DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT 701 SAN MARCO BLVD JACKSONVILLE, FL 32207-8915
Planning and Policy Division Environmental Branch AUG 23 2018
Mr. David Bernhart National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office Protected Species Resources Division 263 13th Ave South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Dear Mr. Bernhart:
This letter and associated information package supplements the previous consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the Port Everglades Navigation Improvements Project (PENIP).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (Corps) is currently conducting the Pre-Engineering and Design Phase of the Project. This assessment updates the previous analysis included in the Final EIS for the Port Everglades Feasibility Study completed in 2015 for which NMFS completed a Biological Opinion on March 7, 2014 (Consultation #SER-2012-03723). The Project was authorized by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 2016.
Enclosed please find the Corps' Supplemental Biological Assessment that updates the effects analysis for ESA-listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction and their designated critical habitat, where applicable.
We request that NMFS acknowledge receipt of this Biological Assessment as complete within 30 days of receipt of this letter; provide a draft Biological Opinion for Corps review within 90 days of receipt of this letter and a final Biological Opinion within 135 days of receipt of this letter.
-Sellers at 904-232-1817
Enclosures
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT – PORT EVERGLADES NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District 701 San Marco Blvd Jacksonville, FL 32207
Prepared by: Terri Jordan‐Sellers; Senior Biologist August 23, 2018
Page 1 of 114
This Supplemental Biological Assessment (BA) updates the evaluation of potential effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species from the proposed Port Everglades Navigation Improvement Project (PENIP) at Port Everglades (PEV) Harbor; as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This information supplements the previous submittals under the administrative record for Consultation #SER‐2012‐03723. All previous information in that administrative record is incorporated by reference. Where previous analysis is relied upon, it shall be referenced and the appropriate document included as an appendix to this BA.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (Corps) proposes to expand and deepen the channels and turning basins of PENIP. In 2015, the Corps prepared a Final Feasibility Report (FFR) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project (http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil‐Works/Navigation/Navigation‐Projects/Port‐ Everglades/). The PENIP dredging footprint remains unchanged from what was evaluated in the FEIS and congressionally authorized in 2016. There have been no additions or subtractions from the authorized project; therefore, much of the project information is included in the FEIS (USACE, 2015). Additionally more detailed design has taken place, and clarification of impacts associated with the project have been updated.
Project Location The PEV Harbor is a major seaport located on the southeast coast of Florida in Broward County. It is located in the cities of Hollywood, Dania Beach and Fort Lauderdale and unincorporated Broward County, with immediate access to the Atlantic Ocean. PEV is a manmade seaport, and the entrance of PEV is approximately 27 nautical miles north of PortMiami, Florida, 31 nautical miles south of the Port of Palm Beach, and 301 nautical miles south of Jacksonville Harbor, Florida (Figure 1).
Figure 1 ‐ Location of Port Everglades
Page 2 of 114
Background/History PEV was originally dredged from Lake Mabel, a natural body of water that was a wide and shallow section of the Florida East Coast Canal system. In 1911, the Florida Board of Trade passed a resolution that called for a deep‐water port. In 1913, the Fort Lauderdale Harbor Company was formed and eventually dug out the Lake Mabel Cut, which opened the New River to the sea and created access for small boats. In 1924, the founder and mayor of the city of Hollywood, Florida, Joseph Wesley Young, bought 1,440 acres (5.8 km2) of land adjacent to the lake and created the Hollywood Harbor Development Company. Three years later, the Florida Legislature established the Broward County Port Authority. On February 22, 1928, President Calvin Coolidge was to push a button from the White House detonating explosives to remove the rock barrier separating the harbor from the Atlantic Ocean. The button malfunctioned, but the barrier was removed shortly thereafter, opening the lake to the open ocean and creating the current Port Everglades Inlet (Figure 2).
Figure 2 ‐ Historic Nautical Chart 1936‐ Port Everglades PEV was designated as a federal harbor in 1930 and additional deepening and widening events took place in 1935, 1946, 1958 and the early 1980s, in addition to operations and maintenance (O&M) dredging over the life of the project in response to shoaling within the harbor. In 2016, Congress authorized the expansion for Port Everglades based on the June 2015 Chief of Engineers report under the Water Resources Development Act 2016 (PL 114‐332). Much of southeast Florida’s cruise ships, containerized cargo, dry bulk and general cargo pass through PEV. PEV is the only petroleum port for 12 southeast/southwest Florida counties, three international airports as well as fuel for power plants for electric generation, ships bunkers, and asphalt.
Page 3 of 114
Table 1 lists all the authorized modifications to the federal navigation project that have resulted in the project’s current configuration as seen in Figure 3.
Table 1 ‐ Federal Authorizations Act Document, Congress/Session Work Authorized Federal maintenance of entrance channel, R&H* Act 1930 HD 357, 71/2 turning basin, and jetties constructed by local interests. Construction and maintenance of an enlarged R&H Act 1935 HR* Committee of R&H* Doc. 25, 74/1 entrance channel, and a 1,200 foot square turning basin to a depth of 35 feet. Construction and maintenance of a 350 foot R&H Act 1938 HD* 545, 75/3 wide trapezoidal area on the north side of the main turning basin. Construction and maintenance of a 200 foot R&H Act 1946 HD 768, 78/2 northerly and 500 foot southerly extensions to the main turning basin. Construction and maintenance of outer entrance channel deepening to 40 feet, inner R&H Act 1958 HD 346, 85/2 entrance channel deepening to 37 feet, expanding the main turning basin to the north and south. Deepen outer entrance channel to 45 feet at a width of 500 feet, inner entrance channel to 42 feet at a width of 450 feet, main turning PL* 89‐298, HD 93‐144 Section 201, 1965 basin to 42 feet, channel opposite Pier 7 to 36 feet, maintain channel opposite Berth 18 to 36 feet. Federal maintenance of locally constructed WRDA 1992 HD 103‐126, 103/1 Southport Access *Rivers and Harbors (R&H), House Report (HR), House Document (HD), Public Law (PL)
Page 4 of 114
Figure 3 ‐ Existing Project Components
Consultation history Because this is a supplement to the 2012 BA, only those activities that have occurred since the completion of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) March 7, 2014 Biological Opinion (BO) will be listed here in the consultation history. Actions that are listed in the “consultation history” section of the 2014 BO are incorporated by reference. The 2014 BO for the project is included in Appendix B.
Under Term and Condition #5 of the 2014 BO, NMFS required the Corps to create an Interagency Working Group (IWG) for the PENIP that would include no less than NMFS (both Protected Resources Division (PRD) and Habitat Conservation Division (HCD)); Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). In addition to the agencies NMFS required in the BO, the Corps has included U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Broward County (staff from the Port as well as the Environmental Protection and Growth Management group). The IWG was constituted in July 2016. Prior to the constitution of the IWG, meetings were held with varying agencies between the issuance of the BO in March 2014 and July 2016. The IWG has been consulted with during the development of the minimization measures and survey protocols for the ESA and Reconnaissance surveys.
2014 – March 7 ‐ NMFS issues BO F/SER31: KL, SER‐2012‐03723
Page 5 of 114
May 1 – NMFS issues clarification letter concluding consultation
2015 – January 2015 – Interagency meeting with the Corps, NMFS, FDEP, FWC and EPA in Tallahassee June 25 – PENIP Chief’s Report signed
2016 – WIIN in Congress January 29 – PENIP Record of Decision signed June 28‐July 13– Seagrass survey field work conducted July 26 – Interagency Working Group assembled, including representatives from NMFS‐ PRD. September 27 – Request to Reinitiate consultation under Section 7 of the ESA from Gina Ralph to David Bernhart October 16 – Interagency Working Group meeting – Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge November 1 – NMFS response concurring with request to reinitiate consultation December 7 – Schedule update, PED budget, status and cost proposals for Recon and ESA surveys and process for memorializing IWG decisions/recommendations.
2017 – IWG meetings January 18 – Reconnaissance survey protocol teleconference January 20 – ESA survey protocol teleconference February 21 – Monitoring plan teleconference May 17 – Particle Tracking Model update teleconference May 23 – Project update teleconference June – September 2017 – ESA survey fieldwork October 19 – Project update teleconference November 9 – ESA survey protocol teleconference November 15 – Calculations of hardbottom percentages of ESA listed coral sites teleconference December 1 – IWG meeting (variety of topics) teleconference
2018 – IWG meetings January 20 – Modeling and Mitigation teleconference February 15 ‐ Reconnaissance Survey Raw Data sent to Agencies (including NMFS) March 2 – IWG Modelers Meeting March 7 – IWG teleconference – mangrove and seagrass impacts and mitigation April 20 – Minimization techniques and functional assessment teleconference April 2018 – Raw data from ESA surveys sent to agencies (including NMFS) June 1 – IWG Follow up on minimization methods and functional assessment teleconference June 15 – IWG meeting – review project habitat map and update on draft monitoring plan July 27 ‐ Reconnaissance Survey Final Report provided to IWG members July 27 ‐ ESA Survey Final Report provided to IWG members
Page 6 of 114
July 31 ‐ Port Everglades Habitat Map provided to IWG members August 3 ‐ 1‐year Baseline Turbidity Raw data to IWG members August 7 ‐ Sediment Particle Tracking Model Provided to IWG members August 23 – Official submittal of Supplemental BA to NMFS
Meeting minutes for many of the Interagency Working Group (IWG) meetings listed below are available at this website http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/About/Divisions‐ Offices/Planning/Environmental‐Branch/Environmental‐Documents/. Click on the “+” sign next to Broward County and scroll down to the row labeled “Port Everglades Navigation Improvements Project,” IWG meeting minutes and click on the year the meeting was held in.
Description of the Proposed Action The Corps previously analyzed several design alternatives within the 2015 PENIP FFR and FEIS and selected a Recommended Plan that was authorized by Congress in 2016. This plan will be referred to as the Authorized Plan. The PENIP will require the removal of approximately 5.5 million cubic yards (CY) of dredged material. Features of the Authorized Plan (Figure 4) include:
Deepen the Outer Entrance Channel (OEC) from an existing project depth of 45 feet (i.e., ‐45 feet mean lower low water (MLLW)) to an authorized project depth of 55 feet plus 1 foot of required overdepth and 1 foot of allowable overdepth. Widen a portion of the OEC from an existing width of 500 feet to a width of 800 feet (maximum width including flare); Extend the OEC 2,200 feet seaward; Deepen the Inner Entrance Channel (IEC) from authorized depth of 42 feet to 48 feet (+1+1); Deepen the Main Turning Basin (MTB) from authorized depth of 42 feet to 48 feet (+1+1); Widen the rectangular shoal region (Widener, or “WID”) to the southeast of the MTB by about 300 feet and deepen to depth of 48 feet (+1+1); Widen the Southport Access Channel (SAC) in the proximity of berths 23 to 26 (referred to as the “knuckle”, by about 250 feet and reconfigure the United States Coast Guard (U.S.C.G.) facility, easterly on U.S.C.G. property; Shift the existing 400‐foot wide SAC about 65 feet to the east from approximately berth 26 to the south end of berth 29 to provide a transition from the knuckle to the existing federal channel limits farther south of the knuckle; Deepen the SAC from about berth 23 to the south end of berth 32 from authorized depth of 42 feet to 48 feet (+1+1); Deepen the Turning Notch (TN), including the expanded portion from authorized depth of 42 feet to 48 feet (+1+1) (following local sponsor dredging of the same area to 42 feet); widening by an additional 100 feet the eastern edge of the SAC over a length of about 1,845 feet (across from the TN); and widen by approximately 130 feet the western edge of the SAC north of the TN from the south end of berth 29 to the TN. Construction of “environmentally friendly bulkheads” (EFB) along approximately 6,500 linear feet on east side of the SAC (IWW side of Dr. Von D. Mizell‐Johnson State Park (MJ
Page 7 of 114
Park)) and 1,000 linear feet on west side of the SAC (in front of mangroves south of berth 29) using 44” wide steel sheetpiles by impact hammer and pre‐treatment, if required, of any rock in the footprint of the bulkhead. Additionally, the berths and slips of the port shall be deepened to match the new depths of the authorized project (approximately 300,000 CY of material). Temporary relocation of existing Aids to Navigation (ATONs) adjacent to the channel. As part of the Hybrid Mitigation plan for impacts to Essential Fish Habitat ‐ relocation of healthy stony corals >10cm in largest measurement (length, width, height) from the OEC expansion area to a limestone boulder artificial reef at least five acres in size. Propagation and outplanting of stony corals from a coral nursery to natural areas outside of the project area to be developed in consultation with NMFS‐PRD and other interested parties. The total number of outplanted corals will be determined based on impact assessment and the results of the 2018 Reconnaissance study (DCA 2018b) that characterized the hardbottom and reef habitats in the project area. Transport of dredged material to the EPA authorized Port Everglades Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) in hopper dredges or bottom dump scows carrying between 750‐1,500 CY per load (limited material transport in each scow as a result of minimization measures), resulting in up to 7,333 scow trips scow trips (based on industry scow sizes and load capacity with no overflow).
Figure 4 ‐ Authorized Plan
The Corps expects that construction may be performed using a variety of construction/equipment and techniques including cutterhead, clamshell, hopper and/or backhoe dredges; confined underwater blasting, hydrohammer, and vibratory and/or impact hammer. The 2014 BO did not specify specific dredging methodologies associated with the
Page 8 of 114
Authorized project. This consultation updates that analysis to include specific construction means and methods as shown in Figure 5, as well as efforts that may result in minimization of effects to listed species and designated critical habitats.
Four minimization measures have been developed for the PENIP. 1. No anchoring outside of the existing channel for a cutterhead dredge; 2. No dredging of the OEC during coral spawning coral season (July through September); 3. No rock chopping 4. No overflow for cuttersuction or hopper dredges throughout the project area. Overflow from mechanical dredges is authorized in some locations with monitoring.
Details regarding each of these minimization measures will be discussed in more detail under the Dredging Methodologies section of this assessment.
Figure 5 – Dredging Restrictions and Overflow Allowance Plan to Minimize Indirect Impacts
Disposal of dredged material will be in the expanded Port Everglades ODMDS. The Port Everglades ODMDS is an approximately 3.2 square mile site, located approximately 4.0 nautical miles northeast of the entrance to PEV, in an average water depth ranging from 604 to 735 feet (184 to 224 meters). A one square mile site was originally designated by the EPA in 2005. Site expansion is pending (Figure 6). Detailed information concerning this site is located on EPA’s Ocean Dumping homepage located at https://www.epa.gov/ocean‐dumping/managing‐ocean‐ dumping‐epa‐region‐4#fl.
Page 9 of 114
Figure 6 ‐ Port Everglades ODMDS (green) and Expanded ODMDS (blue) (EPA 2013)
Overview of Dredging Methods A thorough overview of dredging methodologies was previously included in the September 2012 BA and in Section 2.9 of the 2015 FEIS for the project and are incorporated by reference. Where new or additional information has been developed for this project, it will be discussed in this analysis. The key project elements for this deepening project include:
The geology of the dredging project area generally consists of a less than one foot up to 12 feet thick layer of fine, poorly graded sand (SP), silty sand (SM), and sandy silt (ML) overlying limestone and sandstone bedrock ranging in hardness from soft to very hard. The limestone and sandstone rock includes interbedded layers of fine, poorly graded sand (SP). Approximately 49 percent of the removal volume within the dredge window consists of limestone and sandstone bedrock. Significant environmental resources including reefs are located adjacent to project as documented in the FEIS and subsequent surveys and documentation. Project includes open water dredging in a channelized environment.
SPILLAGE Spillage is defined as dredged material not captured in the digging process. In other words, material disturbed but not sucked up in suction or captured in bucket. This can include overflow, propeller‐wash erosion as well as sidecast from the dredging device itself (cutterhead/draghead/bucket). PIANC (2010) defines spillage as:
Page 10 of 114
All material dredged but not transported to the receiving site, both the materials going into suspension and those settling on the seabed inside and outside the dredging area(s) and placement area(s).
Reported levels of spillage from various dredge types are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 ‐ Percent spillage ranges of fine material for different types of dredges, Dredge Type DHI Dredging Impact Seminar, Kemps and Masini 2017 Ft Lauderdale, FL April 27, 2018* (based on total excavation rate) Hydraulic cutterhead sidecast 2 1‐1.5 Hopper Dredge (overflow) 1‐25 1‐23 Propeller NA <1 Draghead NA <1 Clamshell/bucket (clay material) 5 NA * Depending on hydrodynamics
HYDRAULIC DREDGES Hydraulic dredges are characterized by the use of a pump to dredge sediment and transport slurry of dredged material and water to identified discharge areas. The ratio of water to sediment within the slurry mixture is controlled to maximize efficiency. The main types of hydraulic dredges are pipeline and hopper dredges.
Pipeline Dredges ‐ Cutterhead Suction Dredge Previous information has been provided to NMFS regarding the use of cutterhead suction dredges at Port Everglades during ESA consultation for Port Everglades. This information has been incorporated by reference and will not be repeated in this document. Previous BAs are included in Appendix A of this BA.
Pipeline dredges are the most commonly used dredge type in the United States and the most versatile of the dredge types. They are capable of dredging a variety of materials both new work and maintenance in shallow or deep water. Pipeline dredges are rarely self‐propelled and therefore, must be transported to and from the dredge site. Limitations of pipeline dredges include relative lack of mobility, extensive, long mobilization and demobilization effects, inability to work in high wave action and currents, and are inefficient in high traffic areas. Cutterhead dredges typically require a system of anchors and cables to move the cutterhead back and forth through the area to be dredged. The PENIP originally proposed to allow cutterhead dredges to anchor outside the federal channel, allowing dredging of the entire channel width in one sweep. Subsequent discussions with the IWG and other Corps staff have determined that contractors can dredge the channel with a cutterhead dredge without placing the anchors outside of the channel footprint, reducing impacts associated with cutterhead dredging. Requiring contractors to anchoring inside the channel is a project minimization measure. These pipeline dredge plants are sized based on the inside diameter of the discharge pipe which commonly ranges from 6” to 48.” They require an extensive array of support equipment including pipeline (floating, shore, and submerged), boats (crew, work, survey), barges, and pipe handling equipment. Most pipeline dredges have a cutterhead on the suction end.
If a cutterhead dredge would be used for some portion of the PENIP, dredged material would likely be pumped to scows via a pipeline into a loading barge (also referred to as a spider barge)
Page 11 of 114 located away from the cutterhead dredge, where scows would be loaded prior to transport to the ODMDS. The spider barge allows for one scow to be loaded and a second to begin loading immediately after the first is complete, ensuring more efficient dredging due to reduced down time waiting for scows to return from the ODMDS (Figure 7).
Figure 7 ‐ A spider barge loading material into two scows from the cutterhead dredge, Texas, during Miami Harbor Phase II 2005‐2006.
Hopper Dredges Previous information has been provided to NMFS regarding the use of hopper dredges at Port Everglades during ESA consultation for Port Everglades. This information has been incorporated by reference and will not be repeated in this document. Previous BAs are included in Appendix A of this BA.
As required in the 2014 BO, the Corps will incorporate the Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) from the 1995/1997 SARBO (or any subsequent SARBO) for hopper dredging into the project specifications.
Hopper dredges have been used previously to conduct operations and maintenance (O&M) dredging at Port Everglades in 2005 and 2013, as well as in association with the Broward Segment III shore protection project in 2005‐2006 (Table 3). All data concerning previous use of hopper dredges were obtained from the Corps’ Operations and Dredging Endangered Species System (ODESS) database, a publically accessible and searchable database for reporting take of ESA listed species in Corps’ construction projects (http://dqm.usace.army.mil/odess/#/home).
Page 12 of 114
Table 3 ‐ Historic Hopper Dredging at Port Everglades/Broward County SPP Year Date Begin Date End Cubic Yards (cy) Project Name Dredged 2005 8/9/2005 8/15/2005 60,025 cy Port Everglades O&M 2005 5/14/2005 2/6/2006 2,278,908 cy Broward County Shore Protection Project, Segment III 2013 3/29/2013 04/02/2013 96,126 cy placed Port Everglades on beach* O&M *Part of a larger project that included placement of more than 300,000 in the ODMDS dredged from inside the port with a clamshell dredge.
Overflow vs. Decanting For all hydraulically dredged material, overflow and/or decanting activities may occur in association with dredging operations. Overflow allows the most productive (efficient) loading of a scow or hopper by filling from the top, the dredge material setting out into the scow/hopper and the excess water flowing out through valves or ports typically located in the bottom of the scow/hopper by gravity while actively loading the hopper or scow (Figure 8). Overflow typically involves several loading and draining events per load of dredged material and can occur over a period of hours. The overflow source can be moving (in a hopper dredge) or a fixed source (a scow).
Figure 8‐ Forward overflow weir in a hopper dredge during overflow operations. Different hopper dredges have varying weir configurations.
Overflow may also occur where dredge slurry is pumped into the hopper/scow and fine material is allowed to settle, cleaner water (referred to as “light water”) is then released from the hopper/scow to allow additional capacity and then more slurry is pumped into the scow to repeat the process until the scow is full. This is referred to as “Overflow with settling.” This can be done with both scows and hopper dredges, although it is much easier with scows. Hopper dredges can raise and lower the weirs to allow them to release light water before they begin their transit to the ODMDS. Once the hopper dredge is in transit to the ODMDS, it is not authorized to release water or dredged material into the surrounding environment. A small amount of water may exit the Page 13 of 114 dredge during rough seas when water is sloshing around the inside of the hopper and spills over the raised weirs.
Decanting is similar to overflow in that it occurs after loading of the scow/hopper, however, instead of allowing for additional dredged material to be added to the scow/hopper, some of the water (approximately 1/3) in the scow/hopper is gravity drained through the valves/ports over a short period of time (minutes) after loading of the hopper/scow is complete, before the scow/hopper is taken to the approved disposal location (Figure 9). Decanting is required for the safe transit of a scow into open ocean conditions.
Figure 9 ‐ Decanting light water from a scow loaded with dredge material
Both overflow and decanting result in the release of slurry of finer dredged material that has not settled from the water column from the scow/hopper into the surrounding environment through the previously discussed process known as spillage. Both cases remove excess water from the vessel prior to transport to increase maneuverability and safety. Overflow allows more dredged material to be placed in the scow/hopper than decanting, and results in a greater release of fines into the surrounding water. Turbidity and sedimentation resulting from overflow and decanting are dependent on the composition and size of the material being dredged (sand, silt, clay). Due to its larger particle size, sand tends to settle faster than silt, and silt tends to settle out faster than clay (e.g., Storlazzi et al. 2015). Fine particles can also clump together in a dense, bulk, fluid and with a higher settling velocity than the individual particles (Kemps and Masini 2017).
Another minimization measure, the Corps plan to employ at PENIP is to restrict overflow from any dredge operating in the entrance channel and widener, and to restrict overflow from a cutterhead dredge operation for other specific portions of the project footprint (Figure 5). This will significantly reduce the amount of material that can be placed in each scow, and thus will increase the number of trips to the ODMDS. This minimization measure has been extensively coordinated with the IWG.
MECHANICAL DREDGES Previous information has been provided to NMFS regarding the use of mechanical dredges at Port Everglades during ESA consultation for Port Everglades. This information has been
Page 14 of 114 incorporated by reference and will not be repeated in this document. Previous BAs are included in Appendix A of this BA.
Bed Leveling A “bed‐leveler” (or drag bar) is considered to be any type of dragged device used to smooth sediment bottom irregularities left by a dredge (Figure 10). It is also referred to as a “mechanical leveling device or drag bar”. In various parts of the U.S. this process is known as “barring” or “knockdown” (Hales et al. 2003). In certain cases, bed‐levelers are used to redistribute sediments to maintain navigable depths rather than removing them by dredging with conventional methods. Dredge types using bed‐levelers include clamshell (excavator), bucket, hydraulic cutterhead, and hopper dredges. Bed levelers do not use suction and redistribute sediments along the channel‐bottom, rather than removing them. Plows, I‐beams or other seabed leveling mechanical dredging devices are often used to lower high spots left in channel bottoms and dredged material deposition areas by hopper dredges or other types of dredges.
Figure 10 ‐ Example bed levelers and associated operating conditions (photographs courtesy Bean Dredging Company and Weeks Marine Incorporated)
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL The dredged material disposal option for dredged material that meets the requirements of the EPA’s “Green Book” for dredged material placement, is placement of the material in the EPA designated ODMDSs. NMFS has previously reviewed the placement of dredged material in ODMDSs along the southeast U.S. off the continental shelf of southeast Florida (Key West, Miami, Palm Beach), and in all cases, NMFS determined that placement of dredged materials in deepwater ODMDS are not likely to adversely affect whale species (NMFS 2004, NMFS 2003b, NMFS 1994) and unlikely to adversely affect leatherback sea turtles (NMFS, 1995; NMFS 2003a).
