PortMiami is interested in further discussions with the City, as the
proposed cruise terminals, Berths 8-9, are currently being planned and designed by MSC Cruise Line.
These two berths will require the dredging and/or excavation of approximately 1.3M cy of material,
much of which would be a suitable fill source for this Project. The material would be barged to the
Project which would greatly reduce the trucking needs for PortMiami and for this Project.
Construction of the cruise terminals is tentatively scheduled for 2020-2022, and this time frame would
not likely coincide with implementation of this Project that has not commenced design/permitting.
PortMiami is planning other port improvements that may have excess fill. In addition, the Corps is
conducting a 3-year assessment for the next deepening of the shipping channel along with some berth
expansion. This dredging project would produce material that could be used as a source of fill,
however the time frame, funding, and permitting for this deepening project will not be determined
until after the assessment is completed in 2021-time frame.

3.3. Upland Development

Once the reclamation is completed, similar park improvements and amenities as have been
constructed in the adjacent Ferré Park would be designed and constructed in the new open space.
Demolition of the existing baywalk that extends east/west along the existing slip would be completed.
Existing bulkheads would be partially demolished, likely the top 4-5 feet. The remaining sheet pile
bulkhead could be left in place. If desired, the bulkheads could be removed as fill is placed within the
slip. The bulkheads along the American Airlines Arena would need to be evaluated structurally, as
these bulkheads may be connected to adjacent retaining walls and associated infrastructure.
Stormwater management infrastructure would consist of grading to maximize use of swales within
the green space in conjunction with drainage structures to collect runoff for pre-treatment in precast
stormwater vaults or exfiltration trenches, as conditions warrants. Similar to the Ferré Park, most
likely runoff would be discharged into drainage wells after appropriate treatment. The Baywalk along
the existing slip would be removed, and the Baywalk connecting Ferré Park and Parcel B constructed.
No planning or design has been completed for the reclamation areas, and therefore unit costs per
acre for the landscape, hardscape, irrigation and lighting have been incorporated into the
construction cost estimates. In addition to the landscape/hardscape, a parking garage will be required
for approximately 300 spaces based on the acreage and zoning requirements for the CS designation.
The 300 spaces account for the adjacent mass transit along Biscayne Boulevard. A garage is budgeted
as a surface lot will require extensive acreage within the newly created public space.
4. City Permitting Considerations
4.1. Zoning - Miami 21

4.1.1. Zoning Designation
Pursuant to the City’s Zoning Map, the site does not have a zoning designation. The old zoning
designation was Parks and Recreation. The zoning is confirmed from City staff in a memo
enclosed in Appendix L. Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Jeremy Gauger, Deputy Director for
the City Planning Department, on June 26, 2019, zoning of the site would require staff analysis
and submittal of a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board (PZAB). Mr.
Gauger noted that staff will likely recommend a zoning designation of Civic Space (CS), which
requires a minimum of 75% open space. The Project site has City Historic and Environmental
Preservation flags for Scenic Transportation and Archaeological Conservation.

4.1.2. CS Allowed Uses

Allowed uses for CS-designated sites are in Article 4, Table 3 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. The
only building allowed by right in the CS zone is a marina. All other buildings require a special
permit that will be approved by warrant or exception; these approvals require notice and can
be appealed to or require a public hearing before the PZAB, respectively. Any commercial
activities proposed would go through an extensive approval process.
4.1.3. CS Density, Intensity and Parking

Under the current version of the City’s Miami 21 zoning code, a minimum of 1 parking space
is required for every 1,000 square feet (sf) of exhibition or recreation space. There is a parking
ratio reduction available by process of Waiver for sites within a transit Corridor area by up to
thirty percent (30%). Additional detail is provided in Article 4, Table 4, of Miami 21.
Figure 4: Article 4, Table 4 Density, Intensity and Parking, Miami 21 (2018).
Pursuant to discussions with Mr. Jeremy Gauger on June 26, 2019, there is a pending
amendment to Miami 21 that, is approved, will reduce the parking requirements to a
minimum of 1 space for every 5,000 sf of recreation space.

4.1.4. Art in Public Places

Pursuant to Miami 21, Section 11.7(a), “All Developers for Government Development Projects
shall provide for the acquisition of Art equivalent in value to not less than one and one-half
percent (1.5%) of the Project Cost …”
Pursuant to Miami 21, Section 11.7(c), “The Art in Public Places Board (AIPPB), upon a public
hearing, may exempt the following from the Public Art Program upon recommendation from
the Public Art Division:
(i) The requirements of Section 11.7(a) may be waived by resolution of the AIPPB when a
Government Development Project is funded by grant(s) that prohibit the use of grant
funds for purposes not specified under the grant(s); or
(ii) Government Development Projects or portions thereof that do not include
Structures.”
“Project Cost” is defined in Article I, Section 1.5 of Miami 21 as: “The total of specialty
consulting fees; Construction Cost, including all systems and features that make the facility
functional; site work; and contingency allowances and allowance accounts (e.g. permitting,
surveying, inspections) for the government Development Project. Project cost shall not
include the cost of land acquisition or subsequent cost changes to the construction or
architectural contract(s) for the Government Development Project, including phased projects
and all elements of an approved Government Development Agreement. The total Project cost
shall be calculated as of the date the contract for the construction is executed …”
For the proposed Project, a line item budget is included at 1.5% of the initial estimated Project
Cost.
4.1.5. Waterfront Design Guidelines

The City’s Zoning Code, Miami 21 (2012), provides specific Waterfront Design Guidelines in
Appendix F. The Waterfront Design Guidelines address bulkhead and seawall designs and
waterfront walkway designs, including features for the latter that include a variety of buffer
and use zones and standards for landscape, lighting and other design elements. M&N
anticipates that the Project can be designed to comply with the Waterfront Design Guidelines.

4.2. Select Public Works and Building Codes
4.2.1. Bulkhead Elevation

Section 54-46, City Code, states that “Permanent-type bulkheads shall be constructed to a
minimum elevation of +5.00 feet, NGVD along all rivers and canals and along the shoreline
or harbor line of Biscayne Bay north of the Rickenbacker Causeway.” The conceptual Project
design includes a bulkhead top of cap elevation above +5.00 feet (NGVD).
4.2.2. Flood Zone Designation
The Project area is located in an AE-11 flood zone, as designated by the current FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (Flood Map No 12086C0312L, effective on 9/11/2009). Proposed
structures must comply with the City’s floodplain management regulations and Section 1612
of the Florida Building Code.
4.3. Downtown Development Authority

The City’s Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is working to develop a comprehensive strategy
to address the existing access and connectivity challenges along Biscayne Bay and Miami River. The
DDA contributed funding to the Large Vessel Mooring Facility that is currently within the FEC Slip, and
the DDA is not supportive of the Project based on meetings conducted with M&N. Specifically, the
DDA is concerned regarding the elimination of the linear distance of waterfront the FEC Slip provides.
The filling of the slip is not consistent with the 2025 DDA Master Plan. The master plan references the
FEC Slip attracting tall ships that will “create additional waterfront visual identity and tourist
amenities.” The DDA also indicated that a historic designation is being considered for the FEC Slip and
area.

Photo 2 - Half Moon Kayak Event in April 2018 sponsored by DDA (courtesy of DDA)
5. Previous Funding Sources

The City implemented Maurice Ferré Park (f.ka. Museum Park) and associated improvements with
the support of funding and grants from several entities. Based on the resolution that was passed by
the City, several entities have indicated that the City will have to repay some, if not all, of the grant
funds received. A summary of funding from grants and other sources is provided as a line item in the
cost estimates in Appendix I. This line item was provided by the City, and the breakdown is included
in more detailed spreadsheet that follows the cost estimates.
5.1. FIND
The Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) has provided eight (8) grants starting in 2001-time frame
for the bulkhead replacement, baywalk improvements, and large vessel mooring facility at the
Maurice Ferré Park. FIND is not supportive of the filling of the slip and will require reimbursement of
the majority of the baywalk/bulkhead grants as well as full reimbursement for the Large Vessel
Mooring Facility. M&N met with the Miami-Dade County FIND Commissioner, Mr. T. Spencer Crowley
III, Esq. Mr. Crowley indicated that the length of the existing waterfront that would be eliminated by
the Project would need to be reimbursed, which is estimated as 67% of the grant funding for those
line items. Mr. Crowley indicated that FIND could not recall an instance where reimbursement was
required from other projects along the east coast of Florida that qualify for FIND grants. Mr. Crowley

also indicated that grant funding requests are competitive with $8.4M in grant requests requested
this year and FIND can only allocate $7.1M.
5.2. Other Sources

In addition to funding from FIND as discussed in Section 5.1, the City provided a detailed spreadsheet
with other sources of funds for the adjacent park improvements. These sources of funding included
DDA, HD bonds, Sunshine State, DRI, CRA, impact fees and local sources. A line item is included in the
cost estimates for the total amount of grants and other funding that may have to be refunded. Limited
time was available to compile these various sources of funds, with some of the grants dating back
over 15 years. However, this order of magnitude estimate line item is provided as a “baseline” for
budgetary purposes in this assessment. The amount of grants and other funds would be subject to
review and negotiation with each entity that provided the funding.
6. Environmental Permitting Considerations
This section summarizes key environmental permitting criteria and feasibility for constructing the
Project.
6.1. Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act
6.1.1. Purpose
The BBAP “was established for the purpose of preserving and enhancing Biscayne Bay and all
natural waterways tidally connected to the bay in an essentially natural condition so that its
biological and aesthetic values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations” [Sec. 18-
18.001(1), F.A.C.].
6.1.2. General Management Criteria

The Section 18-18.005, F.A.C., sets forth General Management Criteria for the BBAP. This
section states:
“Before the Board approves the sale, lease of transfer of interest in state lands or severance
of materials therefrom, or the Secretary comments favorably concerning activities on private
lands within the preserve, an applicant must affirmatively demonstrate, where applicable,
that:
… (2) No new lands will be created by filling or spoiling unless no other alternative exists
to accomplish the stated purposes, and project is designed to require the minimum filling to
accomplish the stated purpose of the activity consistent with the protection of the preserve

…” (emphasis added)
DERM stated in the June 26, 2019, Project consultation meeting that they will require a site
alternatives analysis pursuant to this provision of the BBAP rules to demonstrate that no
upland site is available that can accommodate the City’s proposed development of expanded
waterfront recreational space and that no “lesser fill” alternative would meet the Project
purpose. DERM stated in the June consultation meeting that a design alternatives analysis will
also be required to see if there is a viable design alternative with reduced environmental
impacts. The SFWMD may require an alternative analysis as part of their permitting process,
although this was not noted by staff in the initial consultation meeting on June 24, 2019. The
Corps will require completion of both site and design alternatives analyses as part of their
permitting process (see below “Water Dependency/Site Alternatives Analysis” section).
6.1.3. Cumulative Impacts
Pursuant to Sec. 18-18.008, F.A.C., the SFWMD will evaluate a project relative to potential
cumulative impacts with the recognition that the it is part of a complete and interrelated
system. The impact of a proposed activity shall be considered in light of its cumulative impact
on the preserve’s natural systems. The Department shall include as a part of its evaluation of
an activity:
(1) The number and extent of similar human actions within the preserve which have
previously affected or are likely to affect the preserve, whether considered by the SFWMD
under its current authority or which existed prior to or since the enactment of the Act;
and,
(2) The similar activities within the preserve which are currently under consideration; and,
(3) Direct and indirect effects upon the preserve which may be reasonably expected to result
from the activity; and,
(4) The extent to which the activity is consistent with management plans for the preserve
when developed; and,
(5) The extent to which the activity is permissible within the preserve in accordance with
comprehensive plans adopted by affected local governments.
SFWMD staff noted in the June 24, 2019, consultation meeting that they do not have
cumulative impact concerns with the Project, as the coral relocation and mitigation is
proposed with in the immediate area/same drainage basin.

