My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/10/2016 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2016
>
05/10/2016 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2020 12:26:50 PM
Creation date
8/10/2016 12:23:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
05/10/2016
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
175
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Proposed BOEM Rules — Negotiated Noncompetitive Leasing for the Use of Sand, Gravel, and <br />Shell Resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (Federal Register/Vol. 81, No 55 — March 22, <br />2016) — Identifier Number (RIN) 1010-AD90; BOEM Proposed Rule 30 CFR 583 <br />Staff Comments — Indian River County Coastal Engineering Division (4-6-16) <br />1. REGULATION OF BORROW AREA SEDIMENTS <br />It appears that the proposed rules only apply to projects that are funded in whole or part by the <br />Federal Government. Given the proposed rule describes the negotiated noncompetitive lease <br />agreement process for qualifying projects (Federal) and codifies new and existing procedures, it <br />is unclear how this will affect Local and State projects not partnered Federally. <br />o Does BOEM's negotiated noncompetitive lease agreement take precedent over a <br />local entity that has identified the same specific offshore borrow source, sediment <br />quality, location, and sediment volume for its beach fill project? <br />o Can borrow material be reserved under the BOEM negotiated noncompetitive <br />lease agreement given Beach project permitting can take up to 2 years to <br />complete. <br />o How will projects be prioritized? First entity permitting use of the borrow <br />material? <br />o Under the current Local Government Funding Request Process with the State <br />additional project ranking points (Regionalization) are awarded to two or more <br />local governments working together on their Beach projects in an effort to reduce <br />mobilization and other project costs. How does BOEM's negotiated <br />noncompetitive lease agreement factor in on this process if two non -Federal <br />projects identify borrow sources that a Federal project also identifies? Again the <br />question is, which project will be the priority? <br />2. SEDIMENT QUANTITY AND QUALITY <br />Although this may be stipulated in the language of each individual negotiated noncompetitive <br />lease agreement, the proposed rules lack discussion on borrow sediment use, quantity, and <br />quality. <br />o What happens when a Local government funds borrow area sediment studies at <br />their own expense or though partnership with the State; Will these funds be <br />reimbursed if a separate party removes the qualified borrow materials? <br />o What happens when borrow sediment materials, specifically identified for a local <br />project, are designed for use due to material accessibility, quality, and quantity <br />become removed by another entity; thereby increasing the mining costs to the <br />affected local project/entity? <br />11 Page <br />115 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.