The EPA completed consultation on the original designation of the Port Everglades ODMDS in May 2004, with NMFS determining that the action of disposal of up to 500,000 cubic yards (cy) of dredged materials from Port Everglades harbor per dredging event was entirely covered by the Corps South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion (SARBO) issued by NMFS in 1995 and revised on September 25, 1997. The disposal operations for the PENIP would exceed the values consulted with NMFS for the designation of the site in May 2004. As part of the expansion of the ODMDS, EPA consulted with NMFS in June 2013, and in the March 2014 BO, NMFS
Page 15 of 114 determined that the expansion of the ODMDS “was interrelated to and interdependent with the Port Everglades expansion project, therefore it will be included in this Biological Opinion” (pg. 13/178, NMFS 2014c). NMFS also determined that the transportation of dredged material to the expanded Port Everglades ODMDS was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Johnson’s seagrass or staghorn corals and was not likely to destroy designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals (pg. 4/178, NMFS 2014c). Additionally, NMFS determined that potential effects to sperm whales (pg. 24/178), smalltooth sawfish (pg. 17/178, NMFS 2014c) and sea turtles (pg. 20/178, NMFS 2014c) associated with dredged material placement in the expanded ODMDS are discountable. Lastly, NMFS’ reviewed the effects of dredged material placement in the expanded ODMDS on proposed coral species and proposed critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle and found that placement would neither jeopardize the proposed corals species, nor adversely modify or destroy proposed loggerhead critical habitat (pg 5/178, NMFS 2014c).
Potential barge environmental effects could occur as the barge is loaded if material is allowed to spill over the sides and during transport if the barge leaks material. Operational controls eliminate spilling material during loading by monitoring the dredge operator to make sure that the dredge bucket swings completely over the barge prior to opening the bucket. Requiring barges in good repair with new seals minimizes leaking during transport. Hauling rock is often damaging to transport barges, so intermediate inspection and repairs may be required during the project to maintain the barges in good working condition. Seals may require replacement.
The Corps agrees with these determinations and incorporates them by reference. Evaluation of the effects of transport to the ODMDS on newly listed corals (Orbicella faveolata; Orbicella annualaris; Orbicella franskii; Dendrogyra cylindrus and Mycetophyllia ferox), Nassau Grouper, scalloped hammerhead and giant manta ray are evaluated later in this document.
Transportation Methodology – Hopper Dredges, Tugs/Scows, and Barges Hopper/scow locations are monitored at all times via the Dredging Quality Management (DQM) system and the contractor can be penalized for violating the specifications. The ullage (loaded draft) of each scow is recorded approximately every 30‐seconds to determine if there is any loss of material from the scow during transit. These data are reviewed after each load by the contractor and the Corps if a scow has a net loss of an agreed upon level of draft stated in the project SMMP between the dredge site and disposal site(s) (averaged between the bow and stern monitoring locations). This serves as a “red flag” to conduct an investigation as to why the draft loss occurred. If the draft loss can be determined due to high seas and sloshing of material, no other action is required. However, if the loss is not as a result of high seas and sloshing, the scow is temporarily removed from the rotation and has the seals tested and repaired (as necessary). If a particular scow demonstrates a trend of material loss that does not resolve itself after seal testing and repair, the scow is removed from the dredging operation. The trigger level for Port Everglades has not been set as of the development of this document and will be included as a condition in EPA’s Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Port Everglades ODMDS. Different projects have used different values. Savannah Harbor currently has a 1.5 ft. loss trigger and Jacksonville Harbor has a 2.0 ft. loss trigger.
Hopper dredges will load material from within the boundaries of the channels, as they are self‐ propelled, ocean‐going vessels and can move to allow for safe passage of other vessels during operation. Because scows are not self‐propelled, they will be loaded with dredged material in
Page 16 of 114 designated loading areas as close to the dredging areas as possible, without hindering safe navigation through the channel. After navigating to the channel from the designated loading area(s), the Corps will require that all vessels containing dredged material (scows and hopper dredges) transiting to the ODMDS remain in the marked channel until passing the outer buoy to prevent any accidental release of material from the scow/hopper that might settle on adjacent reef habitats, consistent with the Corps’ standard environmental protection specifications1 for dredging operations occurring in or near reef habitats on the SE coast of Florida.
Split Hull Barge A split hull barge (Figure 11) has two hulls connected with hinges at the front and back. The two‐door hinged configuration, allows the hulls to swing apart, opening at the bottom to allow dredged material to fall from the barge. This provides a rapid disposal of dredged material, which, as a result, is placed within a small area. The rapid descent of material through the water column reduces the potential for resuspension of sediments into the water column during disposal. Such a barge may be used for ODMDS disposal. A rubber seal (similar to a gasket or weather‐stripping on a door), is pinched between the two doors, limiting the leakage from the barge of water and dredged material. This seal does not prevent 100% of water and dredged material from leaking as no scow is 100% watertight (EPA 1994); however, it minimizes it to the maximum extent practicable. The ratio of water to dredged material is an important indicator of the potential for scow leakage, as scows are designed to prevent dredged material from leaking, not water. If dredging is conducted with a mechanical dredge, the ratio to dredged material to water is approximately 10‐20% water to 80‐90% dredged material. However, if a cutterhead dredge is used, the ratio of dredged material to water is inverse (80‐90% water to 10‐20% dredged material), if the scow is loaded without overflowing excess water to allow for more dredged material to be added to the scow. This means that if overflow of scows is not authorized, the potential for leakage from the scow is increased. The volume of dredged material lost in association with leaking scows loaded with 80‐90% water is expected to be minimal.
1Due to the presence of hardbottom reefs adjacent to the channel, the Contractor shall stay within the marked entrance channel while in transit from the dredging area to the ODMDS, and on the return trip, until past the last channel marker. USACE Jacksonville Master Specifications – Section 01 57 20. Protection of Hardbottoms
Page 17 of 114
Figure 11 ‐ Split‐hull barge
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION METHODS: Vertical bulkheads are constructed of vinyl, metal sheet pile, wood, or pre‐fabricated concrete slabs. For the PENIP, vertical bulkhead installation can occur either by (1) using land‐based equipment to trench, grade, or shape the shoreline (i.e., dredge the area) and set the seawall pieces in place, or (2) using barge‐mounted equipment to place, jet, or hammer the materials into position. The bulkhead may be supported by installing batter or king piles by vibratory or impact hammer and/or deadmen/soil anchors that hook underground behind the seawall stabilizing them to the uplands. If the bulkheads are being driven into rock, pre‐treatment may be required (confined underwater blasting or hydrohammer), depending on the hardness of the rock. In addition to the vertical bulkheads, the top of the bulkheads will be capped with rip rap, similar to what is currently in the area to protect the shoreline from erosion from commercial and recreational vessel movements in the South Access Channel (SAC) (Figure 12). In addition to the rip rap will allow for flushing of water into the adjacent mangroves. Due to mangroves in the project area, work is planned to be completed from the water by barge‐mounted equipment.
Page 18 of 114
Figure 12 ‐ Existing Rip Rap at MJ Park on the SAC
The project requires the installation of approximately 6,500 linear feet of on the east side of the SAC (the IWW side of the MJ Park) and approximately 1,000 linear feet of the west side of the SAC. Construction method of the EFB has not been determined to date as it is dependent upon rock hardness and contractor equipment. For the purposes of this analysis the worst case of rock pre‐treatment and impact hammer installation is assumed.
ROCK PRE‐TREATMENT METHODS The rock within the dredge template does exhibit massive bedding (exceeding 3 feet in thickness) and very hard, well cemented zones in locations throughout the harbor. Contractors conducting work in the project area have reported Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) values as high as 16,000 psi for rock within the Main Turning Basin (MTB). Thick, massively bedded, high strength rock typically requires pre‐treatment prior to dredging. Blasting is often used as a rock pre‐treatment method due to its proven effectiveness in dredging projects. Given the hardness and strength of the rock in the project area, as well as the historical use of a punch barge and blasting to pre‐treat rock at PEV during previous dredging events, blasting or some other type of rock pre‐treatment will be required for the deepening project. Based on historical dredging events and the most recent site specific data, the project areas with the hardest and most massive rock include the following: the OEC; Inner Entrance Channel (IEC); the MTB; the Widener; and the northern portion of the SAC. The location and extent of rock areas requiring pre‐treatment will depend to a large degree on the type of equipment used to conduct the dredging operation (i.e. mechanical, hydraulic cutterhead). The selected contractor makes the determination of the type of equipment used to conduct the dredging, which in turn determines the areas that require blasting. Confined Underwater Blasting Previous information has been provided to NMFS regarding the use of confined underwater blasting at Port Everglades during ESA consultation for Port Everglades. This information has been incorporated by reference and will not be repeated in this document. Previous BAs are included in Appendix A of this BA.
Duration of Confined Underwater Blasting During Construction The duration of the blasting (pre‐treatment) is dependent upon a number of factors including hardness of rock, how close the drill holes are placed, and the type of equipment that will be used to remove the pretreated rock. For comparison, the Miami Harbor Phase II Project in
Page 19 of 114
2005‐2006 estimated between 200‐250 days of blasting with one‐shot per day (a blast‐day) to pre‐treat the rock associated with that project. However, the contractor completed the project in 38 days with 40 blasts. The Corps has prepared a detailed assessment of the rock hardness at PEV to determine how much confined underwater blasting may be required to pre‐treat rock associated with the PENIP. The Corps estimates that up to 400 blasting events may be required throughout the five‐year project timeline. This is a rough estimate due to the dependency of the blasting requirements on the type of equipment used in the construction dredging project. Larger hydraulic cutterhead dredgers will generally require less pre‐treatment (blasting) in comparison to mechanical dredging equipment, such as excavators. The time needed to complete the blast events will be left to the contractor based on the needs of the project and the applicable vibration and acoustic allowances of federal, state, and local regulations, whichever is most stringent. It is assumed that blasting events could be required over the entire length of the project (5 years or the total anticipated length of the project). It is estimated that 60 drill holes/individual charges per blasting pattern will likely be the maximum number of charges per blasting pattern, with an estimated maximum charge weight per delay 150 pounds of explosive. This will depend on the results of the test blasting program and the peak particle velocity required to limit vibration to acceptable tolerances.
Minimization of Confined Blasting Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Large Whale Monitoring If blasting is required on the outer reef, the Corps proposes to use aerial and passive acoustic surveys to determine if there are large whales within a 1‐nautical mile (nm) radius of the project area. In the BO for the shock trial of the USS Winston Churchill (DDG‐81) (NMFS 2000b), NMFS required the US Navy to establish a zone of 3 nm for acoustic monitoring and 2 nm for aerial monitoring for three 10,000 lb. open water unconfined explosions. Blasting for the channel extension will utilize confined blasts drilled into the substrate, and as a result the Corps believes that any acoustic or pressure effects to the project area will be substantially less than those evaluated by NMFS in setting the safety zones for the Churchill tests. The Corps will obtain the appropriate Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization for the use of blasting within PENIP.
Fish Kill Monitoring In addition to monitoring for protected marine mammals, smalltooth sawfish and marine reptiles in the area during blasting operations, the Corps will work with the resource agencies to develop a monitoring plan for fish kills associated with each blasting event. This effort may be similar to the effort that was developed by FWC in association with the Port of Miami Phase II Project. This effort will be included in the plans and specifications for the project, and may include collection, enumeration and identification of dead and injured fish floating on the surface after each blast. In addition, blast data will be collected from the daily blasting reports provided after each shot by the blasting contractor, in addition to environmental data such as tidal currents (ebb/flood/slack). Due to health and safety restrictions, all collections will be made from the surface only. No diving to recover fish carcasses is authorized.
Coordination As part of the development of the protected species protection and observation protocols, which will be incorporated into the plans and specifications for PENIP, the Corps will continue to coordinate with the resource agencies through the IWG and the interested public to address concerns and potential impacts associated with the use of confined underwater blasting as a construction technique.
Page 20 of 114
Conclusion The Corps has concluded that confined underwater blasting is the least environmentally impactful method for pre‐treatment of hard, consolidated rock in the PEV. Each blast will last no longer than 15 seconds in duration, and may even be as short as two seconds. Additionally, the blasts are confined in the rock substrate with stemming material. Because the blasts are confined within the rock structure, the distance of the blast effects are reduced significantly as compared to an unconfined blast (Nedwell and Thandavamoorthy 1992; Hempen et al. 2005; Hempen et al. 2007).
HYDROHAMMER/HYDRAULIC BREAKERS Hydrohammers are hydraulic hammers that are also referred to as hydraulic breakers (HBs) and can be used to pre‐treat rock prior to dredging. These devices are commonly used throughout construction projects, including underwater projects (Figure 13). HBs come in a variety of sizes, and some have been monitored for sound pressure levels. For the Atlas Copco HPs, the reported sound pressure levels range from 88 dB to 123 dB. For IHC’s HP, reported sound exposure levels are below 160 dB sound exposure level and 190 dB sound pressure level.
Figure 13 ‐ Hydraulic Breaker being used underwater
ROCK CHOPPING/SIDECAST WITHOUT SUCTION Operating the cutterhead without suction of the dredged material is referred to as “rock chopping” and has been performed as a rock pre‐treatment technique in Australia and at the PortMiami (Kemps and Manini 2017). The Corps worked closely with the IWG to determine methods that may help to eliminate or reduce potential adverse effects within PEV as a result of PENIP. One such minimization measure was to not allow rock chopping within the PENIP and therefore, this method of rock pre‐treatment is not authorized for the PENIP.
Page 21 of 114
PROTECTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNDER NMFS JURISDICTION INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT AREA Table 4 lists endangered (E), threatened (T), and Proposed Endangered (PE) species under the jurisdiction of NMFS that may occur or have the potential to occur in or near the project area:
Table 4 ‐ Listed Species and Critical Habitat under NMFS Jurisdiction in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Marine Mammals Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera brydei PE Sea Turtles Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Green sea turtle (south Atlantic Chelonia mydas T Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Fish Nassau Grouper Epinephelus striatus T Scalloped Hammerhead (central Sphyrna lewini T and southwest Atlantic DPS) Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E Giant Manta Ray Manta birostris/ M.alfredi T Invertebrates Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata T Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis T Pillar coral Dendrogyra cylindrus T Lobed star coral Orbicella annularis T Mountainous star coral Orbicella faveolata T Boulder star coral Orbicella franksi T Rough cactus coral Mycetophyllia ferox T Plants Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii T
DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENTS The ESA defines a species as "any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." The ESA specifically limits a species to a population of a vertebrate fish or wildlife. A distinct population segment (DPS) is the smallest division of a taxonomic species permitted to be protected under the ESA. Three elements are considered in a decision regarding the status of a possible DPS as endangered or threatened under the ESA. These are applied similarly for addition to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, reclassification, and removal from the lists:
1. Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs;
Page 22 of 114
2. The significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and
3. The population segment’s conservation status in relation to the ESA’s standards for listing (i.e., is the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, endangered or threatened?).
In their final rulemaking for DPS [61 FR 4722, Feb 7, 1996], NMFS and USFWS (Services) address the following comment, "The authority to address DPS’ should be extended to plant and invertebrate species." And the response offered states, "The Services recognize the inconsistency of allowing only vertebrate species to be addressed at the level of DPS, and the findings of the NRC committee also noted that such recognition would be appropriate for other species. Nevertheless, the Act is perfectly clear and unambiguous in limiting this authority. This policy acknowledges the specific limitations imposed by the Act on the definition of “species.”
CRITICAL HABITAT ESA‐designated critical habitat (DCH) for elkhorn and staghorn coral and loggerhead sea turtles occurs within the action area.
SPECIES UNLIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT Species unlikely to be affected by the project include the four listed and one candidate whale species (Blue, Fin, Sei, Sperm and Bryde’s), leatherback sea turtle, giant manta ray, scalloped hammerhead shark, and Nassau grouper, due to their offshore location and/or their mobility; and the project limitations within the confines of the PEV navigation channels. Effects to these species are so unlikely to occur as to be discountable. Therefore, the species discussed within this section will not be discussed further in this assessment.
NMFS has previously determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect sperm whales, smalltooth sawfish and leatherback sea turtles (NMFS 2014c). NMFS did not include construction of the environmentally friendly bulkheads in their analysis for the smalltooth sawfish which may include impacts associated with driving sheet pile. This assessment includes an effects analysis of that activity on smalltooth sawfish.
Page 23 of 114
SPECIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT Loggerhead Sea Turtle ‐ Caretta caretta (Figure 14)
Figure 14 ‐ Loggerhead sea turtle (http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/animals/loggerhead‐sea‐ turtle/#loggerhead‐sea‐turtle‐swimming‐underwater.jpg; accessed 7/13/2017)
Life History Summary The loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, was listed as a threatened species throughout its global range on July 28, 1978. It was listed because of direct take, incidental capture in various fisheries, and the alteration and destruction of its habitat. C. caretta inhabit the continental shelves and estuarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the Atlantic, developmental habitat for small juveniles is the pelagic waters of the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea (NMFS and USFWS, 1991a). Within the continental U.S., C. caretta nest from Texas to New Jersey. Major nesting areas include coastal islands of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of Florida, with the bulk of the nesting occurring on the Atlantic coast of Florida.
On November 16, 2007, the NMFS received a petition from Ocean and the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that C. caretta in the western North Atlantic Ocean be reclassified as a DPS with endangered status and that critical habitat be designated. On March 08, 2008, the NMFS position finding was published in the Federal Register indicating that a re‐classification of C. caretta in the western North Atlantic Ocean as a DPS and listing of the DPS as endangered may be warranted (73 FR 11849).
The Services completed a joint review of the species status, resulting in an updated Status Review in November 2009 (Conant et al. 2009). The status review included a discussion of the species physical appearance, taxonomy, distribution and habitat. It also included an assessment of the population status of the species, determined that there are nine separate DPSs of C. caretta globally. They assessed the risk of extinction of each DPS and determined that based on the threats to the DPS, its likelihood that each DPS would reach critical risk threshold for extinction within 100 years. Six critical assessment elements were considered and quantified in this assessment: (1) abundance; (2) population growth rate or productivity; (3) spatial structure; (4) diversity / resilience; (5) threats; and (6) conservation efforts. The results of the Services analysis are incorporated by reference and not repeated in this assessment.
Page 24 of 114
A proposed rule to divide C. caretta into nine DPS was published in 2010 (75 FR 12598). A September 2011 Final Rule, uplisted five DPS of C. caretta from threatened to endangered. The western North Atlantic DPS was not uplisted, and remains as threatened under the ESA (76 FR 58868).
The Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (NMFS and FWS 2008) recognized five recovery units (subpopulations) of C. caretta within the Northwest Atlantic:
1. Northern Recovery Unit (southern VA through FL/GA border) 2. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU) (FL/GA border through Pinellas County, FL) 3. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (islands located west of Key West, FL) 4. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (Franklin County, FL, through TX) 5. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (Mexico through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles) which includes Puerto Rico.
In the 2008 Recovery Plan for C. caretta, the Services state: The Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit is the largest loggerhead nesting assemblage in the Northwest Atlantic. A near‐complete nest census of the PFRU undertaken from 1989 to 2007 (2008 statewide data were not available prior to completion of this recovery plan) reveals a mean of 64,513 loggerhead nests per year representing approximately 15,735 females nesting per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (Table 6(c); FFWCC, unpublished data). This near‐complete census provides the best statewide estimate of total abundance, but because of variable survey effort, these numbers cannot be used to assess trends.
The PFRU is part of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS, however, as part of the 2009 status review, the Services included a population status for this recovery unit, as well as an analysis of the population to quasi‐extinction. The entire DPS was maintained as a threatened species, with the greatest threats resulting from fishery bycatch in neritic and oceanic habitats (Conant et al. 2009).
As previously noted in the 2002 BA and 2015 FEIS, C. caretta have been documented within the boundaries of PEV based on the recovery of stranded turtle carcasses. From 2013‐2015, there were 8 C. caretta found stranded in the project area (Dr. Allen Foley, FWC, June 2018 pers comm).
Critical Habitat In water critical habitat has been designated by the NMFS for C. caretta in the project area (Figure 15).
LOGG–N–19 ‐ Southern Florida ‐ Constricted Migratory Corridor; Southern Florida Concentrated Breeding Area; and Six Nearshore Reproductive Areas: Martin County/Palm Beach County line to Hillsboro Inlet, Palm Beach and Broward Counties, Florida; Long Key, Bahia Honda Key, Woman Key, Boca Grande Key, and Marquesas Keys, Monroe County, Florida— This unit contains nearshore reproductive habitat, constricted migratory habitat, and breeding habitat. The unit contains the southern Florida constricted migratory corridor habitat, overlapping southern Florida breeding
Page 25 of 114
habitat, and overlapping nearshore reproductive habitat. The southern portion of the Florida concentrated breeding area and the southern Florida constricted migratory corridor are both located in the nearshore waters starting at the Martin County/Palm Beach County line to the westernmost edge of the Marquesas Keys (82.17° W. long.), with the exception of the waters under the jurisdiction of NAS Key West. The seaward border then follows the 200 m depth contour to the westernmost edge at the Marquesas Keys. The overlapping nearshore reproductive habitat includes nearshore waters starting at the Martin County/Palm Beach County line to Hillsboro Inlet (crossing Jupiter, Lake Worth, Boyton, and Boca Raton Inlets) from the MHW line seaward 1.6 km; Long Key, which is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Florida Bay, and on the north and south by natural channels between Keys (Fiesta Key to the north and Conch Key to the south), and has boundaries following the borders of the island from the MHW line seaward to 1.6 km; Bahia Honda Key, from the MHW line seaward 1.6 km; 4) Woman Key, from the MHW line and seaward to 1.6 km; 5) Boca Grande Key, from the MHW line seaward to 1.6 km; 6) the Marquesas Keys unit boundary, including nearshore areas from the MHW line seaward to 1.6 km from four islands where loggerhead sea turtle nesting has been documented within the Marquesas Keys: Marquesas Key, Unnamed Key 1, Unnamed Key 2, and Unnamed Key 3.
Figure 15 ‐ Final Critical Habitat Designation Loggerhead (July 10, 2014)
Page 26 of 114
Hawksbill Sea Turtle ‐ Eretmochelys imbricata (Figure 16)
Figure 16 – Hawksbill sea turtle (https://haydensanimalfacts.com/2016/06/27/5‐interesting‐facts‐about‐ hawksbill‐turtles/; accessed 7/13/2017)
Life History Summary The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, was listed as endangered under the precursor of the ESA on June 2, 1970 and remains endangered under the current Act. E. imbricata is a medium‐sized sea turtle, with adults in the Caribbean ranging in size from approximately 62.5 to 94.0 cm straight carapace length. The species occurs in all ocean basins, although it is relatively rare in the Eastern Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, and absent from the Mediterranean Sea. E. imbricata are the most tropical of the marine turtles, ranging from approximately 30ºN to 30ºS latitude. They are closely associated with coral reefs and other hard‐bottom habitats, but they are also found in other habitats including inlets, bays and coastal lagoons (NMFS and USFWS, 1993). There are five regional nesting populations with more than 1,000 females nesting annually. These populations are in the Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia (Meylan and Donnelly, 1999). There has been a global population decline of over 80 percent during the last three generations (105 years) (Meylan and Donnelly, 1999). Juvenile sea turtles live in coral reef and seagrass habitats and remain there until they reach sexual maturity (Limpus, 1990; Frazer et al., 1994).
The Services completed a joint review of the species status in June 2013, (NMFS and USFWS 2013). The status review included a discussion of the species biology, physical appearance, taxonomy, distribution and habitat. The results of that review are incorporated by reference and not repeated in this assessment.
Estimates of the annual number of nests at E. imbricata nesting sites are of the order of hundreds to a few thousand. Nesting within the southeastern United States and U.S. Caribbean is restricted to Puerto Rico (>650 nests/year), the USVI (~400 nests/year), and, rarely, Florida (0‐ 4 nests/year) (Meylan, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Florida Marine Research Institute’s Statewide Nesting Beach Survey data 2002).
The main threats to E. imbricata include habitat loss, habitat degradation, fishery interactions, and poaching in some parts of their range. There continues to be a black market for E. imbricata shell products (“tortoiseshell”), which likely contributes to the harvest of this species.
As previously noted in the 2002 BA and 2015 FEIS, E. imbricata have been documented within the boundaries of PEV based on the recovery of stranded turtle carcasses. From 2013‐2015, there were four hawksbills found stranded in the project area (Dr. Allen Foley, FWC, June 2018 pers comm).
Page 27 of 114
Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated by the NMFS for E. imbricata in the project area.
Green Sea Turtle ‐ Chelonia mydas (Figure 17)
Figure 17 ‐ Green sea turtle (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/images/turtles/green_bruckner_hires_noaa.jpg; accessed 7/13/2017)
Life History Summary The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, was listed under the ESA on July 28, 1978. Breeding populations of the C. mydas in Florida and along the Pacific Coast of Mexico were listed as endangered; all other populations were listed as threatened. The nesting range of C. mydas in the southeastern U.S. includes sandy beaches of mainland shores, barrier islands, coral islands, and volcanic islands between Texas and North Carolina, the USVI and Puerto Rico (NMFS and USFWS, 1991b). Principal U.S. nesting areas for C. mydas are in eastern Florida, predominantly Brevard through Broward counties (Ehrhart and Witherington, 1992).