6.2. Water Dependency/Site Alternatives Analysis
The Corps, SFWMD and DERM all anticipate requiring submittal of some form of a site alternatives
analysis as part of their permitting processes to demonstrate that the City does not own another
property upon which it would be possible to meet the Project purpose without filling submerged lands
and impacting Waters of the United States (WOTUS)/tidal waters.
The Corps is required to analyze alternatives to a proposed project that could achieve its purpose and
need in its evaluation of permit applications to fill material into WOTUS. The Corps conducts this
analysis pursuant to two main requirements - the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) associated with
the Clean Water Act of 1972 that are found in the Federal Register under 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 230 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Corps
implementation procedure for the analysis can be found in the Federal Register under 33 CFR Part
325.
Pursuant to the guidance document entitled “Information for Preparing an Alternatives Analysis
Under Section 404”, issued by the Corps Jacksonville District in 2014, “the Corps must evaluate
alternatives that accomplish the overall project purpose, and that are reasonable and practicable. A
permit cannot be issued if a practicable alternative exists that would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic ecosystem, provided that alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
impacts. The Guidelines include two rebuttable presumptions. The first presumption states that if a
project does not need to be in a special aquatic site to meet its basic purpose (i.e., the project is not
"water-dependent"), it is presumed that alternatives (i.e., sites on dry land) that do not affect special
aquatic sites are available. The second presumption states that if a project involves a discharge of fill
material into a special aquatic site, a practicable alternative located in uplands is presumed to have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. It is the applicant's responsibility to clearly
demonstrate to the Corps and other regulatory agencies that both of these presumptions have been
rebutted in order to pass the alternatives portion of the Guidelines.”
For the alternatives analysis, the overall project purpose and need must be stated. The project
purpose is the basis for a large portion of the alternatives analysis. The overall project purpose must
be specific enough to define the Project needs (i.e., to create a waterfront public recreational space
in the City’s downtown core to meet local demand for this use), but not so restrictive to preclude
other alternatives. It should also not be too wide-ranging, as the geographic boundaries in the
purpose define the scope of the analysis. Information that describes why particular geographic
boundaries were chosen will assist the Corps in its review. Additional information about the proposed
overall project purpose should also be provided in the statement, including details about relevant

market conditions and area, location, history, and other factors that influence or constrain the
intended nature, size, level of quality, price class, or other characteristics of the project. The Corps
will advise if they concur with the scope of the project purpose and reference it in the Public Notice.
Once the Corps has placed the project on Public Notice, the applicant must use the overall project
purpose as stated in that Public Notice for the alternatives analysis.
M&N discussed with Corps staff in the July 1, 2019, the potential statement of a dual purpose for the
Project – first, to create approximately 10 acres of additional public recreational space in the City’s
downtown core (discussing any functional and/or financial priority/value in it being directly tied to
Maurice Ferré Park or otherwise located in this specific location), and second to eliminate water
quality issues in the FEC Slip that negatively impact the current Park experience for residents and
visitors. The Corps noted that a dual project purpose could be submitted, but that is may complicate
the review. The project purpose statement for the Project must be carefully considered and crafted.
The alternatives analysis considers both onsite and offsite alternatives and determines which are
practicable and which are not. “Practicable” is defined by the Corps as meaning “the alternative is
available, is able to achieve the overall project purpose, and is feasible considering cost, existing
technology, and/or logistics in light of the overall project purpose.” The “Information for Preparing
an Alternatives Analysis Under Section 404” guidance document notes that land parcels that can
potentially be purchased by the permit applicant must be considered in the alternative analysis and
“the applicant should consider and anticipate alternatives available during the timeframe that the
Corps conducts its alternatives analysis.” However, in the consultation meeting with Corps Miami
Permits Branch office on July 1, 2019, Ms. Megan Clouser noted that only parcels of land already
owned by the City of Miami must be considered. If the Corps continues to accept this approach, it
should beneficially narrow the scope of the alternatives analysis.
Even if the Project is determined to be water dependent or it is demonstrated that no alternative site
is available that meets the project purpose, if impacts to the environment would result from the
proposed project, an evaluation of onsite design alternatives will be required by the Corps and other
agencies to determine if impacts can be further avoided or minimized, taking into consideration costs,
existing technology, logistics, and any other information that conveys the practicability of the
alternatives reviewed in consideration of the overall project purpose.
The City/Corps must likely consider a “No Project” alternative and other onsite alternatives with less
adverse impact to WOTUS/tidal waters (e.g., a “Reduced Fill” alternative) in the design alternatives
analysis. The alternatives analysis will need to demonstrate why the “No Project” and “Reduced Fill”
alternatives (and any other alternatives) do not meet the City’s purpose and need before the

“Preferred Alternative” could be authorized. The alternatives analysis should objectively identify the
“Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.”
The SFWMD and DERM should similarly require an alternatives analysis. In the June 24, 2019,
consultation meeting with DERM, staff indicated that water quality impact/benefit assessment would
likely be required in association with the site alternatives analysis to determine what relative level of
the project purpose versus water quality improvement and coral impact avoidance can be achieved
relative to a progressive amount of basin/indentation fill (i.e., fill of 25% of the basin/indentation
areas vs. 50%, 75%, 100%).
6.3. Public Interest
Section 62-330.302, F.A.C., provides additional conditions for issuance of State Environmental
Resource Permits. This section notes that “an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the
construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, repair, removal, and abandonment of a project:
(a) Located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest,
or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in
the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria as set forth in sections 10.2.3
through 10.2.3.7 of Volume I:
1. Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property
of others;
2. Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including
endangered or threatened species, or their habitats;
3. Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful
erosion or shoaling;
4. Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine
productivity in the vicinity of the activity;
5. Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature;
6. Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and
archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061, F.S.; and
7. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by
the proposed activities.” (emphasis added)
In the consultation meeting held on June 24, 2019, SFWMD staff emphasized the importance of
submitting a strong public interest statement with the ERP application. As the Project is located within
the BBAP, which is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), it must be demonstrated that the Project is
“clearly in the public interest”. The public interest statement for the Project is anticipated to be
focused on net benefit to water quality/flow and public health based on the elimination of stagnant
waters and trash accumulation in the FEC Slip basin by creating a consistent shoreline alignment.

6.4. Miami-Dade County Minimum Dredge/Fill Criteria
Pursuant to the criteria for review of Class I Permit applications as set forth in Sec. 24-48.3 of the
Miami-Dade County Code (County Code), “dredging or filling work proposed in Class I Permit
applications shall comply with at least one (1) of the following criteria:
(a) Minimum dredging and spoiling for public navigation or public necessity.
(b) An alteration of physical conditions as may be necessary to enhance the quality or utility of
adjacent waters.
(c) Minimum dredging and filling for the creation and maintenance of marinas, piers, docks
and attendant navigational channels.
(d) Minimum dredging and filling as is necessary for the elimination of conditions hazardous
to the public health or for the elimination of stagnant waters.
(e) Minimum dredging and filling as is necessary to enhance the biological, chemical or physical
characteristics of adjacent waters.
(f) A physical modification necessary to protect public or private property.”
Any Project that DERM staff determines does not meet at least one (1) of the above-referenced
criteria must make variance application to the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) for
review. As it will likely be difficult to quantitatively demonstrate that the fill being proposed is the
“minimum necessary for the elimination of stagnant waters” or “necessary to enhance the
characteristics of adjacent waters”, DERM will likely refer the Project to the EQCB for review.
Pursuant to Sec. 24-13 of the County Code, applications for variances are filed with DERM and the
Director will make written recommendations concerning the same to the EQCB. Upon receipt of an
application and the recommendations of the Director, the EQCB will hold a public hearing upon the
application, after publication of notice of the hearing. All interested persons shall be entitled to be
heard before the EQCB. The EQCB shall promptly hear and pass upon the application and set forth
the grounds and reasons for granting or denying the application. An EQCB decision can be appealed
to the District Court of Appeals in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Section 24-12, County Code, states that the EQCB “may grant such variances or extensions only if it
is affirmatively established by competent factual data and information that strict compliance with
the requirements of this chapter is impossible or inappropriate because of conditions beyond the
control of the person or persons involved, or that strict compliance would result in substantial
curtailment or closing down of a plant, project or operation which would be detrimental to the
public interest, or that the particular operation is essential for the public health or the national
security, or that no technically feasible, economically reasonable means of compliance are available
to the person or persons involved, or that the variance or extension will not be detrimental to the
public health, welfare and safety and will not create a nuisance and will not materially increase the

level of pollution in this County, or that a more unhealthy condition will occur if a variance or
extension is not granted.”
The content of justification for an EQCB variance, if required, will likely be similar to the “public
interest” statement with a focus on reduction of stagnant/poor quality waters and provision of a
net environmental benefit associated with the overall Project.
6.5. Natural Resources
6.5.1. Impact Avoidance/Minimization

The substrate within the Project area is silty with small rocks. Corals exist on the rip rap,
formations, concrete slabs between formations, base of the bulkhead and water outlets.
All three regulatory agencies will evaluate direct (primary) impacts to environmental
resources associated with the proposed bulkheading and backfilling of the bay bottom,
indirect (secondary) impacts including impacts related to reflected wave energy associated
with vertical bulkheads and temporary construction-based turbidity, and the Project’s
consistency with the overall management plan for the BBAP, including the requirement to
demonstrate that the Project is in the public interest.
Precedent exists for agency authorization of some degree of fill within the BBAP when
biological resource impacts are avoided or are minimal and no other site or design alternative
is reasonably available to meet the project purpose. As noted in the “Public Interest” and
“Water Dependency/Alternatives Analysis” sections, above, efforts to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for impacts to biological resources and water quality will be required to secure
permits for the Project. Avoidance includes relocating corals to avoid impact. Minimization
involves reducing impacts to the aquatic habitat/resources and can be achieved by actions
such as reducing the fill footprint, perhaps retaining a small embayment at the east end of the
FEC Slip to accommodate a small mooring or another water-oriented recreational facility.
Mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, creation, or conservation of habitat that
provides in-kind or out-of-kind ecological function to replace habitat that is eliminated or
reduced in function.
6.5.2. Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat

Although the Project area is considered to be within the geographic boundaries of the area
designated as threatened Johnson’s seagrass Critical Habitat, the Primary Constituent
Elements (PCEs) required to support Johnson’s seagrass growth do not appear to be present
due to deep waters with moderate to poor light penetration and substrate conditions that are

generally not conducive to seagrass growth. The Corps will likely consult with the NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) relative to potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species onsite over which the NMFS has jurisdiction (swimming sea turtles,
smalltooth sawfish and Johnson’s seagrass), as the Project scope does not meet the NMFS
Jacksonville District Programmatic Biological Opinion (JAXBO) criteria.
6.5.3. Manatees
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is listed as an endangered species under both
federal and State regulations. Miami-Dade County has a State-approved Manatee Protection
Plan (MPP) that imposes specific guidelines and restrictions for Projects within their
jurisdiction. Additionally, as part of the Corps permitting process, the Project will be reviewed
under the Manatee Key to see if consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) is
required. Similarly, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must concur
that the Project is consistent with the MPP prior to State permit issuance. As no increase in
powerboat slip count, significant changes in vessel traffic patterns that could increase the
potential for manatee impacts, or impacts to seagrass (foraging habitat for manatees) are
proposed in association with the Project scope, it is likely that the regulatory agencies will only
require compliance with the FWS Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (2011) (see
Appendix G) and assurance that no manatees will be trapped within the basins to be filled as
the sheet piling is installed across the mouth. Reconnaissance by a trained manatee observer
will likely be required during in-water work with specific focus on ensuring that no manatees
get trapped in the FEC Slip basin while the mouth is being closed off with sheet piling.
If relocation of the current large-vessel mooring is proposed onsite or offsite within the
“Freight Terminal/Large Vessel (>100’) Berthing” zone of the MPP, this should be acceptable
provided that the mooring remains limited to vessels that are at least 100 feet in length.
6.6. Miami-Dade County Shoreline Development Review
Miami-Dade County has established under Chapter 33D of the County Code a Biscayne Bay
Management Area and a Shoreline Development Review Committee (SDRC). The Miami-Dade County
Commission has “declared Biscayne Bay to be a County aquatic park and conservation area for the
use and benefit of all citizens of Miami-Dade County and has adopted the Biscayne Bay Management
Plan …”
The SDRC review procedures and criteria are intended to achieve the following objectives, per Section
33D-31 of the County Code:

(1) To preserve or enhance the natural, aesthetic and recreational values of the Biscayne Bay
area.
(2) To encourage the best use of the water and shoreline area for the benefit, use and
enjoyment of residents of and visitors to the Miami-Dade County.
(3) To provide the maximum amount of public visual and physical access to the water
through the provisions of mixed-use facilities and places open to the public at large, such
as walkways, boardwalks, plazas, and observation areas along the shoreline.
(4) To encourage new shoreline development along the waterfront to respect the coastal
environment, and to orient or reorient shoreline uses and buildings to the water.
(5) To avoid monotony in building heights and widths and appearances along the developed
areas of shoreline and, above all, to avoid further walling off of the shoreline through
appropriate site preparation and landscape design.
(6) To prevent the siting of uses along the bayshore that are incompatible with adjacent in-
water and developed areas.
(7) To encourage the retention and use of native plant materials along the shoreline.
(8) To provide landscaping in the viewing corridors and shoreline setback areas that focuses
views toward the water.
(9) To create or recreate over the next few decades, a natural soft edge and greenbelt-like
quality along the bay shoreline.
(10) To plan and design new developments, or make improvements to existing developments,
in a manner that will enhance the view and enjoyment of the water and shoreline area
from the street, from the water, from within the development and overlooking the
development.
(11) To encourage the integration of existing historic structures and features in new shoreline
developments.
The SDRC provides a review of plans and applications for development within the shoreline
development review boundary, including all business, commercial, industrial, recreational,
entertainment, cultural and governmental uses that directly abut the shoreline or occur on a
minimum of one (1) acre and are located within the shoreline development review boundary but not
abutting the shoreline.
The SDRC is charged to determine whether and the extent to which:
a. Any plan or development action as proposed, conforms to the Miami-Dade County

Comprehensive Development Master Plan as amended from time to time, any applicable
municipal master plan as may be amended from time to time, and Biscayne Bay
Management Plan as may be amended from time to time, and is otherwise compatible
with the existing area, and surrounding in-water and upland natural features.

b. Any plan, or development action, as proposed, is consistent with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Act (Florida Statutes, Section 258.165) as may be amended from time to time,
and rules, plans and criteria adopted pursuant to that act.
c. Any plan, or development action, as proposed, is consistent with applicable County or
municipal codes and the extent to which departure from said codes would be required to
meet the intent of this article.
d. Any plan, or development action as proposed, is consistent with all applicable criteria
contained in Section 33D-33 hereinbelow and guidelines and minimum standards set
forth in implementing resolutions adopted pursuant to the article.
Issues meeting SDRC criteria are not anticipated, give the open recreational space design and
public nature/benefit of the Project.
6.7. Compensatory Mitigation

When avoidance and minimization efforts have been exhausted, compensation for unavoidable
impacts to natural resources are required. Only once impact avoidance and minimization are
adequately demonstrated will the regulatory agencies consider mitigation. Mitigation projects must
meet the requirements of Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C., Compensatory Mitigation Requirements of 33 CFR
Part 332, and Chapter 24 of the County Code.
A successful mitigation strategy will clearly demonstrate that the plan has: 1) an achievable objective,
2) the mitigation site is appropriate, 3) the mitigation site will be protected from further impacts by a
conservation easement or similar protection measure, 4) an accurate biological baseline for both the
impact and mitigation sites, 5) a functional assessment to determine the appropriate amount of
mitigation, 6) well defined work and maintenance plans, 7) ecological/mitigation performance
standards including clearly defined monitoring requirements, 8) a long-term management plan 9) an
adaptive management plan, and 10) a financial assurance plan to ensure the mitigation Project
will be implemented successfully.
Compensatory mitigation consists of restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation of similar

habitat to the type of habitat being impacted. A multi-faceted approach must be taken to identify
cost -effective mitigation that is sufficient to offset the proposed impacts associated with the Project.
M&N conducted preliminary consultations with the SFWMD on June 24, 2019, DERM on June 26,
2019, and the Corps on July 1, 2019, regarding possible mitigation requirements and opportunities
for the Project. A summary of potential mitigation opportunities based on agency consultation and
previous Project experience are described below.

