LTC 348-2017 Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority Resolution to request the City of Miami Beach Commission to bring back the Biscayne Bay Management Committee to be renamed the BBRIOFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # 348-2017
LETTER Ti> COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members • the City Co ', ission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: July 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Marine and Waterfront Protection P uthority Resolution to request
the City of Miami Beach Commisn to bring back the Biscayne
Bay Management Committee to be renamed the Biscayne Bay
Restoration Initiative (BBRI)
The purpose of this Letter to Commission (LTC) is to transmit a resolution adopted by
the Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority (MWPA). This resolution is a
recommendation to the City Commission regarding the upkeep of the Biscayne Bay
and our responsibility to future generations.
The Biscayne Bay Management Committee sunset in 1992. The Biscayne Bay
Management Committee was originally instituted in 1981 via a 15 -page resolution
outlining its purpose and varied responsibilities. A synopsis of its historical inception
and the outline of responsibilities can be found in the enclosed attachment, pages 5 —
7. The Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority discussed the following resolution
during the May 9, 2017 meeting; and adopted it in the June 13, 2017 meeting:
The Marine and Waterfront Protection Authority requests the City
Commission to consider bringing back the Biscayne Bay Management
Committee --to be renamed the Biscayne Bay Restoration Initiative (BBRI)--
which during its existence and through the dedication of its members proved
to be instrumental in maintaining the healthy ecosystem of our beloved
Biscayne Bay.
Action: Motion for this resolution was made by John Lee; seconded Dr. Morris
Sunshine. (Vote: 12-0) Resolution passed.
Please note that the Biscayne Bay Management Committee was created in 1981 by
Metro -Dade County.
Attachments: FIU Libraries: Biscayne Bay Restoration & Enhancement Program
,CivSMT/HDC/TC/ ISS/RT/clr
cry 4.
C: '"Susanne M. Torriente, Assistant City Manager
Hernan Cardeno, Esq., Code Compliance Department Director
Tom Curitore, Assistant Director, Code Compliance Department
Sarah Saunders, Code Compliance Manager
Rianne Thomas, Code Compliance Administrator, MWPA Liaison
F:\CODE\$ALLWARINEWIinutes\2017\LTCB\Biscayne Bay Management Committee - MWPA 05.13.17.docx
I3ISCAYNE BAY
RESTORATION &
ENIIANCEMENT
PROGRAM
Ou NOT ATE
F. ,. W
3 1199 00823 3416
T ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QURCES MANAGEMENT
_ a 903 S.E. 1st AVENUE
IAMI, FLORIDA 33131
ISM
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Stephen F. Clark, Mayor
Barbara M. Carey
Clara Oesterle
Beverly Phillips
James Redford, Jr.
Harvey Ruvin
Barry D. Schreiber
Ruth Shack
Jorge (George) Valdes
M.R. Stierheim, County Manager
BISCAYNE BAY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Commissioner Barbara Carey Mr. Joseph Middlebrooks
Commissioner James Redford Mr. Jorge Rovirosa
Councilman Robert P. Lippleman Colonel Alfred B. Devereaux
`1r. Joseph J. Gardner Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner
Ms. Maureen B. Harwitz Mr. James Sanders
Senator Robert McKnight Ms. Victoria J. Tschinkel
Commissioner Harvey Ruvin, Chairman
Anthony J. Clemente
Director, DERM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Bay History 1
Program Background 3
Goal 8
Program Rationale 9
Program Development 12
Program Elements Interrelationships & Rationale 16
Public Awareness 16
Public Access 18
Baseline Data 21
Habitat Improvement 22
Complimentary Programs 24
Program Implementation 29
Literature Cited 33
Appendix A: Projected Apportionments 34
Appendix B: Scientific/Technical Committee 35
Appendix C: Flow Diagram 37
Appendix D: In -House Projects 38
Appendix E: Restoration Working Team 39
INTRODUCTION
A. Bay History
Biscayne Bay, prior to the founding of the City of Miami in 1896,
displayed the physical and hydrographic characteristics of a
typical bar -built estuary. Physically, a bar -built estuary is a
large, shallow partially enclosed body of water formed through
the extensive development of sand bars or barrier islands paral-
lel to the coast line. Hydrographically the region contains a
volume of freshwater originating from upland sources (e.g.
rivers,natural springs, etc.) which is mixed with seawater
(Barnes, 1974) .
Biscayne Bay was and still is partially enclosed by the barrier
island known as Miami Beach. However, before urbanization, Ocean
and Bay water exchange was limited to natural inlets (e.g. Norris
Cut, Bear Cut, Safety Valve, Caesar's Creek, etc.) The main
sources of freshwater "consisted of flow through natural drainage
ways, overland flow and coastal underseepage from the Biscayne
Aquifer" (Buchanan and Klein, 1976).
Prior to urbanization much of the immediate shoreline of Biscayne
Bay was predominantly vegetated with mangroves (Harlem, 1979).