NMFS completed a status review of C. mydas under the ESA in March 2015 (Seminoff et al. 2015). The status review included a discussion of the species physical appearance, taxonomy, distribution and habitat. The review included an assessment of the population status of the species, determined that there are 11 separate DPSs of C. mydas globally. They assessed the risk of extinction of each DPS and determined that based on the threats to the DPS, its likelihood that each DPS would reach critical risk threshold for extinction within 100 years. Six critical assessment elements were considered by NMFS and quantified in their assessment: (1) abundance; (2) population growth rate or productivity; (3) spatial structure; (4) diversity / resilience; (5) threats; and (6) conservation efforts.
In March 2015, the Services proposed to list 11 DPSs of C. mydas as either endangered or threatened under the ESA (80 FR 15271). In April 2016, they finalized the listing of the 11 DPSs, eight as threatened and three as endangered (81 FR 20058). C. mydas found in the project area are part of the North Atlantic DPS and are classified as threatened under the ESA. The review conducted by Seminoff et al. (2015) for the North Atlantic DPS is incorporated by reference and will not be repeated in this assessment.
As previously noted in the 2002 BA and 2015 FEIS, C. mydas have been documented within the boundaries of PEV based on the recovery of stranded turtle carcasses. From 2013‐2015, there were a 15 C. mydas found in the project area (Dr. Allen Foley, FWC, June 2018 pers comm).
Page 28 of 114
Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated by the NMFS for C. mydas in the project area.
Smalltooth Sawfish Life History Summary The smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata, is currently listed as endangered by NMFS. This species has become rare along the southeastern Atlantic and northern Gulf of Mexico coasts of the U.S. during the past 30 years, and its known primary range is now reduced to the coastal waters of Everglades National Park in extreme southern Florida. Fishing and habitat degradation have extirpated P. pectinata from much of this former range.
P. pectinata is distributed in tropical and subtropical waters worldwide. It normally inhabits shallow waters (33 feet/ 10 meters or less), often near river mouths or in estuarine lagoons over sandy or muddy substrates, but may also occur in deeper waters (66 feet/20 meters) of the continental shelf. Shallow water less than 3.3 feet (1 meter) deep is an important nursery area for young P. pectinata and maintenance and protection of these habitat is an important component of the Recovery Plan for Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) (NMFS 2009a). Recent studies indicate that key habitat features (particularly for immature individuals) nominally consist of shallow water, proximity to mangroves, and estuarine conditions. P. pectinata grow slowly and mature at about 10 years of age. Females bear live young, and the litters reportedly range from 15 to 20 embryos requiring a year of gestation. Their diet consists of macroinvertebrates and fishes such as herrings and mullets. The saw is reportedly used to rake surficial sediments in search of crustaceans and benthic fishes or to slash through schools of herrings and mullets (NMFS 2009a).
As previously noted in the 2002 BA and 2015 FEIS, P. pectinata have been documented within the boundaries of PEV (Figure 18).
Figure 18 ‐ P. pectinata in Port Everglades IEC ‐ Dr. Pat Quinn – March 13, 2014 – Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department
Page 29 of 114
Critical Habitat Although NMFS designated critical habitat for P. pectinata in 2009, there is no designated critical habitat in any of the project area (either dredging or placement areas).
Corals Since the ESA defines a DPS of any species as a vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature, DPS does not apply to invertebrate species. As corals are invertebrates, per the final rule on DPS, coral status must be assessed throughout the entirety of the species’ range. In addition, in accordance with the ESA, this information must be the basis on which a jeopardy determination is made.
All of the seven currently listed corals (as of 2014) are found in the Caribbean and have the potential to be found on hardbottom habitats near and surrounding the entrance to PEV, as all seven have been documented on reef habitats throughout southeast Florida. A significant review of the life history for all seven species is included in the 2012 NMFS status review for the proposed species and is cited as “Brainard, et al. 2011” and is incorporated by reference.
There have been numerous ESA coral species surveys conducted in waters surrounding the PEV OEC beginning as early as 2008. All of these surveys were reviewed and information from them used to determine the potential densities of listed corals within the project area.
Staghorn and Elkhorn Corals Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) corals were listed as threatened under the ESA on May 9, 2006, (71 FR 26852), based on a status review completed by NMFS in March 2005 (70 FR13151). NMFS published a “4D” rule for these Acropora spp. on October 29, 2008 (73 FR 64264) providing a list of activities that would result in “take” as defined by the ESA. NMFS completed a recovery plan for the species in March 2015.
Staghorn coral ‐ Acropora cervicornis (Figure 19)
Figure 19 ‐ Final Report for the 30‐Day Post‐Relocation Monitoring Survey for Acropora cervicornis Associated with the PortMiami Construction Dredging (Phase 3) Project; Figure 4
Page 30 of 114
Life History Summary A review of the range‐wide status of A. cervicornis is included in the Atlantic Acropora Status Review (ABRT 2005) and is incorporated here by reference.
In the proposed rule for the new corals, NMFS also proposed to uplist A. cervicornis from threatened to endangered (NMFS 2012). However, in the final rule (NMFS 2014a), NMFS chose not to uplist this species to endangered status based on the species “spatial and demographic traits to moderate or exacerbate its vulnerability to extinction.” Specifically:
Acropora cervicornis is distributed throughout the Caribbean, in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico, and in the western Atlantic. – 79 FR 53958
Although localized mortality events have continued to occur, percent benthic cover and proportion of reefs where A. cervicornis is dominant have remained stable over its range since the mid‐1980s. – 79 FR 53964
Its absolute population abundance has been estimated as at least tens of millions of colonies in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas combined and is higher than the estimate from these two locations due to the occurrence of the species in many other areas throughout its range… Its abundance and life history characteristics, combined with spatial variability in ocean warming and acidification across the species’ range, moderate vulnerability to extinction because the threats are non‐uniform, and there will likely be a large number of colonies that are either not exposed or do not negatively respond to a threat at any given point in time. – 79 FR 53965
There is no evidence of range constriction, though loss of Acropora cervicornis at the reef level has occurred (Acropora Biological Review Team, 2005). – 79 FR 53958
Veron (2014) confirms the presence of Acropora cervicornis in seven out of a potential 11 ecoregions in the western Atlantic and greater Caribbean that are known to contain corals. The four ecoregions in which it is not found are the Flower Garden Banks and off the coasts of Bermuda, Brazil, and the southeast U.S. north of south Florida. – 79 FR 53958
Miller et al. (2013) extrapolated population abundance of Acropora cervicornis in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas from stratified random samples across habitat types. Population estimates of Acropora cervicornis in the Florida Keys were 10.2 ± 4.6 (SE) million colonies in 2005, 6.9 ± 2.4 (SE) million colonies in 2007, and 10.0 ± 3.1 (SE) million colonies in 2012. In the Dry Tortugas population estimates were 0.4 ± 0.4 (SE) million colonies in 2006 and 3.5 ± 2.9 (SE) million colonies in 2008, though the authors note their sampling scheme in the Dry Tortugas was not optimized for Acropora cervicornis. ‐ 79 FR 53959
Supplemental information we found on Acropora cervicornis abundance and population trends includes the following. Acropora cervicornis was observed in 21 out of 301 stations between 2011 and 2013 in stratified random surveys designed to detect Acropora colonies along the south, southeast, southwest, and west coasts of Puerto Rico, and it was observed at an additional 16 sites outside of the surveyed area (Garcia Sais et al., 2013). ‐ 79 FR 53959
New information we found on population trends includes the following. A report on the status and trends of Caribbean corals over the last century indicates that cover of Acropora cervicornis has remained relatively stable (though much reduced) throughout the region since the large mortality events of the 1970s and 1980s. The frequency of reefs at which Acropora cervicornis was described as the dominant coral has remained stable. ‐ 79 FR 53959
Page 31 of 114
We summarize all sources of information on Acropora cervicornis abundance and population trends as follows. Based on population estimates, there are at least tens of millions of colonies present in the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas combined. Absolute abundance is higher than the estimate from these two locations given the presence of this species in many other locations throughout its range. The effective population size is smaller than indicated by abundance estimates due to the tendency for asexual reproduction. There is no evidence of range constriction or extirpation at the island level. ‐ 79 FR 53960
Elkhorn coral ‐ Acropara palmata (Figure 20)
Figure 20 ‐ Acropora palmata at Isla Verde Marine Reserve. 2016 Annual Report
Life History Summary A review of the range‐wide status of Acropora palmata is included in the “Atlantic Acropora Status Review (ABRT 2005) and is incorporated here by reference.
In the proposed rule for the new corals, NMFS also proposed to uplist A. palmata from threatened to endangered (NMFS 2012). However, in the final rule (NMFS 2014a), NMFS chose not to uplist this species to endangered status based on the species’ “spatial and demographic traits to moderate or exacerbate its vulnerability to extinction…” and recent abundance and population estimates. Specifically:
Acropora palmata is distributed throughout the western Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. The northern extent of the range in the Atlantic is Broward County, Florida where it is relatively rare (only a few known colonies), but fossil A. palmata reef framework extends into Palm Beach County, Florida. There are two known colonies of A. palmata, which were discovered only recently in 2003 and 2005, at the Flower Garden Banks, located 161 km off the coast of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico (Zimmer et al., 2006). – 79 FR 53966
There is no evidence of overall range constriction from the mass mortalities, but local extirpations are likely (Jackson et al., 2014), resulting in a reduction of absolute range size. – 79 FR 53966
Veron (2014) confirms the occurrence of A. palmata in eight of a potential 11 ecoregions in the western Atlantic and wider‐Caribbean that are known to contain corals. The three ecoregions in which A. palmata is not found are off the coasts of Bermuda, Brazil, and the southeast U.S. north of south Florida. – 79 FR 53966
Extrapolated population estimates of A. palmata from stratified random samples across habitat types in the Florida Keys were 0.6 ± 0.5 million (SE) colonies in 2005, 1.0 ± 0.3 million (SE) colonies
Page 32 of 114
in 2007, and 0.5 ± 0.3 million colonies in 2012. Because these population estimates are based on random sampling, differences between years may be a function of sampling effort rather than an indication of population trends. – 79 FR 53967
Critical Habitat On November 26, 2008, NMFS published a final rule in the Federal Register (73 FR 72210) to designate critical habitat for staghorn and elkhorn corals. Four specific areas were designated, including: the Florida unit (approximately 1,329 square miles of marine habitat); the Puerto Rico unit (approximately 1,383 square miles of marine habitat) (Figure 21); the St. John/St. Thomas unit (approximately 121 square miles of marine habitat); and the St. Croix unit (approximately 126 square miles of marine habitat).
Designated critical habitat (DCH) in the Florida Area includes the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Broward County and covers 1,329 sq miles (3,442 sq km, 850,536.75 acres). Specifically, this area is included in Florida sub‐area A – which begins at the 6‐ft contour on the south side of Boyton Inlet, Palm Beach County out to the 98 ft (30 m) contour, south to the northern edge of Government Cut in Miami‐Dade County (Figure 21). Within these water depths, NMFS has defined ‘‘substrate of suitable quality and availability’’ equivalent to consolidated hardbottom or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy macroalgae cover and sediment cover (NMFS 2008b).
Figure 21 ‐ Florida Area of Designated Critical Habitat for Acropora spp.
Excluded Areas In the final rulemaking for Acropora spp. critical habitat designation (NMFS 2008), NMFS excluded a variety of areas from designation, including manmade structures and federal navigation channels, including the PEV Entrance Channel:
Page 33 of 114
Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), all areas containing existing (already constructed) federally authorized or permitted man‐made structures such as aids‐to‐navigation (ATONs), artificial reefs, boat ramps, docks, pilings, maintained channels, or marinas.
Pursuant to ESA section 3(5)(A)(i), all waters identified as existing (already constructed) federally authorized channels and harbors as follows: (i) Palm Beach Harbor. (ii) Hillsboro Inlet. (iii) Port Everglades. (iv) Miami Harbor. (v) Key West Harbor.
In addition to the channel itself, the PEV federal project consists of two jetties and the foundations of two submerged breakwaters on the north and south side of the channel (Figure 22). Both the jetties and submerged breakwaters are features of the Federally Authorized Navigation Project (U.S. House of Representatives 1930) and are excluded from designated critical habitat.
Under a War Department permit the city of Hollywood, the city of Fort Lauderdale, and other local interests have undertaken the development of a harbor 35 feet deep, including an entrance channel protected by jetties and outer breakwaters, a turning basin surrounded by 10 slips, and a petroleum basin. The work already accomplished is an entrance channel between the ocean and the turning basin, 3.5 feet deep and 210 feet wide, protected by jetties and to a limited extent by the mat foundations for two breakwaters, an entrance basin 18 feet deep, 800 feet wide, and 1,050 feet long, a turning basin 18 feet deep and 1,200 feet by 1,200 feet, of which an area 1,200 feet by 870 feet has been dredged to a minimum depth of 35 feet, and a slip 300 feet wide and 1,200 feet long.
This channel is unprotected by breakwaters, except for such protection as is afforded by the mat foundations, have been built up to an elevation of 10 to 12 feet below mean low water.
The south breakwater foundation covers 51,255.2 m2 (12.67 acres). The north breakwater foundation has merged with dredged material from the 1960s harbor improvement project and cannot be mapped by itself, but to allow for an estimated footprint, the Corps is applying the footprint of the southern breakwater foundation to the north. FWC has excluded both of these areas from their “Unified Reef Habitat” shapefile, and the FDEP classifies both of these area as artificial habitat in their habitat mapping of Broward County (FWC 2008) (Figure 22).
Page 34 of 114
Figure 22‐ Location of Submerged Breakwater Foundations at PEV. FWC Unified Reef Habitat map lower left corner, FDEP Broward County Benthic mapping lower right corner.
This means that the portion of the authorized project that is included in the existing federal navigation project at Port Everglades, including previously constructed submerged breakwater foundations on the north and south of the channel, as well as the channel bottom and channel walls of the OEC, are not DCH for Acropora spp. and will be excluded from impact assessments.
Additionally, the Dania Restricted Anchorage Area (RAA) as described at 33 CFR 334.580 is excluded from the designation:
…beginning at a point located at 26° 05′ 30’’ N, 80 03′ 30’’ W.; proceed west to 26° 05′ 30″ N, 80° 06′ 30″ W; thence, southerly to 26° 03′ 00″ N, longitude 80° 06′ 42″ W; thence, east to latitude 26° 03′ 00″ N, 80° 05′ 44″ W.; thence, south to 26° 01′ 36″ N, 80° 05′ 44″ W.; thence, east to 26° 01′ 36″ N, 80° 03′ 30″ W; thence, north to the point of beginning.
The Dania RAA is located approximately 150m south of the PEV entrance channel south jetty and extends more than three miles offshore, creating an approximately 31 acre strip of DCH on the south side of the PEV OEC (Figure 23).
Page 35 of 114
Figure 23‐ Boundaries of the Dania RAA
Part of the southern breakwater is within the boundaries of the Dania RAA and is excluded from DCH by its inclusion in the Dania RAA. The remainder is within the strip of DCH between the Dania RAA and the PEV OEC. This area measures 7.49 acres in size and will be removed from the calculation of DCH in the project area (Figure 24).
Figure 24 ‐ Designated Critical Habitat Calculation Components
Page 36 of 114
Amount of DCH in the project area. The amount of DCH was determined by using the NMFS’ Acropora spp. critical habitat shapefile available for download from the NMFS’ SERO website (http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/maps_gis_data/protected_resources/critical_habitat/index.html) and adding a shapefile of the Dania RAA (created based on the corner coordinates listed in 33 CFR 334.580 Chapter 2, and the FDEP habitat mapping shapefile for Broward County (https://floridadep.gov/fco/coral/documents/lbsp‐project‐6‐broward‐county‐benthic‐mapping).
These areas were overlaid to calculate the following areas: 1. Area between the Dania RAA and the PEC OEC – 30.67 acres 2. Size of each PEV breakwater – 12.67 acres 3. Area of south breakwater in the DCH between the Dania RAA and PEV OEC – 7.49 acres 4. DCH between Dania RAA and PEV OEC (30.67 acres) minus the southern breakwater within that area (7.49 acres) = 23.18 acres 5. Amount of DCH to the north and east of the channel within the project survey area (1,050m north of the channel to the 90ft contour offshore) (412.92 acres) minus the footprint of the north breakwater (12.67 acres) = 400.25 acres 6. Total DCH in survey area = 23.18+400.25 = 423.43 acres
Pillar coral ‐ Dendrogyra cylindrus (Figure 25)
Figure 25 – Partially bleached Dendrogyra cylindrus, from Brainard et al. 2011.
Life History Summary As stated in Brainard et al. (2011):
Dendrogyra cylindrus “is restricted to the west Atlantic where it is present throughout the greater Caribbean but is one of the Caribbean genera absent from the southwest Gulf of Mexico (Tunnell, 1988). A single known colony in Bermuda is reported to be in poor condition (T. Murdoch, Bermuda Zoological Society, Flatts, pers. comm, May 2010).... U.S. Distribution Dendrogyra cylindrus has been reported in the waters of south Florida and the U.S. Caribbean but appears to be absent from the Flower Garden Banks. Within federally protected U.S. waters, the species has been recorded from the following areas: Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Navassa National Wildlife Refuge Dry Tortugas National Park
Page 37 of 114
Virgin Islands National Park/Monument Biscayne National Park NPS Buck Island National Monument
Dendrogyra cylindrus is reported to be uncommon but conspicuous (Veron 2000) with isolated colonies scattered across a range of habitat types. Colonies are often known as landmarks by local divers. Overall colony density throughout south Florida was estimated to be ~ 0.6 colonies per 10 m2 (Wagner et al. 2010)...
Critical Habitat NMFS has not designated critical habitat for Dendrogyra cylindrus.
Mountainous star coral ‐ Orbicella faveolata (formerly Montastraea); Boulder star coral ‐ Orbicella franksi (formerly Montastraea); Lobed star coral ‐ Orbicella annularis (formerly Montastraea)
Orbicella faveolata Life history summary (Figure 26) As stated in Brainard et al. (2011),
Figure 26 ‐ Montastrea faveolata, from Brainaird et al. 2011
Montastraea faveolata “occurs throughout the Caribbean, including Bahamas, Flower Garden Banks and the entire Caribbean coastline, but there are no records from Bermuda. S. dePutron (Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, St. George’s. pers. comm., May 2010) confirmed the presence of Montastraea faveolata in Bermuda and categorized its abundance as common. T. Murdoch (Bermuda Zoological Society, Flatts. pers. comm., May 2010) also confirmed its occurrence but listed it as rare and added that it has probably suffered a substantial loss from the 1995 yellow‐band outbreak....”
Montastraea faveolata is common throughout the U.S. waters of the west Atlantic and greater Caribbean region and is present within federally protected waters, including: Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Dry Tortugas National Park Virgin Island National Park/Monument Biscayne National Park Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge
Page 38 of 114
Buck Island Reef National Monument
Abundance for this species (as well as franksi and annularis) are lumped together as the three species were previously thought to be one species (Montastrea annularis) and were reported as such (pg 123‐124). Locations for all three species include: Florida; USVI; Curacao; Belize; Columbia; Puerto Rico "The Montastraea annularis complex has historically been a dominant species on Caribbean coral reefs, characterizing the so‐called “buttress zone” and “annularis zone” in the classical descriptions of Caribbean reefs (Goreau, 1959)."
O. faveolata has been documented as being moderately susceptible to the white plague disease that has been documented throughout the Florida reef tract (FRT) since late 2014 with infection rates in excess of 10% (Precht et al. 2016 and FDEP 2018).
Orbicella franski Life history summary) (Figure 27) As stated in Brainard et al. (2011), Orbicella franksi “has been reported as common (Veron, 2000)." Also, see previous discussion for O. faveolata.
Figure 27 ‐ Montastrea franksi, from Brainard et al. 2011
Page 39 of 114
Orbicella annularis Life history summary (Figure 28) As stated in Brainard et al. (2011),
Figure 28 ‐ Montastrea annularis, from Brainard et al. 2011
Montastrea annularis (now Orbicella) "has a range restricted to the west Atlantic. It can be found throughout the Caribbean, Bahamas, and Flower Garden Banks (Veron, 2000, IUCN), but may be absent from Bermuda (Weil and Knowton, 1994). S. dePutron (Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, St. George’s. pers. comm., May 2010) confirmed the presence of Montastraea annularis in Bermuda and categorized its abundance as rare; T. Murdoch (Bermuda Zoological Society, Flatts, pers. comm., May 2010) had not seen this species in Bermuda.
U.S. Distribution Montastraea annularis is common throughout U.S. waters of the west Atlantic and greater Caribbean, including Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, within its range including federally protected waters in the following areas: Flower Garden Bank Sanctuary Dry Tortugas National Park Virgin Island National Park/Monument Biscayne National Park Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Navassa National Wildlife Refute Buck Island Reef National Monument
O. annularis has been documented as being very susceptible to the white plague disease that has been documented throughout the FRT since late 2014 with infection rates in excess of 75% (Precht et al. 2016 and FDEP 2018).
Critical Habitat NMFS has not designated critical habitat for O. faveolata, O. annularis or O. franksi.
Page 40 of 114
Rough cactus coral ‐ Mycetophyllia ferox (Figure 29)
Figure 29 ‐ Mycetophyllia ferox, from Brainard et al. 2011
Life history summary As stated in Brainard et al. (2011):
Mycetophyllia ferox "has been reported to occur throughout most of the Caribbean, including the Bahamas, but it is not present in the Flower Garden Banks or around the waters of Bermuda....The U.S. distribution according to both the IUCN Species Account and the CITES species database, Mycetophyllia ferox occurs throughout the U.S. waters of the western Atlantic but has not been reported from Flower Garden Banks (Hickerson et al., 2008). Within federally protected waters, Mycetophyllia ferox has been recorded from the following areas: Dry Tortugas National Park Virgin Island National Park/Monument Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge Biscayne National Park Buck Island Reef National Monument"
This species is found throughout the Caribbean, usually about 1% of all the coral species found in the papers cited in the document.”
Mycetophyllia spp. has been documented as being susceptible to the white plague disease that has been documented throughout the FRT since late 2014 (FDEP 2018).
Critical Habitat NMFS has not designated critical habitat for Mycetophyllia ferox.
Page 41 of 114
Previous listed coral surveys conducted in the project area Numerous ESA coral specific surveys have been conducted in the waters offshore of Broward County and surrounding PEV. These surveys originally began documenting Acropora spp., as those were the only listed corals near the project area. As new species were proposed, the survey efforts expanded to include the proposed, and subsequently listed coral species. Also studies that characterized the offshore hardbottom/reef habitats and included data providing data regarding listed corals (but not specifically an ESA coral survey) are included here. Below is a summary of those studies.
Benthic and Fish Community Assessment at Port Everglades Harbor Entrance Channel. Final Report (DCA 2009). The survey documented two species of listed corals – Orbicella spp. (as Montastraea annularis prior to it’s reclassification into three new species under the genus Orbicella) on the second and third reef (Figure 30, 49 colonies throughout the sampled area) and M. ferox on the third reef (three colonies throughout the sampled area). Ninety‐six percent of the Orbicella (47 colonies) were less than 25 cm in diameter and M. ferox were less than 3 cm in diameter. Additionally, neither of the two Acropora spp. were documented during field reconnaissance and quantitative surveys in February and March 2006, or within study sites.
Figure 30 ‐ Survey Area for DCA 2009
2007 and 2014 Broward County Sand ByPass ESA Coral Species Surveys As part of the preparation for the Broward County sand bypass project, the County contracted with researchers at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) to survey the direct impact area and a
Page 42 of 114
150m indirect impact area for the presence of listed corals. Only A. cervicornis were observed approximately 300 meters north of the PEV OEC (Figure 31).
Figure 31 ‐ Sand Bypass Study Area and A. cervicornis locations
Acropora survey method development with NMFS in 2008 – specific to Federal Navigation Channels in Critical Habitat In April 2008, the Corps initiated discussions with NMFS regarding development of a survey protocol for Acropora spp. corals that would allow for the survey of very large areas as the NMFS’ Acropora protocol considered a large project area anything larger than 0.25 acres (NMFS 2007b). In addition to safety concerns, federal navigation channels within Acropora critical habitat are generally much larger than 0.25 acres. As outlined in the Recommended Protocol above, diver surveys are not always practical, cost effective, or safe, for assessing PRD leadership agreed that another survey method was needed to survey very large areas. A new survey protocol specific to federal navigation channels surrounded by designated Acropora critical habitat was developed (federal navigation channels were excluded from the final critical habitat designation). The new protocol utilized forward and down‐looking high resolution video integrated with Digital Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) technology with sub‐meter accuracy and resulted in coverage of 40% of the project area, a much higher coverage than the NMFS (2007b) protocol would have provided. The protocol included diver verification of any potential Acropora sightings. Additionally, the video can be used to verify sightings and provide an archival record of the entire project area’s condition at the time of the survey. Following the survey, video records were post‐processed to visually identify any possible Acropora colonies, record their location, and estimate the colony area coverage. Video was visually analyzed by
Page 43 of 114 two independent qualified marine biologists for signatures of Acropora morphological characteristics:
1. Plate (A. palmata) or branching morphology (A. palmata and A. cervicornis) 2. Bouquet appearance – branches radiating from central point (A. cervicornis) 3. White tips or edges on colony
Follow‐up diver surveys were used to confirm the identity of the organism or organisms identified in the video and incorporated the criteria in the NMFS (2007b) survey protocol.
