FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, TO MIAMI, FLORIDA
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
Prepared by
U. S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville Jacksonville, Florida
May 1974 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI
MAINTENANCE DREDGING
( ) Draft (X) Final
Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Florida.
1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative
2. Description of Action: Eleven shoals are to be removed from this section of the Intracoastal Waterway as a part of the regular main tenance program.
3. a. Environmental Impacts. About 172,200 cubic yards of shoal material in the channel will be removed by hydraulic dredge and placed in diked upland areas and as nourishment on a county park beach south of Jupiter Inlet.
b. Adverse Environmental Effects. Dredging will have a temporary adverse effect on water quality and will destroy benthic organisms in both the shoal material and on the beach. In addition, some turtle nests at the beach nourishment site may be destroyed.
4. Alternatives. Consideration was given to alternate methods of spoil disposal. It was determined that the methods selected (as described in paragraph 1) would best accomplish the purpose of the project while minimizing adverse impact on the environment.
5. Comments received on the draft statement in response to the 3 November 1972 coordination letter:
Respondent Date of Comments
U. S. Coast Guard 7 November 1972 U. S. Department of Agriculture 8 November 1972 Florida State Museum 8 November 1972 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 14 November 1972 Florida Department of Transportation 20 November 1972 Florida Department of Natural Resources 30 November 1972 Environmental Protection Agency 8 December 1972 Florida G&FWFC 13 December 1972 U. S. Department of the Interior 18 December 1972 Assistant Secretary of Commerce 19 December 1972 Respondent Date of Comments
Florida Board of Trustees 19 December 1972 Florida Department of Natural Resources 20 December 1972 Florida Department of Administration 22 December 1972 Office of Economic Opportunity 10 January 1973
6. Draft statement to CEQ 2/21/73. Final statement to CEQ2 4 JAN 1Q75 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI
1. Project description. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway provides a sheltered continuous route for commercial and recreational boat traffic from Boston, Massachusetts, to Key West, Florida, along the east coast of the United States. The route is generally in open water from Boston to about 40 miles south of New York. The Federal Intracoastal Waterway project extends from Trenton, New Jersey, to Key West, Florida, a distance of 1,614 miles, via a channel dredged through bays, sounds and land cuts. The project also provides for numerous side channels and basins of various points along its length. The authorized depth of the main channel is 12 feet from Trenton to Ft. Pierce, Florida, 10 feet from Ft. Pierce to Miami, Florida, and 7 feet from Miami to Key West.
This statement is 'concerned mainly with the Florida section of the waterway, the Jacksonville-to-Miami project, a 349-mile reach that traverses 11 coastal counties in Florida. The 11 counties are Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade. Dredging north of mile 119.7 and south of mile 296.7 is not required at this time.
Periodic maintenance of the waterway is authorized and required under House Document 740-79-2, enacted 2 March 1945, which calls for a 12-foot channel, 125 feet wide, between Jacksonville and Miami. This was subsequently modified by the Chief of Engineers' report 22 July 1960 to require a 12- by 125-foot channel from Jacksonville to Ft. Pierce and a 10- x 125-foot channel from Ft. Pierce to Miami. Purpose of the maintenance is to insure safe navigation on the project channel by removal of shoals to bring the channel to required depth.
Based on previous records, annual maintenance dredging requires the removal of approximately 280,000 cubic yards annually. About 172,200 cubic yards of material is scheduled to be removed from the channel in FY-74.