Freshwater marshes existed landward of the saline mangrove
environment (Teas, 1976; Harlem, 1979). The conditions of the
1
floral communities vegetating the Bay bottom prior to 1925 are
not well known. It is reasonable to assume that Southern Bay was
probably partially vegetated with seagrass beds and that some
type of aquatic vegetation was present in Northern Bay. The
mangrove, freshwater marsh and Bay bottom vegetation communities
probably were, and with the exception of the freshwater marshes
which have been diminished, probably still are the Bay's major
sources of primary productivity. These floral communities either
directly or indirectly supported the associated faunal communi-
ties in the Bay.
Mangrove shoreline.
2
Photo; Ricky Schectman
Since the founding of the City of Miami, there have been exten-
sive alterations in the natural, physical, hydrographical, and
biological conditions of Biscayne Bay. Most of these alterations
have occurred in Northern Biscayne Bay. Access, both physical and
visual, has been restricted due to the construction of highrises,
hotels, condominiums and the private ownership of bayfront land.
The shoreline has been changed through the placement of fill and
the construction of seawalls. This in turn has resulted in the
loss of natural mangrove vegetated shorelines in Northern Bay.
The amount of freshwater marshes has been reduced due to the
inland intrusion of saline Bay water through mosquito control and
agricultural drainage ditches (Teas, 1976).
Extensive urbanization and water management techniques have had
the net effect of reducing the volume of freshwater discharging
to the Bay. The dredging of Baker's Haulover and Government Cut
has increased the volume of seawater entering into the Bay. This
in turn has increased the average salinity in Northern Biscayne
Bay. As a result, much of the bottom has become vegetated with
seagrasses (Harlem, 1979). Subsequent dredging of large portions
of the Bay bottom has reduced the quantity of these seagrass
beds. North of Rickenbacker Causeway, the Bay has undergone a
transition from a typical bar -built estuary to a saline lagoon
(Biscayne Bay Management Plan, 1981).
3
Turbidity levels may have been elevated due to the resuspension
of dredged bottom sediments and the eroding of shorelines. Water
quality has been affected by the increased pollutant load caused
by urbanization. Circulation has been altered through the
construction of causeways and manmade islands. Additional
alterations, such as the construction of the Port of Miami and
the development of Miami Beach, have also contributed to the
resultant changes in the Biscayne Bay ecosystem.
Construction along Bay shoreline. Note turbidity curtain in foreground to prevent excess
sediment reaching the Bay from coastal construction activities.
Photo: Ricky Schectman
4
Program Background
The Bay's potential for biological viability and environmentally
sound utilization decreased with its alteration. This resulted in
a subsequent reduction in the aesthetic and recreational values
of portions of the Bay ecosystem. As the general public became
aware of this loss, local, state and federal agencies responded
with a series of regulatory programs.
In 1968 the Biscayne National Monument was created. The monument
was expanded into a national park in 1980, potentially preserving
and protecting an area of Southern Bay from further degradation.
The passage of the Florida State Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve
Act in 1974 signified the State's intent to preserve the Bay in
its essentially natural condition and to limit future dredge and
fill activities within the boundaries of the preserve. In 1974,
the Dade County Commission declared Biscayne Bay an "Aquatic Park
and Conservation Area" and empowered the County Manager to
develop a management plan for that area. During a series of
symposia sponsored by Dade County and University of Miami Sea
Grant in 1975, 1976 and 1977, a concensus was reached on the need
for protection and preservation of the Bay's resources as well as
the need for better regulation of coastal construction activi-
ties. The 1977 Sea Grant symposium also culminated in a con -
census resolution stating "That a program to demonstrate the
feasibility of enhancement procedures in selected areas of North
Biscayne Bay should be implemented immediately." Additionally,
the Florida Legislature in 1977, passed the Water Restoration and
Preservation Act which authorized the State of Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation to assist in the restoration of
degraded water bodies.
5
As a result of many of these efforts, a need for a coordinated
management plan setting guidelines for the preservation, pro-
tection, utilization, and enhancement of the entire bay was
recognized. This resulted in the initiation of work on the
Biscayne Bay Management Plan" in 1979 as well as the securement
of Countywide Coastal Construction permitting jurisdiction by
Dade County Environmental Resources Management in 1980. The
Management Plan was adopted by the Dade County Commission on
March 3, 1981 and serves the following purposes.
1. Defines the scope of concerns and programs that should be
addressed within a comprehensive, coordinated approach to
Bay Management.
2. Recommends programs and actions that should be undertaken
during the next four years in order to move towards the
comprehensive and coordinated ma agement of Biscayne Bay.
3 Identifies a coordinating committee structure to oversee the
scope and direction of recommended programs.
4. Identifies those agencies and community based groups that
have responsibility for implementing certain management
programs.
5. Identifies sources of funding or community based resources
that can be utilized to achieve a coordinated approach to
Bay Management.
6
The primary goal of the management plan is to provide a unified
management system for the entire Bay that will, upon
implementation, effectively maintain and enhance those physical,
chemical, biological and aesthetic qualities that provide the
basic character and values of this resource. The Biscayne Bay
Management Committee serves as the overall coordinating structure
which oversees the scope and direction of Bay Management pro-
grams. The Committee is composed of thirteen (13) members, of
whom nine (9) are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners,
as follows:
3 members of the Board of County Commissioners
2 members recommended for appointment by the Dade League of
Cities
4 members from the Dade County Community appointed by the
Dade County Manager
The remaining four members are:
District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Superintendent of the Biscayne National Park
Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation
Executive Director of the Florida Department of Natural
Resources
Members of the 1983 Bay Management Committee are identified on
the inside cover of this document.