The video surveys were conducted and covered 56 acres of Acropora DCH from the nearshore out to the third reef (Figure 32). A total of 21 suspected Acropora colonies were noted in the video during post‐processing. The location of each suspected colony was recorded (Figure 33) and each site was visited by qualified marine biologists to confirm the identity of suspected Acropora colonies. Divers visited all suspected colony sites on November 21, 2009. However, no A. cervicornis or A. palmata were located associated with the survey ‐ organisms were identified as sponges, octocorals, and/or the fire coral, Millepora alcicornis.
Figure 32 ‐ Towed video footprint for Acropora spp. 2008 Surveys
Page 44 of 114
Figure 33 ‐ Suspected Acropora spp. colony locations determined from 2008 video surveys.
2011 U.S. Navy Protected Stony Coral Species Assessment (NSU 2011) In 2011 the U.S. Navy contracted NSU to survey the 3.2 km2 shallow‐water (<30 m deep) cable conduit area of the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Restricted operations area (OPAREA) (Figure 34), located south of the PEV entrance channel, as part of an ESA consultation for replacement of old cables. The survey was conducted using the NMFS’ Acropora survey protocol (NMFS 2007b) and in addition to the two listed Acroporid corals included six additional proposed coral species (Dichocoenia stokesii and Agaricia lamarki were not listed under the ESA). Some of the main results from this report are given below and in
Page 45 of 114
Table 5:
The project area included eight coral reef habitats found in depths less than 30m (Walker et al. 2008). These habitats included, from nearshore to offshore: colonized pavement‐shallow, ridge‐shallow, inner linear reef, middle linear reef, colonized pavement‐deep, outer linear reef, spur and groove, and aggregated patch reefs. Within these habitats in the project area, 376 sites were sampled (tier 1 sites).
No Acropora palmata colonies were identified during this effort. Acropora cervicornis was identified within 45 of the 376 tier 1 sites. A majority of these sites were within the nearshore habitats (colonized pavement‐shallow, ridge‐shallow, and inner linear reef) in depths less than 10m. Of these 45 sites, 29 had more than five colonies identified and were included in the tier 2 effort.
All seven candidate species were identified at the tier 1 sites within the project area during the effort: Dichocoenia stokesii (344 sites), Montastraea faveolata (291 sites), Agaricia lamarcki (155 sites), Montastraea annularis (85 sites); Montastraea franksi (74 sites), Mycetophyllia ferox (24 sites), and Dendrogyra cylindrus (4 sites). D. stokesii was abundant in all habitats with more than five colonies identified in 228 sites. The middle reef supported the highest abundance of M. faveolata. More than five colonies of M. faveolata were identified in 188 sites, and 11 sites had more than 50 colonies identified. A. lamarki colonies were identified at nearly all of the colonized pavement‐deep, outer reef, spur and groove, and aggregated patch reef; no colonies were identified in the nearshore colonized pavement‐shallow and ridge‐ shallow habitats. Fifty sites had more than five colonies identified, and 29 sites had more than 10 colonies identified.
Fourteen sites supported more than five colonies of M. annularis, and four sites in the middle linear reef habitat had more than 10 colonies identified. M. franksi colonies were identified in all habitats except the ridge shallow habitat; more than five colonies of M. franksi were identified in 15 sites, and the middle linear reef supported the highest abundance of colonies. More than five colonies of D. cylindricus and M. ferox were not identified in any of the 376 tier one sites during the survey. Anchors were counted at 149 of the 376 tier 1 sites. Anchors were observed in all eight habitats. The maximum number of anchors seen at one site was eight, and 65 sites had two or more anchors.
Page 46 of 114
Figure 34 ‐ Figure 1 from Gilliam and Walker (2012) ‐ Survey area (inside the yellow line) within the shallow‐water (<30m deep) cable conduit area of the SFOMF Restricted OPAREA
Page 47 of 114
Table 5 – ESA Coral Species found by Gilliam and Walker (2012) in the US Navy South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF) Restricted OPAREA Species Name Total Number of Colonies A. cervicornis 1,808 O. faveolata 4,030 O. annularis 262 O. franskii 298 M. ferox 26 D. cylindrus 4 A. palmata 0
2011 Broward County Acropora mapping in the nearshore between Port Everglades and Hillsboro Inlet (Gilliam et al. 2012). This project encompassed a large area with an along shore linear distance of 18 km and a survey area more than an estimated 7 million m² (7 km²). Gilliam et al. (2012) documents the patchy distribution of A. cervicornis in the nearshore in Broward County between PEV and Hillsboro Inlets:
Acropora cervicornis was identified within 340 (48%) of the 714 tier 1 sites. Of these 340 sites, 274 (38%) had more than five colonies identified. Sites representing all abundance categories were documented offshore all three cities, all distances from the hardbottom edge, and sections of beach proposed to be nourished and not to be nourished. In general, the proportion of sites with at least one colony and sites with more than five colonies increased with distance from the nearshore hardbottom edge. A. cervicornis was recorded at a greater proportion of sites offshore beach sections proposed to be nourished (218 sites, 60%) than offshore beach sections not to be nourished (128 sites, 35%). The sites offshore beach sections proposed to be nourished also had a greater proportion with more than five colonies (177 sites, 50%) than offshore beach sections not scheduled to be nourished (97 sites, 27%).
The closest documented A. cervicornis colony to the channel was approximately 1,000 feet north of the channel beginning near Florida Range marker R‐83. The PEV OEC is located at R‐85 (Figure 35).
Page 48 of 114
Figure 35 ‐ Figure 2a of Gilliam et al. (2012) documenting Acropora spp. neashore north of Port Everglades
2014 NOVA Southeast University (Walker and Klug 2014) Research scientists at NSU conducted habitat mapping and coral reef community characterization in 2013 and 2014. 172.73km2 of seafloor between Hillsboro Inlet and Key Biscayne were mapped. Approximately 41.34% was sand and 47.07% was reef or hardbottom (colonized pavement) habitat. The effort also delineated 35 dense patches of A. cervicornis “the largest dense patches in the continental United States.” Using aerial photography based area delineations, the seven new patches near previously known patches totaled approximately 46,000m2 and the 28 newly confirmed areas exceeded 110,000m2. Dense A. cervicornis comprised 1% of the mapped hardbottom areas. A. cervicornis was also determined to be the #3 most commonly found species (10.31%) of the 22 species of stony corals found out of the total 4,568 colonies identified.
This study elucidated new data on the extent of the Endangered Species Act threatened coral species, Acropora cervicornis. Only approximately 30% of the discovered dense patches were identified as previously known and the total regional area of A. cervicornis dense patches is now estimated at 156,000 m². The condition of the coral in these patches cannot be surmised from the images. Additionally, the polygons depicted in the habitat map are likely under‐representative of the shape and sizes of these patches due to their fuzzy boundaries.
Figure 36 documents that there were not any large scale A. cervicornis patches documented immediately north of the PEV inlet, consistent with previous surveys conducted in the area since 2008.
Page 49 of 114
Figure 36 ‐Figure 11 from Walker and Klug 2014, showing the distribution of known and potential dense A. cervicornis patches along the northern Florida Reef Tract
Walker and Klug (2014) also included a list of all coral colonies documented while ground‐ truthing their analysis. Three listed coral species were included in their surveys of the 22 species documented, consisting of 510 out of the total 4,568 colonies (Table 6).
Table 6 – ESA Coral Species found by Walker and Klug in Miami‐Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties Species Name Total Number of Colonies A. cervicornis 471 O. faveolata 33 O. annularis 6 O. franskii 0 M. ferox 0 D. cylindrus 0 A. palmata 0
FDEP SECRMP Year 12 final report (Gilliam et al. 2014) and Year 14 Report (Gilliam et al. 2016). Beginning in 2003, the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project (SECREMP) began monitoring of coral reef ecosystems in Florida and nationwide through annual sampling of 22 sites throughout Miami‐Dade Broward, Palm Beach and Martin Counties. The
Page 50 of 114
12th year of monitoring was completed in 2014, and is the last annual report (through 2017) that includes a species list of stony corals documented during the survey. There are seven monitoring locations in Broward County, all located north of the PEV entrance channel (Table 7).
Figure 37 ‐ SECREMP Study Sites in Miami‐Dade and Broward Counties
Table 7 – ESA Coral Species found by Gilliam et al. (2014) in Miami‐Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Martin Counties Species Name Total Number of Colonies A. cervicornis 471 O. faveolata 33 O. annularis 6 O. franskii 0 M. ferox 0 D. cylindrus 0 A. palmata 0
Water Quality and Reef Monitoring Along the Southeast Coast. Final Report (Carsey et al. 2016) NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory conducted water quality and coral reef assessments between 2013 and 2015 at four reef sites in SE Florida. Two of the sites were located in Miami‐Dade County and two in Broward County, one north of the channel (Oakland Ridge) and one south of the channel (Barracuda) (Figure 38). These surveys were not
Page 51 of 114 focused on ESA‐listed corals, but species surveyed were included in the report. Where ESA‐ listed corals were recorded, that data are included here (Table 8).
Figure 38 ‐ Figure 9 from Carsey et al. 2016. Location of the four reef study sites
Table 8 – ESA‐listed Corals noted in Carey et al. 2016 Species Name Total Number of Colonies A. cervicornis 0 O. faveolata 9 O. annularis 0 O. franskii 1 M. ferox 0 D. cylindrus 0 A. palmata 0
Monitoring and Mapping of Dendrogyra cylindrus in the Florida Reef Tract (Lunz et al. 2016) Lunz et al. (2016) conducted a three year survey of D. cylindrus (2013‐2016) of the status of this newly listed coral from Palm Beach County south to the Florida Keys. A number of D. cylindrus colonies were found in Broward County (n=36). During the surveys, a regional disease event was documented resulting in 96% live tissue loss (Figure 39) for the D. cylindrus located in southeast Florida, including those in Broward County:
Dendrogyra cylindrus colonies along the Florida Reef Tract have undergone catastrophic losses. Comparison of photos taken during 2014 ground‐truthing with those from divers in years past show this decline has been ongoing. However, since early 2014, losses have been extremely high;
Page 52 of 114
67% of monitored D. cylindrus tissue has been lost in 2 years. Losses range from 0% in Dry Tortugas to 96% in the SEFL region.
At the initiation of this project in 2014, average percent of live tissue of colonies in the Southeast Florida Region was 84% and decreased to just 3% by April 2016 (Figure 7), resulting in a devastating loss of 96% of the existing live tissue on colonies in the region.
Figure 39 – Figure 7 from Lunz et al. (2016). Percentage live tissue of pillar coral colonies in SEFL
Subsequent to the publication of Lunz et al. (2016), additional monitoring of the D. cylindrus colonies in southeast FL noted a 99.9% live tissue loss (Kabay et al. 2017) and an interorganizational group began a “Pillar Coral Genetic Rescue Effort.”
2017‐2018 Port Everglades Project‐Specific Surveys As part of the Pre‐Construction, Engineering and Design phase of the PENIP project, the IWG met in October 2016 to develop a project specific ESA coral survey protocol, because the only survey protocol available was limited to Acropora spp. (NMFS 2007b). A protocol was developed mapping ESA‐listed corals 1,050m north and 1,020m south of the PEV OEC, and each agency member of the IWG signed off on the final protocol on March 27, 2017. The survey boundaries were based on detailed hydrographic surveys completed before the protocol was developed. The monitoring area for the project extends 1,200m north and south from the PEV OEC. As part of the protocol development, the IWG agreed to use the 2011 survey conducted by NSU for the Navy to cover a majority of the area south of the channel. Where NSU did not survey, survey sites were added (Figure 40). Using the NSU 2011 surveys likely resulted in an over‐estimate of listed corals as it pre‐dates two large bleaching events in 2014 and 2015 as well as the region‐wide disease event that began in 2014.
This survey implemented the project‐specific methodology approved by the IWG in the ESA Listed Coral Species Survey Study Plan at 163 sites between June 26th and September 1, 2017. All 163 surveyed sites are denoted by red crosses within a 100 m (328 ft) x 100 m (328 ft) box (Figure 40). Sites that were previously surveyed by NSU in 2011 were denoted by a small numbered cross.
Page 53 of 114
Figure 40 ‐ 2017 ESA Coral Survey Transect Locations
The area surveyed within the 163 sites is approximately 12.26 hectares (30.3 ac) of harbottom habitat, covering 7.9% of the total habitat covered by the 163 surveyed sites (380 acres). The area surveyed in the Navy’s 151 sites covered 339 acres and the calculated “supplemental area” (fringes of habitat not included within any survey box, that are hardbottom habitat) is 97 acres (Table 9)
Table 9 – Port Everglades ESA survey 2017‐2018. Calculated coverage of each ESA survey area Survey Area Surveyed Area w/in Total Area in square the cross (ac) (ac) 163 ESA Survey Sites 30.3 380 151 Navy Sites (NSU 2011) ND* 339 Supplemental Sites 09 7 816 ac *Insufficient information provided in NSU 2011 to determine area covered during each Tier 1 times swim in the 60mx60m (3,600m2) square box.
Table 10 provides a list of the total number of ESA listed species in the total project area based on extrapolation from the number of corals surveyed for each site. The individual site survey box sizes between the 2017 ESA survey and the 2011 Navy survey differ, 10,000m2 vs 3,600m2, respectively.
Page 54 of 114
Table 10 ‐ Port Everglades ESA survey 2017‐2018. Extrapolated Numbers of ESA Listed Corals in the ESA Survey Area Based on Survey Results Species Name Extrapolated number of colonies between 1050m north of the channel and 1020m south of the channel (direct & supplemental) A. cervicornis 51,002 O. faveolata 2,746 O. annularis 149 O. franskii 98 M. ferox 48 D. cylindrus 0 A. palmata 0
Johnson’s seagrass A detailed review of the biology and status of Johnson’s seagrass (Halophilia. johnsonii) is located in the September 2004 BA and is incorporated by reference.
Results from seagrass surveys conducted for the project between 1999 and 2016 demonstrate that H. johnsonii occurs within the SAC (Figure 41). H. johnsonii was documented by at least one survey in all assessment areas except OEC and IEC. H. johnsonii coverage has varied spatially and temporally throughout the project development phase. The expansion and contraction of H. johnsonii, also referred to as “pulsating patches” may be a long‐term survival strategy (Virnstein et al. 2009). The persistent presence of high‐density elevated patches of H. johnsonii on flood tidal deltas near inlets suggests that it is capable of sediment stabilization (NMFS 2007a).
In Heidelbaugh (1999), H. johnsonii beds yielded a total of 126 species (69 epifauna and 57 infauna). Three hundred and twenty macrofaunal organisms were collected from H. johnsonii beds. NMFS has concluded that the conservation of H. johnsonii will not only maintain the diversity of the seagrass communities, but also the important biodiversity and biophysical characteristics of the entire ecosystem (NMFS 2007a). Although H. johnsonii serves as hiding and resting area for many species, Gabiel and Hirons (2011), in a study specific to the project impact areas in the SAC, state that “consumers in Port Everglades are not feeding on seagrass” including some of the densest patches of H. johnsonii in the project area. The total amount of H. johnsonii mapped in the project area ranged between 1999‐2016 from 2.11 acres to 5.40 acres with an average of 4.00 acres (USACE 2015a, Appendix B; DCA 2017).
Page 55 of 114
Table 11 – Port Everglades ‐ Mapped Johnson's Seagrass in Project Area 2000‐2016 Bed Type (sp) 1999‐2000 2006 Acres 2009 Acres 2016 Acres Average Acres Acres coverage (minus DCC) H. Johnsonii 2.85 2.80 4.68 1.16 2.87 Mixed H. johnsonii/H. 0.00 1.08 0.36 0.95 0.60 decipiens
Mixed H. johnsonii/H. 1.96 0.09 0.05 0 0.53 decipiens/H. wrightii
Totals 4.81 3.97 5.40 2.11 4.00
Critical Habitat: There is no DCH in the project area (NMFS 2000a).
Figure 41 ‐ Seagrass coverage in throughout the inner harbor project area
Page 56 of 114
Effects of the Action
Sea Turtles C. mydas and E. Imbricata have been reported in Port Everglades and offshore of Broward County, and C. caretta from the PFRU are known to be offshore of Broward County. As such, the potential exists for all three species to be in the action area during project construction activities.
Entrainment in Hopper Dredging Equipment NMFS previously analyzed the effects of dredging equipment on sea turtles in PENIP in their 2014 BO (Section 6.1, pg 22). There is no new information that would change that analysis and thus it remains valid and is incorporated by reference.
Rock Pre‐treatment Confined Underwater Blasting NMFS previously analyzed the effects of confined underwater blasting on sea turtles in PENIP in their 2014 BO (Section 6.1, pg 22). There is no new information that would change that analysis and thus it remains valid and is incorporated by reference.
Hydrohammers/Hydraulic Breakers As part of the preparation of the “USACE’s General Permit SAJ‐82 Programmatic Opinion” (NMFS 2014b), NMFS prepared acoustic impact criteria and thresholds for sea turtle exposure to various sound sources (Table 12). The analysis for pile driving activities in Florida (NMFS 2014b) developed threshold values for onset of injury to sea turtles due to impact pile driving is 206 dB re 1 μPa sound pressure level root mean square (RMS) or 187 dB for a single pile driver pulse, whichever is larger. The noise level that may result in changes in behavior is 160 dB (RMS). Per Appendix B of the 2014 BO, these criteria are not based on experimental evidence of injuries caused to sea turtles by pile driving sound. In the absence of reliable in‐water density data for sea turtles, these criteria are useful for qualitatively assessing activities that impart sound to water.
Table 12 – Sea turtle impacts associated with Sheet Pile Installation (from NMFS, 2014b). Hammer Pile Type Source Level Behavioral Injury Impact Radius (Noise change (RMS (Behavior) Generated by [dB re 1µPal]) Activity) Vibratory 24” steel sheet 192 dB (peak 160 206 (peak 16m (52ft) pile pressure) 178 pressure) or dB (sSEL) 187 (cSEL) whichever is larger Impact 24” steel sheet 220 dB (peak 160 206 (peak 9m (30ft) pile pressure) 194 pressure) or dB (sSEL) 187 (cSEL) whichever is larger
Based on the reported sound pressure levels for hydraulic breakers available from Atlas and IHC, none of the reported values for hydrohammers exceed the sea turtle injury threshold. However,
Page 57 of 114 sound pressure levels may exceed 160dB and result in behavioral changes to sea turtles in the vicinity of the hydrohammer. As a precaution, the Corps will utilize a 50 ft. safety radius for the use of a hydrohammer for sea turtle protection, two feet smaller than the required distance, thus more protective of sea turtles. The radius will be noted visually by placement of a buoy 50‐ feet waterward of each day’s construction area. Any sea turtle crossing this line will result in a shutdown of work until the animal leaves the area of its own volition.
Utilizing the impact thresholds set by NMFS (2014b) and incorporating the 50 ft. safety radius, the Corps believes that construction of the proposed work with a hydrohammer may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the threatened and endangered sea turtles, consistent with NMFS’ (2014b) determination.
Dredge Lighting The Corps will also include all terms and conditions from the 1997 SARBO (or any subsequent Regional BO) regarding vessel lighting and sea turtles within the construction specifications, including the following:
From May 1 through October 31, sea turtles nesting and emergence season, all lighting aboard hopper dredges and hopper dredge pumpout barges operating within 3 nm of sea turtle nesting beaches shall be limited to the minimal lighting necessary to comply with U.S. Coast Guard and/or OSHA requirements. All non‐essential lighting on the dredge and pumpout barge shall be minimized through reduction, shielding, lowering, and appropriate placement of lights to minimize illumination of the water to reduce potential disorientation effects on female sea turtles approaching the nesting beaches and sea turtle hatchlings making their way seaward from their natal beaches.
As part of this effort, the Corps conducts lighting surveys of the contractor’s dredges when they arrive on site, and require the contractor to meet all U.S.C.G. and/or the Occupational Health and Safety Administration requirements. For the PENIP, this process will be adhered to. PEV is an active facility, offshore lighting is not an unusual feature of the area, and should not appreciably change the ambient conditions for free‐swimming turtles in the vicinity of the project. In addition, all construction/dredging vessels are required to adhere to best management practices (BMPs), such as minimizing lights from exposure to shore through use of shields. Therefore, no adverse indirect effects to free swimming sea turtles due to lighting associated with dredging operations are anticipated for the proposed project.
Bed Leveling Although NMFS has, on two previous occasions, made the determination that bed leveling is a cause of injurious or lethal take to sea turtles (NMFS 2003a), a detailed review, performed by the Corps, of the data from the use of bed leveling devices at Port Everglades, Port Canaveral, PortMiami, and Palm Beach Harbor, did not support this determination (USACE 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d). After reviewing the numbers and locations of stranded turtles within a 4‐mile radius of the ports’ entrance channels, the dates that the strandings were recorded, and the types of injuries exhibited on the carcasses, the Corps did not find a link between bed‐leveling and crushing/impact injuries on stranded sea turtles, nor did significant differences exist in stranding numbers and locations between dredging and non‐dredging time periods. Based on the detailed review of all of the information provided in these BAs, the Corps determined that the proposed use of bed‐leveling devices in Port Everglades, Port Canaveral, PortMiami, and Palm Beach Harbor may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, listed marine turtle species
Page 58 of 114 within the action area. The Corps believes this analysis continues to be valid for PEV where turtles have not been documented exhibiting the behavior of burrowing into the bottom of navigation channels due to cold water events which makes them more susceptible to take by bed leveler or hopper dredge. NMFS has stated that use of a bed‐leveler is preferred to the use of a hopper dredge for clean‐up operations. Specifically, in the 2003 Gulf Regional BO (amended in 2005 and 2007, NMFS 2003a), NMFS states:
Use of bed‐levelers for cleanup operations, however, is probably preferable to use of hopper dredges since turtles which are foraging/resting/brumating on irregular bottoms are probably more likely to be entrained by suction dragheads because sea turtle deflector dragheads are less effective on uneven bottoms, hopper dredges move considerably faster than bed‐leveler "dredges," and bed‐levelers do not use suction.
In addition, the Corps includes language in contract specifications to help clarify when and where bed levelers may be used in a project as well as to document bed‐leveler use.
Bed leveling was previously conducted within Port Everglades in February 2015, when it was used to flatten a shoal area in the SAC. The project was monitored for ESA species and while manatees were seen near the bed leveling operations, no sea turtles were documented during bed leveling operations.
Based on this information, the Corps believes that using a bed leveler in the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, listed sea turtles during the PENIP.
Dredge Associated Noise PEV has functioned as an international harbor since it was opened in the 1920s. Over the last 90+ years, PEV has evolved to accommodate the growing shipping industry as larger vessels continued to arrive. At the same time, recreational and other commercial boat traffic and industrial noise has continued to increase. Several sources of ambient noise are present in PEV. The ambient noise level of an area includes sounds from both natural (wind waves, fish, tidal currents, mammals) and artificial (commercial and recreational vessels, dredging, pile driving, etc.) sources. Tidal currents produce hydrodynamic sounds, which are most significant at very low frequencies (< 100 Hertz; Hz). Vessel traffic, including vessels passing the immediate study area, generate sounds that can travel considerable distances, in frequencies ranging from 10 to 1000Hz. Sea state (surface condition of the water characterized by wave height, period, and power) also produces ambient sounds above 500 Hz. As a commercial and industrial area, PEV experiences a wide range of noise from a variety of industrial activities. Biological sounds associated with mammals, fishes, and invertebrates can also generate broadband noise in the frequency of 1 to 10 kilo Hz with intensities as high as 60 to 90 decibels (dB).
PEV has the typical noise characteristics of a busy harbor. Sources include recreational and commercial vessel traffic, and dock side facilities. Noise sources for vessels include cranes, whistles and various motors for propulsion. Dockside noise sources include cranes, trucks, cars, and loading and unloading equipment. In addition to the noise in the water/marine environment, noise can affect the human environment. Background noise exposures change during the course of the day in a gradual manner, which reflects the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources. Ambient noise represents the combination of all sound within a given environment at a specified time.