6.7.1. Vertical Bulkheads/Seawalls
Both the SFWMD and DERM require, pursuant to rules regarding vertical seawalls in natural
lagoons in general and the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, the placement
of riprap at the toe of any new or replacement bulkhead/seawall to attenuate reflective wave
energy and minimize/mitigate the potential for water quality impacts. The State ERP
regulations require construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries and lagoons to comply with
the criteria in section 10.2.6, of Volume I, of the ERP Applicant’s Handbook pursuant to Sec.
62-330.302(1)(d), F.A.C. DERM’s standard mitigation requirement is 1 cubic yard (c.y.) of
riprap per linear foot of new or replacement bulkhead proposed. If the full volume of riprap
cannot be placed onsite due to navigational, stability or other issues, DERM typically allows
the balance to be addressed either offsite or through contribution to the Biscaye Bay
Environmental Enhancement Trust Fund (BBEETF).
6.7.2. In-Kind Mitigation

Corals: The SFWMD and DERM confirmed that mitigation to offset impacts associated with
the proposed Project would be best accomplished through in-kind mitigation – the creation,
restoration, enhancement, or preservation of natural resource communities similar to those
that will be impacted and in a location that is proximal to the impact site in the BBAP.
The SFWMD advised in the June 24, 2019, consultation meeting that they anticipate no
additional mitigation being required if all corals greater than 10 cm in diameter are relocated
and new hard substrate is provided with installation of the bulkheads and riprap at the toe of
the new bulkheads. The SFWMD expects these new hard surfaces to successfully colonize with
marine biological resources similarly to those impacted, resulting in the creation of
replacement habitat. For unavoidable coral impacts, DERM has historically approved the
placement of riprap for the creation of new artificial reefs or the enhancement of existing
artificial reefs, such as the Brickell Artificial Reef Site that was permitted and is managed by
Miami-Dade County Restoration & Enhancement Section. Other artificial reefs that were
permitted and are managed by Miami-Dade County Restoration & Enhancement Section
include the Dumbfounding Bay, Julia Tuttle and Oleta River sites. The County is planning to
complete bathymetric surveys of their authorized artificial reef sites in the summer or fall of
2019, which will provide additional information regarding the area available for mitigation.
Filled Bay Bottom: DERM advised in the initial project consultation meeting that they prefer
re-creation of submerged habitat (i.e., through excavation of uplands) to create a new area of
submerged habitat that is sufficient to offset the area of habitat lost through filling associated

with the Project. Historically, DERM has required 1 c.y. of riprap per 100 square feet of
unvegetated/barren bottom filled or dredged; however, most of these projects have been fill
related to basins/canals that were created from uplands.
A combination of small mitigation projects can potentially be proposed to offset total

mitigation obligations. The City’s environmental/permitting consultant and DERM will
evaluate the proposed mitigation project pursuant to Chapter 62-345, F.A.C., which is the
Unified Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) Rule. A UMAM assessment will be used
to compare the acreage and functional types/levels of habitat impacted to the proposed
mitigation.
The scope of this Assessment does not include a detailed environmental assessment of the
Project site conditions or of potential mitigation site conditions to form the basis of a
functional mitigation assessment using the UMAM to determine potential required mitigation
quantities associated with specific mitigation projects. Although an exact ratio of proposed
impacts to required mitigation cannot be determined, it is feasible to expect that in-kind
mitigation will likely be required at a ratio of 2:1 to 5:1 (unless advance mitigation is provided)
to offset impacts to environmental resources/habitat within the Project footprint. Mitigation
activities can greatly increase the overall cost of a Project; therefore, compliance with
resource impact avoidance/minimization guidelines to the greatest possible extent is strongly
recommended.
DERM has confirmed that restoration of dredge holes, creation of artificial reefs, and other
environmental restoration activities would be acceptable as mitigation for impacts, based on
habitat type. Consultation with the DERM Restoration & Enhancement Section and the FDEP
Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA) is recommended to further evaluate
mitigation opportunities to offset impacts related to the Project.
6.7.3. Out-of-Kind Mitigation

All three regulatory agencies strongly discourage proposals that include out-of-kind mitigation
as the primary mitigation activity. A small percentage of out-of-kind mitigation may be
acceptable if combined with a primarily in-kind mitigation Project, provided that direct benefit
to Biscayne Bay habitat can be quantified. There have been a limited number of precedent
projects in other counties that have received mitigation credits for stormwater management
improvements. The Board of County Commissioners formed the Biscayne Bay Task Force
through legislation passed in February 2019. This task force will be reviewing the challenges
associated with the management and care of the bay. These challenges include sea level rise,

alga blooms, seagrass die-off and water quality concerns. Urban stormwater runoff is a major
concern for water quality in the bay, and stormwater retrofit projects would benefit water
quality in the bay. The current codes and guidelines for out-of-kind mitigation would have to
be updated and/or revised for DERM to consider stormwater management improvements.
Until this type of mitigation can be considered. It is not anticipated that out-of-kind mitigation
will be required or approved for the Project.
6.7.4. Mitigation Bank Credits

The Corps requires submittal of a mitigation plan that complies with the Corps Compensatory
Mitigation Rule, as set forth in 40 CFR Part 230 (2008). When considering options for
successfully providing compensatory mitigation, the Corps utilizes a preferential hierarchy.
This preferential hierarchy includes first the use of mitigation bank credits, then the use of in-
lieu fee programs, and, finally, the use of permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation.
Pursuant to a telephone communication between Ms. Nicole Liette of the Corps Jacksonville
District South Permits Branch office and Ms. Christy Brush with M&N on June 20, 2019, Ms.
Liette has advised that if greater than approximately 200 square feet of corals will be impacted
by the Project (not relocated) that the purchase of mitigation credits will be required. The
Project is located within the service area of the FPL Mitigation Bank, which offers saltwater
credits to offset marine habitat impacts.
The number of mitigation credits that will be required to be purchased will be based on the
results of a mitigation assessment using the Wetland Assessment Technique for
Environmental Review (WATER). The scope of this Assessment does not include a detailed
environmental assessment of the Project site conditions to form the basis of a functional
mitigation assessment using the WATER method to determine potential required mitigation
bank credit purchase requirements. Please note that Miami-Dade County DERM typically does
not accept mitigation credits toward compensation for unavoidable Project impacts; however,
an attempt can be made to negotiate DERM acceptance of any mitigation bank credit
purchase made to satisfy Corps mitigation requirements.
6.8. Navigation
No permanent navigational impact concerns are anticipated in association with the proposed Project.
The proposed bulkheading and backfill structures are located approximately 100’ away from the
federal turning basin/channel and are proposed in line with existing bulkheads to the north and south.

The Corps indicated during the July 1, 2019, pre-application meeting that the Project design will be
submitted through the Section 408 coordination review process to confirm that the Corps Engineering
and Navigation sections do not have any concerns regarding any of the proposed activities, such as
placement of riprap at the toe of the new bulkheads, that are east of the prevailing bulkhead
alignment along the west shoreline of Biscayne Bay. During Project construction, personnel will be
instructed relative to an awareness of activities in the offshore turning basin/channel and open lines
of communication will be maintained with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and PortMiami regarding
major ship maneuvering events/schedules and other coordination items.
If the City decides to explore potential relocation of the existing large vessel mooring facility,
consultation with the environmental permitting agencies, PortMiami, the USCG and the Corps
Navigation Division will be required. There may be concerns relative to mooring waterward of the
bulkhead line in proximity to the federal channel/turning basin; a design that recesses the boat slips
within the alignment of the existing bulkhead line would likely be preferred from a navigational
perspective.
6.9. Water Quality and Sediment Management
6.9.1. Water Quality and Quantity
The proposed bulkhead construction and backfill activities will require the use of best
management practices, including the use of double turbidity curtains during bulkhead
installation and proper containment of spoil (if the FEC Slip basin is demucked prior to fill) to
minimize the potential for short term water quality violations. Permanent impacts to water
quality are not anticipated; in fact, it is anticipated that fill of the FEC Slip will eliminate
stagnant waters, trash accumulation, and cut off exposure of impacted sediments to greater
Biscayne Bay. As the Project is located within an OFW, turbidity at the Project site must not
exceed the ambient turbidity within the Project area during construction activities, unless a
temporary mixing zone is approved. A temporary mixing zone for water quality during
construction or alteration may be requested pursuant to Rule 62-4.242 and subsection
624.244(5), F.A.C. However, based on the proposed construction methodology, a mixing zone
variance should not be required.
As part of the justification that the Project is clearly in the public interest (see also the “Public
Interest” section of this report), an analysis of pre- and post-Project flushing conditions in the
FEC Slip basin may be required.

The SFWMD will also require submittal and authorization of stormwater management plans
for the filled areas. The plans must illustrate either independent stormwater systems for these
areas or, more likely, modification to the existing Park stormwater system to add the filled
areas. All applicable regulations and the criteria within the “Environmental Resource Permit
Applicant’s Handbook” must be met for the Project design.
6.9.2. Sediment Management
Sediment testing will be required by Miami-Dade County DERM in accordance with their “Soil
Reuse Guidelines” (see Appendix H) to determine the levels of contaminants within the
sediments to be demucked or displaced during the basin fill process. A meeting was conducted
with M&N and DERM Environmental Monitoring and Restoration Division on July 2, 2019 to
review the Project. The upland adjacent Maurice Ferré Park is in the process of completing the
NFAC as part of the park improvement project, and as discussed in Section 2.4 some
contaminants were observed in the upper layers of sediment. DERM would require an
updated Phase I Assessment with a follow-up Phase II Assessment. The Phase II assessment
would include determination of the layers of sediment, likely above the original dredge depth.
Appropriate sampling and testing would need to be specified for the layers of accumulated
sediment and for the anticipated contaminants. The resulting contaminant concentrations will
need to be compared to the Soil Cleanup Target Levels in Chapter 24-44 Code of Miami Dade
County. DERM indicated with the history of the site dating back to the early 1900’s along with
exposure to the open bay that the types of concentrations of various contaminants would vary
from the conditions sampled and tested in the upland park areas. If sediments are to be
demucked from the basin, the test results will determine appropriate handling methods and
disposal locations. For the purposes of this assessment, the cost estimate was based on the
assumption that the upper 2 feet of material within the basin would be demucked and
disposed of at an appropriate landfill due to the possible presence of contaminants. The
amount of demucking would be based on further studies, and it is possible depending on the
concentrations and types of contaminants that remediation can be completed “in situ” with
appropriate engineering controls and the NFAC process through DERM as was completed for
the adjacent park.
The permitting agencies will require submittal of information regarding the material proposed
to be used to backfill for the FEC Slip and Park Shoreline Indentations. A Project construction
methodology narrative must be submitted as part of the environmental permitting processes
that addresses how all construction elements will be executed, including the handling of
materials to be excavated and the type, source and handling of fill materials.