The Biscayne Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program is a major
implementation tool of the Bay Management plan. It should be
recognized that the Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program is a
subset of the overall Bay Management effort. Therefore, the goal
7
and objectives of this program are a subset (i.e. the relevant
portions) of the primary goal and program objectives of the
Biscayne Bay Management Plan.
GOAL
It is the primary goal of the Biscayne Bay Restoration and
Enhancement Program to maintain, restore, enhance or provide
those physical, chemical, biological or aesthetic qualities of
Biscayne Bay that provide the basic character and value of the
resource.
In order to realize this goal the County shall work to achieve
the following program objectives:
O Provide a wide array of water oriented opportunities at
the water's edge, consistent with the primary goal;
• Enhance physical and visual access thereby increasing the
potential for environmentally sound utilization and attrac-
tiveness of Biscayne Bay for the public at large;
O Identify and maintain, or enhance where necessary, those
biological communities that are essential to the long-term
viability of Biscayne Bay;
O Optimize the quality and quantity of marine life;.
° Maintain, or enhance where necessary, water quality that
permits safe water contact recreation and propagation of
fish wildlife;
O Provide protection for endangered, threatened or rare
species of plants and animals that exist within the waters
of Biscayne Bay or the adjacent coastal wetlands;
8
• Seek funding for activities which are necessary to achieve
the goal;
o Provide continuing monitoring of the Bay in order to assem-
ble an adequate data base for Bay Management.
PROGRAM RATIONALE
Because development within portions of the Bay and its surround-
ing uplands has irreversibly altered some of the natural con-
ditions of the Bay ecosystem (i.e. access, productivity,
hydrography, biological viability, community structure, water
quality, etc.), it is unrealistic to attempt to restore the Bay
to its natural state. A more practical approach is to prevent
further degradation and alteration of the Bay ecosystem and to
restore the Bay's potential for maximum allowable utilization
productivity through the enhancement of many of the biotic
abiotic components of the existing system.
and
and
During the development of the Biscayne Bay Management Plan the
following facts were recognized:
1 Many of the Bay's natural habitats have been either de-
stroyed, altered, reduced or stressed.
2. There are no existing comprehensive baseline data on the
various biotic and abiotic components of the Bay ecosystem.
3. Public awareness of the Bay ecosystem and its management is
insufficient. This has resulted in misconceptions about and
misuse of the Bay.
4. Existing public
improvement.
access to the Bay is limited and needs
9
The need for restoring and enhancing portions of the Bay became
obvious. However, before large expenditures of time and public
monies were to be committed to a Restoration and Enhancement
Program, it was necessary to identify potential enhancement
activities which could be used to restore and enhance Biscayne
Bay.
Potential enhancement activities were identified in four main
categories. Existing Bay habitats could be improved by imple-
menting projects such as but not limited to riprap and artificial
reef placement, seagrass and mangrove planting, shoreline
stabilization, etc. A data base could be established through the
initiation of studies on various ecosystem parameters such as but
not limited to water chemistry, turbidity, benthic ecology and
fisheries assessments. A public awareness program might include
activities such as but not limited to media public service
announcements, educational and informational projects, and civic
participation programs. Public access to the Bay could be -
improved by the enhancement of existing parks, street ends, spoil
islands and causeways, etc. As of 1983, over fifty street ends,
13 Bayside Parks, 11 spoil islands and 6 causeways have been
identified as potential sites for both habitat and access
enhancement activities.
10
Much of the information required to properly assess the potential
areas and/or amount of enhancement necessary or allowable will be
obtained through the Baseline Data Studies. For example, the
number of locations, linear footage and type of shoreline stabi-
lization required in the Bay, will be determined through the
circulation, turbidity, benthic map and shoreline survey studies.
It is also expected that additional enhancement activities may be
developed through the monitoring of previous activities and the
analysis of the baseline data or, if additional funds become
available. For example, the modification of stormwater outfalls
to the Bay is expected to cost approximately $50,000,000 and will
be incorporated into the Program if these funds become available.
In order to meet the goals and objectives of the Bay Restoration
and Enhancement Program, a long-term approach is imperative. It
is expected that the Program will require at least a ten year
implementation period. For this reason projected monetary
apportionments for a ten year period have been estimated and are
contained in Appendix A. As evidence of local support, the Dade
County Commission declared the 1980's as "The Decade of Biscayne
Bay" (Resolution No. R-1313-80) on October 7, 1980.
11
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Partially as a result of the 1977 Seagrant Symposium resolution,
the State of Florida legislature, in 1978, appropriated $125,000
to assist in the restoration of Biscayne Bay north of the
Rickenbacker Causeway.
In November of that year, a contract was
signed with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
and Dade County to initiate an intensive effort to identify
enhancement activities and sites which could be completed within
one year and to prepare a long-term "plan of action" for Bay
restoration.