Page 59 of 114
As summarized in Table 13, underwater sound data were collected for several large cargo vessels and one high‐speed ferry operating in Newark Bay, New Jersey and New York Harbor (Reine et al. 2014). The source level (SL) for the high speed ferry was 181 dB re 1 μPa‐1m (which is the acoustic pressure at one meter from a point source). For four cargo ships transiting the harbor, SLs ranged from 179 to nearly 183 dB re 1 μPa‐1m. One fully loaded cargo ship being pulled from its mooring by two large tugs produced an SL of 188.9 dB re 1 μPa‐1m.
Table 13 ‐ Reported Noise for Vessels in New York Harbor (Reine et al 2014) Ship name/Type Reported Noise Levels (re 1 μPa-1m) Staten Island Ferry 180.2 NYK Constellation (dry cargo container) 181.3 dB Maersk Idaho (bulk carrier) 188.9 dB CSAV Licanten (cargo vessel) 133.76 dB Zim Savannah (container ship) 179.3 dB.
Previous studies have documented dredge noise for clamshell, cutterhead and hopper dredges (Table 14). Sounds associated with dredging are broken up into different segments associated with the dredge operation. These steps can include surface splash, the bucket hitting or penetrating the bottom sediments, the winches moving the dredge up and down in the water column and emptying the bucket into the scow (where applicable). Some of these noises will vary depending on how dredge material hardness.
Table 14 – Reported Noise Levels by Dredge Type Dredge Type Reported Noise level range; Source Clamshell/Bucket 150 to 162 dB Dickerson et al. 2001 Hopper 120 to 140 dB; Avg 142dB Clarke et al. 2002; Reine et al. 2014 Cutterhead 100 to 110 dB; 175 dB at source Clarke et al. 2002; Reine et al. (<150dB 100 m from source) 2012.
None of the dredges that may be used to construct the PENIP would meet or exceed NMFS assessed injurious threshold of 206 dB for sea turtles; however, normal operations of large vessels in PEV may approach this threshold, and would be considered baseline conditions for this deepening project. By completing harbor improvements that will decrease the number of vessels calling to PEV, this also improves the soundscape for sea turtles that live in the bay and are exposed to activities in the harbor.
Sea turtles in PEV may be affected by noise from dredges associated with construction activities, but it will be intermittent and will not occur in any one area for any appreciable period of time. Due to the mobility of these species and because these projects generally occur in open water environments, they would likely move away from the source of noise. For example, daily movements of sea turtles may be impeded or altered. These effects will be insignificant and discountable because they are located in open water and will not consume the entire width of a channel at any time. Because of this, construction will not restrict movement of species in the area, and there is ample similar habitats adjacent to the project site where sea turtles can move to. This is consistent with NMFS’ determination for the Port Everglades Turning Notch construction ESA consultation (NMFS 2016) where NMFS’ determined the following:
Page 60 of 114
Due to the mobility of sea turtles and ESA‐listed fish species, and because the project occurs in open water, we expect them to move away from noise disturbances. Because we anticipate the animal will move away, we believe that an animal's suffering physical injury from noise is extremely unlikely to occur and is therefore discountable.
Noise Associated with Construction of the EFB As previously discussed, as part of developing the USACE’s General Permit SAJ‐82 Programmatic Opinion, NMFS developed acoustic impact thresholds for sea turtles (NMFS 2014b) and conducted an analysis of the sound source levels and impact radii distances for sea turtles. Data from this analysis is included in Table 15 below.
Table 15 ‐ Impact Hammer sound source levels and impact radius distance (from NMFS 2014b, Appendix B) Source Level (dB Radius for Sea Radius for Fish Radius for Fish re 1 µPa53 Turtles less than 2 grams more than 2 grams 24‐in metal sheet pile Calculated 10 sheets piles per day with 660 strikes per day = 6,600 strikes Physical Injury 220 dB 9m (30 feet) 9m (30 feet) 9m (30 feet) (Peak pressure) Physical Injury cumulative 1 pile = 223m (732 1 pile = 410m 1 pile = 223m (732 (Cumulative vs ft) (1,345 ft) ft) exposure) 10 piles = 858m 10 piles = 858m (2,815 ft) (2,815 ft) Behavior (RMS) 206 dB 185m (607 ft) 858m (2,857ft) 858m (2,857ft)
The SAC requires approximately 7,500 linear feet of sheet pile to be installed in association with the EFB construction (6,500 on the eastern side of the SAC and 1,000 on the western). There are various sizes of sheet pile commonly used for cofferdam and bulkhead construction. The widths of these piles vary, but a common width is approximately 22”. Typically sheets come joined as a pair which is known as a section. So using the standard 44” (~4‐ft) wide sheet pile of varying lengths (up to 60+ ft in length), at least 2,045 sheets would be required. Installation rates will vary based on the hardness of rock, efficacy of the installation crew(s) and interruptions due to weather, recreational and commercial traffic in the vicinity. To allow for an estimate of impacts, the Corps assumed that the sheets are 60 feet in length and will require no more than 10 strikes per inch to install. Using an average of 6 strikes per inch equals 72 strikes per foot. 60‐foot sections, driven entirely in rock would require 7,200 strikes per section. The contractor chosen to complete the work may choose to vibrate in each sheet until refusal before completing installation with an impact hammer, however the Corps has chosen to assume that every section will only be installed by impact hammer with pre‐treatment of the rock prior to driving to assess the worst case potential of impacts associated with the project.
Construction timeframes will depend on how many section can be driven in one day and if all the construction is done by one installation crew. Installation rates are estimated to be 11‐15 horizontal linear feet per day, per installation team. Meaning 3‐4 sections may be driven per day. This assumes that all sections are steel, and that no work is completed during night time hours. Sheet pile installation activities are assumed to be taking place during the same time as the dredging of the SAC and may take between 515 and 685 days to construct. Water depths in these areas range from 10‐15 ft MLLW in depth in front of the mangroves, with the remaining of
Page 61 of 114 the sheet being driven in the native material as depicted in the example cross sections shown in Figure 42.
Figure 42‐ Typical Cross Sections of the Environmentally Friendly Bulkheads along the SAC showing the placement of the EFB into the existing profile of the underwater slope (the dashed line)
Based on this analysis, any sea turtle in the SAC within 858m (2,815 ft) of the installation of EFB (width of the SAC ranges from 150‐215m (500‐700 ft) wide) may be injured due to cumulative exposure to the pressure associated with sheet pile installation, without any efforts taken to lessen the noise from the installation activities. Additionally any turtle that is closer than 9 m (30 ft) during operations may be injured due to the peak pressure of the impact hammer hitting a sheet pile one time. Additionally, sea turtles within 185m (607ft) may change behavior to avoid the noise associated with the installation.
Because work will only be conducted during daylight hours, turtles in the area will have night hours to transit through the construction area without pile driving activities being conducted. It is unknown how many sea turtles are in the SAC at any one time, but carcasses of green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles have been recovered in the project area, both inside and outside of the Port.
In an effort to reduce the potential for adverse effects to sea turtles associated with impact hammer installation of the EFB, the Corps has incorporated the special conditions with the PENIP plans and specifications requiring the use of bubble curtains during pile installation using an impact hammer. Water speeds in the SAC typically do not exceed 1 fps, however can exceed 1.5 fps on occasion, using this value, the Corps will incorporate bubble curtain scenario 2 from NMFS 2014b, Appendix B, when water velocity exceeds 1.6 fps “at any point during installation.” Based on this the Corps believes that the effects of installation of up to 7,500 linear feet of metal sheet pile may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles in the SAC of Port Everglades.
Indirect Effects due to Removal of/Damage to Resting/Foraging Habitat. The effects of permanent removal of approximately 15 acres of second and third reef habitat associated with the project entrance channel expansion have been previously analyzed in the 2012 BA and 2015 FEIS and the results of that analysis are incorporated into this assessment.
In the March 2014 BO, NMFS determined:
Page 62 of 114
Dredging and port expansion will not alter the PCEs for breeding habitat as it will not impact the high concentration of reproductive individuals in the area nor the proximity to the nesting grounds or migratory corridor. The PCEs for the constricted migratory corridor will not be impacted as the project will not alter the passage conditions of the corridor. Therefore, effects to loggerhead critical habitat as it is currently proposed are discountable. (pg 24, NMFS 2014c).
As the project footprint has not changed from what was previously analyzed in the previous consultation, the Corps concurs with NMFS’ determination and incorporates it by reference.
Foraging habitats may also suffer some indirect effects, including temporary increases to turbidity and sedimentation on foraging habitat within the indirect impact zone for the project. However, implementation of BMPs/minimization measures should minimize effects associated with turbidity and sedimentation, and they are not expected to be any greater than the effects commonly experienced in this area due to the passage of storms (Pennekamp et al. 1996).
Conservation Measures for Sea Turtles a) Incorporation of the NMFS “Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions” into the project plans and specifications: b) Incorporation of the Terms and Conditions of the 1995/97 SARBO or a subsequent SARBO into the construction specifications for protection of turtles during dredging operations. c) Establishment of a 50 ft safety radius around a hydrohammer if used to pre‐treat rock in the project area. d) ESA species monitoring and establishment of protective radii and during confined underwater blasting activities based on the maximum weight of each delay. e) Incorporation of impact hammer installation requirements for sheet pile construction of a seawall or in water with speeds greater than 1.6 feet/second (NMFS 2014b, NMFS 2017a).
Effects Determination The proposed navigation improvements for the PENIP may adversely affect C. mydas, C. caretta and E. imbricata by entrainment in a hopper dredge. All other project activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed sea turtles. Construction of the project will not adversely modify or destroy DCH unit LOGG‐N‐19.
Smalltooth Sawfish Entrainment in Dredging Equipment NMFS previously analyzed the effects of potential entrainment in dredging equipment on P. pectinata in PENIP in their 2014 BO (Section 6.1, pg 22). There is no new information that would change that analysis and thus it remains valid and is incorporated by reference.
Rock Pre‐treatment Confined Underwater Blasting NMFS previously analyzed the effects of confined underwater blasting on P. pectinata in PENIP in their 2014 BO (Section 6.1, pg 22). There is no new information that would change that analysis and thus it remains valid and is incorporated by reference.
Page 63 of 114
Hydrohammers/Hydraulic Breakers As previously discussed, sounds pressure levels associated with hydrohammers do not typically reach the level determined to cause physical injury to sea turtles of 206 dB re 1 µPa, however they meet or exceed the level to cause a change in behavior. P. pectinata have been determined to have the same injury threshold as sea turtles (NMFS 2014b); however, the threshold for causing a change in behavior is 150 dB re 1 µPa, 10 dB lower than turtles. As such, the Corps expects that using a hydrohammer to pre‐treat rock may result in changes to smalltooth sawfish behavior, most likely resulting in an avoidance behavior. The effective impact area associated with a hydrohammer is small, typically limited to the area immediately surrounding the rock pre‐treatment, particularly when compared to confined underwater blasting that has a larger per‐treatment footprint than a hydrohamer. Based on the impact area, the pressure/noise associated with the use of a hydrohammer, and NMFS’ previous determination that confined underwater blasting results in discountable effects on P. pectinata, the Corps determines that the use of hydrohammers to pretreat rock may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, P. pectinata.
Take by noise associated with Environmentally Friendly Bulkhead construction The noise associated with construction of Environmentally Friendly Bulkhead in the SAC has been previously discussed for sea turtles. Effects of in‐water construction noise for P. pectinata are categorized under the effects to fish, specifically for fish without swim‐bladders. Halvorson et al (2012b) as cited in NMFS 2017a, Appendix B, determined that hogchoker (a fish without a swim bladder) “did not suffer visible external or internal injuries at lower cumulative sound exposure levels (cSEL) tested, while the swim bladder fish still suffered mild internal injuries.” NMFS states that as more research is conducted, new criteria for P. pectinata (also not having a swim bladder) may be developed regarding the potential for sound associated impacts. NMFS expressed concern that the body shape of P. pectinata may lead to injury from sound/pressure due to the dorsoventrally flattened shape where a majority of the internal organs are in close contact with the bottom, and may be exposed to with pile driving vibrations, although did not cite any research to support this concern. As previously discussed with sea turtles, the Corps will implement bubble curtains surrounding pile driving activities which will significantly reduce the pressures in the water column, and minimize the potential for adverse effects to endangered P. pectinata.
Indirect Effects associated with habitat modification NMFS previously analyzed the effects of habitat alteration on P. pectinata in PENIP in their 2014 BO (Section 6.1, pg 22). There is no new information that would change that analysis and thus it remains valid and is incorporated by reference.
Effects Determination Based on the information included in the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan (2009), census information from FWC and NMFS, and the proposed construction techniques, the Corps determined that the expansion of Port Everglades using a cutterhead, clamshell or hopper dredge with rock pre‐treatment, construction of the Environmentally Friendly Bulkhead and the resultant habitat removal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, endangered P. pectinata.
Page 64 of 114
Corals Determination of Impact Zones Based on technical guidance of the Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (WAEPA 2016), the effects associated with dredging the PENIP on corals in the offshore environment can be broken into three areas of consideration: the Zone of High Impact, the Zone of Moderate Impact and the Zone of Influence (below is a description of these zones). The Zones for PEV are based on the best scientifically and commercially available information at this time, arising from the during‐ and post‐construction monitoring events associated with the PortMiami expansion. If additional information becomes available, it will be incorporated in the future and if it results in a change in the size of the zones or the associated effects, the Corps will reinitiate consultation under the ESA.
Zone of High Impact (ZoHI) is the area where impacts on benthic communities or habitats are predicted to be irreversible. The term irreversible means ‘lacking a capacity to return or recover to a state resembling that prior to being impacted within a timeframe of five years or less’. Areas within and immediately adjacent to proposed dredge and disposal sites are typically within zones of high impact. (pg 10, WAEPA 2016)
Zone of Moderate Impact (ZoMI) is the area within which predicted impacts on benthic organisms are recoverable within a period of five years following completion of the dredging activities. This zone abuts, and lies immediately outside of, the zone of high impact. Proponents should clearly explain what would be protected and what would be impacted within this zone, and present an appraisal of the potential implications for ecological integrity of the impacts over the timeframe from impact to recovery (e.g. through loss of productivity, food resources, shelter). Where recovery from the impact predicted in this zone is likely to result in an ‘alternate state’ compared with that present prior to development, then this outcome should be clearly stated in environmental assessment documents, along with justification as to why the predicted impacts should be included within this zone (rather than the Zone of High Impact) and an appraisal of the potential consequences for ecological integrity and biological diversity. The outer boundary of this zone is coincident with the inner boundary of the next zone, the Zone of Influence. (pg 10, WAEPA 2016)
Zone of Influence (ZoI) is the area within which changes in environmental quality associated with dredge plumes are predicted and anticipated during the dredging operations, but where these changes would not result in a detectible impact on benthic biota. These areas can be large, but at any point in time the dredge plumes are likely to be restricted to a relatively small portion of the Zone of Influence. The outer boundary of the Zone of Influence bounds the composite of all of the predicted maximum extents of dredge plumes and represents the point beyond which dredge‐ generated plumes should not be discernable from background conditions at any stage during the dredging campaign. Furthermore, this provides transparency for the public regarding where visible plumes may be present, albeit only occasionally, if the proposal is implemented. Reference sites for monitoring natural variability would ideally be located outside of the Zone of Influence of the dredging activities. (pg 10, WAEPA 2016)
Based on the descriptions from WAEPA (2016), the Corps has identified a similar zoning scheme based on distance from the sediment sources for the PENIP and the associated effects are listed in Table 16. The thickest concentration of sediment will occur closest to the dredging and will decrease in thickness as distance from the dredge increases (Henriksen 2009) (Figure 43). As the plume ages, it is subject to a cascade of processes (wind, waves, gravity), which result in a significant diffusion and dispersion as the plume mixes with ocean currents (Bloetscher et al.
Page 65 of 114
2012).
Figure 43 ‐ Sedimentation Deposition Model from Henriksen 2009
Table 16‐ Impact Zones for PENIP Zones Areas within project Effects on Listed Corals area ‐ PEV OEC Direct Removal channel Direct in‐channel and Full mortality of colonies if not relocated out expansion channel extension of the high impact zone due to excavation footprint with dredge. Movement of Rubble Areas of reef habitat in below dredge depth channel below dredged Partial or full mortality of colonies if not depth relocated out of the high impact zone. Effect of Sedimentation 0‐150m north and south and Turbidity of OEC Total Acres in ZoHI Effect of Sedimentation Effects associated with Partial mortality of corals with a flat and Turbidity rubble movement below morphology and/or sub‐lethal stress dredge depth in the OEC associated with sedimentation and turbidity. expansion area; 151‐ These losses are expected to be recovered 450m north and south within 5‐years post‐dredging. of OEC Effect of Sedimentation 451‐1,200m north and Sub‐lethal stress associated with and Turbidity south of OEC sedimentation and turbidity or no effects Total Acres * Combined acreage of direct habitat removal and below dredge depth areas
Page 66 of 114
Figure 44 ‐ Figure 2 from Erftmeijer et al 2012. Intensity of Stressor vs Duration
ZoHI – Direct Removal: Permanent removal of approximately 15 acres of reef and hardbottom habitats in the OEC extension area (Figure 45). Rubble movement below dredge depth: This is where rubble may fall out of the mechanical dredge bucket and fall to the habitat below, resulting in crushing injury to corals and is estimated to be approximately 6 acres. Additionally, this area will be exposed to sedimentation and turbidity associated with spillage from the dredge during dredging operations. Indirect Effects associated with sedimentation and turbidity: Post‐ construction monitoring at PortMiami documented that 67‐93% of monitored corals within 30 meters (m) of the channel edge located on the north side of the middle reef had partial mortality associated with sedimentation (DCA 2015c). Some effects associated with the project are expected to be permanent in this zone.
Page 67 of 114
Figure 45 ‐ Reef Habitats Direct Removal and below Dredge Depth ZoMI – During construction sedimentation delineation and post‐construction monitoring at PortMiami documented the maximum extent of the visual presence and of depth of fine, grey, clay‐like sediments no more than 400m from the channel, with the exception of the second reef north north (Figure 46 and Figure 47) where material was noted up to 750m from the channel (DCA 2015a, DCA 2015b, Miller et al. 2016). These values were based on dredging where rock chopping and overflow were conducted for portions of the project. The Corps believes that these two activities resulted in the largest release of fines (silts and clays) associated with the PortMiami improvements project. By preventing overflow in the OEC from all dredge types and by a cutterhead elsewhere in the project, and not authorizing rock chopping as a rock pre‐ treatment technique, the Corps believes that the amount of sediment that will enter the water from spillage associated with dredging and decanting will be significantly less than what was observed at PortMiami. This will result in a smaller ZoMI, which we assume is equal to or less than 450m from the channel in either direction (emphasis added). Turbidity plumes are expected to be visible in this zone. Partial mortality of flat‐morphology ESA‐listed corals and non‐lethal stress of other listed corals may occur in this zone. Corals in this zone may experience sublethal stress, including but not limited to excess mucus production, polyp extension, paling and bleaching. Effects in this zone are expected to be moderate and detectable in immediate post‐construction monitoring when compared against pre‐project baseline. However, at five years post‐project, benthic habitats are expected to not have a detectable effect from the project.
Page 68 of 114
Figure 46 ‐ Sedimentation Delineation Middle and Outer Reefs ‐ Miami Harbor (DCA 2015b)
Figure 47‐ Sedimentation Delineate Nearshore Hardbottom ‐ PortMiami (DCA 2015a)
ZoI ‐ Based on the results of the post‐construction survey from PortMiami and the observations in Miller et al. (2016), the maximum extent of the visual presence and of depth of fine, grey, clay‐ like sediments was documented north of the entrance channel on the northern middle reef (here considered the second reef or reef 2) was 650m in the PortMiami sedimentation impact delimitation report (DCA 2015b) and up to 700m in Miller et al. (2016):
R2N1‐750 was designated as un‐impacted because partial mortality of corals was not observed during qualitative surveys, and no pockets of clay‐like material were found at the site. In addition, several healthy colonies of Acropora cervicornis were found at R2N1‐750. R2N1‐650 was designated as potentially impacted because partial mortality on corals in low lying areas was observed and pockets of clay‐like material were present at the site. (DCA 2015b).
Page 69 of 114
Results indicate increased sediment accumulation, severe in certain times and places, and an associated biological response (e.g., higher prevalence of partial mortality of corals) extended up to 700 m from the channel…(Miller et al. 2016).
Also, during the 1980‐1981 Port Everglades expansion, monitoring of corals north and south of the channel showed no adverse effect of the project associated with excavation with a cutterhead dredge with upland disposal. Although the dredged material was pumped upland, turbidity and sedimentation associated with spillage from the cutterhead itself were observed. Baseline monitoring was conducted 19 days prior to dredging (April 1980), and post‐ construction monitoring 109 days (April 1981) after dredging was complete in December 1980 (CSA 1981). The closest monitored coral north of the channel was approximately 690m north of the channel and the closest monitored coral south of the channel was 100m from the channel edge. Based on these results, specific to Port Everglades and from the next harbor closest to the project area where data are available, no impacts have been documented associated with harbor deepening projects beyond 750m. To ensure the project is conservative in the assessment of potential impacts, the Corps has determined that the ZoI is expected to be no more than 1,200m north or south of the channel. Although turbidity plumes may be visible in this zone, associated sedimentation is expected to be low, based on the distance from the sediment source. Corals in this zone may experience non‐lethal stress associated with the project including but not limited to excess mucus production, polyp extension, paling and bleaching. Effects in this zone are temporary in nature and not detectable during post‐ construction monitoring when compared to baseline pre‐project conditions. Monitoring of the project is currently planned to occur within 1,200m north and south of the PENIP.
Number of Corals which may be affected Lethal take by direct removal with dredge Existing Entrance Channel – bottom and walls ‐ ZoHI These values do not include the assumption that there are any listed corals in the bottom of the existing channel or on the channel walls. The 2014 BO previously assumed that there were listed corals in the bottom of the channel, on the channel walls and in the reef areas below dredge depth within the current channel footprint. This was an acknowledged over‐estimate of potential corals in the project area, but was the most conservative route that could be applied for a total of 21.66 acres (OEC and surrounding habitats within 150m of the channel). This impact value is greater than what the Corps stated in the FEIS. The species densities found from the entire FL reef tract in Wagner et al. (2010) were applied to the listed (and proposed at the time) corals throughout a 21.66 acre project area (
Page 70 of 114
Table 17) based on their presence or absence as documented in NSU 2011. NMFS also assumed all corals located within 150m of the channel would be killed, a worst‐case scenario as shown in
Page 71 of 114
Table 17 adapted from the 2014 PENIP BO.
Page 72 of 114
Table 17 – Estimated lethal take of listed corals as adapted from Section 8.4 of the 2014 PENIP BO. Species Name Extrapolated number of colonies in Entrance Channel and within 150m of channel A. cervicornis 0 O. faveolata 627 O. annularis 20,062 O. franskii 627 M. ferox 1207 D. cylindrus 0 A. palmata 0
Due to safety regulations, the Corps cannot conduct diver surveys within the boundaries of the federal navigation channel. Video surveys of the bottom of the entrance channel were taken in 2000 and 2001, documenting that a majority of the channel bottom was rubble and sand, and unlikely to support large numbers of stony corals (Figure 48).
Figure 48 – Entrance Channel Survey Efforts 2000‐2002
Divers from Broward County and FDEP conducted dives in and around the outer entrance channel in July of 2013 (Figure 49); however, they did not conduct systematic surveys of the channel bottom or walls. Figure 50 and Figure 51 show typical channel bottom conditions that have not changed significantly since 2001 even after two O&M events for the OEC in August 2005 and March 29 – April 2, 2013.
Page 73 of 114
Figure 49 ‐ July 2013 Dive Locations
Figure 50 ‐ Dive in PEV Channel ‐ FDEP ‐ July 30, 2013
Page 74 of 114
Figure 51 ‐ Dive in PEV Channel ‐ FDEP ‐ July 30, 2013
Due to the amount of rubble and sand likely to be in the bottom of the channel, the Corps does not believe it is appropriate to include this area in the calculation of the number of listed corals likely to be adversely affected by the project and thus, did not include this area in our calculations. NMFS acknowledged that the habitat within the channel would be less hospitable to listed corals than elsewhere in Broward County (NMFS 2014c):
Therefore, to be conservative we are applying the densities of the proposed corals from the middle and outer reefs to the channel and channel wall hardbottom. However, it is unlikely that the proposed corals occur at the same densities as on the reef itself. Due to the shipping activity in the channel, there is likely much poorer water quality conditions within the channel as compared to the reef. Therefore, we assume the coral densities are likely much lower. Further, the channel has been dredged within the last 30 years. Given the relatively slow growth rates of the proposed corals, it is likely that the colonies that do exist within the channel and channel walls are smaller sizes than those on the reef. Thus, we anticipate that the estimates we provide for mortality of proposed corals within the channel and channel walls are likely an overstimate; however, it is the best available information and provides a conservative assessment of impacts to the species.
As a result of the video and diver survey results, the Corps will not assume that the channel bottom supports listed corals in our estimates of corals likely to be affected by the project.