7. Regulatory Processes
The general regulatory processes are outlined by agency in the below sections.
7.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

The Corps is the Federal permitting agency with jurisdiction over all proposed work in or affecting
navigable waters and all discharges of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. The Corps must
address all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements during their regulatory review of
an application, prior to making a permit decision. Corps review of a permit application for the
proposed Project will primarily focus on impacts to environmental resources and mitigation for those
impacts.
7.1.1. Applicable Federal Rules and Regulations

Federal authorization for the project, if permitted, would be pursuant to Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. During their regulatory review,
the Corps must ensure adherence to all Federal laws including, but not limited to, NEPA, the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the Corps Mitigation Rule Section 332, and Section 176(c)
of the Clean Air Act. Prior to rendering a permitting decision, the Corps will prepare an
Environmental Assessment/Statement of Findings, which will address how the Project
addresses all applicable Federal laws.
7.1.2. Other Federal Agencies

The Corps permit application review may include coordination and/or consultation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Services Habitat
Conservation Division (NMFS-HCD), the National Marine Fisheries Services Protected
Resources Division (NMFS-PRD), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG). Consultation with these commenting agencies may be avoided via Corps
confirmation that the Project complies with the agency’s criteria based on various guidance
and opinion documents, such as the Manatee Key or Construction Guidelines.
7.1.3. Corps Regulatory Process

Upon finalization of the Project design, a Corps permit application for with appropriate
attachments will be submitted to initiate review of the proposed Project. Once the application
package has been submitted, the Corps will issue a Public Notice providing an opportunity for
the Public and commenting agencies to consult on the Project. The commenting period will

be open for 30 days after the Public Notice has been issued. The Corps may also consult
separately with the FWS and the NMFS-PRD regarding the Project’s effect on threatened and
endangered Species including the West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus), Johnson’s
Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate). Once the comment
period has expired, the Corps Project Manager will forward any relevant comments received
in response to the Public Notice, as well as requests for information from the commenting
agencies, to the applicant for response within a request for additional information (RAI). After
review of the response to the RAI, the Corps will either issue another RAI or conclude that
they have received all requested information.
If the Corps determines that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts after
consideration of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation, then an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required to identify the proposed action’s potential environmental
effects and to disclose these potential effects to the public. M&N does not anticipate that
production of an EIS will be required for the proposed Project; however, justification of the fill
for non-water dependent uses is anticipated to be very challenging.
In addition to the environmental regulatory review conducted by the Corps to ensure that the
Project is in the public interest, the Corps must determine that anticipated impacts, including
the cumulative impacts of the proposed activity and its intended use, are in the public interest.
The following factors must be considered during the Corps evaluation: conservation,
economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish
and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety,
food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and in
general, the needs and welfare of the people.
Prior to making a regulatory decision, the Corps must receive confirmation from the State that
the Project is consistent with the State Water Quality Certification (WQC) and the State
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Plan. Confirmation is typically provided upon issuance of
the State permit. Once all of the requested information has been received and the Corps has
completed consultation with the NMFS-HCD, NMFS-PRD, FWS, addressed other federal
commenting agency concerns, and addressed applicable public comments, the Corps will
prepare an Environmental Assessment/Statement of Findings (EA/SOF), detailing how the
Project addresses all applicable Federal laws and requirements. The EA/SOF will result in a
recommendation as to whether to issue or deny the permit.

7.2. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

The SFWMD is the State agency with jurisdiction over construction activities (including dredge and fill
activities) which take place in, on, over, or upon surface waters of the State and also regulates the
use of State-owned submerged lands when the proposed Project meets certain conditions of the
Operating Agreement between the FDEP and the SFWMD. The SFWMD permit application review of
the proposed Project will primarily focus on impacts to environmental resources, mitigation for those
impacts, and any proposed use of State-owned submerged lands.
7.2.1. Applicable State Rules and Regulations

The SFWMD’s regulatory authority for this Project is pursuant to Chapters 403
(Environmental Control), 373 (Water Resources), 258 (Parks/Aquatic Preserves), 253 (State
Lands), and 120 (Administrative Procedures Act) Florida Statutes; Chapters 40E-4
(Environmental Resource Permits), 40E-40 (Review of Environmental Resource Standard
Permit Applications), 18-21 (Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management), 18-18 (Biscayne
Bay Aquatic Preserve) and 62-330 (State Wide Environmental Resource Permit), F.A.C.; the
Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (Basis of Review); and the
ERP Applicant’s Handbook.
7.2.2. Other State Agencies

In accordance with the rules and regulations listed in section 6.2.1, the SFWMD’s permit
application review includes coordination and/or consultation with the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Manager (consistency
with BBAP Management Plan), the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SFCRI), the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the FDEP Division of State Lands (DSL), and the Board of
Trustees (BOT).
7.2.3. SFWMD Regulatory Process

A permit application will be submitted to the SFWMD for the Project, including both the
bulkheading and backfill as well as the proposed stormwater management plan for the area
to be modified. The SFWMD is responsible for forwarding copies of the application to
commenting agencies, such as the FWC and State Division of Historical Resources. Similar to
the Corps permit application review process, once the permit application package is submitted
to SFWMD they will issue a RAI within 30 days of receipt. The SFWMD is the only regulatory
agency with formal time clocks dictating response times. This initial RAI will include any
comments from the other State Agencies that are available within the 30-day time period and
will forward additional comments as they are received. The City will be allowed 90 days to
submit a response to the RAI for review. During the permit review process, SFWMD will also

evaluate whether or not State-owned submerged lands will be affected by the Project. The
SFWMD has an additional 30 days to review the submitted information prior to either issuing
a second RAI or deeming the application complete. This process will continue until all of the
requested information has been submitted to the satisfaction of the SFWMD.
The SFWMD must issue the permit within 60 days of the permit application file being deemed
complete. If approval by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvements Trust Fund (BOT)
is required for approval of a deed restriction waiver or another item, this approval can take
several months to more than 1 year and often includes intensive coordination with staff. Upon
approval of the Project, the SFWMD may request that a Notice of Intent to issue the permit
be published in a local newspaper of general circulation to notify the public of the Project. The
public comment period is typically 14 days for projects located on State-owned lands and 21
days for projects on privately held lands. Once the comment period has concluded, the
SFWMD will either issue the permit or delay permit issuance until any public comments have
been addressed through an administrate hearing process. Regardless, the City should publish
public notice relative to the SFWMD permit to close out the timeclock available for a person
whose substantial interests are affected by the agency’s action to petition for an
administrative proceeding (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
7.3. Miami-Dade County DERM Class I Permit

The Miami-Dade County DERM Coastal Resources Section is the County permitting action agency with
jurisdiction over construction activities (including dredge and fill activities) which take place in, on,
over, or upon tidal waters, submerged bay bottom lands, wetlands, or within County canal rights-of-
way, reservations or easements in Miami-Dade County.
7.3.1. Applicable County Rules and Regulations

The County’s regulatory authority to issue a Class I Permit for this Project is pursuant to
Chapter 24 of the County Code and County Ordinance 85-14. The DERM review of the Project
permit application will primarily focus on impacts to environmental resources and mitigation
for those impacts.
7.3.2. Other County Agencies

In accordance with Chapter 24 of the County Code, the County’s permit application review
includes coordination and/or consultation with Board of County Commissioners (BCC), the
Shoreline Development Review Committee (SDRC), the Environmental Quality Control Board
(EQCB), and the Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office (CAO).

7.3.3. County Regulatory Process

The proposed Project will require submittal of a Standard Form Class I Permit Application to
initiate the County’s review process, as the scope of the Project does not meet the criteria for
a short form application. Due to the proposal of fill in surface waters, the permit application
must go before the Board of County Commission (BCC) for approval in a public hearing. The
County’s Project Manager will review the submitted information, schedule and complete a
site Biological Assessment, and issue a Completeness Summary (CS). The CS will include a
request for any additional items required to facilitate the review process. DERM will request
specific items required for Standard Form Applications and will require documentation of
authorization for the proposed work from the submerged lands owner(s).
The Project, as presented in the conceptual design drawings, may require a variance from the
County Code from the EQCB if it cannot be demonstrated that one of the minimum fill criteria
in Chapter 24 are met, as discussed in the “Miami-Dade County Minimum Dredge/Fill” section,
above. The Project can only be scheduled to be heard by the BCC after it is approved by the
EQCB (or if it is determined that EQCB approval is not required). DERM staff may also raise
non-water dependency concerns in relation to the purpose of the use of the fil area, although
if the fill can be justified in and of itself, the non-water dependent use approval should be
rolled into the overall BCC package. DERM review will evaluate the proposed Project for
consistency with the MPP and require avoidance, minimization, and compensation for
ecological impacts. Prior to preparing the BCC agenda package, which includes a
memorandum of recommendation from the DERM Director’s office. The BCC agenda package
will be forwarded to the County Attorney’s Office for review prior to being placed on a BCC
agenda.
The County requires application and permit fees based on Project construction costs;
however, these fees are waived for City of Miami projects. DERM will likely require payment
of a mitigation bond. Prior to Class I Permit issuance, City structural and zoning approval must
also be provided. After BCC approval, DERM must wait 10 days prior to permit issuance, as
this is the timeframe available for the County Mayor to veto the approval.
7.4. Other Permits

The following is an outline of the anticipated additional permits and approvals for this Project.
Architectural/Engineering design and preparation of construction drawings would progress

concurrently with the environmental permitting process. Full working drawings with supporting
engineering calculations would be required for submittal to the various agencies. These are the major

permit/approvals not discussed in the above regulatory permit sections, and this is not necessarily a
comprehensive or all-encompassing list.
• Miami Dade County Water and Sewer (WASD) – the Project would be reviewed by WASD,
likely as part of the DERM Core Plan Review process. The core process includes Water Supply
Review, Wastewater Review, Flood Review (when applicable) and Identification of Specialty
Reviews. WASD would require a connection permit for any proposed water service
connections for irrigation or for domestic and/or fire lines associated with the parking garage.
Water lines would also require approval of the Florida Department of Health.
• DERM Water Control Section – the ERP process would include review and approval of the
stormwater management plans. However, DERM would still require the stormwater plans and
issue a permit if drainage wells are proposed.
• DERM Pollution and Remediation (POLREM)- the sediment management has been reviewed
and summarized in Section 6.9.1. POLREM would require an approved Soil Management Plan
as part of the Project approval process.
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection – for any proposed drainage wells,
Underground Injection Control (UIC) requirements and concerns as stated in Chapter 62 528,
F.A.C. would need to be addressed and a permit for wells obtained.
• City of Miami Historic Preservation – They City’s historic preservation program promotes the
identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive use, and restoration of the City's historic,
architectural, and archeological heritage. The preservation program is regulated in Chapter 23
of the City Code. The Project may need to be reviewed by the City’s Historic and Environmental
Preservation Board (HEPB). An archeologist may need to perform an evaluation and measures
may be required during the earthworks and associated construction.
• City of Miami – building permits would be required for the Project. The City of Miami would
review the reclamation and parking garage design relative to planning/zoning, floodplain,
public works, as well as the various trades which would include structural for the marine works
and architectural, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, etc. for the parking garage.
Structural/zoning approvals are required from the City to complete the DERM Class I permit.
• Miami Parking Authority – the potential need for a parking garage to comply with City zoning
requirements has been discussed in this assessment. The Miami Parking Authority would need
to be consulted relative to the planned garage.
• Bayfront Trust – currently operates the Maurice Ferré Park, and this agency would need to be
consulted relative to the Project.

7.5. Permitting Timeframes
Once the final Project design and permitting strategy has been established, preliminary sketches and
exhibits will need to be developed to present at more detailed/comprehensive pre-application
meetings with the Federal, State, and County regulatory agencies. The commenting agencies should
ideally be included at the pre-application meetings with each agency to solicit their comments and
concerns. Conducting pre-application meetings allows the City to obtain preliminary agency feedback
and potentially refine strategy and approach for the permit application process.
The development of permit applications and supporting documents to be submitted to the regulatory
agencies can take in excess of 6 months to complete. In addition to permit drawings depicting the
proposed scope of work, the permit application packages are anticipated to include, but are not
limited to: a clear summary of the Project purpose and need, a detailed site and design Alternatives
Analysis with supporting technical, financial, etc. studies, a biological resource survey completed less
than 1 year prior to the time of permit applications within the federal seagrass growing season, and
any additional supporting documents that may be required based on agency feedback during the
pre-application meetings. Once the permit applications packages are completed and submitted to
the regulatory agencies, it will take at least 18 to 24+ months for the applications to be processed,
allowing time to respond to requests for additional information/completeness summaries as
required. Projects of similar complexity and public interest in South Florida have taken more than 3
years to take through the environmental permitting processes. The Corps, SFWMD and DERM Class I
Permit processes can generally be run concurrently, with some dependencies referenced below in
Figure 5.

Notes
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (Corps), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and
Miami-Dade County DERM Permits for in-water work will generally be processed concurrently;
nuances of procedure, public/agency comment or other variables may impact the relative flow and
overall schedule.
2. SFWMD SWERP must be issued to provide Coastal Zone Management Plan Consistency and State
Water Quality Certification and any required State Lands Use authorization prior to Corps Permit
issuance. SFWMD SWERP must be issued prior to DERM Permit if any aspect of the Project requires
State Lands Use authorization.
3. Corps Permit must be issued prior to DERM Class I Permit issuance if any aspect of the Project is
within 100 feet of a federal channel.
4. RAI = Request for Additional Information; EQCB = Miami-Dade County Environmental Quality
Control Board; BCC = Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners
Figure 5: Project Environmental Permitting Process Flow Chart.
The duration of the environmental permitting process can be affected by the dialogue related to the
alternative analyses, impact avoidance, minimization and mitigation negotiations, confirmation of
compliance with any deed restrictions, and other variables. Additional agency consultation meetings
to review draft documents and intensive coordination with the regulatory agencies is suggested
throughout the evaluation process to ensure the most efficient permitting review process. It will be
very important to have strong positive City political and public support for the Project to strengthen
the public interest and project purpose tests that are part of the environmental permitting process.
8. Conclusions
This Assessment was completed in a very short amount of time utilizing limited available data. To
further evaluate feasibility of the Project, additional field data collection is required along with
preliminary architecture/engineering design. The environmental regulatory process could be initiated