Under the direction of the County Manager's office, the Dade
County Planning and Environmental Resources Management (DERN)
Departments coordinated the enhancement activities with a Scien-
tific/Technical Committee (Appendix B) to develop project and
site selection criteria. Based upon these criteria and site
analyses, a combination artificial reef and pier project on the
south side of the 79th Street Causeway was selected as the first
year enhancement activity. The project was officially dedicated
in November of 1980.
12
Pelican Harbor artificial reef and fishing pier.
Photo: Ricky Schectman
DERM and the Dade County Planning Department also began the task
of selecting potential enhancement activities for 1980-81. The
selection process involved a review and prioritization of
potential enhancement projects by members of the Scientific -
/Technical Committee and the staffs of DERM and Planning. After
a ranking by the Scientific/Technical Committee was compared to a
staff -prioritized list of enhancement projects, the following
concensus prioritized list was obtained.
Rank
Improve Public Awareness 1
Improve Access 2
Identify Areas that Need Stabilization
or Wave Energy Abatement 3
Obtain Baseline Data on Fisheries
and Fisheries Pathology 4
Monitor Existing Mitigation/Restoration
Efforts 5
Develop Fisheries Management Program 6
Obtain Baseline Water Chemistry 6
Stabilize Shorelines 7
Map Benthic Communities 8
Riprap Public Areas 9
Identify Sources of Turbidity 10
Obtain Baseline Data on Water Epidemiology
and Pathology 11
Plant Mangroves 12
Install Artificial Reefs 13
Plant Seagrass 14
Fill Deep Holes 15
Redistribute Circulation 16
Remove Fine Bottom Sediments 17
This list of prioritized projects was adopted by the Dade County
Commission in December, 1979. It is the basis of contracts
between the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and
DERM for the 1979-81 biennial appropriation of $950,000, th'
1981-82 appropriation of $400,000 and the 1982-83 appropriation
of $425,000.
14
This list should be viewed as a broad overview and many of the
projects have a large degree of overlap. In fact, the data
gathered in some of the projects are essential to the completion
of others. It is also recognized that some projects may be
altered, added or deleted as the information base becomes more
complete.
The projects fall into four categories which comprise the four
key elements of the Restoration and Enhancement Program. They
are:
1. Develop a comprehensive data base.
2. Improve the public's awareness of Biscayne Bay.
3. Improve the habitat in Biscayne Bay.
4. Improve the public's visual and physical access to
Biscayne Bay.
15
PROGRAM ELEMENTS, INTERRELATIONSHIPS AND RATIONALE
Owing to the large degree of interdependence among the four
elements, selected projects in each category proceed
concurrently. The projected monetary allotments for these
projects are shown in Appendix A. As previously mentioned, the
general public's overall awareness that the Bay has undergone
alteration and degradation during the past 80 years has led to a
series of regulation and preservation activities. The initiation
and accomplishment of these activities has set the stage for the
ensuing restoration and enhancement activities. Publid forums
will be held annually to inform the general public of the con-
tinuing progress of the Program as well as to solicit public
input to the Program.
Public Awareness
While certain segments of the public are "aware" of Biscayne Bay,
much of the public is generally uninformed or misinformed about
the Bay despite its large physical prominence. Some members of
the public believe that the Bay is no longer suitable for exten-
sive human use. In fact, preliminary information indicates that
large portions of the Bay are still biologically viable, visually
and physically attractive, and suitable for water contact sports.
Because of the general public's lack of awareness of these facts,
the Bay's many potential economic and recreational benefits have
not yet been fully realized. Therefore it is essential to make
16
the public more fully aware of the potential the Bay has to
offer.
Since the Bay ecosystem has changed so dramatically over the past
80 years and since there are no existing data available to
quantify the change or gauge improvements, it is necessary to
collect baseline data on the Bay's various components. This
information will be disseminated to the public so they will be
factually informed of the benefits the Bay has to offer and how
these benefits can be utilized without degrading the Bay system.
As the Restoration and Enhancement program progresses, Bay
habitats will be enhanced or restored (eg. through artificial
reefs, shoreline stabilization, fisheries management, etc). These
activities, by improving the Bay's biological viability and water
quality, will increase the Bay's potential economic and recre-
ational benefits. It will therefore be necessary to inform the
public of these results through a continuing awareness program,
so they can directly benefit from the Bay Restoration Program.
The public awareness element of the program is also essential to
educate the general public about the intricate and complex Bay
ecosystem. By understanding the often times delicate interrela-
tionships between the biotic and abiotic components of the
ecosystem, as well as the problems confronting the Bay due to
pollution and manmade stress, it is felt that the public will be
able to utilize the Bay's potential benefits in a knowledgeable
17
manner which will not harm or disrupt the ecosystem. This type
of information will also aid the public in understanding the
reasoning and rationale involved in regulatory processes. In
this respect the Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program offers
the potential vehicle to improve public relations among
regulatory agencies, the general public and developers.