It is appropriate to include the channel walls where the project will excavate channel walls during deepening or widening activities. Excavation of channel walls will begin in the second reef area with the construction of the flare (Figure 52). Channel walls west (shoreward) of the second reef will not be impacted by dredging activities as they are beyond the limits of the federal channel and side slopes in those areas are expected to continue to hold an almost vertical face, as they currently do (Figure 53). Approximately 0.36 acres of existing channel wall habitat located at the second reef will be removed by the widening of the OEC (Figure 54).
Page 75 of 114
Figure 52 – Map depicting cross‐section stations for PEV OEC Expansion
Figure 53 ‐ Typical Cross Section of the OEC shoreward of the widening at the second reef, showing the proposed deepening footprint and demonstrating that the deepening does not directly impact the existing channel walls
Page 76 of 114
Figure 54 ‐ Impacts on Second Reef expected due to Expansion Dredging (denoted by the green area)
There are no available quantitative data concerning type or density of biotic cover on the channel walls due to its inaccessible location (i.e., diver safety), but it is not expected that coral density would increase significantly inside the channel as compared to immediately next to the channel. ESA surveys were conducted on the reef habitat immediately adjacent to the entrance channel on the second reef (Sites 125, 126 and 143, Figure 55). No ESA listed corals were documented in any of these three survey blocks (DCA 2018a). While this does not eliminate the potential for ESA‐listed corals to be present, it does lessen the likelihood.
Figure 55 ‐ ESA Survey Site Numbers North of Channel Extension Area. Adapted from Figure 4, DCA 2018a
Page 77 of 114
Channel Extension Area & Habitats below Dredge Depth – ZoHI Any colonies of listed corals in the approximately 15 acre OEC extension area will be adversely affected (lethally) by the project if they are not relocated from the area prior to construction (Figure 56). Approximately 6 acres of reef habitat lies below the final proposed channel depth of ‐57 feet MLLW (Figure 45). NMFS and other resource agencies have postulated that dredged material (in the form of rubble) would roll “downhill” impacting these downslope habitats. During the feasibility stage of the project, the Corps assumed that 10% of these areas would be permanently affected by the project. Crushing impacts to individual colonies may occur if rock falls from a mechanical dredge bucket and lands on the individual colony. As previously stated, neither A. palmata or D. cylindrus were documented on any of the sites by either the 2017 PENIP ESA survey or the NSU 2011 survey and therefore will not be included in any impact assessments.
To determine the number of ESA listed corals that may be in these areas, the coral densities from the nearest diver‐surveyed cross station located to the north of the channel were used to estimate ESA abundance, based on the IWG ESA survey protocol (Figure 55). The total estimated number of corals within the channel extension area and the habitats below dredge depth is 111 colonies of O. faveolata (Table 18).
Figure 56 ‐ Channel Extension Areas, Direct Removal of Reef/Hardbottom Habitats
Page 78 of 114
Table 18 ‐ Calculated Impacts to ESA‐listed Corals in the OEC Channel Extension and Below Dredge Depth Areas
Density applied A. O. O. Impact Area Modifier O. faveolata M. ferox Total ESA from site cervicornis annularis franksii
Direct Middle Linear Reef‐Middle ESA 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direct Outer Aggregated Patch Reef‐ ESA 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Direct Outer Colonized Pavement‐ ESA 128 0 34 0 0 0 34 Deep Direct Outer Linear Reef‐Outer ESA 129 0 77 0 0 0 77 Direct Outer Spur and Groove ESA 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect Outer Aggregated Patch Reef‐ ESA 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Indirect Outer Ridge – Deep ESA 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indirect Outer Spur and Groove ESA 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Colonies 0 111 0 0 0 111
Page 79 of 114
Based on the average size of the corals documented in the adjacent sites, a significant portion of these colonies would be relocated from the impact area prior to dredging, thus reducing the adverse effects to them. Although no colonies less than 10 cm were documented, the potential for smaller colonies to be in the area exists (Table 19). Colonies less than 10 cm in size will not be relocated, and will be lethally impacted during channel expansion. The effects of relocation on listed corals is discussed later in this document.
Table 19 ‐ Number and size of O. faveolata colonies in the Direct Removal Footprint Site Number O.faveolata Average Colony Size Colony size range (# of colonies) (cm) (cm) Direct Outer ‐ Colonized 34 36.3 (4) 16.1‐33.7 Pavement‐Deep Direct Outer ‐ Spur and 77 85.4 (1) NA Groove Total Colonies in Direct 111 Removal Footprint
Rock Pre‐treatment – confined underwater blasting and hydrohammer ‐ ZoHI A literature review of the effects of open‐water blasts on invertebrates (including corals and Millepora spp.) by Keevin and Hempen (1997) states:
The results of all the studies reviewed indicate that invertebrates are insensitive to pressure related damage from underwater explosions. This may be due to the fact that all the invertebrate species tested lack gas‐containing organs which have been implicated in internal damage and mortality in vertebrates. Underwater explosion produce a pressure waveform with rapid oscillations from positive pressure to negative pressure which results in rapid volume changes in gas‐containing organs. In fish, the swimbladder, a gas‐containing organ, is the most frequently damaged organ (Christian 1973; Faulk and Lawrence 1973; Kearns and Boyd 1965; Linton et al. 1985a; Yelverton et al. 1975). It is subject to rapid contraction and overextension in response to the explosive shock waveform (Wiley et al. 1981). Species lacking swimbladders or with small swimbladders are highly resistant to explosive pressures (Aplin 1947; Fitch and Young 1948; Goertner 1994). For example, Wiley et al. (1981) and Goertner et al. (1994) noted that hogchokers (Trinectes maculatus), which lack swimbladders, were extremely tolerant of underwater explosions, and greatly exceeded the tolerance of any species with swimbladders that they had tested. Goertner et al. (1994) found that hogchokers were not killed beyond a distance of m from a 4.5 kg charge of pentolite.
Gas‐containing organs have also been implicated as a causative factor of internal damage and mortality in other vertebrate species exposed to underwater explosions. Sailors exposed to depth charges and torpedo explosions, while escaping their sinking ships during World War II, suffered damage to gas‐containing organs (Cameron et al. 1944; Ecklund 1943; Gage 1945; Palma and Uldall 1943; Yaguda 1945). The lungs, stomach, and intestines, all gas‐containing organs, were ruptured or hemorrhaged, while other organs were relatively unaffected. Similar results have been observed in underwater explosion tests with other mammalian species (Richmond et al. 1973).
All listed corals are invertebrates and lack gas containing organs like swim bladders, lungs, etc. that could be affected by rock pretreatment, confined underwater blasting or use of a hydrohammer. In addition, rock pre‐treatment is limited to within the confines of the existing
Page 80 of 114
OEC and expansion area footprint, therefore, the Corps believes that pre‐treatment of hard rock in the OEC is not likely to result in adverse effects on ESA listed corals.
Anchor‐Cable Impacts within 150m of the channel ‐ ZoHI As previous stated, anchoring outside the channel was a minimization measure coordinated with the IWG and placement of anchors/cables from cutterhead dredges to place anchors and cables outside of the boundaries of the channel are not authorized for PENIP. This is a change from the previous impact assessment included in the 2012 PENIP BA and 2015 FEIS that assumed up to 15 acres of habitat would have been directly impacted by anchors and cables. During the original assessments, the assumption was that any benthic organism in the sweep of the cable would be lethally taken by this action. By removal of this construction technique, the impact to any corals within that footprint would be changed from 100% lethal to some lesser impact associated with sedimentation and turbidity in the ZoHI. This is a decrease in the overall adverse effects associated with PENIP.
Existing Conditions in the PENIP area Turbidity The offshore waters of Broward County can be very turbid environments. Background turbidity was sampled every 15 minutes (96 samples per day) from July 2017‐July 2018 in two locations offshore of the port, on the north side of the OEC (Figure 57).
Figure 57 ‐ Turbidity Station Locations on the North side of the Channel
An analysis of the raw background turbidity data offshore of Broward County at the PEV OEC shows that turbidity exceeds the State of Florida’s water quality standard of 29 NTU in 1.2% of the samples in the nearshore and 2.5% of the samples at the second reef (offshore). A recent study (Fourney and Figueiredo 2017) demonstrated that turbidity in excess of 7 NTU may result
Page 81 of 114 in adverse effects to larval Porites asteroides. However, 11.7% (offshore) and 16.5% (nearshore) of the turbidity data points collected exceeded 7 NTUs naturally in the PEV OEC (Figure 58 and Table 20).
Figure 58 ‐ Background Turbidity in PEV OEC from July 2017‐July 2018. Data collected nearshore is shown in red, data collected offshore in blue. Two reference lines were added to denote 7 and 29 NTUs.
Table 20 ‐ Background Turbidity Values from July 2017 to July 2018 in PEV OEC NTU Nearshore Percentage Offshore Percentage <29 388 1.2 858 2.5 7‐29 5,039 15.3 3,172 9.2 <7 27566 83.6 30426 88.3
Residence Times of Dredged Material Introduced to the Project Area during Dredging For listed corals (and likely all corals in the vicinity of PEV), sediment is a natural part of the ecosystem they live in. The main adverse effects associated with dredging appears to be the introduction of very fine grained (slit and clay‐sized) sediments into the system, as well as sediments in excess of those found in the resident material (Storlazzi et al. 2015).
Reefs and hardbottom habitat in the vicinity of the PEV OEC are dynamic systems and sediments are often removed from the substrate by currents, tides, or storm events, especially those on exposed coasts like those adjacent to the PEV OEC. The residence time of sediments is dependent on several factors including grain size and the hydrodynamics of the system (i.e., higher energy is needed to mobilize large grained materials). This is directly related to the critical shear stress of any given sediment type. Overburden sediments, which overlay the bedrock, are comprised of varying proportions of fine sand and silt sized particles, all of which have low critical shear stress. Therefore, these sediments are subject to being readily re‐
Page 82 of 114 suspended and redeposited in concert with, and in the same pattern as the surrounding ambient sediments, because their compositions are the same. As such, the dredged overburden sediments tend to blend with the ambient sediments and can become quickly indistinguishable from them. The residence time for sand and silt depositions would be expected to be shorter in the fall and winter months (often less than a few hours) due to a higher energy wave regime, and somewhat longer during the summer months, when less energy is introduced into the system. Average wave height in the winter ranges from 3.6 to 4.1 ft and in the summer from 1.8 ft to 2.6 ft (USACE 2015b). The minimization effort of no dredging during coral spawning specifically addresses this by reducing the amount of fine material from dredging that may adversely affect larval corals (Figure 59).
Figure 59 ‐ Spawning Timeframes for Coral Species Offshore of Broward County.
Mean benthic cover of sediment at the PENIP project area based on the results of the 2017 PENIP Recon survey shows a mean percent cover for total sediment throughout the Recon survey study area ranging from 17.3‐25.2% (Table 21) (DCA 2018b). The Recon survey was conducted on hardbottom habitat and avoided large sand channels. As such, the results provide documentation that the corals on the hardbottom and reef habitats near the PEV OEC are exposed to significant levels of sedimentation in background conditions.
Table 21 ‐ Sediment Coverage in Project Area (Adapted from Figure 41, DCA 2018b) Survey Area % Fine Sediment %Sandy % Mixed % Total Sediment Sediment Sediment Hardbottom & 0.3 9.2 7.8 17.3 Inner Reef Middle Reef 0.1 6.0 16.1 22.2 Outer Reef 0.4 6.2 18.6 25.2
Based on the geotechnical analysis conducted by the Corps for PENIP, the bedrock below the overburden sediments is comprised of intermittent areas of sandstone and limestone (approximately 40/60%). The sandstone is comprised of fine sand size particles with small amounts of silt size particles. These components also have low critical shear stress, and short residence time. However, the components of limestone tend to cover a full range of particle sizes, from very large cobble size down to clay and colloidal size. Clay size and near‐clay size particles tend toward higher critical shear stress (longer residence time), if they are left
Page 83 of 114 undisturbed for several days. Sedimentation patterns from this class of particles is readily distinguishable from ambient sediments, due their unique size, color and cohesive characteristics. Also because they are smaller, they tend to be transported longer distances than the other sediment types described above, before settling. These smaller fines are the main concern for ESA listed corals. These sediments flocculate together to former larger masses and these masses settle out of the water column faster than their component elements would. Once they have settled out of the water column, it may take higher velocities of water (larger wave events) to break them up and move them off the bottom.
The recently completed project at PortMiami documented the effects of fine sediments settling out of the water column onto corals immediately adjacent to the channel resulting in partial and total mortality of some colonies. Dredging operations began in November 2013 with operations and maintenance dredging of the OEC and was completed April 8, 2015 (16 months).
Page 84 of 114
Table 22 demonstrates the sediment depths from two survey efforts on the second reef at PortMiami where sediment depth data were collected. It is likely that the additional sediment measured by NMFS was a finer grained material associated with the PortMiami project. Although these datasets are not directly comparable (because NMFS collected maximum sediment depth as compared to the PortMiami’s contractor collected average sediment depths, see
Page 85 of 114
Table 22), this comparison demonstrates that fine‐grained sediments introduced from dredging operations were likely removed from the project area through coastal processes and in most cases sediment depth is within the range of the depths measured on the control sites located more than five miles north within 17 months after dredging operations ceased.
Page 86 of 114
Table 22 – Comparison of Average Sediment Depths by Location. Although NMFS (Dec 2015) did not collect data at the exact same stations as the Port’s contractor (Sept 2016), their stations are within 50 meters of each other. Row Labels (the numbers refer to distance Maximum Sediment Depth Average Sediment Depth (cm) in meters from channel) (cm) Dec 2015 ‐ NMFS Sept 2016 – Port Contractor R2N1‐RR (Channel‐side) Not Recorded 0.56 R2N2‐LR(Channel‐side) Not Recorded 2.19** R2N‐75‐RR Not Recorded 0.44 R2N‐75‐LR Not Recorded 0.49 R2N‐100‐LR 1.78 ‐ R2N‐100‐HR 1.65 ‐ R2N‐150‐RR ‐ 0.57 R2N‐200‐LR 1.68 ‐ R2N‐200‐HR 4.2 ‐ R2N‐250‐RR ‐ 0.66 R2N‐300‐LR 0.92 ‐ R2N‐300‐RR 0.72 ‐ R2N‐350‐RR ‐ 0.46 R2N‐450‐RR 0.45 R2N‐500‐LR 1.3 ‐ R2N‐500‐RR 0.95 ‐ R2N‐550‐RR ‐ 0.49 R2N‐650‐RR ‐ 0.58 R2N‐700‐HR 2.1 ‐ R2N‐750‐RR ‐ 0.49 R2NC1‐LR (Control Site) ‐ 0.85 R2NC2‐RR (Control Site) ‐ 0.32 R2NC3‐LR (Control Site) ‐ 0.38 R2NC‐LR 0.32 ‐ R2NC‐HR 0.30 ‐ ** Sediment channel in the site verified by video review
General Effects of Sedimentation and Turbidity on Corals Reported effects of sedimentation and turbidity specific to listed corals is very limited, with a majority of the studies conducted in the 1980s. As a result, studies on other non‐listed corals or studies about general coral morphologies may have to serve as proxies for listed species. Another limiting factor is that most studies were conducted in a laboratory setting and did not expose corals to varying levels of sedimentation to mimic the decrease in sediment deposition thickness as the distance from the sediment source increases. These laboratory‐based studies examining the effects of sediments on corals can be grouped into two main categories of experiments: (1) those examining the effects of suspension (sediment suspended concentrations or SSCs) and (2) those examining the response of corals to falling particles (burial and smothering experiments; reviewed in Jones et al. 2016). The effects of dredging, in concert with the constant movement of sediments in and around the entrance channel, may affect light
Page 87 of 114 attenuation in the water column as a result of increased turbidity, and may also result in burial from sedimentation, which can destabilize the benthic community.
Erftemeijer et al. (2012) specifically commented that the risks and severity of impact from dredging (and other sediment disturbances) on corals are primarily related to the intensity, duration and frequency of exposure to increased turbidity and sedimentation. The sensitivity of a coral reef to dredging impacts and its ability to recover depend on the existing ecological conditions of the reef, its resilience and the ambient conditions normally experienced. Adverse effects from sedimentation are also less likely to occur in the presence of strong oceanographic currents (Rogers 1990) because sediments are swept off corals.
Whether and to what extent there will be effects to corals located adjacent to dredging projects depends on several factors, including the type of dredge utilized, the type of sediments and the size of the area being dredged, the hydrodynamic conditions of the dredging site, and the duration of active dredging. Each of these factors influences the size, settlement time, and ultimate settling site of the sediment plume. Ertfemeijer et al. (2012) provides a comprehensive overview on the environmental effects of dredging and other sediment disturbances in 89 coral species worldwide (~10% of all known reef‐building corals). Specifically,
The major problems arising from turbidity and sedimentation derived from coastal construction and dredging are related to the shading caused by decreases in ambient light and sediment cover on the coral’s surface, as well as problems for the feeding apparatus under a sediment blanket and energetic costs associated with mucus production, sediment clearance and impaired feeding. Suspended sediments, especially when fine‐grained, decrease the quality and quantity of incident light levels, resulting in a decline in photosynthetic productivity of zooxanthellae (Falkowski et al., 1990; Richmond, 1993).
The potential effects not only include direct mortality (as a result of shading, smothering and/or burial of coral polyps), but also sub‐lethal effects such as reduced growth, lower calcification rates, reduced light for photosynthesis, bleaching, increased susceptibility to diseases, physical damage to coral tissue and reef structures (breaking, abrasion), and reduced regeneration from tissue damage. Additionally, if the reduction in photosynthesis is long term, it can result in starvation of the coral polyp. High turbidity and sedimentation rates may depress coral growth and survival due to depressed photosynthesis and redirection of energy expenditure for clearance of settling sediments. As a result, the potential effects of sedimentation not only include direct mortality, but also involve sublethal effects including “reduced growth, lower calcification rates and reduced productivity, bleaching, increased susceptibility to diseases, physical damage to coral tissue and reef structures (breaking, abrasion), and reduced regeneration from tissue damage.” Erftemeijer et al. (2012). All of these effects would be more likely to happen in bounder or flat/round shaped corals.
There is a wide range of maximum sedimentation rates that can be tolerated by different corals (<10 mg cm‐2 d‐1 to >400 mg cm‐2 d‐1; reviewed in Ertemeijer et al. 2012). Some of this variation is likely caused by differences in the particle size of sediments applied in the experiments (fine vs. coarse), which calls for a more standardized approach (reviewed in Jones et al. 2016). Finer grain sizes tend to have greater impacts than coarse sediments (e.g., Storlazzi et al. 2015).
For ESA listed species present in the project area, the limited literature available on the effects of sedimentation suggests species‐specific tolerances, with concentrations ≥200 mg cm‐2 d‐1
Page 88 of 114 shown to cause partial or total colony mortality for both Acropora species and the O. annularis species complex as quickly as 24 hrs after exposure in the laboratory (Rogers, 1977; Rogers, 1979; Rogers, 1990, see Table 23). More recent work has also shown that O. annularis species appear to be sensitive to terrigenous sediment influxes, with increases in sedimentation resulting in reduced cover and growth rates over time (Torres, 2001; Torres and Morelock, 2002; Bégin et al. 2013). Work on the effects of coarse‐grained sediments appear to be limited to one study (Thompson, 1980b), and suggest effects on mortality for all three listed species (A. cervicornis, A. palmata and O. annularis) after a 72h exposure to 10‐12 cm of sand burial. In addition, the limited literature available on the effects of turbidity suggests that even short pulses (≥65 hrs) of suspended fine‐grained mud concentrations of ≥ 400 mg/L can result in partial or total colony mortality for ESA‐listed species A. cervicornis and/or O. annularis (Thompson, 1980a; see Table 23 and Table 24). Further, light reduction is probably the most important effect of sedimentation for the depth‐generalist species O. annularis, as photosyntesis has been shown to decrease >93% between 0.5 and 50 m in depth (Battey and Porter, 1988).
Duckworth et al. (2017) reviewed the effects of dredging on eight coral species with three different morphologies (shapes): branching; massive and foliose. The branching (A. cervicornis) and massive (other listed corals) morphologies are found in the Caribbean and Florida. Duckworth et al (2017) concluded “Sediment accumulation rates on live corals and dead (enamel‐covered) skeletons varied between morphologies, with branching species often more adept at self‐cleaning.” This supports the conclusions of Rogers (1983), “The cylindrical branches of A. cervicornis and the almost spherical morphology of D. strigosa better adapt these species to higher sediment loads.” This ability for cylindrical corals to shed sediments was demonstrated in the “during” and “post‐project” monitoring of tagged corals at the PortMiami project (DCA 2015c). Corals with a flatter morphology, or corals which are located in a depression in the reef structure where material can accumulate, tended to have more difficulty shedding accumulated sediment, often ending up part of the colony unable to be unburied, and the long term of exposure of the unburied portion of the colony to sediment, the greater the likelihood of partial mortality of the colony (Figure 60). While this may not lead to total mortality of the colony, it results in stress to the colony as a whole. Taller corals are able to shed the excess sediment and did not exhibit the partial mortality signature seen in the flatter corals (Figure 61).
Page 89 of 114
Figure 60 ‐ Partial mortality of Diploria clivosa at R2S1‐200, consistent with partial mortality documented at channel‐side sites, PortMiami.
Figure 61 ‐ Solenastrea bournoni colony at R2S‐400, PortMiami. Photo was taken on May 21, 2015
Jones et al. (2015) reviewed the effects of sedimentation on early life stages of corals and concludes that the majority of reported or likely effects (+30) are negative (including effects on fertilization, larval development, recruitment, survival and settlement), as well as a suite of previously unrecognized effects on gametes.
Bessell‐Browne et al. (2017a) conducted experiments with various SSCs and light combinations and suggest that the light reduction associated with turbidity poses a greater risk to corals than the effects of elevated SSCs alone. In a follow‐up study, Bessell‐Browne et al. (2017b) also found that bleached corals were less capable of removing sediments from their surfaces, with sediment accumulations 3 to 4‐fold more than on normally‐pigmented corals.
Page 90 of 114
Table 23 – Reported effects of sedimentation deposition on ESA listed corals present in the Port Everglades project area (modified from Erftemeijer et al. 2012) Species Morphology Type of sediments Treatments Summary of effects‐ sublethal or lethal? Reference drilling mud 200mg cm‐2 d‐1 No effect after 45 days Rogers (1979) A. cervicornis branching sand 10‐12 cm mortality after 72h Thompson (1980b) 200mg cm‐2 d‐1 partial mortality after 24h Rogers (1977) A. palmata branching sand 10‐12 cm mortality after 72h Thompson (1980a) natural sediments up to 600mg cm‐2 d‐1 sub‐lethal effects after 4h Abdel‐Salam and Porter (1988) natural sediments 19mg cm‐2 d‐1 sub‐lethal effects Dodge et al. (1974) 800mg cm‐2 d‐1 Mortality after 1 day Rogers (1977) 200‐800mg cm‐2 d‐1 Mortality at rates ≥400 mg cm‐2 d‐1 after 1 Rogers (1979) day sand 10‐12 cm mortality after 24h Thompson (1980b) natural sediments up to 600mg cm‐2 d‐1 No effects after 4h Abdel‐Salam and Porter (1988) O. annularis varies in response to light conditions 200‐800mg cm‐2 d‐1 Mortality at rates ≥800 mg cm‐2 d‐1 Rogers (1990) terrigenous sediments 19mg cm‐2 d‐1 sub‐lethal effects Torres (1998) permanently terrigenous sediments 10mg cm‐2 d‐1 reduced cover Torres and Morelock (2002) terrigenous sediments field, natural reduced cover with increasing sedimentation Begin et al. 2013
Page 91 of 114
Table 24 – Reported effects of turbidity on ESA listed corals present in the Port Everglades project area (modified from Erftemeijer et al. 2012) Species Morphology Type of sediments Treatments Summary of effects‐ sublethal or lethal? Reference severe light reduction mortality after 7 weeks Rogers (1979) drilling mud 50‐476 mg/L partial mortality after 96h of exposure to Thompson (1980a) 476mg/L A. cervicornis branching drilling mud 1000 mg/L mortality after 65h of exposure to 1000mg/L Thompson and Bright (1980)
drilling mud 25 mg/L sub‐lethal effects after 24h of exposure to Kendall et al. (1983) 25mg/L severe light reduction sub‐lethal effects after 6‐8 weeks Rogers (1979) drilling mud 50‐476 mg/L mortality after 65h of exposure to 476mg/L Thompson (1980a)
O. annularis varies in response to light conditions drilling mud 1000 mg/L mortality after 65h of exposure to 1000mg/L Thompson and Bright (1980)
drilling mud 100 mg/L sub‐lethal effects after 6 weeks Szmant‐Froelich et al.(1981)
Page 92 of 114
Corals within 150m of the channel ‐ ZoHI Based on the ESA survey results, only O. faveolata has been documented within 150m of the channel. Thirteen colonies were documented in the sites within 150m of the channel with an average colony size 27.4cm (range 8.4‐62.3cm). Of these 92% would be relocated (12 of the 13, >10cm) from the project area if they are healthy at the time of relocation (no bleaching, paling, disease or parasitic sponge infestations). Extrapolating from the surveyed sites to the entire 150m ZoHI results in up to 279 O. faveolata with the potential to be relocated. Based on this extrapolation, up to 258 of the colonies would be greater than 10cm in average size and could be relocated to artificial reefs outside of the project area. Similarly, this means that 21 colonies of O. faveolata would remain in the ZoHI and may be adversely affected due to higher turbidity and sedimentation associated with the PENIP when compared to background conditions.