based upon an established strategy. Based on the site-specific data available at this time, standard
regulatory criteria, precedent projects and initial consultations with the jurisdictional environmental
permitting agencies, the proposed Project faces significant challenges in terms of the following:
• meeting the required alternatives analysis criteria to justify that there is no parcel of dry land
that can alternatively meet the project purpose,
• meeting the requirement to demonstrate that the Project is clearly in the public interest and
there is no other alternative,
• potentially expensive financial implications of providing in-kind mitigation, as DERM is
currently indicating that they will require. Incorporation of a water-based Project element
and/or reduction in Project fill footprint may be required.
The probability of obtaining environmental permits through the federal, state and local agencies with
jurisdiction is low. The permitting process is subject to public input/review, and some permits
including the DERM Class I permit require approval of the Miami-Dade Board of County
Commissioners. If the City decides to move forward with the Project, a very strong team of multi-
disciplined engineers and scientists will be required that have demonstrated project experience not
only in southeast Florida but also locally in the County. In addition, lobbying support at federal, state
and local levels is suggested to be retained by the City. Furthermore, legal support is highly suggested
that include attorneys specializing in environmental remediation, environmental permitting, and land
use, as applicable. At the time of this assessment, a permitting and design schedule of 3-5 year is
anticipated prior to construction. Tasks for architectural/engineering design would be sequenced
with the environmental permitting schedule which could be lengthy especially at the federal level.
Final design and construction procurement could also be sequenced as environmental permits are
being obtained to be shovel-ready as the longer duration permits are being secured.
M&N is available to further discuss Project design, permitting, and any additional action items
required for further Project evaluation. To further evaluate the Project viability and to further refine
this feasibility assessment, we recommend the following action items:
1. Production of a survey map and legal review/opinion relative to the deeds, easements and
other encumbrances affecting the Project area is recommended to confirm boundaries and
any use restrictions.
2. Prepare conceptual designs, background exhibits, and an alternatives analysis to present in

follow-up consultation meetings with the Corps, SFWMD, and DERM. Invite Federal and State

commenting agencies to participate in the consultation process to ensure all relevant input is
obtained for further consideration and Project design and cost refinement.
3. Draft a mitigation assessment of the impact site and potential mitigation sites using UMAM
and WATER, as appropriate, to better understand the nature and amount of mitigation that
will likely be required to adequately offset the proposed impacts, provided that the
alternatives analysis demonstrates there is no viable upland alternative, no other offsite site
alternative with lesser potential for impact to WOTUS/tidal waters, and no other onsite design
alternative with lesser environmental impact.
4. Conduct an updated Phase I and Phase II site environmental assessment that would include
identification of the soil layers and testing of the sediment samples. Complete environmental
engineering analysis of sediments in accordance with DERM guidelines to identify any
contaminants and to outline options for soil reuse or engineering controls for any required
NFAC process.
5. Complete conceptual architectural/engineering design of the Project to refine construction

quantities and to update the probable opinion of construction cost. This effort would include
a planning/zoning review of the site development requirements relative to the parking garage
and other public space requirements.
6. Review the potential estimated reimbursements of funding received by the City for adjacent
park improvements. The City would need to meet with these various agencies to refine
estimates of reimbursement, as applicable.
7. Conduct a more comprehensive financial performance/risk analysis considering projected

permitting, construction, mitigation, and other potential costs/risk variables.

Appendix A – City Resolution dated June 9, 2019
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol A

6/6/2019 R-19-0191 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE MATTER …
ADOPT
Miami MODIF ED WITH
ICATIO
FL May 9
, 20
N(S)
19 9:0
0 AM
Resolution
R-19-0191
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY

ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE MATTER OF FILLING IN THE FLORIDA EAST COAST
RAILWAY DEEP WATER SLIP (“FEC SLIP”) LOCATED IN BISCAYNE BAY ADJACENT TO AND
BETWEEN MAURICE A. FERRÉ PARK AND THE AMERICAN AIRLINES ARENA, AND THE TWO
(2) ABUTTING INLETS, IN CONFORMITY WITH ALL LEGAL, REGULATORY, AND
CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND TO REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION
WITHIN NINTEY (90) DAYS; LIMITING THE USE OF THE FILLED AREAS TO ONLY PARK
AND OTHER GREEN SPACE USES FOR THE PLEASURE, RECREATION, AND EDUCATION OF
THE PUBLIC; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY AS STATED
HEREIN.
Information
Department: Commissioners and Mayor Sponsors: Commissioner, District
Three Joe Carollo
Category: Elected Official Item
Attachments
Agenda Summary and Legislation
Financial Impact
N/A
Body/Legislation
WHEREAS, the City of Miami (“City”) owns the submerged lands located in Biscayne Bay adjacent to
and between Maurice A. Ferré Park and the American Airlines Arena (“FEC Slip”), along with the two (2)
abutting inlets (“Inlets”); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to consider the City Manager’s report on the viability of filling
in the FEC Slip and the two (2) abutting inlets relative to increasing park space if the City undertakes the filling
of the above described submerged lands; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Policy PR-1.1.2 or the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (“MCNP”),
the City prioritizes the acquisition of park land according to four (4) equal priorities: “land with water views
and/or water access; land for ‘walk-to’ parks, including neighborhood parks, in underserved areas of the City
identified in Citywide and NET-area maps in the 2007 Parks Master Plan and any subsequent updates to these
maps; land to expand destination and community parks; land for expansion or creation of linear park
segments”; and
WHEREAS, if it is determined that the filling of the FEC slip and Inlets is in accord with the above stated
policy, it will increase City-park lands with water views, that are “walk-to” parks, expands destination and
community parks, and expands linear park segments; and
WHEREAS, the possibility of filling of the FEC slip and Inlets could further comply with Goal PR-3 of the
MCNP since it increases public access to “parks, recreation, facilities and open spaces including waterfront
areas”; and
miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=2245&MediaPosition=&ID=5790&CssClass=&Print=Yes 1/2
6/6/2019 R-19-0191 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE MATTER …
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the City and in the best interest
of the safety, health, welfare, and recreation of the general public to direct the City Manager to review and
report back to the City Commission within ninety (90) days the matter of filling the FEC slip and the inlets; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by
reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to review the viability of filling the FEC Slip and Inlets,
and to report back to the City Commission in ninety (90) days. In the event the City Commission decides to take
any action it will be done in conformity with all legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the
Mayor.[1]
[1] If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten (10) calendar days from the date
it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the
veto by the City Commission.
Meeting History
City Draft
Apr 25, 2019 9:00 AM Planning and Zoning
Commission
Note for the Record: Item RE.7 was deferred to the May 9, 2019, Regular Commission Meeting.
RESULT: DEFERRED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 5/9/2019 9:00 AM

MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner, District One
SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Commissioner, District Five
AYES: Ken Russell, Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Manolo Reyes, Keon Hardemon
ABSENT: Joe Carollo
City Draft
May 9, 2019 9:00 AM Regular Meeting
Commission
RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) [3 TO 1]

MOVER: Joe Carollo, Commissioner, District Three
SECONDER: Manolo Reyes, Commissioner, District Four
AYES: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Joe Carollo, Manolo Reyes
NAYS: Ken Russell
ABSENT: Keon Hardemon
Select Language
Powered by Translate
miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=2245&MediaPosition=&ID=5790&CssClass=&Print=Yes 2/2
Appendix B - FDEP Division of State Lands Title Determinations and Title

Search Report with Attachments
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol B

Appendix C – Marine Resource and Hydrographic Survey Maps
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol C

FEC SLIP
2 2
Appendix D – Historical Site Aerial Photography
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol D

1951 1968
1971 1987
2005 2018
Appendix E - Conceptual Design Drawings
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol E

FEC SLIP AND SHORELINE INLETS
FILL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
CITY OF MIAMI
1075 BISCAYNE BLVD
N N
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE
by JDURAN
1 SHT-001 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAPS

2 SHT-002 EXISTING CONDITIONS
; Saved:7/24/2019 11:20 AM
3 SHT-003 CONCEPTUAL DEMOLITION PLAN

4 SHT-004 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
5 SHT-005 CONCEPTUAL SECTIONS
by DURAN, JESUS
; Plotted:7/30/2019 1:54 PM
File: \\mne.net\projects\MIA\9450-12\0500_CAD\_Active\_exhibits\945012_SHT-001
PROJECT
PROJECT SITE
LOCATION SCALE: NTS
SCALE: NTS
VICINITY AND LOCATION MAPS

SHT-001
I-395 NOTES
ART MUSEUM
N 1. UPLAND TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY "MPG TECHNICAL GROUP CORP." DATED
MARCH 2019. THE RECEIVED INFORMATION WAS NOT
GEOREFERENCED, CURRENTLY DISPLAYED
SCIENCE MUSEUM INFORMATION IS A BEST FIT BASED ON THE AVAILABLE
INFORMATION AND AERIAL IMAGE. TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS SHOWN AT INTERVALS OF 0.30'.
2. HYDROGRAPHIC DATA PROVIDED BY "OLIN
(24)
HYDROGRAPHIC SOLUTIONS INC" PERFORMED IN JUNE
(14)
(20)
(8)
2019. HYDROGRAPHIC CONTOURS SHOWN AT INTERVALS
OF 2'.
NORTHERN INLET 3. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AND REFERENCED TO

NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM, (NGVD) 1929.
NE 11 4. HORIZONTAL CONTROL COORDINATES ARE IN FEET AND

TH ST REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983
.
(34)
(NAD 83), FLORIDA EAST ZONE.
5. AERIAL IMAGERY FORM ESRI DATABASE, ACCESSED

2019.
(28)
DATUM DIAGRAM:
TIDAL STATION: 8723165 BISCAYNE BAY, MIAMI
BAYWALK TO REMAIN
MHW=+1.76 FT
CRUISE SHIP TURNING BASIN

NAVD88=+1.56 FT
MAURICE FERRE PARK
(2
4)
BISCAYNE BAY NGVD29=0.00 FT
(8)
MLW=-0.42 FT
MDWASD PUMP STATION
ABBREVIATIONS:
by JDURAN
(34)
(18)
SOUTHERN INLET EL = ELEVATION
EXIST = EXISTING
BISCAYNE BLVD
; Saved:7/24/2019 10:58 AM
© 2019 Microsoft Corporation

© 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES
© 2019 Microsoft Corporation (2019) Distribution Airbus DS
MAX = MAXIMUM
(2019) Distribution Airbus DS
BAYWALK MIN = MINUMUM

MHW = MEAN HIGH WATER
)
(20
MLW = MEAN LOW WATER
NOS = NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
SPANISH NAVY PLAZA NGVD = NATIONAL GEAODETIC VERTICAL DATUM
NAD83 = NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983
STEEL SHEET PILE PROP = PROPOSED
BULKHEAD WITH CAP TO TYP = TYPICAL
LARGE VESSEL MOORING
REMAIN, TYP
by DURAN, JESUS
STRUCTURE, TYP.
8)
(2
; Plotted:7/30/2019 1:55 PM
CONCRETE SHEETPILE BULKHEAD 19 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019)

Distribution Airbus DS
FLORIDA EAST COAST

(22)
(22) RAILWAY (FEC) SLIP PROPERTY LINE, TYP

((22
(22)
00))
(20
) (22)
(10)
(18
(20)
)
0)
(16
(2 (20) (18)
8)
(1
(1
)
4
(16)
)
(8)
AMERICAN AIRLINE ARENA

FLOATING DOCK NE 8TH ST. CONCRETE SIDEWALK
CONCRETE SHEETPILE BULKHEAD, TYP
EXISTING CONDITIONS 80' 0' 80' 160'
GRAPHICAL SCALE
SHT-002
NOTES
PROVIDED BY "MPG TECHNICAL GROUP CORP." DATED
TB
INFORMATION IS A BEST FIT BASED ON THE AVAILABLE
TB
(24)
TB
(14)
(20)
(8)
2019. HYDROGRAPHIC CONTOURS SHOWN AT INTERVALS
OF 2'.
TB
NORTHERN INLET 3. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AND REFERENCED TO
TB
.
(34)

2019.
(28)
EXISTING BULKHEAD CAP TO BE DATUM DIAGRAM:
REMOVED AS NECESSARY TO
FACILITATE INSTALLATION OF TIDAL STATION: 8723165 BISCAYNE BAY, MIAMI
NEW BULKHEAD AND BACKFILL BAYWALK TO REMAIN
MHW=+1.76 FT
NAVD88=+1.56 FT
TB
MAURICE FERRE PARK
(2
4)
TB
BISCAYNE BAY
NGVD29=0.00 FT
TB
(8)
MLW=-0.42 FT
MDWASD PUMP STATION
by JDURAN
LEGEND
TB
(34)
(18)
SOUTHERN INLET
TB
BISCAYNE BLVD
; Saved:7/24/2019 11:01 AM
DEMOLITION AREA
)
(20
TB TURBIDITY CURTAIN
SPANISH NAVY PLAZA

STEEL SHEET PILE
BULKHEAD WITH CAP TO
REMAIN, TYP
by DURAN, JESUS
BAYWALK TO BE REMOVED
8)
(2
TB
TB
; Plotted:7/30/2019 1:56 PM
LARGE VESSEL MOORING

STRUCTURE TO BE
REMOVED, TYP.
FLORIDA EAST COAST

(22)
TB
TB
(22) RAILWAY (FEC) SLIP
((22
(22)
00))
(20 EXISTING BULKHEAD CAP TO BE

) (22) REMOVED AS NECESSARY TO
(10)
(18
FACILITATE INSTALLATION OF NEW (20)

)
0) BULKHEAD AND BACKFILL

(16
(2 (20)
TB
8) (18)
TB
(1
(1
)
4)
(16)
(8) DOUBLE TURBIDITY

CURTAIN, TYP
TB
TB
NE 8TH ST. FLOATING DOCK TO BE REMOVED CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED
CONCEPTUAL DEMOLITION PLAN 80' 0' 80' 160'
GRAPHICAL SCALE
SHT-003
NOTES
PROPOSED SHEET
PILE BULKHEAD ,TYP PROVIDED BY "MPG TECHNICAL GROUP CORP." DATED
TB
RIPRAP LIMITS, TYP INFORMATION IS A BEST FIT BASED ON THE AVAILABLE
TB
(24)
TB
(14)
(20)
212'
NORTHERN INLET B 2019. HYDROGRAPHIC CONTOURS SHOWN AT INTERVALS
RECLAMATION AREA, SHT-005 OF 2'.
TB
BACKFILL TO EXISTING
ELEVATION +7.5'± 3. ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AND REFERENCED TO
TB
.
(34)