Public Access
It is fully expected that once the public becomes more aware of
the benefits the Bay has to offer, it's utilization will be
increased. Due to past development practices, much of the Bay
shoreline has been closed to the general public and existing
public access to the Bay is limited. The current public access
facilities are probably insufficient to provide the necessary
access points to the Bay if the vast majority of the public
wanted to utilize the Bay.
Since large public expenditures are involved in the Bay Restora-
tion and Enhancement Program, it is important that the public-
-at -large benefit from an improved Bay. It therefore becomes
imperative that access to the Bay be improved under this Program.
Not only will access to current Bay users be improved, but even
more importantly, access for the general public will be provided
through the development of existing causeways, spoil islands,
parks and street -ends. These types of enhancement activities
will provide both functional, and aesthetically pleasing
18
locations and facilities on the Bayfront for the public's use.
The public will be made aware of these facilities through the
public awareness element of the program.
Wooden boardwalk winding through natural mangroves in North Bayshore Park.
Photo: Ricky Schectman
19
The location and type of public access facilities will be par-
tially dependent on the existing need, space availability, and
existing and
through the
projected usage.
However, information
baseline data studies
will also
be
obtained
used
in
determining facility type, size and location. Access facilities
will be located where they will not only be easily available to
the public but where increased public usage will not degrade the
existing environment. Where water and/or faunal contact is
imminent, the water and biological quality in the area of access
facilities will be closely examined and analyzed to assure public
safety.
Where possible, in -water enhancement activities will be located
in the vicinity of public access facilities. This will be done
when the in -water activity compliments the access facility. For
example, artificial fishing reefs will be located, to the extent
possible considering environmental conditions, near street end
docks, existing parks, boardwalks, fishing piers, etc. However,
certain in -water enhancement activities, such as seagrass
planting, which may not be compatible with human utilization,
will usually not be located in the immediate vicinity of public
access facilities.
Baseline Data
Prior to 1981, the data base on the various components of the Bay
ecosystem has been obtained from uncoordinated studies in
limited geographical areas of the Bay or from investigations
relating to particular interests of individual researchers.
Therefore it is essential that a comprehensive data base
concerning the major Bay ecosystem components be established.
Results of previous studies will be incorporated into the data
base wherever possible.
This data base will be used to quantify the existing state of the
Bay ecosystem and to gauge improvements and/or changes in
ecosystem components, resulting from Bay Restoration and Enhance-
ment activities. The data base will also be a key element in
determining the most cost effective types and location of public
access and in -water enhancement projects.
DERM inspector collecting
water samples for analysis.
21
Photo: Ben Mostkoff
Improving public awareness and supplying additional access and
habitat improvements to the Bay must be tempered with environ-
mental cognizance and sensitivity. Unregulated, these projects
could lead to further degradation, of the Bay ecosystem. There-
fore, they must be monitored to ensure compatibility with the
overall goals and objectives of the Bay Management Program. This
will help to determine the most effective (both logistically and
environmentally) ways to continue improving the Bay's potential
for maximum allowable utilization and natural productivity.
Habitat Improvement
Ideally, a complete data base should be collected in order to
determine the types of enhancement projects which are required.
However, previous research and experience has shown that the
technology already exists to complete selected in -water enhance-
ment projects with a reasonable probability for success. Tech-
niques such as the placement of riprap, mangrove planting, etc.,
can be initiated concurrently with the collection of data.
Monitoring of these projects will in turn supplement the data
base and determine the efficacy of the projects.
Mangrove planter constructed by a private developer.
Photo: Ricky Schectman
Additional in -water enhancement projects, which will improve the
Bay habitat, may also be developed through the collection of
baseline data. The flexibility of the Restoration and
Enhancement Program allows for the addition of these new
developments in to the Restoration Plan.
As previously mentioned, the locations of in water enhancement
projects will coincide with public access facilities wherever
feasible. However, certain in water enhancement projects which
would be degraded by human contact (such as seagrass replanting)
will generally not be located near access facilities.
23
It is foreseen that the completion of in -water enhancement proj-
ects, when properly publicized through the public awareness
program, will in turn directly affect the need for public access.
In this respect the program is self-perpetuating. The collection
and analysis of baseline data will be used to implement the
existing management program and to develop new management
techniques.
COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS
In addition to the projects previously described, other Bay
related programs fall within the overall scope of the.Bay Resto-
ration and Enhancement Program, even though they may be funded
from different sources. A short description of these complimen-
tary programs and their relationship to Bay Restoration and
Enhancement activities follows:
Port of Miami Mangrove and Seagrass Mitigation - Due to the
expansion of the Port of Miami, 251 acres of bottom habitat
(81 of which were vegetated with seagrasses) and approxi-
mately 3.8 acres of mangroves were destroyed. The resulting
environmental damage is being mitigated through the imple-
mentation of seagrass and mangrove planting programs.
Approximately 5.6 acres of mangroves will be planted. An
initial planting of twenty-five acres of seagrasses south of
Rickenbacker Causeway is being complimented by a test plot
and monitoring program conducted in thirteen locations
throughout the Bay. The results of these programs will be
used to determine feasibility and locations for planting the
remaining 213 acres. In this respect the mitigation program
will serve to improve Bay habitat. The program is being
closely monitored and the results will be used as a basis
for decision making in the Bay Restoration and Enhancement
Program. In addition, two million dollars will be committed
to a trust fund for future Bay restoration and enhancement
activities to mitigate the long term impacts of operations
at the Port of Miami.