Relocation – ZoHI NMFS has previously analyzed the effects of relocating Acroporid‐corals in association with the Dade County Beach Erosion Control project (2009) and Miami Harbor Expansion in 2011. In both cases, NMFS used a mortality rate associated with relocation of 17% (Herlan and Lirman 2008). When calculating potential mortality associated with relocation of Acroporid corals, the Corps will use this value.
Additionally, NMFS’ analyzed the effects of relocation of non‐Acroporid corals specific to PENIP in the 2014 BO and in 2017 for relocation and survival Orbicella spp. associated with bulkhead construction at PortMiami (NMFS 2017b).
The USACE and NMFS agree that all of the colonies of elliptical star, mountainous star, knobby star, lobed star, rough cactus, and Lamarck’s sheet coral could be lethally taken during dredging if not relocated. Therefore, the USACE is proposing to relocate all colonies over 10 cm. We believe coral transplantation will be highly successful and relocating these corals outside the project area is an appropriate alternative to the take that would otherwise occur. The corals will be transplanted to the newly created artificial reef nearby the proposed project. Corals will be transplanted using the appropriate transplantation protocols (see Appendix B) by properly trained personnel. Corals will be placed on the artificial reef in area appropriate densities and grouped by species. Because suitable transplantation habitat is nearby and proper handling techniques are available and will be required, we have confidence that transplantation survival rates similar to those noted elsewhere will be likely in this case. We believe that a 15% coral morality rate of these corals being transplanted from their natural environment to areas nearby is a reasonable estimate; therefore, we anticipate an 85% survival rate of transplanted colonies.
We also estimate that a maximum of 35 colonies of Lamarck’s sheet coral, 105 colonies of elliptical coral, 773 colonies of lobed coral, 25 colonies of mountainous coral, 25 colonies of knobby star coral, and 35 colonies of rough cactus coral will be relocated and survive.
The proposed action may also collect up to 250 fragments from wild colonies of staghorn coral and collect approximately 2,500 staghorn coral fragments of opportunity to support the propagation and outplanting portion of the mitigation plan.
In the 2014 PENIP BO, NMFS estimated the numbers of each of the (then) proposed corals greater than 10cm in size would be relocated from the direct impact area and applied a 15% mortality rate for all species being relocated (NMFS 2014c). Smaller colonies would likely have a
Page 93 of 114 higher mortality either during relocation efforts or after relocation. For PortMiami’s bulkheads NMFS determined that survival of relocated Orbicella spp. after transplantation is 90% (NMFS 2017b). Other listed coral species were not evaluated in the document.
In Florida, the Corps has set a standard for relocating corals ≥ 10 cm in diameter based on consultation with coral relocation experts (Dr. Keith Spring, CSA pers comm.) who explained that corals smaller than 10cm are often flatter and more easy broken during relocation efforts:
However, I think it's generally acknowledged that the older and larger a coral is the more likely it is to survive stress and other adverse environmental impacts. Being realistic, it depends on where the work is being conducted. If I'm relocating coral colonies on a pristine reef in the western Pacific (pick an island) I can guarantee nearly 100% survival for corals 3 cm and larger. If I'm working in Florida where corals are subject to much higher stress levels (thermal, light, sedimentation) the guarantee drops off considerably. Just the simple fact that the colony is smaller and with a potentially lower vertical profile increases the risk it can be buried by sediment for longer periods of time than a larger coral, if attached in areas subject to sediment deposition.
For this analysis, the Corps will apply the 90% transplant survival rate for non‐Acropora spp. and the 17% for Acropora spp., compared to reference colonies to all ESA listed corals ≥10cm. Non‐ Acropora spp. colonies from the expansion areas will be relocated to the artificial reef and non‐ Acropora spp. colonies within 150m of the channel will be moved to artificial reef and/or to sites within the ZoI. Acroporid corals will be relocated to appropriate habitats away from the project influence in consultation with NMFS‐PRD staff.
Extrapolated Total ESA‐listed corals within ZoHI The total number of ESA‐listed corals within the ZoHI is estimated to be 393 colonies of O. faveolata (
Page 94 of 114
Table 25) (DCA 2018a). Based on the total O. faveolata colonies (8 colonies) recorded in the ZoHI during the ESA surveys, 62.5% were larger than 10cm in maximum size (height, width, length) and are candidates for relocation. Applying this to the total area within the ZOHI, 121 colonies of O. faveolata will be relocated to either the artificial reef per the mitigation plan, or to natural areas within the ZoI and of these up to 12 may die. Up to 72 colonies would be too small to relocate and may be adversely affected by permanent removal of habitat through dredging or sedimentation and/or turbidity.
Data from Appendices F and G from the 2017 ESA survey (DCA 2018a) were used to calculate the numbers of corals in the ZOHI (0‐150m north and south of the channel). The following ESA survey sites were considered to be in the ZOHI based on Figures 4 & 6 of DCA 2018a – DIRECT MIDDLE, DIRECT OUTER, INDIRECT‐OUTER; ESA‐112 to ESA‐148 and NSU‐012 to NSU‐017 and any associated supplemental areas.
Page 95 of 114
Table 25 ‐ Total Estimate of ESA‐listed corals in ZoHI based on the PENIP ESA survey (2017) O. faveolata O. annuarlis O. franski M. ferox Second & Third Reef Expansion Area & Below Dredge Depth Direct Removal 42 0 0 0 Relocation Totals 69 0 0 0 Relocation – survival 62 0 0 0 (90%) Relocation – mortality 7 0 0 0 (10%) Total # Colonies Within 193 0 0 0 150m of channel Relocation Totals 121 0 0 0 Relocation – survival 109 0 0 0 (90%) Relocation – mortality 12 0 0 0 (10%) Total/Partial mortality 72 0 0 0 assoc w/sedimentation and turbidity Totals 309 0 0 0
Extrapolated Total ESA‐listed corals within ZoMI Based upon the PENIP ESA survey (DCA 2018a), the total number of ESA‐listed corals within the ZoMI is estimated to be 2,829 colonies: 2,208 A. cervicornis; 538 O. faveolata; 58 O. annularis; 15 O. franski and 10 M. ferox. Corals in this zone are expected to be adversely affected by moderate levels of sedimentation and turbidity associated with spillage from dredging operations. Levels of sedimentation and turbidity are expected to be less than those that will be observed in the ZoHI due to the increased distance from dredging operations. At this time it is not possible to quantify the difference in sedimentation and turbidity exposure between the zones, but based on the type of material being dredged (sand, silts, and/or clay) and the residence times associated with differing grain sizes, less dredged material is expected to be in the water column in this zone as compared to the ZoHI.
The following ESA survey sites were considered to be in the ZOMI (151‐450m north and south of the channel) based on Figures 4 & 6 of DCA 2018a – ESA‐061 to ESA‐111 and NSU‐001 to NSU‐ 071 and any associated supplemental areas.
Table 26 ‐ Total Estimate of ESA‐listed corals in the ZoMI based on the PENIP ESA survey (2017) A. cervicornis O. faveolata O. annularis O. franski M. ferox Partial mortality &/or sub‐lethal stress assoc. 2,208 538 58 15 10 w/sedimentation and turbidity
Page 96 of 114
Extrapolated Total ESA‐listed corals within ZoI The total number of ESA‐listed corals within the ZoMI is estimated to be 47,471 colonies: 45,329 A. cervicornis, 1,930 O. faveolata, 91 O. annularis, 84 O. franski and 38 M. ferox. Corals in this zone are expected to be adversely affected by minimal levels of sedimentation and turbidity associated with spillage from dredging operations. Levels of sedimentation and turbidity are expected to be less than those that will be observed in the ZoHI and ZoMI due to the increased distance from dredging operations. At this time it is not possible to quantify the difference in sedimentation and turbidity exposure between the zones, but based on the type of material being dredged (sand, silts, and/or clay) and the residence times associated with differing grain sizes, less dredged material is expected to be in the water column in this zone as compared to the ZoHI and ZoMI. ESA sites included in the ZOI are any not previously counted in the ZoHI and ZoMI and their associated supplemental areas.
Table 27 ‐ Total Estimate of ESA‐listed corals in the ZoI based on the PENIP ESA survey (2017) A. cervicornis O. faveolata O. annuarlis O. franski M. ferox Sub‐lethal stress assoc. 48,794 1,930 91 83 38 w/sedimentation and turbidity
Conservation Measures for Listed Corals 1) Turbidity monitoring. PENIP will abide by the turbidity monitoring requirements included in the FDEP project permit, when issued. The protocol is expected to include sampling at the surface and mid‐depth no less than three times a day, four‐hours apart at background and the edge of the mixing zone. 2) Minimization measures previously discussed. a) No overflow in the OEC for any dredge type b) No overflow from cutterhead dredges at any location in the project footprint c) No dredging in the entrance channel between July and September during spawning season for 6 of 8 listed corals. d) Prohibit the use of “rock‐chopping” as a rock pre‐treatment technique. e) Prohibit the use of anchors/cables associated with a cutterhead dredge outside of the boundaries of the existing channel. 3) Require vessels transiting to and from ODMDS to stay within the marked channel until past the last buoy to prevent impacts to reefs north or south of the reef associated with vessel traffic. 4) The Corps has developed an ESA‐listed Species Survival Plan for each of the three zones developed for PENIP (see below). This plan will minimize project‐related impacts to ESA‐ listed corals using reloction and/or coral propogation as described below.
ZoHI (0‐150 m from channel) As stated above, the Corps plans to relocate all ESA‐listed colonies greater than 10 cm from the ZOHI.
ZoMI (151‐450 m from channel) Acropora cervicornis Based upon the PENIP ESA survey (2017), the total number of ESA‐listed corals within the ZoMI is estimated to be 2,829 colonies: 2,208 A. cervicornis; 538 O. faveolata; 58 O. annularis; 15 O.
Page 97 of 114 franski and 10 M. ferox. Corals in this zone are expected to be adversely affected by moderate levels of sedimentation and turbidity associated with spillage from dredging operations. Levels of sedimentation and turbidity are expected to be less than those that will be observed in the ZoHI due to the increased distance from dredging operations. At this time it is not possible to quantify the difference in sedimentation and turbidity exposure between the zones, but based on the type of material being dredged (sand, silts, and/or clay) and the residence times associated with differing grain sizes, less dredged material is expected to be in the water column in this zone as compared to the ZoHI.
Relocation of ESA‐listed colonies from this zone was not originally proposed with the PENIP FFS and Final EIS; however, under Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA, the Corps can use our programs to “further conservation of endangered species and threatened species.” With this in mind, and to assist with A. cervicornis recovery efforts as detailed in the Recovery Plan for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral (NMFS 2015), the Corps is proposing to propagate A. cervicornis colonies from this zone into coral nurseries based on characterization of genetically distinct individuals or “genets” (see below). Acropora spp. are known to rely heavily on clonal propagation, often displaying low genetic diversity (Williams et al. 2014). Acropora‐based restoration programs typically seek to preserve genetic diversity in order to promote natural recovery through the creation of sexually reproductive populations (Baums, 2008; Schopmeyer et al. 2017), and to enhance these species’ outplant survival and success (Goergen and Gilliam, 2018; Pausch et al. 2018). As such, these efforts are expected to specifically address Acropora Recovery Plan Objective #1 ‐ “Ensure Population Viability”, Criterion #2 “Genotypic Diversity” and #3 “Recruitment.”
Briefly, the Corps proposes to genetically characterize up to 100% of the individual patches of A. cervicornis found in the ZoMI based on ESA survey results (DCA 2018a). Three to four colonies from each patch will be tagged and a very small fragment (approximately 1‐2 inches in length) will be collected from each colony for genetic analyses by a commercial or university‐based laboratory. Standard molecular techniques will be used to identify potential clones (e.g., Baums et al. 2005; Baums et al. 2009) and the minimum number of genets to include in propagation efforts. A report will be provided to NMFS‐PRD and the IWG with the description of the clonal structure in A. cervicornis present in the ZoMI prior to beginning propagation activities.
The Corps will work with NMFS‐PRD staff to identify suitable locations for setting up nurseries, but all efforts will be made to place these fragments in the same depth as their origin depth. (+/‐ 5ft). The propagation (and subsequent outplanting) design to be used is expected to incorporate experimentally‐derived best practices for appropriate fragment sizes, density, attachment techniques, sites, and/or number of genets (see Johnson et al. 2011 and Schopmeyer et al. 2017). However, the Corps’ current goal is to collect 8‐10 fragments from each genet present in the ZoMI as candidates for propagation into each proposed site/nursery. Two different fragment sizes will be targeted per genet (up to 20 total fragments per genet) as their performance (survival, growth and/or reproduction) is expected to vary greatly (e.g., Schopmeyer et al. 2017; Pausch et al. 2018). Fragments will be monitored for survival, condition, and growth after propagation, with survival rates expected to exceed 80% after a 1‐ year period (see Schopmeyer et al. 2017). All fragments collected and resulting outplanted nursery colonies will be counted towards the total number of nursery corals required to be outplanted as discussed in the Hybrid Mitigation Plan developed between the Corps and NMFS for impacts characterized under other federal laws. “Donor” colonies in the ZoMI will be
Page 98 of 114 monitored for up to 1 year to assess any detrimental impacts due to fragment collection by the propagation contractor, separate from construction monitoring. The Corps will consider relocation of whole donor colonies or a large portion of the donor colony if it is greater than one meter in greatest measurement, if triggered by results from benthic surveys during project construction. These triggers will be formulated in conjunction with the NMFS PRD based upon existing peer‐reviewed and gray literature, best available information and best professional judgement.
Orbicella spp. Although O. faveolata does not yet have a Recovery Plan, the Corps could work with NMFS‐PRD to relocate some portion of the reproductively sized (>40cm) colonies of O. faveolata out of the ZoMI to the ZoI. Based on the total O. faveolata colonies (10 colonies) recorded in the ZoMI during the 2017 PENIP ESA surveys, up to 30% of the O. faveolata colonies were larger than 40cm in maximum size (height, width, length) and are assumed to be of reproductive size. Extrapolating these numbers over the total estimated number of O. faveolata in the ZoMI (538 colonies, see Table 25) could result in up to 162 colonies of O. faveolata that are candidates for relocation to the ZoI. Applying the 90% relocation success criteria means that 16 of the colonies may die as a result of the relocation, and that 146 colonies may survive. Part of these relocation efforts may also include longer term monitoring of 3‐5 years for the relocated colonies, compared to control colonies elsewhere in Broward County. Although no colonies of O. franksi or O. annularis were documented, should colonies larger than 40cm be located during pre‐ project baseline surveys or information provided from outside interested parties, they too could be relocated to the ZoI.
NMFS previously evaluated the size classes of coral colonies within 150m of the channel based on previous surveys and stated that since all of the colonies were less than 40cm longest‐linear‐ dimension, they were not considered potentially reproductively mature (pg 118, NMFS 2014c). “In the species for which we have estimates of size at first reproduction, all are larger than 40 cm (average ~100 cm).” Using this standard, proposed relocation of Orbicella spp. Colonies colonies larger than 40 cm is a benefit to the species by supporting a decrease in potential adverse effects to sexual reproduction and recruitment of these species.
ZoI (451‐1,200 m from channel) The total number of ESA‐listed corals within the ZoI is estimated to be 47,471 colonies: 45,329 A. cervicornis, 1,930 O. faveolata, 91 O. annularis, 84 O. franski and 38 M. ferox. Corals in this zone are expected to be adversely affected by minimal levels of sedimentation and turbidity associated with spillage from dredging operations. Levels of sedimentation and turbidity are expected to be less than those that will be observed in the ZoHI and ZoMI due to increased distance from dredging operations. At this time it is not possible to quantify the difference in sedimentation and turbidity exposure between the zones, but based on the type of material being dredged (sand, silts, and/or clay) and the residence times associated with differing grain sizes, less dredged material is expected to be in the water column in this zone as compared to the ZoHI and ZoMI.
Given the numbers of ESA‐listed corals expected to be present in the ZoI (from 451 to 1,200 m), the Corps will consider genetic characterization of A. cervicornis colonies from this zone (and subsequent propagation efforts as described above) if triggered by results from benthic surveys during project construction documenting project‐related impacts beyond those expected.
Page 99 of 114
These triggers will be formulated in conjunction with the NMFS PRD based upon existing peer‐ reviewed and gray literature, best available information and best professional judgment.
Effects Determination The proposed PENIP may adversely affect listed corals in the project area. The Corps has determined that any listed coral within the ZoHI not relocated out of this area, may be adversely affected by habitat removal and/or elevated turbidity and increased sedimentation which may result in partial or total mortality of colonies. ESA‐listed corals within the ZoMI may be adversely affected through partial mortality of flat colonies and/or sub‐lethal stress of all colonies and colonies within the ZoI may be adversely affected through sub‐lethal stress.
NMFS’ 2014 BO assumed that any listed coral in the channel and within 150m of the channel would be lethally taken by the project, even those located outside of the direct impact dredge footprint (Table 28). NMFS also significantly overestimated the numbers of listed corals that were in that area. This is an exceptionally conservative approach in assessing effects to listed corals, however it allows for a high impact bookend to compare current effects analysis against.
Table 28 ‐ Estimated Number of lethal takes of ESA‐listed Coral Colonies assumed in 2014 BO Listed Coral Species Name Number of colonies lethally taken assumed in 2014 BO – all within 150m of channel Lobed coral – O. faveolata 20,062 Mountainous star corals – O. annularis 627 Knobby star coral – O. franski 627 Rough cactus coral – M. ferox 1,207
In all four cases, NMFS determined that take of the previously listed number of colonies of each species was likely to result in “…reduction in absolute population numbers that may also reduce reproduction. We believe these reductions are unlikely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species in the wild, because the action will not negatively affect critical metrics of the status of the species.” (NMFS 2014). NMFS also concluded that for each of these four species, the removal of the number of colonies cited above would “cause no noticeable change in the population of the species” when compared to the range‐wide population estimates as required for invertebrate species listed under the ESA. They determined that the proposed project would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of these four species.
In their 2014 analysis, NMFS assumed a 100% lethal take of all ESA‐listed and (then) proposed corals. The Corps believes that although corals may be adversely affected by sedimentation and turbidity, those outside of the ZoHI will not have total mortality associated with the project, and in many cases may only experience temporary, sub‐lethal effects due to the minimization measures put in place to decrease spillage from dredging methods.
Comparing the total number and level of effect to the Orbicella spp and M. ferox that are estimated to be in the project area based on the 2017 ESA survey (Table 29) and comparing them with NMFS’ previous estimate, the Corps believes that NMFS’ previous determination that the PENIP project “would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of these four species.” remains valid and concurs with NMFS’ determination and incorporates it by reference.
Page 100 of 114
Table 29 ‐ Estimated Total Number of ESA‐listed Corals to be affected by the Project based on 2017 ESA survey. A. cervicornis O. faveolata O. annularis O. franski M. ferox ZoHI 0 304 0 0 0 ZoMI 2,208 538 58 15 10 ZoI 48,794 1,930 91 83 38 Total 51,002 2,772 149 98 48
Effects of project on Acropora Critical Habitat The total amount of critical habitat that may be affected by the project is 423.23 acres. The Florida unit of DCH is 3,442 km2, which is equal to 850,536.75 acres. This means that 0.005% of the Florida Unit may be adversely affected by the project. The effects on DCH range from permanent removal associated with channel extension, to temporary sedimentation and turbidity. The magnitude of adverse effect will decrease the further from the dredging the habitat is located. The minimization measures incorporated into the project are expected to significantly decrease the introduction of fine grained materials into the water column and thus, will reduce the amount of associated sedimentation. Additionally, as demonstrated in Table 22 the fine grain sedimentation observed at PortMiami was removed from the area through coastal processes within 17 months after dredging was completed.
Per the final rule designating critical habitat, the primary element that must be present for Acropora critical habitat is waters less than 30m (99 feet) and “substrate of suitable quality and availability’’ equivalent to consolidated hardbottom or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy macroalgae cover and sediment cover” (NMFS 2008).
The 2017 PENIP Reconnaissance survey characterized the habitats surrounding the PEV OEC, as well as additional sites within the ESA survey area. Table 30 lists the mean percent cover for each functional group. Using the criteria included in the final designation of critical habitat, bare substrate, dead coral skeletons and crustose coralline algae are the three functional groups that could support Acropora spp. larvae. Based on the results of the Reconnaissance survey, no more than 3.3% of the impacted habitat contains the elements necessary to serve as critical habitat for Acropora spp.
Table 30 ‐ Mean Percent Coverage Across all PEV Recon Sites (Data from Figure 41, DCA 2018b) Functional Group Mean Percent Cover Turf w/sediment 39.0 Turf algae 2.1 Macroalgae 14.8 Sediment 21.3 Cyanobacteria 7.0 Bare substrate 0.9 Crustose coralline algae 1.4 Stony coral 1.2 Sponges 6.4 Octocoral 2.8 Hydrocoral 0.2 Zoanothid 0.6 Sessile worms 0.5 Other 0.8
Page 101 of 114
Based on the percentage of designated critical habitat within the Florida Unit likely to be adversely affected by the project, the Corps believes that the project is not likely to adversely modify the DCH for either Acropora species.
Johnson’s seagrass Direct Removal by Dredging Dredging would adversely affect Johnson’s seagrass through the permanent removal of a maximum of 5.40 acres of mixed or monoculture beds where the species occurs along the SAC and Widener based on the maximum coverage seen in the 1999‐2016 seagrass surveys. Average cover of H. johnsonii during this same period of time was 4.00 acres. The impact is considered permanent because deepening of shallow‐water habitats beyond 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) is likely to impede post‐dredging recolonization of areas that currently support H. johnsonii (NMFS 2007a, Kenworthy 2000, and Hammerstrom et al. 2006). This effect would be seen throughout the improved Widener and SAC, where water depths will be at to 50 feet MLLW plus 1 foot of required overdepth and 1 foot of allowable overdepth for a total dredge depth of up to 52 ft MLLW. Due to implementation of water‐quality‐protection BMPs (like no overflow from cutterhead dredges operating inside of the Port channels) and turbidity monitoring required under FDEP permit, Corps does not anticipate indirect effects to seagrasses including Johnson’s seagrass outside the impact footprint. Although seagrass habitat creation in Westlake Park as mitigation for unavoidable impacts, is being proposed, impacts to ESA species/resources cannot be mitigated, and there is no guarantee that H. johnsonii will colonize the mitigation area (as opposed to H. decipiens or Halodule wrightii). Although NMFS has listed H. johnsonii as a threatened species under Section 4 of the ESA, to date, it has not promulgated a 4d rule under the Act, and as a result, there is no prohibition on take of H. johnsonii. There is no critical habitat for H. johnsonii in the project area.
Page 102 of 114
SUMMARY OF EFFECT DETERMINATIONS
Project effect determination summary for sea turtle spp., listed corals, large whales, Nassau grouper, scalloped hammerhead; Giant Manta Ray (No Effect (NE – green); May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA – orange), May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect (MALAA – Red), and Not Likely to Adversely Modify (NLAM – yellow)
Page 103 of 114
Literature Cited Acropora Biological Review Team (ABRT). 2005. Atlantic Acropora Status Review Document. Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office. March 3, 2005. 152 p + App.
Abdel‐Salam, H., Porter, J.W., 1988. Physiological effects of sediment rejection on photosynthesis and respiration in three Caribbean reef corals. Proceedings Sixth International Coral Reef Symposium Australia 2, 285–292.
Battey, J. F., and Porter, J.W. 1988. Photoadaptation as a whole organism response in Montastraea annularis. In: Proceedings Sixth International Coral Reef, Symposium, pp. 79–87.