2019.
(28)
DATUM DIAGRAM:
TIDAL STATION: 8723165 BISCAYNE BAY, MIAMI
BAYWALK TO REMAIN MHW=+1.76 FT
PROPOSED SHEET NAVD88=+1.56 FT
PILE BULKHEAD ,TYP
TB
MAURICE FERRE PARK
(2
4)
TB
BISCAYNE BAY NGVD29=0.00 FT
189'
TB
MLW=-0.42 FT
MDWASD PUMP STATION SOUTHERN INLET LEGEND
by JDURAN
RECLAMATION AREA,
TB
(34)
(18)
BACKFILL TO EXISTING
ELEVATION +7.5'±
TB TURBIDITY CURTAIN
TB
BISCAYNE BLVD
; Saved:7/24/2019 11:09 AM
PROPOSED RECLAMATION AREA
)
(20
SPANISH NAVY PLAZA
BULKHEAD
STEEL SHEET
WITH
PILE
CAP TO
REMAIN,
BULKHEADTYP
WITH CAP TO
REMAIN, TYP
by DURAN, JESUS
8)
(2
TB
TB
; Plotted:7/30/2019 1:56 PM
TIE ROD, TYP
DEADMAN, TYP
TB
TB
FEC RECLAMATION AREA,
BACKFILL TO EXISTING A
336'
ELEVATION +7.5'± SHT-005
PROPOSED SHEET DOUBLE TURBIDITY

PILE BULKHEAD ,TYP
TB
CURTAIN, TYP
TB
TB
TB
NE 8TH ST.
EXISTING BULKHEAD TO REMAIN
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 80' 0' 80' 160'
GRAPHICAL SCALE
SHT-004
DEADMAN SETBACK DEADMAN SETBACK
LANDSCAPE AND TBD LANDSCAPE AND TBD
HARDSCAPE TO HARDSCAPE TO
GENERALLY 6" MIN GENERALLY 6" MIN
PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED CONCRETE
MATCH EXISTING MATCH EXISTING
BULKHEAD CAP BULKHEAD CAP
PARK, TYP PARK, TYP
BACKFILL TO BACKFILL TO
EL +7.50' EL +7.50'
TIE ROD TIE ROD
TOP OF CAP EL +8.00' TOP OF CAP EL +8.00'
TOP OF
DEADMAN TBD STEEL SHEET PILE STEEL SHEET PILE
TOP OF
DEADMAN TBD
MHW +1.76' MHW +1.76'

FEC SLIP
RECLAMATION,
TYP INLET
0.0' NGVD RECLAMATION, 0.0' NGVD
FEC SLIP
MLW -0.42' TYP MLW -0.42'
RECLAMATION,
TYP
INLET
RECLAMATION,
TYP
2'-0" 2'-0"
by JDURAN
1' TO 3' DIAMETER 1' TO 3' DIAMETER

RIPRAP MAX 2H:1V RIPRAP MAX 2H:1V
SLOPE SLOPE
; Saved:7/30/2019 2:22 PM
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
2'-0"
2'-0"
by DURAN, JESUS
MUDLINE EL
MUDLINE EL
VARIES
VARIES
8'-0" 8'-0"
2'-0"
GEOTEXTILE GEOTEXTILE
; Plotted:7/30/2019 2:23 PM
DEMUCK
2'-0"
DEMUCK
PILE TIP,TBD PILE TIP,TBD
A SECTION B SECTION
SHT-004 SHT-004
2'-0" 0'-0'' 2'-0" 4'-0"
GRAPHICAL SCALE
CONCEPTUAL SECTIONS
SHT-005
Appendix F – Article 4, Table 3 of Miami 21
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol F

MIAMI 21 ARTICLE 4. TABLE 3 BUILDING FUNCTION: USES
AS ADOPTED - JANUARY 2018
T3 T4 T5 T6 C D
SUB-URBAN URBAN GENERAL URBAN CENTER URBAN CORE CIVIC DISTRICTS
R L O R L O R L O R L O CS CI CI-HD D1 D2 D3
DENSITY (UNITS PER ACRE) 9 9 18 36 36 36 65 65 65 150* 150* 150* N/A AZ** 150* 36 N/A N/A
RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R R R R R R R R R R R R
COMMUNITY RESIDENCE R R R R R R R R R R R R R
ANCILLARY UNIT R R R R
TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE R R R R R R R R R R
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING R R R R R R R R R R
DORMITORY E E R R R R E R
HOME OFFICE R R R R R R R R R R R R R
LIVE - WORK R R R R R R R
WORK - LIVE R R
LODGING
BED & BREAKFAST W R R E R R E R R R R
INN R R R E R R R R
HOTEL R R R R R
OFFICE
OFFICE R R R R R R E R R R W
COMMERCIAL
AUTO-RELATED COMMERCIAL ESTAB. W W W R R
ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT R W R R R R R
ENTERTAINMENT ESTAB. - ADULT R
FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT R R R R W R R W E R R R W
ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SERVICE ESTAB. E E E E E E E E E E
GENERAL COMMERCIAL R R R R W R R E E R R R W
MARINE RELATED COMMERCIAL ESTAB. W W W W E R R R
OPEN AIR RETAIL W W W W W E R R R W
PLACE OF ASSEMBLY R R E R R E E R R W
RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT R R R R E R R R W
CIVIC
COMMUNITY FACILITY W W W W W W W E W R R
RECREATIONAL FACILITY E E E E R R E R R E R R W E W R R
RELIGIOUS FACILITY E E E E R R E R R E R R W E R R R W
REGIONAL ACTIVITY COMPLEX E E E
CIVIL SUPPORT
COMMUNITY SUPPORT FACILITY W W W W W W E E R R W
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES W W W W W W W W W W W W W E W W R W
MAJOR FACILITY E R E E E
MARINA E W W E W W E W W R E R R R
PUBLIC PARKING W W E W W E W W E R R R W
RESCUE MISSION E R E W W
TRANSIT FACILITIES W W E W W E W W E R R R W
EDUCATIONAL
CHILDCARE E W W E W W W W W E E R E
COLLEGE / UNIVERSITY W W W W E R E
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E E E E E E E W W E W W E R E
LEARNING CENTER E E R R R R E E R E
MIDDLE / HIGH SCHOOL E E E E E E E W W E W W E R E
PRE-SCHOOL E E E E E E E R R E R R E R E
RESEARCH FACILITY R R R R R R E R R R W
SPECIAL TRAINING / VOCATIONAL E W W W W E R R R W
INDUSTRIAL
AUTO-RELATED INDUSTRIAL ESTBL. R R W
MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING R R W
MARINE RELATED INDUSTRIAL ESTBL. R R R
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES R R W
STORAGE/ DISTRIBUTION FACILITY R R W
R Allowed By Right Uses may be further modified by Supplemental Regulations, State Regulations, or other provisions of
W Allowed By Warrant: Administrative Process - CRC (Coordinated Review Committee) this Code. See City Code Chapter 4 for regulations related to Alcohol Beverage Service Estab.
E Allowed By Exception: Public Hearing - granted by PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) * Additional densities in some T6 zones are illustrated in Diagram 9.
Boxes with no designation signify Use prohibited. ** AZ: Density of lowest Abutting Zone
IV.8
Appendix G - FWS Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol G

STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK
2011
The permittee shall comply with the following conditions intended to protect manatees from
direct project effects:
a. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of
manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to
manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and
criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida
Manatee Sanctuary Act.
b. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/No
Wake” at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the
vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow
routes of deep water whenever possible.
c. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot

become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid
manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement.
d. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the
presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if
a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the
manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30
minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation.
Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving.
e. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Hotline at 1-888-404-3922. Collision
and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville
(1-904-731-3336) for north Florida or in Vero Beach (1-772-562-3909) for south Florida,
and emailed to FWC at ImperiledSpecies@myFWC.com.
f. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in-water
project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the
project. Temporary signs that have already been approved for this use by the FWC
must be used. One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign
measuring at least 8½ " by 11" explaining the requirements for “Idle Speed/No Wake”
and the shut down of in-water operations must be posted in a location prominently
visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities. These signs can be viewed
at http://www.myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/manatee_sign_vendors.htm. Questions
concerning these signs can be forwarded to the email address listed above.
Appendix H - Miami-Dade County Soil Reuse Guidelines
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol H

SWP Guidance No. 1
March 22, 2004
POLLUTION REMEDIATION SECTION
SOIL REUSE GUIDANCE FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
This guidance document provides general guidelines for obtaining soil classification
letters from DERM for the purpose of evaluating reuse options.
Applicability
This guidance is applicable to the reuse of soil within Miami-Dade County and is
consistent with the Chapter 24, Code of Miami-Dade County (“the Code”) risk based
corrective action (RBCA) provisions.
Soil Classification Letters
DERM will issue soil classification letters upon request, but will not approve specific soil
reuse locations. It is the responsibility of the generator and receiver to reuse the soil in
accordance with the conditions set forth in this guidance and all applicable federal, state
and local regulations. The following information shall be submitted to DERM to obtain a
soil classification letter:
1. source location of the soil, including information such as the site address and any
DERM permit numbers;
2. information regarding potential sources of contamination present at the source

location and, based upon this information, a list of potential contaminants of concern
(COCs), as described in General Comment No. 2;
3. amount of soil to be reused (in cubic yards or tons); and
4. appropriate analytical results (e.g., total, SPLP, TCLP, TRPH speciation, etc.) from a
sufficient number of samples (see Soil Reuse Options and General Comment No. 1
below), including chain of custody forms, original laboratory records, a summary of
the sampling protocol, and a project map with sampling locations. Be advised that
all analytical results (except SPLP and TCLP results) shall be reported on a dry
weight basis.
Soil Re-Use Options
Based upon the analytical results, the reuse options shall be determined in accordance
with the guidelines that follow.
Soil Reuse Guidance
March 22, 2004
Page 2 of 6
1. Clean Soil:
a. Soil is classified as clean soil if concentrations of the COCs are less than or
equal to one or more of the following:
i. the practical quantitation limits (PQLs),
ii. the DERM-established background concentrations in the following table:
Natural
Natural Background
Background
Chemical Name Chemical Name Concentration
Concentration
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 1.2 Lead 26
Aluminum 2656 Manganese 55
Barium 7 Mercury 0.08
Cadmium 0.1 Nickel 2.1
Chromium 6.8 Selenium* <0.45
Copper 4.1 Silver* <0.025
Iron 2176 Zinc 12
Note: This table is not a list of required sampling parameters (please see General
Comment No. 2 of this guidance).
* The data for selenium and silver were not analyzed statistically because all of the
selenium results were below the detection limit and silver was detected in only one
sample.
iii. DERM-approved, site-specific natural background concentrations within the

vicinity of the source site established using the Natural Background
Guidance (RBCA Guidance No. 7C).
b. Clean Soil may be reused anywhere within Miami-Dade County without

restrictions. Be advised, however, that the applicable permits and approvals
(e.g, DERM permit, Planning and Zoning approval, etc.) must be obtained prior to
filling operations in wetlands (e.g., dredge and fill permit) and surface waters
(e.g., lakefill permit).
2. Residential Soil:
a. Soil is classified as residential soil if concentrations of the COCs are less than or
equal to the residential direct exposure soil cleanup target levels (CTLs), the
groundwater leachability-based soil CTLs, the fresh surface water leachability-
based soil CTLs, and the marine surface water leachability-based soil CTLs
Soil Reuse Guidance
March 22, 2004
Page 3 of 6
specified in Table 2 of the RBCA ordinance (Section 24-11.1(2)(E)(5)(b) of the

Code).
As appropriate, the direct exposure soil CTLs shall be adjusted to account for
additive effects of multiple contaminants (Section 24-11.1(2)(J)(1)(e) of the
Code). The DERM Technical Report: Development of Cleanup Target Levels
(CTLs) for Chapter 24, Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, October 20, 2000
(“Technical Report”) provides guidance for addressing additive effects.
In addition, the following RBCA options are available:
i. Direct leachate testing may be conducted when the groundwater, fresh

surface water, or marine surface water leachability-based soil CTLs specified
in Table 2 of the RBCA ordinance are exceeded (see Section 24-
11.1(2)(E)(2) of the Code). Direct leachate testing shall be performed using
USEPA Method 1312, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) or,
if waste oil is present, USEPA Method 1311, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP). If the leachate test results are less than or equal to the
groundwater, fresh surface water and marine surface water CTLs specified in
Table 1 of the RBCA ordinance (Section 24-11.1(2)(E)(5)(a) of the Code),
then the leachate test results shall be utilized in lieu of the leachability-based
soil CTLs. Be advised, however, that the leachate test results do not replace
the residential direct exposure soil CTLs.
ii. Alternative soil CTLs for TRPH may be derived based upon the site-specific
composition of TRPH (see Section 24-11.1(2)(E)(3)(d) of the Code, Appendix
C of the Technical Report and RBCA Guidance No. 7D).
b. Residential Soil may be reused, provided that the generator and receiver of the
soil comply with the following provisions set forth in Chapter 24 of the Code:
i. Causing or allowing a nuisance is prohibited by the Code; therefore,