Dade County Artificial Reef Program - Artificial reefs serve
to increase the value of relatively unproductive habitats.
As part of the Program, the feasibility of installing
artificial reefs in the Bay is being studied. The location
and value of Bay artificial reefs will be determined through
information obtained during baseline studies undertaken
through the Restoration and Enhancement Program.
DERN biologists constructing an artificial reef at North Bayshore Park.
Photo: Ben Mostkoff
25
As of 1983, a low profile, shallow water reef site at
Pelican Harbor (south side of 79th Street Causeway) has been
fully developed with concrete culverts and limerock rubble.
A similar reef site is located at North Bayshore Park in the
City of North Miami (south side of Broadway Causeway). A
larger reef site, located in a dredge pit just north of the
Julia Tuttle Causeway, will be continually developed over
the entire span of the Program. Additional sites will be
developed during the course of the program.
Dade County Urban Waterfront Project - The goal of this
program is to optimize public access to the Bay through the
development of policies, design guidelines and plans for
portions of the Bay. This program will be used as a guide
for the Public Access element of the Bay Restoration and
Enhancement Program.
Local Permitting and Private Developers - Regulatory
agencies will have direct access to information obtained
from restoration and enhancement activities. It will be
possible, with the use of this information, to more ably
determine if the net effect of a private development project
is beneficial or detrimental to the Bay eco -system.
Therefore it will be possible to make more informed
decisions concerning conditions and modifications to permits
as well as mitigation for private development projects.
The same information will be made available to private
developers. These developers can in turn design Bay en-
hancement projects into their development plans. Coordina-
tion between development and regulatory agencies can lead to
the optimum allowable utilization of the Bay's potential
resources as well as the improvement of those resources in
the most cost-effective manner.
Local Government Developments - Local government programs
involving developments in or near the Bay will be
coordinated with activities within the overall BAy
Restoration Plan. In this way, the optitfftim allowable
utilization of the Bay can be realized by these governments.
Biscayne National Park -The boundaries of the Biscayne
National Park encompass a large portion of South Biscayne
Bay. It will therefore be essential to coordinate Bay
Restoration and Enhancement activities with monitoring and
preservation programs conducted by the National Park
Service.
Sea Grant - The purpose of the National Sea Grant Program is
to provide a means through which the development of marine
resources, including their conservation, proper management,
and social and economic utilization can be accelerated. The
Program incorporates the "concept of advisory services
through which scientific research results may be most
directly applied to real problems" (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1972). Many of the Bay Restoration and
Enhancement Program activities involve applied research
27
studies aimed at solving a "real problem". It is therefore
expected that coordination of the Sea Grant Program with the
Biscayne Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program will be
beneficial in achieving the goals and objectives of both
programs in the most cost-effective and expeditious manner.
Academic Institutions - In the past, Biscayne Bay has been
the site of research activities originating in several
academic institutions. In the future, it is hoped that
academic research and the more applied activities of the Bay
Restoration and Enhancement Program can be coordinated.
Consequently all parties involved can obtain the maximum
benefits from both projects through an exchange of data and
information. Ancillary research projects, in connection
with Bay enhancement activities (e.g. artificial reefs,
seagrass replanting, etc.) will be encouraged.
Biscayne Bay Environmental Enhancement Trust Fund - On
February 19, 1980, an ordinance (180-9) was adopted by the
Dade County Commission creating the Biscayne Bay
Environmental Enhancement Trust Fund. This fund will
consist of monies from enforcement and damage actions,
mitigation assessments, donations, appropriations, grants
and allocations. These monies will be used for the express
purpose of financing Bay enhancement projects. As per
section one (1) of the ordinance, the prioritized list of
enhancement activities, excluding studies, described in this
overview qualify for funding from this source.
28
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
In order to achieve the goals and objectives of the Bay Restora-
tion and Enhancement Program as well as to incorporate the
concepts previously described in this overview, the following
tasks have been initiated. A flow plan of the Biscayne Bay
Restoration and Enhancement Program is shown in Appendix C.
Enhancement activities will be approved by the County Commission
prior to implementation.
Tasks:
1. Prepare scopes of work for each of the prioritized projects.
These scopes of work will undergo an extensive review by
DERM, members of the scientific/technical committee, the
public, and the Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation (DER).
2. Implement projects to be conducted by DERM. These projects
are listed in Appendix D.
3. Request proposals and bids for the remaining projects
outlined in the approved scopes of work.
4. Select contractors for construction activities (e.g. riprap
placement, mangrove planting, dock construction, etc.).