Location of the shoal areas and the proposed disposal areas are shown on figures 1 through 5. Proceeding from north to south, the shoals, disposal sites, and estimated extent of dredging are listed by numbers 1 through 11 for convenient identification in this report. They begin north of New Smyrna Beach at mile 119.7 on the waterway and extend south to near the entrance to Lake Worth at mile 296.7. They are as follows: a. Mile 119.7. Located in Cut V-20 between Halifax Estates and Wilbur-by-the-Sea, about 1-1/2 miles south of Highway A1A bridge at Port Orange. About 11,000 cubic yards are to be removed from the channel and placed on disposal area MSA 434-A, a spoil island created by a previous project. This site is immediately adjacent to the channel on the west side. The shoal material is fine sand.
b. Mile 132.0. Located in Cut V-38 near the town of Edgewater, about 1 mile south of New Smyrna Beach. Approximately 17,600 cubic yards of sand and shell are to be removed from the channel in Indian River North and placed on disposal areas D/A-MSA-436 and D/A-E. Both sites are islands on the east side of the channel, created by material from previous projects.
c. Mile 133.0. Located in Cut V-39 near the town of Edgewater and about 1 mile south of the previous shoal. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of sand and shell are to be removed and placed on Disposal Area D/A-F, slightly north of the shoal and on the east side of the channel. This site also is an island created by previous work on the waterway.
d. Mile 136.2. Located in Cut V-42 near Packwood Place, 3.2 miles south of the previous shoal. About 10,300 cubic yards of sand and shell are to be dredged and placed on Disposal Area D/A-H. This also is a spoil island created by the previous project, and is located on the east side of the channel about 1/4-mile north of the shoal.
e. Mile 248.7. Located in Cut SL-3N, about 400 feet north of Highway A1A bridge at Ft. Pierce. Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sand are to be removed from the Indian River channel and placed on a spoil island about 1/4-mile north of the shoal area and 1,000 feet east of the channel. This spoil site has been designated as D/A-(T-4ll).
f. Mile 271.0. Located in Cut M-5 immediately south of the intersection of the Intracoastal Waterway and the Okeechobee Waterway. About 27,500 cubic yards of sand are scheduled to be removed from the channel and placed on upland Disposal Area T-420. The spoil location is adjacent to the shoal on the east bank of the Indian River channel.
g. Mile 286.7. Located in Cut P-1 about 3/4-mile north of the Waterway intersection with Jupiter River. Some 40,500 cubic yards of material are to be removed and placed in Disposal Area D/A-J. This disposal area is on the beach at a county park immediately south of the inlet at the mouth of the Jupiter River.
h. Mile 287.2. Located in Cut P-2, approximately 1/4-mile north of the intersection with Jupiter River. About 3,300 cubic yards of sand are to be dredged from the channel at this point and placed in Disposal Area D/A-J as beach nourishment. i. Mile 287.5. Located in Cuts P-3 and P-4, at the intersection of the Waterway and Jupiter River. Approximately 33,300 cubic yards of sand are to be excavated from the channel and pumped to Disposal Area D/A-J to be used as beach nourishment.
j. Mile 288.0. Located in Cuts P-5 and.P-6, about 800 feet west of Highway 1 bridge over Jupiter River. A total of 12,300 cubic yards is to be removed and placed in Disposal Area D/A-J as beach nourish ment.
k. Mile 296.7. Located in Cut P-31 on both sides of Highway A1A bridge over the Lake Worth Creek Channel. This is about 1/3-mile west of the Waterway entrance to Lake Worth. About 4,400 cubic yards of sand are to be dredged from the channel and placed in Disposal Area T-611 and T-612. The disposal site is located on the west bank of the channel about 3/4-mile north of the shoal area.
It is anticipated that annual maintenance dredging operations of the channel will be required and the quantity of material requiring removal will not be significantly different from past annual quantities.
A comprehensive supplement to this statement on the waterway will be prepared as further studies are made. This supplement will include data such as: (1) An inventory of disposal areas reflecting parcels which are unsuitable for further use, those which are suitable for further use, and definitive requirements for additional areas which will accommodate the deficit; (2) plans for the creation of spoil islands for future use as recreation or maintenance spoil islands in reaches of the waterways where upland areas are potentially unavailable; (3) those reaches of the waterway where excavated material is suitable for beach nourishment, and pumping distance, availability of pipeline easements and the like are such that this is a feasible alternative to spoiling elsewhere; and (4) areas where advance maintenance (over depth dredging) is required to effect economy.