Residential Soil that exhibits nuisance characteristics (e.g., soil that has an
offensive odor) shall not be reused.
ii. Residential Soil shall not be reused within surface water bodies (e.g., lakes,
canals, etc.) or ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, etc.).
Soil Reuse Guidance
March 22, 2004
Page 4 of 6
3. Soil that Exceeds the Residential Soil Criteria
Soil that exceeds the residential soil criteria shall not be reused and may be subject
to the reporting provisions set forth in Section 24-37 of the Code. Disposal of such
soil in Miami-Dade County is limited to a Class I landfill. For information regarding
disposal at South Dade landfill, contact Lee Casey, Miami-Dade County Department
of Solid Waste Management, at (305) 594-1670. Be advised that reuse or
inappropriate disposal of such soil may result in DERM enforcement action.
General Comments
1. The number of composite soil samples shall, generally, be in accordance with the
following table:
Number of Number of
Discrete Samples Composite
Volume of Soil (yd3) Weight of Soil (tons) for Volatile Samples for Non-
Organic Volatile
Compounds Compounds
<200 <280 1 1
200 to <1,000 280 to <1,400 3 3
1,000 to <2,000 1,400 to <2,800 5 5
3
Each additional 1,000 yd Each additional 1,400 tons 1 1
Be advised, however, that DERM reserves the right to request additional samples if
deemed necessary based upon a review of the site-specific data. Likewise, the
responsible party may submit a site-specific sampling plan to DERM for approval.
2. Sampling parameters (i.e., COCs) shall be determined on a site-specific basis by

considering potential sources of contamination (e.g., gas station, landfill, etc.) and
observations made at the time of the soil removal (e.g., petroleum odor, solid waste
debris, etc.).
3. The consultant collecting the samples shall perform field sampling work in
accordance with Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), as amended,
Standard Operating Procedures (DEP-SOP-001/01, revised January 1, 2002). The
laboratory analyzing the samples shall perform laboratory analyses pursuant to the
National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) certification
requirements.
4. All work shall follow all applicable safety requirements (e.g., OSHA, NFPA, site
safety plan, etc.) and the appropriate agencies shall be notified.
Soil Reuse Guidance
March 22, 2004
Page 5 of 6
5. Soil that is saturated with pure product (free-phase) is not suitable for reuse or
landfill disposal and may be subject to the reporting provisions set forth in Section
24-37 of the Code or Rule 62-770.250, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and the
source removal provisions set forth in Section 24-11.1(2)(I)(3) of the Code or Rule
62-770.300, F.A.C.
6. Soil that is classified as a RCRA hazardous waste is not suitable for reuse or for
disposal at any landfills or disposal facilities in Miami-Dade County. RCRA
hazardous waste characterization by USEPA Test Method 1311, TCLP analyses,
followed by the appropriate analysis of the leachate, shall be performed when soil
concentrations of the COCs exceed the Total Soil Criteria listed in Table 1 at the end
of this guidance. The TCLP results shall be compared to the TCLP Criteria provided
in Table 1. Any soil that exceeds the TCLP Criteria or is otherwise classified as a
RCRA hazardous waste (e.g., listed waste, etc.) shall be disposed at a permitted
hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal facility in accordance with all
applicable regulations.
7. Compliance with the criteria and requirements herein does not relieve the generator
or receiver of the soil from any other applicable local, state, or federal rules or
requirements.
Note: the Chapter 24 RBCA ordinance, the Technical Report, and the RBCA guidance documents are
available at the following address: http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/land/trends_risk_based.asp.
Soil Reuse Guidance
March 22, 2004
Page 6 of 6
Table 1
Total Soil and TCLP Criteria for Toxicity Characterization
(Note: This table is not a list of required sampling parameters, please see
General Comment No. 2 of this guidance)
Total Soil Criteria TCLP Criteria
Contaminant CAS Number (mg/kg) (mg/l)
Arsenic 7440-38-2 100 5.0
Barium 7440-39-3 2,000 100.0
Benzene 71-43-2 10 0.5
Cadmium 7440-43-9 20 1.0
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 10 0.5
Chlordane 57-74-9 0.6 0.03
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 2,000 100.0
Chloroform 67-66-3 120 6.0
Chromium 7440-47-3 100 5.0
Cresol, o- 95-48-7 4,000 200.0
Cresol, m- 108-39-4 4,000 200.0
Cresol, p- 106-44-5 4,000 200.0
Cresol NA 4,000 200.0
D, 2,4- 94-75-7 200 10.0
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- 106-46-7 150 7.5
Dichloroethane, 1,2- 107-06-2 10 0.5
Dichloroethylene, 1,1- 75-35-4 14 0.7
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- 121-14-2 2.6 0.13
Endrin 72-20-8 0.4 0.02
Heptachlor (and it’s epoxide) 76-44-8 0.16 0.008
Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 2.6 0.13
Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 10 0.5
Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 60 3.0
Lead 7439-92-1 100 5.0
Lindane 58-89-9 8 0.4
Mercury 7439-97-6 4 0.2
Methoxychlor 72-43-5 200 10.0
Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 4,000 200.0
Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 40 2.0
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 2,000 100.0
Pyridine 110-86-1 100 5.0
Selenium 7782-49-2 20 1.0
Silver 7440-22-4 100 5.0
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 14 0.7
Toxaphene 8001-35-2 10 0.5
Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 10 0.5
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- 95-95-4 8,000 400.0
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6- 88-06-2 40 2.0
TP, 2,4,5- (Silvex) 93-72-1 20 1.0
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 4 0.2
Appendix I – Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC)
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol I

FEC Slip and Shoreline Inlets Fill Assessment
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost - Budgetary
Date prepared: August 7, 2019
M&N Job Number: 9450-12
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal TOTAL
1 Demolition $960,400
Concrete Bulkhead Cap Removal 3,340 LF $110.00 $367,400
Wood Floating Pier Removal 1,300 SF $50.00 $65,000
Large Vessel Mooring Structures Concrete Removal 16 EA $3,000.00 $48,000
Brick Baywalk Removal 50,500 SF $5.00 $252,500
Concrete Sidewalk Removal 16,750 SF $10.00 $167,500
Concrete Disposal 2,000 CY $15.00 $30,000
Utilities Removal 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000
2 Bulkhead $2,345,800
Furnish and Install Sheet Piling 737 LF $2,500.00 $1,842,500
Sheet Pile Coating 32,097 SF $3.50 $112,400
Reinforced Concrete Bulkhead Cap 737 LF $350.00 $258,000
Deadman System for FEC Slip 34 EA $2,100.00 $71,400
Deadman System for Northen Inlet 11 EA $1,500.00 $16,500
Deadman System for Southern Inlet 10 EA $1,500.00 $15,000
Grout Sock 6 EA $5,000.00 $30,000
3 Civil Works $29,310,800

Turbidity Curtain 1,860 LF $40.00 $74,400
Riprap 1,150 CY $65.00 $74,800
Demuck Excavation 27,976 CY $37.00 $1,035,200
Disposal of Contaminated Demuck Material 27,976 CY $70.00 $1,958,400
Select Fill 374,358 CY $14.00 $5,241,100
Site Restoration 472,082 SF $5.00 $2,360,500
Drainage - Stormwater Management System 10.50 ACRE $277,274.00 $2,911,400
Hardscape 10.50 ACRE $693,202.00 $7,278,700
Landscape 10.50 ACRE $278,688.00 $2,926,300
Electrical - Lighting 10.50 ACRE $331,468.00 $3,480,500
Irrigation 10.50 ACRE $60,694.00 $637,300
Water and Fire Protection Services 10.50 ACRE $126,874.00 $1,332,200
4 Parking Garage $10,500,000

Allowance 1 LS $10,500,000.00 $10,500,000
Subtotal $43,117,000
5 Contingency $9,917,000
Engineering Contingency 20% LS - $8,623,400
Performance & Payment Bonds 1% LS - $431,200
Insurance 2% LS - $862,400
Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $53,034,000
6 Mitigation $150,000,000
Allowance 1 LS $10,000,000.00 $10,000,000
Benthic Habitat Property Acquisition 8.75 ACRE $16,000,000.00 $140,000,000
Subtotal $203,034,000
7 Mobilization $4,311,700
Subtotal $207,345,700
8 Art in Public Spaces $646,800
Subtotal $207,992,500
9 Reimbursement Items $24,100,000

Funding Reimbursement 1 LS $24,100,000 $24,100,000
Final Opinion of Probable Construction Cost $232,092,500

Notes:
1) Estimate based on concept drawings. Architectural/Engineering design has not been completed
2) The costs have been developed based on historical and current data using in-house sources, information from previous studies as well as budget
price quotations solicited from local suppliers and contractors.
3) A contingency amount has been included as limited conceptual planning has been completed without architectural/engineering design. The
contingency is not a reflection of the accuracy of the estimates but covers items of work which will have to be performed, and elements of costs
which will be incurred, but which are not explicitly detailed or described due to the level of investigation, engineering and estimating completed to
date.
4) Indirect costs (engineering, project management, owners overhead, third party QA/QC) are not included
5) Mitigation cost is for acquisition of similar bayfront property to create approximately 10.5 acres of submerged aquatic habitat. Land acquisition
estimate is included based on assessed land value per acre at a nearby and comparable parcel. Further investigations and environmental permit
processing is required to refine this estimate.
6) Reimbursements are based on information provided by the City for grants and bonds that may need to be refunded as part of the project cost.
Source of Funding from City including HD Bond / Sunshine State / City Debt Proceeds / DRI /Impact Fees / CRA / Other Local Units. Refer to
detailed spreadsheet provided by City.
7) This cost estimate is an 'Opinion of Probably Construction Cost' made by a consultant. In providing opinions of construction cost, it is recognized
that neither the client nor the consultant control over the cost of labor, equipment, materials, or the contractor's means and methods of determining
constructability, pricing, or schedule. This opinion of construction cost is based on the consultant's reasonable professional judgement and
experience and does not constitute a warranty, expressed or implied, that contractor's bids or negotiable prices for the work will not vary from the
client's.
Appendix J – Environmental Agency Meeting Minutes
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol J