5. Select consultants for remaining projects. Proposals will
be reviewed by a Consultant Selection Committee. This
committee will be comprised of representatives from the
following organizations:
a) DERM, Director
b) Dade County Planning Department, Director
c) Florida Department of Natural Resources, Director of
Division of State Lands
29
d) Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Con-
tract Project Officer
e) Biscayne National Park, Superintendent
6. Form Biscayne Bay Restoration Working Team. This working
team is comprised of the selected consultants, DERM staff,
Planning Department staff, and representatives of Biscayne
National Park, as well as the South Florida Water
Management District. Members of the original Restoration
Working Team are listed in Appendix E. The Restoration
Working Team is the working unit responsible for achieving
the overall goals and objectives of the Restoration Plan.
Each member of the team has a particular area of expertise
and is solely responsible for the progress and results of
his/her individual project. However it is important to
realize that the goals and objectives of each individual
project are merely precursors to achieving the more holistic
goals and objectives of the overall Restoration and
Enhancement Program. The achievement of these overall goals
and objectives is being reached through a synergistic
approach. Therefore the working team initially met in 1981
to describe each of the individual projects to other team
members and to assure that all projects were compatible.
This ensured there would be no redundancy in data
collection. The team now meets on a regular basis to ensure
that the projects are remaining on course to achieve the
goals of the overall Restoration and Enhancement Program.
30
The efforts of the working team are being coordinated by
BERM.
7. Initiate work.
8. Monitor completed projects.
9. Prepare quarterly progress reports for each project. These
reports shall be prepared by each individual consultant.
10. Prepare annual interim reports describing progress toward
achieving the goals and objectives of the overall program.
This report will be prepared by DERM. The efficacy of all
projects will be evaluated and described. Recommendations
for the addition and/or deletion of projects from the
program will be made. Recommendations for reprioritizing
the project list will also be made.
11. Review interim reports by the Restoration Team.
12. Submit interim reports to the Bay Management Committee and
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
Public funds for Biscayne Bay Restoration and Enhancement Program
are limited. Therefore, in order to assure the greatest public
benefit, it is of the utmost importance that there be a continual
dissemination of information to the public. Additionally, in
order to maximize the effectiveness of the program, it must be
well coordinated with regulatory agencies, local and State
governments, and academic institutions. Therefore, all
information obtained, and progress achieved, will also be made
available to the above named agencies, governments and
31
institutions. Public forums will be held annually to present the
information obtained about the Bay during the previous year.
They will also serve the purpose of updating the public on the
progress of the entire program.
32
LITERATURE CITED
Barnes, R.S.K. 1974. Estuarine Biology. Edward Arnold (Publish-
ers) Limited, London. 76 pp.
Buchanan, Thomas J. and Klein, Howard. 1978. "Effects of Water
Management of Freshwater Discharge to Biscayne Bay". Biscayne
Bay: Past/Present/Future. Seagrant. 315 pp.
Harlem, Peter Wayne 1979. "Aerial Photographic Interpretation of
the Historical Changes in Northern Biscayne Bay, Florida".
1925-1976. Sea Grant Technical Bulletin 140. 151 pp.
Metropolitan Dade County Departments of Environmental Resources
Management and Planning, 1981. Biscayne Bay Management Plan.
112 pp.
Sea Grant Biscayne Bay Symposium III. 1977. "A Resolution".
Held at Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
Teas, Howard J., Wanless, Harold R. and Chardon, Roland E. 1977.
"Effects of Man on the Shore Vegetation of Biscayne Bay."
Biscayne Bay: Past/Present/Future Seagrant. 315 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Sea Grant. 1972. The National Sea
Program. 44 pp.
33
APPENDIX A
Y
c t
qi
4
O�
tom-
V
O
.�
C
S
,gyp
al
to cg
u",M
l`.
^
N
N
aC
Z
N
^:1 i
J
ts�i1
.r
T3
M
WXI
.T
4.3
1
i
QQ
Q
�aJ
4`
vZ
C
N
^
C
�
jj
j
1
i
1
-
,_,_
w
U
�
N
G
C
9
s
1
s
C
m
ca
C
C
.+.
i
. 4
0
0
0
.y`+
j
' c
i
8^
N
v
E.
y
>L
Pelican flurtx�Piay A
and fi3bltatt-Invrovemencceaet
^'� .-1
o
E
g
a Q
C�.i
i Collect & Analyze Winter
Quality Swules (10 years)
1
y
L
,O
-
?
5y(1
:.�
`}
=
.r:
•
�..
x
!J11
PScsherlee Asscuanent
lktennlne Sources of 'llutiidity
SLrvey of ntwove Planting Sites
+Q�
4'
;1:Ji
_
Q
^
s—
:
4
m
fl
t0j
C
1
W
j
[Twinss' Ili; luawanoariul na030y
f ..
E
'A /
y r
L
.