Baums, I.B. Miller, M.W., Hellberg and M.E. 2005. Regionally isolated populations of an imperiled Caribbean coral, Acropora palmata. Molecular Ecology 14, 1377–1390
Baums, IB., Devlin‐Durante, M. K., Brown, L. and Pinzón, J.H. 2009. Nine novel, polymorphic microsatellite markers for the study of threatened Caribbean acroporid corals. doi: 10.1111/j.1755‐0998.2009.02581.x
Baums, I.B. 2008. A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Molecular Ecology 17, 2796–2811
Bégin C., Wurzbacher, J., Cote, I. 2013. Variation in benthic communities of eastern Caribbean coral reefs in relation to surface sediment deposition. Mar Biol 160:343‐353
Bessell‐Browne, P., Negri, A.P., Fisher, R., Clode, P.L., Duckworth, A. and Jones R. 2017a. Impacts of turbidity on corals: The relative importance of light limitation and suspended sediments. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.050
Bessell‐Browne, P., Negri, A.P., Fisher, R., Clode, P.L., Duckworth, A. and Jones R. 2017b. Cumulative impacts: thermally bleached corals have reduced capacity to clear deposited sediment. DOI: 10.1038/s41598‐017‐02810‐0
Blair, S.M; T.L. McIntosh and B.J. Mostkoff. 1994. Impacts of Hurricane Andrew on the Offshore Reef Systems of Central and Northern Dade County, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science. 54(3): 961‐973.
Bloetscher, F., J. Pire‐Schmidt, D.E. Meeroff, T.P. Carsey, J. Stamates, K. Sullivan, and J.R. Proni. 2012. Farfield Modeling of the Boynton Inlet Plume. Environmental Management and Sustainable Development 1(2):74‐89.
Brainard, R.E.; C. Birkeland; C.M. Eakin; P. McElhany; M.W. Miller; M. Patterson, and G.A. Piniak. 2011. Status review report of 82 candidate coral species petitioned under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA‐TM‐NMFS‐ PIFSC‐27, 530 p. + 1 Appendix.
Carsey, T., Stamates, J., Enochs, I., Jones, P. and Featherstone, C. 2016. Water Quality and Reef Monitoring Along the Southeast Coast. Final Report. NOAA AOML Numeric Criteria Study
Page 104 of 114
Clarke, D.G. and D.H. Wilbur. 2008. Compliance Monitoring of Dredging‐Induced Turbidity: Defective Designs and Potential Solutions. Western Dredging Association St. Louis, Mo.
Clarke, D.G., C. Dickerson and K. Reine. 2002. Characterization of Underwater Sounds Produced by Dredges. In Dredging 2002, American Society of Civil Engineers, Orlando, Florida, USA, 64‐81.
Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminoff, M.L. Snover, C.M. Upite, and B.E. Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to the National Marine Fisheries Service, August 2009. 222 pgs.
CSA International, Inc. 2007. During Dredging Resource Health and Sedimentation Surveys Report for May through August 2007 Hopper Dredging Activities for the Key West Harbor Dredging Project. November 2007. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
CSA International, Inc. 2007a. Post‐Dredging Resource Impact Assessment Monitoring Survey Final Report for the Key West Harbor Dredging Project (2004‐2006) 7 May 2007. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
CSA International, Inc. 1981. Environmental Monitoring Associated with the Port Everglades Harbor Deepening Project of 1980. Final Report Volumes I and II. June 16, 1981.
DCA 2001. Environmental Baseline Study Miami Harbor Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
DCA 2009. Benthic and Fish Community Assessment at Port Everglades Harbor Entrance Channel. Final Draft. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
DCA 2015a. Monthly Delineation of Potential Sedimentation Effect Area Within Nearshore Hardbottom (January 2015) Port of Miami Phase III Federal Channel Expansion Project. FDEP Permit #0305721‐001‐BI April 13, 2015. Final Report.
DCA 2015b. Delineation of Potential Sedimentation Effect Area Within Middle & Outer Reef Habitats. Port of Miami Phase III Federal Channel Expansion Project FDEP Permit #0305721‐001‐BI August, 2015. Final Report.
DCA 2015c. Miami Harbor Phase III Federal Channel Expansion Project. FDEP Permit #0305721‐ 001‐BI. Quantitative Post‐Construction Analysis for Middle and Outer Reef Benthic Communities. November 2015. Final Report.
DCA 2017. Seagrass Survey. Port Everglades Navigation Improvements Project. Report. February 2017.
DCA. 2018a. Endangered Species Act Listed Coral Species Survey and Results. Port Everglades Navigation Improvements Project. Final Report. Prepared for David Miller and Associates and Broward County, Port Everglades Department.
Page 105 of 114
DCA. 2018b. Benthic Community Reconnaissance Survey. Port Everglades Navigation Improvements Project. Final Report. Prepared for David Miller and Associates and Broward County, Port Everglades Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
Dickerson, C., Reine, K. J., and Clarke, D. G. 2001. “Characterization of underwater sounds produced by bucket dredging operations,” DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN‐ DOER‐E14), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer.
Dickerson, D., C. Theriot, M. Wolters, C. Slay, T. Bargo, W. Parks. 2007. “Effectiveness of relocation trawling during hopper dredging for reducing incidental take of sea turtles,” In: Proceedings of the World Dredging Congress XVIII,USACE ERDC Research Initiatives. Central Dredging Association, 27 May‐1 June 2007, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/seaturtles/docs/07‐DickersonWODCON.pdf
Dodge, R.E., Aller, R.C., Thompson, J., 1974. Coral growth related to resuspension of bottom sediments. Nature 247, 574–577.
Duckworth, A., Nn. Giofre and R. Jones. 2017. Coral morphology and sedimentation. Marine Pollution Bulletin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.036
Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1992. Green turtle. In Moler, P.E. (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida, pp 90‐94.
EPA. 1994. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. Remediation Guidance Document. Great Lakes National Program Office. EPA 905‐R94‐ 003. October 1994.
Ertfemeijer, P.A., B. Reigl, B.W. Hoeksema and Todd, P.A. 2012. Environmental Impacts of Dredging and Other Sediment Disturbances on Corals, A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 64 1737‐1765.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Rapid Response and Restoration for Coral Reef Injuries in Southeast Florida. Guidelines and Recommendations. June 2007.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2018. Florida Reef Tract Coral Disease Outbreak Update Presentation. June 15, 2018.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). 2008. Unified Florida Reef Map. http://geodata.myfwc.com/datasets?q=Unified%20reef
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Florida Marine Research Institute’s Statewide Nesting Beach Survey data. http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea‐ turtles/nesting/statewide/. Accessed July 2018.
Fourney, F. and J. Figueiredo. 2017. Additive negative effects of anthropogenic sedimentation and warming on the survival of coral recruits. Nature: Scientific Reports. 7:12380. DOI:10.1038/s41598‐017‐12607‐w.
Page 106 of 114
Frazer, N.B., C.J. Limpus and J.L. Greene. 1994. Growth and age at maturity of Queensland loggerheads. U.S. Dept of Commer. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐SEFSC‐351.
Gabriel, C. and A.C. Hirons. 2011. Evaluating the Role of Seagrass Beds as a Nursery Habitat and Food Source in Port Everglades, Florida [Poster]. Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, FL.
Gilliam, D.S., B, .Walker and N. D’Antonio. 2012. Nearshore Acropora surveys between Port Everglades and Hillsboro Inlets, Broward County, Florida. Technical Report NRPMD 12‐ 01. April 2012
Gilliam, D.S., C.J. Wilson, V. Brinkhuis, R. Ruzicka and M. Colella. 2014. Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project. September 2015. 2014 Year 12 Final Report.
Gilliam, D.S., C.J. Wilson, N.K. Hayes, R. Ruzicka, M. Colella and V. Brinkhuis. 2016. Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project. 2016 Year 14 Final Report. October 2017
Goergen E.A., and Gilliam, D.S. 2018. Outplanting technique, host genotype, and site affect the initial success of outplanted Acropora cervicornis. DOI 10.7717/peerj.4433
Hales, L.Z. 2003. Bed‐Leveling Following Dredging Operations. ERDC Dredging Operations Technical Support (DOTS) Program South Atlantic Division Request for Technical Assistance. 25 August 2003.
Hammerstrom, K.K., W.J. Kenworthy, M.S. Fonseca, and P.E. Whitfield. 2006. Seed bank, biomass, and productivity of Halophila decipiens, a deep water seagrass on the west Florida continental shelf. Aquatic Botany 84: 110‐120.
Heidelbaugh, W.S. 1999. Determination of the ecological role of the seagrass Halophila johnsonii; A Threatened Species in Southeast Florida. Ph.D., Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, 127 pp.
Hempen, G. L., T. M. Keevin, and H. J. Ruben. 2005. Underwater blast pressures from confined rock removal shots: The Kill Van Kull Deepening Project. Pp. 91‐100. In: Proceedings of the Thirty‐first Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Orlando, Florida. International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Hempen, G.L., T.M. Keevin and T.L. Jordan. 2007. Underwater Blast Pressure from a Confined Rock Removal. In: Proceedings of the Twenty‐first Annual Conference on Explosives and blasting Technique (Volume 1), Nashville, Tennessee. International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Henriksen P.T.L. (2009) Near‐field Sediment Resuspension Measurement and Modeling for Cutter Suction Dredging Operations. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M, College Station, TX
Institute of Water Resources (IWR). 2012. U.S. Port and Inland Waterway Modernization: Preparing for Post‐Panamax Vessels. Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 107 of 114
Johnson, M.E., Lustic, C., Bartels, E., Baums, I.B., Gilliam, D.S., Larson, E.A., Lirman, D., Miller, M.W., Nedimyer, K. and Schopmeyer, S. 2011. Caribbean Acropora Restoration Guide: Best Practices for Propagation and Population Enhancement: 1 ‐64. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facreports/71.
Jones, R., Ricardo, G., AP, N. 2015. Effects of sediments on the reproductive cycle of corals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100, 13–33.
Jones, R., Bessell‐Browne, P., Fisher, R., Klonowski, W. & Slivkoff, M. 2016. Assessing the impacts of sediments from dredging on corals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 102, 9–29, doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.049.
Kabay, L.B., D.S. Gilliam and K. S.L. 2017. Contributions to the Species Action Plan for the pillar coral, Dendrogyra cylindrus. Presentation at the “Coral Reef Information Transfer Session.” January 2017. Accessed July 31, 2018 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCk_mxoDX_8&t=807s
Keevin, T. M., Gaspin, J. B., Gitschlag, G. R., Hempen, G. L., Linton, T. L., Smith, M., and D. G. Wright. 1999. Underwater explosions: Natural Resource concerns, uncertainty of effects, and data needs. Pp. 105‐116. Proceedings of the Twenty‐fifth Annual Conference on Explosions and Blasting Technique, Nashville, Tennessee. International Society of Explosive Engineers, Cleveland, OH.
Keevin, TM and GL Hempen. 1997. The Environmental Effects of underwater explosions with methods to mitigate impacts. Accessed from https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES‐ Programs/Conservation/WaterX/water1.html
Keevin, T.M., G.L., Hempen, J.M. Pitlo and D.J. Schaeffer. 1997. Are Repelling Charge Effective in Mitigating the Impacts of Underwater Explosions? Pg 185‐195. In: Proceeding of the Twenty‐third Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, Las Vegas, NV.
Kemps, H. and R. Masini. 2017. Estimating dredge source terms – a review of contemporary practice in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. WAMSI Dredging Science Node Report. Theme 2. Report 2.2.
Kendall, J.J., Powell, E.N., Connor, S.J., Bright, T.J., 1983. The effects of drilling fluids (muds) and turbidity on the growth and metabolic state of the coral Acropora cervicornis, with comments on methods of normalization for coral data. Bulletin of Marine Science 33, 336–352.
Kenworthy, J.W. 2000. The role of sexual reproduction in maintaining populations of Halophila decipiens: implications for the biodiversity and conservation of tropical seagrass ecosystems. Pacific Conservation Biology 5: 260‐268.
Kleypas, J.A. 1996. Coral Reef Development Under Naturally Turbid Conditions: Fringing Reefs Near Broad Sound, Australia. Coral Reefs. 15:153‐167.
Limpus, C.J. 1990. Puberty and first breeding in Caretta caretta, in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. T.H.C. Richardson, J.I.C
Page 108 of 114
Richardson and M.C. Donnelly (eds). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS‐SEFSC‐278. 81.
Lunz, K.S., K. Neely, L. Kabay and D. Gilliam. 2016. Monitoring and Mapping of Dendrogyra cylindrus of the Florida Reef Tract. Final Report. August 2016.
Mackay, A.L., and J.L. Rebholz. 1996. Sea Turtle Activity Survey on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (1992‐1994). In Keinath, J.A., D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. Bell (compilers). Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS‐SEFSC‐387: 178‐181.
Meylan, A.B. 1999. Status of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2): 177‐184.
Meylan, A.B. and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):200‐204.
Miller, M. W., Karazsia, J., Groves, C. E., Griffin, S., Moore, T., Wilber, P., & Gregg, K. (2016). Detecting sedimentation impacts to coral reefs resulting from dredging the PortMiami, Florida USA. PeerJ, 4, e2711. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2711
Moffat and Nichol, International. 2006. Port Everglades Offshore Anchorage Feasibility Study Final Report. Calypso U.S. Pipeline, LLC.
Moyer, RP; B Riegl; K Banks; RE Dodge. 2003. Spatial patterns and ecology of benthic communities on a high‐latitude South Florida (Broward County, USA) reef system. Coral Reefs (2003) 22: 447–464.
Nedwell, J.R. and T.S. Thandavamoorthy, 1992. The waterborne pressure wave from buried explosive charges: an experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Acoustics 37(1992):1‐14. NMFS. 1991. Biological Opinion – Dredge of channels in the southeastern United States from North Carolina through Cape Canaveral, Florida. Signed November 25, 1991.
NMFS. 1994. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation. Concurrence with USEPA determination for Designation of the Miami Harbor ODMDS. F/SEO13:JEB. October 14, 1994.
NMFS. 1995. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division on Hopper Dredging of Channels and Borrow Areas in the Southeastern U.S. from North Carolina through Florida East Coast. Signed August 25, 1995.
NMFS. 1997. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division on the Continued Hopper dredging channels and borrow areas in the southeastern United States. Signed September 25, 1997.
NMFS. 2000a. Designated Critical Habitat: Critical Habitat for Johnson’s seagrass. Final Rule. 65 FR 17786. April 5, 2000.
Page 109 of 114
NMFS 2000b. Biological Opinion to the Department of the Navy on the Shock Trail of the Winston Churchill (DDG 81). Issued May 17, 2000.
NMFS. 2003a. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Dredging of Gulf of Mexico Navigation channels and San Mining “borrow” areas using hopper dredges by COE Galveston, New Orleans, Mobile and Jacksonville Districts. Consultation Number F/SER/2000/01287. Signed November 19, 2003 and revised 2005 and 2007.
NMFS. 2003b. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation. Concurrence with USACE determination for placement of dredged material in the one‐time use ODMDS associated with O&M dredging of Key West Harbor. March 28, 2003.
NMFS. 2004. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation. Concurrence with USEPA determination for Designation of the Port Everglades and Palm Beach ODMDS. May 24, 2004.
NMFS. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Threatened Status for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral. 70 FR 24359. May 9, 2005.
NMFS. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral. 71 FR 26852. May 9, 2006.
NMFS. 2007a. Endangered Species Act 5‐Year Review Johnson’s Seagrass. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/johnsonsseagrass_5yearreview.pdf
NMFS. 2007b. Recommended Survey Protocol for Acropora spp. in Support of Section 7 Consultation (Revised October 2007). http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/coral/elkhorn_coral/document/Protoc ols/section_7_survey.pdf
NMFS. 2008. 50 CFR Parts 223 and 226. Docket No. 070801431–81370–02 Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals. 73 FR 72210.
NMFS. 2009a. Recovery Plan for Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). Prepared by the Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
NMFS. 2009b. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. Dade County Beach Erosion Control Project, Contract "E," located in Dade County, Florida (Consultation Number F/SERl2009/00879). October 24, 2009.
NMFS. 2011a. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Dredging and expansion of Miami Harbor, Miami‐Dade County, Florida (Consultation Number F/SER/2011/00029). September 8, 2011.
NMFS. 2011b. 76 FR 58868. September 2011 Final Rule, uplisted five DPS of loggerhead from threatened to endangered
Page 110 of 114
NMFS. 2012. 50 CFR 223. Docket No 0911231415‐2625‐02. Endangered and Threatened Species. Proposed rule for 88 corals. April 17, 2012.
NMFS. 2014a. 50 CFR 223. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Listing Determinations on Proposal to List 66 Reef‐Building Coral Species and To Reclassify Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals. 79 FR 53852. September 10, 2014.
NMFS. 2014b. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation. Biological Opinion for Regional General Permit SAJ‐82 (SAJ‐2007‐1590), Florida Keys, Monroe County, Florida. June 10, 2014. Consultation #SER‐2008‐2958.
NMFS. 2014c. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation. Biological Opinion for Dredging and Expansion of Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida SER‐2012‐03723, March 7, 2014. As amended by letter dated May 1, 2014.
NMFS. 2016. Endangered Species Act ‐ Section 7 Consultation. Port Everglades Turning Notch Dredging. Permit #SAJ‐1984‐04146.SER‐ 2014‐ 13361
NMFS. 2017a. US Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District’s Programmatic Biological Opinion (JAXBO). Appendix B. Consultation SER‐2015‐17616. Issued Nov 20 2017.
NMFS. 2017b. Port of Miami Bulkhead Realignment Biological Opinion. SER‐2016‐17891. Issued May 08, 2017.
NMFS and USFWS. 1991a. Recovery plan for U.S. populations of loggerhead turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 64 pp.
NMFS and USFWS. 1991b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service. St. Petersburg, Florida. 58 pp.
NMFS and USFWS. 2008 – Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Northwest Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Second Revision. December 2008.
NMFS and USFWS. 2013. Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5‐year review: summary and evaluation. June 2013.
NOAA. 2012. National Summary of NOAA’s Shallow‐water Benthic Habitat Mapping of U.S. Coral Reef Ecosystems. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS‐NCCOS‐122. August 2012. https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/research/docs/MappingReport_December_6_2012.pdf
NSU. 2011. Benthic Habitat Characterization for the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF). Protected Stony Coral Species Assessment. December 2011.
Pausch, R.E., Williams, D.E. and Miller, M.W. 2018. Impacts of fragment genotype, habitat, and size on outplanted elkhorn coral success under thermal stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series 592: 109–117.
Page 111 of 114
Pennekamp, J.G.S., R.J.C. Epskamp, W.F.Rosenbrand, A. Mullié, G.L.Wessel, T. Arts, and I.K. Deibel. 1996. Turbidity Caused by Dredging; Viewed in Perspective. Terra et Aqua – Number 64. September 1996.
PIANC. 2010. Dredging and Port Construction around Coral Reefs. The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC). 75 pp.
Precht, W. F. et al. Unprecedented Disease‐Related Coral Mortality in Southeastern Florida. Sci. Rep. 6, 31374; doi: 10.1038/srep31374 (2016).
Prekel, S., L. Fisher and S. Higgins. 2008. Habitat Similarity between an Artificial Reef and the Surrounding Natural Hardbottom in Broward County, Florida, USA. Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 7‐11 July 2008.
Reine, K.J., D. Clarke, C. Dickerson and G. Wikel. 2014. Characterization of Underwater Sounds Produced by Trailing Suction Hopper Dredged During Sand Mining and Pump‐out Operations. ERDC Technical Report. ERDC/EL TR‐14‐3. March 2014.
Reine, K. J., D. G. Clarke, and C. Dickerson. 2012. Characterization of underwater sounds produced by a hydraulic cutterhead dredge fracturing limestone rock. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN‐DOER‐E34. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer.
Rogers, C.S., 1977. The response of a coral reef to sedimentation. PhD Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, 195pp.
Rogers, C.S., 1979. The effect of shading on coral reef structure and function. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 41, 269–288.
Rogers, C.S. 1983. Sublethal and lethal effects of sediments applied to common Caribbean reef corals in the field. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 14:378‐382.
Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 62:185‐202.
Schopmeyer S.A., Lirman D., Bartels E., Gilliam D.S., Goergen E.A., Griffin S.P., Johnson M.E., Lustic C., Maxwell K., Walter C.S. 2017. Regional restoration benchmarks for Acropora cervicornis. Coral Reefs 36(4):1047–1057 DOI 10.1007/s00338‐017‐1596‐3.
Seminoff, J.A., C.D. Allen, G.H. Balazs, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H.L. Haas, S.A. Hargrove, M.P. Jensen, D.L. Klemm, A.M. Lauritsen, S.L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E.E. Possardt, S.L. Pultz, E.E. Seney, K.S. Van Houtan, R.S. Waples. 2015. Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA NMFS‐SWFSC‐539. 571pp.
Stabenau, E.K. and K.R. Vietti. 1999. Physiological effects of short‐term submergence of loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in TED‐equipped commercial fishing nets. Final Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Pascagoula Laboratory, Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Page 112 of 114
Storlazzi, C.D., Norris, B.K., Rosenberger, K.J. 2015. The influence of grain size, grain color, and suspended‐sediment concentration on light attenuation: Why fine‐grained terrestrial sediment is bad for coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs (2015) 34:967–975
Szmant‐Froelich, S., Johnson, V., Hoehn, T., 1981. The physiological effects of oil drilling muds on the Caribbean coral Montastrea annularis. Proceedings Fourth International Coral Reef Symposium, Manila, 1: 163–168.
Telesnicki, G. J. and W. M. Goldberg. 1995. "Effects of Turbidity on the Photosynthesis and Respiration of Two South Florida Reef Coral Species." Bulletin of Marine Science 57(2):
Thompson, J.H., Jr., 1980a. Effects of drilling mud on seven species of reef‐building corals as measured in field and laboratory, In: Geyer, R.A. (Ed.), Marine Environmental Pollution, Chapter 16, pp. 433–454.
Thompson, Jr., J.H., Bright, T.J., 1980. Effects of an offshore drilling fluid on selected corals. Proceedings Research on Environmental fate and Effects of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings, Lake Buena Vista, Florida 2: 1044–1076.
Torres, J.L., 2001. Impacts of sediment on the growth rates of Montastraea annularis in southwest Puerto Rico, Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2), 631‐637.
Torres, J. and Morelock, J., 2002. Effect of terrigenous sediment influx on coral cover and linear extension rates of three Caribbean massive coral species. Caribbean Journal of Science 38, 222–229.
USACE. 2000. Analysis of Test Blast Results, Wilmington Harbor, NC. (February 2000). 13 pp.
USACE. 2006a. Biological Assessment for Research and Compilation of Baseline Data for the use of Bed‐leveling Devices at Port Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida. March 21, 2006.
USACE. 2006b. Biological Assessment for Research and Compilation of Baseline Data for the use of Bed‐leveling Devices at Port Everglades, Broward County, Florida. March 21, 2006.
USACE. 2006c. Biological Assessment for Research and Compilation of Baseline Data for the use of Bed‐leveling Devices at Port of Miami, Miami‐Dade County, Florida. March 21, 2006.
USACE. 2006d. Biological Assessment for Research and Compilation of Baseline Data for the use of Bed‐leveling Devices at Port of Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. March 21, 2006.
USACE. 2015a. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Port Everglades Harbor Navigation Study, Broward County, Florida. March 2015, Revised May 2015.
USACE 2015b. Final Feasibility Report. Port Everglades Harbor Navigation Study. Broward County, Florida. Engineering Appendix.
USACE. 2017. Miami Harbor Phase III, Federal Channel Expansion Project, Permit No 0305721‐ 001‐BI. One‐year Post‐Construction Impact Assessment for Hardbottom Middle and Outer Reef Benthic Communities at Permanent Sites. April 2017.
Page 113 of 114
USFWS and NMFS. 1996. Endangered Species Act Final Rulemaking. For Distinct Population Segments. 61 FR 4722. February 7, 1996.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1930. House Document 357. 71st Congress. 2nd Session. Letter from the Secretary of War Transmitting a Report from the Chief of Engineers on Preliminary Examination and Survey of Hollywood Harbor, FLA. July 30, 1930.
Virnstein, R.W and L.M. Hall. 2009. Northern Range extension of the seagrasses Halophilia johnsonii and Halophilia decipiens along the east coast of Florida, USA. Aquatic Botany 90:89‐92.
WAEPA. 2016. Technical Guidance. Environmental Impact Assessment of Marine Dredging Proposals. Environmental Protection Authority. December 2016.
Wagner, D.E., P. Kramer and R. van Woesik. 2010. Species composition, habitat and water quality influence coral bleaching in southern Florida. Marine Ecology Press Series. Vol. 408:65‐78. doi: 10.3354/meps08584. June 3, 2010.
Walker, B.K. and Klug, K. 2014. Southeast Florida shallow‐water habitat mapping & coral reef community characterization. Florida DEP Coral Reef Conservation Program report. Miami Beach, FL. 83 pp.
Welch, L. 2002. Memorandum to Steve Blair, Chief. Restoration and Enhancement Section. Summary of Sedimentation Effects on Coral Reefs Adjacent to Beach Renourishment Borrow Areas in Miami‐Dade County. September 9, 2002.
Williams, D.E., Miller, M.W., Baums, I.B. 2014. Cryptic changes in the genetic structure of a highly clonal coral population and the relationship with ecological performance. Coral Reefs 33 (3): 595‐606
Wirt, K., P. Hallock, D. Palandro and K.L. Daly. 2013. Potential habitat of Acropora spp. On Florida reefs. Applied Geography. Vol 39. pp 118‐127.
Page 114 of 114