2937 SW 27 Ave. Ste. 101A
Miami, FL 33133
(305) 230-1924
MEETING NOTES
To: Attendees
From: Christy Brush
Date: July 23, 2019
Subject: Consultation Meeting with SFWMD to Discuss Environmental Resource Permitting
Feasibility of the Potential FEC Slip and Maurice Ferré Park Shoreline Inlets Fill Project
(Project)
This is to provide a summary of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) consultation meeting with
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) staff on June 24, 2019, relative to the potential
City of Miami (City) FEC Slip and Maurice Ferré Park (Park) Shoreline Inlets Fill Project (Project).
Attendees
 Jorge Mora - City of Miami Office of  Hector Badia (OCI)
Capital Improvements (OCI)  Carlos Vasquez (OCI)
 Barbara Conmy (SFWMD)  Trisha Stone (SFWMD)
 Mike Sparre (SFWMD)  Christy Brush (Moffatt & Nichol)
Discussion Items
Project Scope Summary: Ms. Brush summarized the Project scope, indicating the City Commission’s
directive to City administration to evaluate the feasibility of filling the slip to create additional
waterfront public recreational space in the City’s downtown core. The Project function of eliminating
water quality and trash accumulation issues in the FEC Slip was also discussed.
Ms. Brush noted that the lands proposed to be filled appear to be held in private ownership by the
City. She briefly reviewed the dredge/fill history of the Project area and a recent water depth survey.
Ms. Brush further advised that a marine resource survey had been completed in the Project area and
that no submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was observed. Proposed relocation of corals greater than
10 cm in diameter and likely proposed mitigation through riprap placement at the toe of the new
bulkheads was noted.
Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act: SFWMD staff noted that the Project is required to comply
with Ch. 18-18 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), as it is located within the Biscayne Bay
Aquatic Preserve (BBAP). Even though the project is not on State-owned Lands, it must comply with
the management criteria and the applicant must demonstrate that it is clearly in the public interest.
SFWMD suggested that a strong public interest statement be submitted with the permit application,
and referenced to the Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (Section 10.2.3). SFWMD staff referenced to
the requirement for placement of riprap at the toe of the proposed vertical bulkheads and the
requirement to use double turbidity screens in the BBAP for water quality protection. Turbidity
monitoring requirements were also discussed.
Manatee Protection: The SFWMD asked how manatee entrapment would be avoided during the
basin closure construction process. Ms. Brush responded that, similar to other basin fill projects that
Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. M&N #9450-12Error! Reference source
not found.
July 23, 2019 Meeting Notes
have been done in Miami-Dade County, the basin would be carefully observed prior to driving of
the last sheetpile to close the basin to make sure that no animal was surfacing within the basin.
Observations would continue after the final sheetpile section was driven to make sure that no animal
was missed and, if a manatee were to surface, the last sheetpile section would be removed to allow it
to exit before the basin is again sealed off.
Mitigation: The SFWMD requested confirmation of the coral dimensions/measuring units, noting
that most of the corals appear to qualify for relocation. SFWMD staff confirmed that relocation of
corals greater than 10 cm in diameter would be acceptable and is their typical requirement. They
further noted that they would consider the proposed placement of riprap at the toe of the new
bulkheads fronting the Bay to create habitat sufficient to replace habitat lost due to the proposed fill.
Cumulative Impact Assessment: SFWMD staff noted that since the impacted marine resources are
being relocated in the same area/basin that there should be no cumulative impact issue.
Modification of Existing Stormwater System: SFWMD staff asked if modification of the existing
Park stormwater system is proposed. Ms. Brush responded that she does not know if the stormwater
system for the FEC Slip fill area would be tied into the existing stormwater system or if it will be
designed as an independent system but believes that the former is likely. The SFWMD noted that this
is just a procedural item.
Permit Application Fee: SFWMD staff noted that the permit application fee is based on the acreage
of work pursuant to Sec. 40E-1.607, F.A.C., so this area should be noted in the permit application.
For any questions or comments regarding these meeting notes, please contact Christy Brush at
cbrush@moffattnichol.com or 305-979-4232.
The meeting notes outlined herein reflect the author's interpretation of what was presented and discussed. If they differ in
any way from your own interpretation, please respond in writing within 10 business days from the date these minutes
were prepared, or they will be considered factual.
2
2937 SW 27 Ave. Ste. 101A
Miami, FL 33133
(305) 230-1924
MEETING NOTES
To: Attendees
From: Christy Brush
Date: July 23, 2019
Subject: Consultation Meeting with DERM to Discuss Class I Permitting Feasibility of the Potential
FEC Slip and Maurice Ferré Park Shoreline Inlets Fill Project (Project)
This is to provide a summary of the Class I Permit consultation meeting with Miami-Dade County
Division of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) staff on June 26, 2019, relative to the
potential City of Miami (City) FEC Slip and Maurice Ferré Park (Park) Shoreline Inlets Fill Project
(Project).
Attendees
 Carlos Vasquez - City of Miami Office  Hector Badia (OCI)
of Capital Improvements (OCI)
 Mike Spinelli (DERM)  Catherine (Mckee) Gray (DERM)
 Christy Brush (Moffatt & Nichol)  Lauren Jonaitis (Moffatt & Nichol)
Discussion Items
bulkheads was noted.
Alternatives Analysis: DERM staff noted that it must be demonstrated that there is no other Project
location or design alternative that would have lesser impact to the waters/resources based on the
requirements of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve management plan that is adopted by reference into
the County’s environmental protection regulations.
Ch. 24 Fill Criteria: DERM staff noted that it must be demonstrated that the Project meets one of
the dredge/fill criteria in Ch. 24 of the Miami-Dade County Code, such as demonstrating that the fill
is the minimum necessary for the elimination of conditions hazardous to the public health or for
the elimination of stagnant waters, or as required to enhance the biological, chemical or physical
characteristics of adjacent waters.
not found.
If this cannot be demonstrated, a variance from the Environmental Quality Control Board is required.
Ms. Brush asked what happens if the EQCB does not approve the Project. Mr. Spinelli responded
that an EQCB decision must be appealed to the District Court and noted that the Project could not
go before the County Commission for approval until EQCB approval is secured.
Water quality analysis to assess if the proposed fill is the minimum necessary to improve the relative
benefit of filling progressive portions/sections of the FEC Slip basin was discussed.
Non Water Dependent Use: Ms. Brush asked if a County Commission variance is required for the
proposed non water dependent use of the slip fill. Mr. Spinelli indicated he expected this matter to be
rolled up together with the overall Commission submittal package for the proposed fill.
Mitigation: Ms. Brush asked what type of mitigation would be acceptable for unavoidable impacts to
aquatic habitat, , if it were to be determined that there is no upland alternative site where the Project
can be constructed and that the amount of fill is the minimum necessary to meet the project needs.
DERM staff responded that they will require in-kind mitigation for the area of submerged lands lost
due to the proposed fill, even though there is no submerged aquatic vegetation present. They explained
that they would be looking for creation of an equivalent area of submerged lands (through excavation
of uplands) to replace the lost aquatic habitat function. Ms. Brush asked if a combination of mitigation
projects would be accepted, such as fill of deep dredge holes to improve functional value of existing
submerged lands and/or creation of artificial reef habitat in areas of Biscayne Bay that are barren of
SAV. DERM staff noted that a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) assessment would
be required to determine if the proposed mitigation would be sufficient to offset the proposed
impacts. DERM staff suggested that they would likely not accept mitigation bank credits.
Large Vessel Mooring Slip Relocation: DERM asked if the large vessel mooring in the FEC Slip
basin was proposed to be relocated. Ms. Brush noted that the City currently does not have a specific
mooring relocation plan, but this would likely be discussed further.
2
2937 SW 27 Ave. Ste. 101A
Miami, FL 33133
(305) 230-1924
MEETING NOTES
To: Attendees
From: Christy Brush
Date: July 23, 2019
Subject: Pre-Application Meeting with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to discuss Permitting
Feasibility of the Potential FEC Slip and Maurice Ferré Park Shoreline Inlets Fill Project
(Project)
This is to provide a summary of the regulatory permit pre-application meeting held with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) on July 1, 2019, relative to the potential City of Miami (City) FEC Slip
and Maurice Ferré Park (Park) Shoreline Inlets Fill Project (Project).
Attendees
 Hector Badia - City of Miami Office of  Carlos Vasquez - OCI
Capital Improvements (OCI)
 Megan Clouser – Corps  Lauren Jonaitis - Moffatt & Nichol
 Christy Brush - Moffatt & Nichol
Discussion Items
bulkheads was noted. Ms. Brush referenced to her prior discussion with Corps staff, which indicated
that a mitigation bank contribution would likely be required if greater than 200 square feet of coral
impacts were to be proposed.
Site Federal Permitting History: Several previously authorized Projects in the FEC Slip and Park
were discussed, including the large vessel mooring facility. Ms. Brush asked the Corps if they could
provide copies of historical permits issued for work in the FEC Slip and Park, and Ms. Clouser
responded that she would request this of staff.
Project Purpose/Non water Dependent Use: Ms. Clouser advised that the most significant
challenge for the Project will be to demonstrate that the project purpose cannot be accomplished on
an existing dry land parcel owned by the City such that fill/“contamination” of Waters of the United
States (WOTUS) would not be required, as the proposed primary project purpose (fill for non-marine
recreational use) is not water dependent. Ms. Brush asked how a dual project purpose for recreational
not found.
space creation and water quality improvements would be evaluated. Ms. Clouser noted that having a
dual project purpose would make the Corps review process more complicated and that technical
analysis would likely be required to quantify water quality improvements associated with progressive
sections/areas of fill in the FEC Slip basin. Ms. Brush asked if the ultimate use of the area would
matter if the basin fill is justified based on water quality improvements. Ms. Clouser responded that
she believes the ultimate use of the land would make a difference in the assessment, but it would have
to be reviewed further upon submittal of a permit application.
Navigational Impacts: The Corps asked if any mooring or other activities are proposed east of the
proposed fill in Biscayne Bay. Ms. Brush responded that no mooring is proposed in this area; however,
some mooring may be proposed to be recessed into the east part of the FEC Slip (no farther waterward
than the prevailing shoreline alignment). Ms. Brush indicated that riprap placement for mitigation
purposes will likely be required by the FDEP and DERM at the toe of the proposed bulkhead, but
navigational impacts are not anticipated. Ms. Clouser noted that review of the project by the U.S.
Coast Guard and Corps Engineering and Navigation Section staff (Section 408 review) will be required
to confirm that federal channel/turning basin setback criteria are met.
Commenting Agencies: Potential Corps consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service regarding potential endangered species and Essential
Fish Habitat impacts and with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding Clean Water Act
compliance was discussed. Ms. Brush summarized the anticipated Project construction methodology
from water quality and endangered species protection perspectives. No particular points of concern
were noted by the Corps.
Potential Federal Funding/Congressional Authorization in Project Area: Ms. Clouser asked if
there was a possibility that dredge/fill work was done historically in the Project area per a directive
and/or funding from Congress or another federal agency such as the War Department. She noted
that, if this were to be the case, that a permit from the Corps may not be required (as the federal
government does not issue permits to themselves). A parcel of land in the vicinity of Bayfront Park
was referenced as an example, where the land was determined to be owned by the federal government
and a Corps permit was not required for in-water work. Ms. Brush noted that she was not aware of
any such federal directive for improvements or funding interest in the Project area, but that additional
research could be completed. Ms. Clouser noted that they would also review their internal files.
2
2937 SW 27 Ave. Ste. 101A
Miami, FL 33133
(305) 230-1924
MEETING NOTES
To: Attendees
From: Lauren Jonaitis
Date: July 2, 2019
Subject: Meeting with DERM POLREM to discuss fill of FEC Slip and Shoreline Inlets Project (Project)
This is to provide a summary of the meeting with DERM POLREM for the FEC Slip Assessment
and Shoreline Inlets Project (Project) on July 2, 2019. The meeting began at 10:00 AM.
Attendees:
▪ Carlo Vasquez (OCI) ▪ Wilbur Mayorga (DERM)
▪ Lorna Bucknor (DERM) ▪ Lauren Jonaitis (Moffatt & Nichol)
▪ Tim Blankenship (Moffatt & Nichol)
Items Discussed:
▪ Phase 1 for the park overall, include commercial facilities adjacent to the FEC Slip.
o No NFAC, minor pending issues by the City.
o DERM will locate Phase 1. This information will be sent to Moffatt & Nichol early
next week.
▪ For this project, a Phase 1 and Phase 2 will most likely need to be conducted.
o Phase 2 would include ground probing to understand what sediments are present,
thickness, volume and soil sampling.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM.

Appendix K – Museum Park Baywalk and Promenade Figures
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol K

1" = 40'
MUSEUM PARK BAYWALK
and PROMENADE
FEC LIMIT OF SCOPE
FEC LIMIT OF SCOPE
FEC LIMIT OF SCOPE

FEC LIMIT OF SCOPE
FEC SLIP SCOPE OF

FEC SLIP SCOPE OF WORK MUSEUM PARK BAYWALK
WORK and PROMENADE
1" = 40'
Appendix L – Zoning Verification
M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol L

2019-08-09 FEC Slip Fill Feasibility - Feasibility Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

2019-08-09 FEC Slip Fill Feasibility - Feasibility Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

FEC Slip Fill Assessment

City of Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida

City of Miami, Office of Capital Improvements

2937 SW 27th Avenue, Suite 101A

Client City of Miami Office of Capital Improvements

Revision Description Issued by Date Checked

M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol ii

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................xii

2. Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................... 2

2.1. Land Ownership Considerations ............................................................................................. 2

2.1.1. Chapter 6961 (No. 155), Laws of Florida (1915) .............................................................. 3

2.1.4. Chapter 8305 (No. 523), Laws of Florida (1919) .............................................................. 6

2.1.5. TIITF Deed No 19447 ........................................................................................................ 6

2.1.6. Other Deeds, Encumbrances, Easements and Right-of-Way Documents ....................... 6

2.1.7. Sovereignty Submerged Lands ......................................................................................... 7

2.2. Marine Resources .................................................................................................................... 9

2.3. Water Depths and Quality ....................................................................................................... 9

2.4. Sediment Quality ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.5. Historical Permits .................................................................................................................. 10

2.6. Project Site History ................................................................................................................ 11

3. Conceptual Project Design ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1. Bulkhead ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.2. Reclamation ........................................................................................................................... 13

3.3. Upland Development ............................................................................................................ 14

M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol iii

4. City Permitting Considerations ..................................................................................................... 14

4.1. Zoning - Miami 21.................................................................................................................. 14

4.1.1. Zoning Designation ......................................................................................................... 14

4.1.2. CS Allowed Uses ............................................................................................................. 15

4.1.3. CS Density, Intensity and Parking ................................................................................... 15

4.1.4. Art in Public Places ......................................................................................................... 16

4.1.5. Waterfront Design Guidelines ........................................................................................ 16

4.2. Select Public Works and Building Codes ............................................................................... 17

4.2.1. Bulkhead Elevation ......................................................................................................... 17

4.2.2. Flood Zone Designation .................................................................................................. 17

4.3. Downtown Development Authority ...................................................................................... 17

5. Previous Funding Sources ............................................................................................................. 18

5.1. FIND ....................................................................................................................................... 18

5.2. Other Sources ........................................................................................................................ 19

6. Environmental Permitting Considerations.................................................................................... 19

6.1. Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act ....................................................................................... 19

6.1.2. General Management Criteria ....................................................................................... 19

6.1.3. Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 20

6.2. Water Dependency/Site Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................... 21

6.3. Public Interest ....................................................................................................................... 23

6.4. Miami-Dade County Minimum Dredge/Fill Criteria .............................................................. 24

6.5. Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 25

M&N Project No. 9450-12 Moffatt & Nichol iv

6.5.1. Impact Avoidance/Minimization .................................................................................... 25

6.5.2. Johnson’s Seagrass Critical Habitat ................................................................................ 25

6.5.3. Manatees ........................................................................................................................ 26

6.6. Miami-Dade County Shoreline Development Review........................................................... 26

6.7. Compensatory Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 28

6.7.1. Vertical Bulkheads/Seawalls .......................................................................................... 29

6.7.2. In-Kind Mitigation........................................................................................................... 29

6.7.3. Out-of-Kind Mitigation ................................................................................................... 30

6.7.4. Mitigation Bank Credits .................................................................................................. 31

6.8. Navigation ............................................................................................................................. 31

6.9. Water Quality and Sediment Management .......................................................................... 32

6.9.1. Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................... 32

6.9.2. Sediment Management .................................................................................................. 33

7. Regulatory Processes .................................................................................................................... 34

7.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) ................................................................................... 34

7.1.1. Applicable Federal Rules and Regulations ..................................................................... 34

7.1.2. Other Federal Agencies .................................................................................................. 34

7.1.3. Corps Regulatory Process ............................................................................................... 34

7.2. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)........................................................... 36