+
^r"
34
APPENDIX B
Biscayne Bay Scientific/Technical Committee
Colonel James B. Adams, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
Commander D. Addison, Coast Guard Boating Safety Division
Ms. Sandy Barrett, South Florida Regional Planning Council
Mr. Bill Bird, Dade County Parks and Recreation Department
Ms. Sidney Brinson, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Dr. Iver Brooks, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
Mr. Fred Calder, Florida DER, Office of Coastal Management
Dr. James Carpenter, Rosenstiel School fo Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
Mr. Joe Carroll, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dr. Donald deSylva, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
Dr. Ron Gaby, Connell, Metcalf and Eddy
Mr. Aaron Heiger, United States Geological Survey
Mr. Stanley Hemphill, Dade County Park and Recreation Department
Dr. T. Lee, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
Mr. Charles Littlejohn, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Mr. Carmen Lunetta, Dade County SeaPort Department
Dr. Donald S. Harszalek, Rosenstiel School of Marine Atmospheric
Sciences
35
Mr. John Michel, Greenleaf/Telesca
Lieutenant J.G. Parker, United States Coast Guard
Mr. Robert Perkins, Dade County Park and Recreation Department
Ms. Andrea Petrovits, Florida Department of Transportation
Mr. William Powell, Dade County Public Works Department
Mr. Mark Proctor, State Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Don Pybas, Florida Sea Grant
Mr. Lee Rawlinson, Dade County Developmental Impact Committee
Mr. Peter Rhodes, South Florida Water Management District
Dr. M. Roessler, Tropical Biolndustries Development Company.
Mr. James Sanders, Biscayne National Park
Mr. Burt Saunders, Office of the County Attorney
Captain Saunderson, Florida Department of Natural Resources
Marine Patrol
Mr. Allan Sosnow, Florida Department of Transportation
Mr. Richard Stone, National Mrine Fisheries Service, Office
of Marine Recreatioanl Fisheries
Ms. Linda Sumarlidason, Florida DNR, Division of State Lands
Dr. D. Tabb, Tropical Biolndustries Development Comapny
Dr. Howard Teas, University of Miami
Dr. Anitra Thorhaug, Applied Marine Ecological Services
Mr. Jim Tilmant, Biscayne National Park
Dr. Lanny Udey, University of Miami School of Medicine
Mr. Joel van Arman, South Florida Water Management District
Dr. J. van de Kreeke, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
Dr. Harold Wanless, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences
36
APPENDIX C
BISCAYtk BAY REiTCR:.'I,'x
6 E!,1,14.,CE^IENT PROGRAM
Ft.tA4 DIAGRAM
:vF"Cta. t. kE'v Et'r WITH
'EMEERS OF
SCITTECN COMMITTEE
PRIORITIZE LIST OE
STT3FATIUN i E4w7.tDIEN
PROJECTS
P_ERIC REVIEW
4
.N ma,SE RE`=fE"s
CONTRACTOR NEEDED
OBTAIN AuTN R1:AT1OV TO
FRI,RI CONTE COMISSIUN
PREPARE CONTRACT p30J4NT5
ADVERTISE FOR 8EDS
REC !EVE 8IDS
REVIEW 8105
AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS TD
cowry COMMISSION
ANARD CONTRACT BY
iN
Pt It M.TICE OE REQ ES'
AOR PROPOSALS
RECEIVE PROPOSA,S
REVIEW RT CONSVITANi
SE ACTION CUMITTEE
SELECT CONSUL T0iT
NEGOTIATE CONTRACT
COPY DE CONTRACT
TO D. .R.
FUER IC NOTICE
AkAPV
NAARD CONTRACT
gY COIrY COPMI SS ION
ary
BEGIN KRK
PREPARE WART.ER1
FRccRESREPrRTS
PREPA.R ANIA,.I.
INTERIM REPORT
5'
DISSEMINATE TO:
A) GEWPAL PO8LIC
8) ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
C) RAGkA.ATORT AGENCIES
RECU.Et1U I FI 1- 3-6
PAN
T
PRESENT TO 3AT
MgyAGE.'£"R CUMITTEE
37
APPENDIX D
Projects to be Conducted hy DERM
1. Public Awareness
2. Identify Areas that Need Stabilization or Wave Energy
Abatement
3. Monitor Existing Mitigation/Restoration Efforts
4. Obtain Baseline Water Chemistry Data
5. Map Benthic Communities
38
APPENDIX E
Biscayne Bay Restoration Working Team
Mr. S. Berkeley, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences, Fisheries Consultant
Mr. M. Brown, RSMAS, Marine Hydrocarbons Consultant to Florida
DNR
Dr. E. Corcoran, RSMAS, Marine Hydrocarbons Consultant to Florida
DNR
Ms. L. Dye, Biscayne National Park
Dr. P. Mc Laughlin, Florida International University, Benthic
Ecology Consultant
Dr. P. Schroeder, Biosystems Research, Inc., Benthic Ecology
Consultant
Mr. J. van Arman, South Florida Water Management District
Dr. J. van de Kreeke, RSMAS, Circulation Consultant
Dr. J. Wang, RSMAS, Circulation Consultant
Dr. H. Wanless, RSMAS, Marine Sediments Consultant
DERM Staff
Planning Department Staff
C O T'RIBL PS
Anthony J. Clemente, Director, DER
Edward A. Swakcr , Water Mnac ent Division Chief, BERM
Robert Holm, Ph. D.
David Ettr n, Biologist, DPRM
Robert KaraFel, Biologist, LER`:
Jean Evoy, Principal Planner, Planning Department
Ricky Schechtr.\an, Senior Planner, Planning Depalr~ ^ent
PRINCIPAL AtYIIIOR
William L. Einziger, Biologist, DEEM