NO NOVEMBER 2009 MEETING
OFFSHORE OIL
DRILLING _____ The United States exports approximately 1.8
million barrels a day of oil and petroleum products to foreign nations. This is about 10% of all the oil the United States
consumes every day.
According to U.S. Department of Energy, lifting the moratoria
on offshore oil drilling off the coast of Florida may produce, at the most, only 200,000 barrels per day , one-ninth the amount
of oil the United States exports every day. By the time the first barrel of oil could be produced from increased offshore
oil drilling, 40% of the oil projected to lie beneath protected areas offshore would have already been exported to foreign
countries.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration Office,
on June 19. 2009 U.S. oil was $1.91 a barrel cheaper than OPEC countries average.
Increasing the average U.S. auto efficiency to 40 miles per
gallon would save 10 times the estimated oil and gas reserves off Florida.
In light of the real dangers of offshore oil drilling, our
legislators should commit to developing clean alternative sources of energy. The beauty of our beaches and the productivity
of our estuarine areas will ultimately prove to be more important than oil industry profits.
VENICE
BEACHES _____ The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) has
ranked Venice beaches among the lowest rankings in the state. Siesta Key and North Lido beach were also ranked very low.
NRDC's report - Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality
at Vacation Beaches used water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency to determine the beach rankings.
(http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/titinx.asp)
According to the Florida Department of Health, poor water quality
samples have been collected at Venice Beaches 72 times and 19 Advisory / Warnings have been issued since 1/03/2005.
The City of Venice needs to test the waters of Dona and Roberts
Bay, Shakett Creek and Cow Pen Slough immediately after reduced water quality is detected at North or South Jetty Beach, and
after significant rain events. The Sarasota Heath and Human Services Department should immediately attempt to identify
the source of the contamination.
PLASTIC BAG
BAN _____ In 2008, the Florida Legislature modified the Resource
Recovery and Management requirements of Chapter 403.7033 F.S., this prevents local governments from enacting any rule, ordinance
or regulation that would prohibit or restrict the use of plastic bags. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection
is scheduled to submit a report with conclusions and recommendations to the Legislature no later than February 1, 2010.
The United Nations environmental chief recently urged a global
ban on plastic bags.
"Single use plastic bags which choke marine life should be
banned or phased out rapidly everywhere. There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere," said
Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.
Reducing or eliminating the use of plastic grocery bags is
necessary because:
- Plastic grocery bags create a significant litter problem
for Sarasota's streets, beaches, sewer system and marine environment. It is estimated that plastic makes up 80% of the volume
of litter on roads, parks, and beaches and makes up 90% of floating litter in the ocean.
- Plastic grocery bags are difficult and costly to recycle
or compost. Plastic grocery bags increase the costs to taxpayers by reducing the value of recycled and composted materials
contaminated with plastic grocery bags. Plastic grocery bags increase disposal costs associated with the removal of plastic
bags from the recycling and composting streams.
- Plastic grocery bags add cost to the County's street cleaning
programs and storm water sewer maintenance programs.
- According to the Worldwatch Institute, nationally only 0.6
percent of plastic bags are recycled and Americans throw away about 100 billion plastic bags annually
- According to the Environmental Protection Agency, plastic
bags endanger wildlife by polluting land and water, and it takes more than 1,000 years for a plastic bag to break down in
a landfill.
- The environmental damage caused by plastic bags is significant.
Taxpayers are currently subsidizing the production of an unnecessary waste product and this is unacceptable.
ManaSota-88 has recommended banning plastic grocery bags from
the Sarasota and Manatee County landfills. We continue to recommend banning the use of plastic grocery bags and will again
request both counties no longer accept plastic grocery bags into their landfills beginning February 10, 2010.
PHOSPHATE MINING &
RADIATION _____ Mining in the watershed is not compatible with
the preservation of Manatee's and much of Sarasota's drinking water supply.
Since it is both economically and technically feasible, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection should require that radiation levels after mining not exceed those that existed
before mining.
Even if the industry had no recourse and could not return lands
to pre mining radiation levels, ManaSota-88 would not recommend the phosphate industry be permitted to increase radiation
levels. Mining in Florida is not necessary for our survival.
FDEP continues to issue permits approving an increase
in radiation levels that can be avoided by the phosphate industry .
The FDEP regulations pertaining to phosphate mining need to
be written to include a non-degradation clause that will require lands be returned to essentially the same radiation levels
that existed before mining.
SEWAGE
SLUDGE _____ The Department of Environmental Regulation is
currently revising the state standards for the treatment and disposal of sewage sludge (Chapter 62-640 F.A.C.) The state
standards should be changed so animals are prohibited from grazing on the land for ninety days after the application of biosolids.
Additionally, a copy of all land spreading biosolids permits should be disclosed prior to the contract for sale, and included
in the contract for sale, of any property issued a permit for the land spreading of biosolids in the state of Florida.
PORT DOLPHIN
GAS PIPELINE _____ Port Dolphin Energy LLC proposes to own,
construct, and operate a deepwater port approximately 28 miles off the western coast of Florida. Port Dolphin would consist
of a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys. The buoys would be designed to moor a specialized
type of liquefied natural gas vessel called a Shuttle and Regasification Vessel.
The liquefied natural gas would be transported through a 36-inch
pipeline approximately 42 miles in length that would connect onshore near Port Manatee. The Project would have an expected
operating life of approximately 25 years.
ManaSota-88 has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement
of the Port Dolphin L.L.C. Deepwater Port License Application and continues to recommend the No Action Alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative, the Maritime Administrator can deny and disapprove the Project under the Deepwater
Port Act. Additional safeguards are needed before the Project is approved.
ManaSota-88 recommends the No Action Alternative for the following
reasons:
1. Port Dolphin L.L.C. has not adequately demonstrated
avoidance or mitigation of the adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project construction and operation. Environmental
mitigation plans have not been finalized; therefore it is not possible to review the anticipated impacts of the Project.
2. Safety and operational issues associated with the proposed
onshore route of the Applicant have not been adequately addressed. Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. has raised significant
construction and safety issues regarding Port Dolphins proposed horizontal direction drill and proposed pipeline route.
3. There are unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be adequately
mitigated under the proposed alternative.
a. Water
Quality Impacts
Port construction, pipe-laying, cooling water discharges, accidental
spill and routine offshore operations will increase water pollutants
and turbidity.
Pipe laying will result in resuspension of sediments. The increase
in turbidity will adversely impact adjacent bottoms and contribute to adverse cumulative impacts. Degradation of the
biological integrity, transparency and turbidity of the immediate and adjacent area is anticipated.
Dissolved oxygen water quality violations will likely occur
near the Port during hot summer months. Offshore contaminants are expected to worsen dissolved oxygen in the area and possibly
add noxious amounts of undissolved pollutants, oils and greases to the water.
The direct and secondary impacts of the proposed project will
result in unavoidable adverse impacts, which may violate water quality standards and will be contrary to the public interest.
b. Biological
Resources and Essential Fish Habitat Impacts
Unavoidable adverse impacts are expected on threatened and
endangered marine mammals, including sea turtles, fish, and migratory birds. Port and pipeline installation will result in
adverse impacts on approximately 234 acres of benthic habitat and long-term operational impacts on 22.09 acres from seabed
sweep from the anchor lines. Communities impacted during operations by anchor sweep at the 22 acres (16 acres of soft-bottom
and 6 acres of hard-bottom) of the Port site would not recover.
Mitigation has not been fully developed for the impacted biological
resources and therefore, the effectiveness of any mitigation is uncertain. Port Dolphin should be required to develop and
implement a Prevention, Monitoring, and Mitigation Plan to mitigate impacts on marine fisheries species prior to any
Project approval.
c. Geological Resources
Impacts
Construction of the offshore pipeline would disturb a total
area of 40.87 acres (16.54 hectares) of seafloor, including 18.03 acres (7.29 hectares) of hard bottom. Approximately 3,000
acres of hard-bottom habitat could be disturbed by pipeline construction.
Hard-bottom habitats provide important cover and feeding
areas for many fish and invertebrates, including threatened and endangered aquatic species.
d. Noise
Impacts
Effects on the marine noise environment, caused by construction
of the proposed Port and pipeline, would be unavoidable. Adverse impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles due to construction
noise are unacceptable.
ManaSota-88 finds the adverse cumulative impacts associated
with the Project unacceptable.
____________________
Tax-deductible contributions should be mailed to: ManaSota-88, P.O. Box 1728, Nokomis, Florida
34274