To accomplish the above, the waterway would possibly be broken into manageable sections, each section having a degree of homogeneity as regards the biological factors (mangroves, etc.) which impact on the use of the spoil areas.
2.0 Environmental setting without the project. The Atlantic Intra coastal Waterway provides a sheltered continuous route for commercial and recreational boat traffic from Boston, Mass., to Key West, Fla., along the east coast of the United States. The route is generally in open water from Boston to about 40 miles south of New York. The Federal Intracoastal Waterway project extends from Trenton, N. J., to Key West, a distance of 1,614 miles, via a channel dredged through bays, sounds, and land cuts. The project also provides for numerous side channels and basins at various points along its length. The authorized depth of the main channel is 12 feet from Trenton to Ft. Pierce, Fla., 10 feet from Ft. Pierce to Miami, Fla., and 7 feet from Miami to Key West.
This statement is concerned mainly with the major Florida section of the Waterway, the Jacksonville-to-Miami project, a 349-mile reach that traverses 11 coastal counties in Florida. The 11 counties are Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade. Population of the 11 counties was 3,315,057 in 1970, a 30 percent increase over the 1960 population of 2,305,429. The rapid growth which is characteristic of the area is expected to continue. Four of the State's nine standard metropolitan statistical areas are located along the Jacksonville-to-Miami reach of the waterway. They are Jacksonville in Duval County with a population of 528,865, West Palm Beach in Palm Beach County with a population of 348,753, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood in Broward County, 620,100, and Miami in Dade County, 1,267,792. Other major cities along the reach are St. Augustine in St. Johns County with a population of 12,352, Daytona Beach in Volusia County with 45,327, and Ft. Pierce in St. Lucie County with 29,721.
Development along the coastal reach varies. The heaviest concen trations of population and commercial activities are at the northern and southern extremities of the reach. Duval, at the north end, is a major industrial and distribution center. Miami at the south end is the State's largest metropolitan area with a broad range of industrial, service, aand commercial facilities. At the study area's mid-reach, Brevard and the neighboring inland county of Orange constitute one of the State's most rapidly developing areas, influenced by the space complex at Cape Kennedy and the fast-growing city of Orlando in Orange County where Disney World, a mammoth tourist attraction, is located. The intervening counties of St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia on the north, and Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin on the south are less developed with agricultural activities predominating. The entire coastal reach is recreationally oriented with beach resorts and retirement communities located along the Atlantic shoreline. Tourism is a major industry on the east coast of Florida and is growing at a phenomenal rate. In 1960, just under 11,000,000 tourists visited Florida with about 40 percent of them visiting in the 11-county study area. In 1970, a total of 23,151,698 visited the State with 9,022,419 coming to the study area. The figures cited, from the Florida Department of Commerce's annual tourist study reports, do not include tourists coming to the State and to the study area via the Intracoastal Waterway. Data on waterway tourists are not collected at present but marinas located at various points along the 11-county reach regularly cater to yachts and pleasure craft from the north.
Boat traffic in the Waterway study area is, with the exception of governmental and waterway maintenance vessels, composed of commercial and recreational craft. Data collected through the period 1961-70, inclusive, show considerable fluctuation in the annual total commercial tonnage moved via the waterway but the overall trend was upward during the 10-year span. In 1961, for example, the total tonnage was 628,525. In 1970, it was 1,092,284. The nature of the cargo moved on the water way also varies from year to year to some degree. However, residual fuel oil is the dominating commodity in the period of record, accounting for 938,275 tons in 1970 or 99 percent of the total. Other commodities moved in substantial amounts Include sugar, gasoline, distillate fuel oil, machinery, phosphate rock, newsprint, and fish.
Excursion passenger traffic on the waterway has shown a sizable increase during the 10-year period of record. Excursionists, mainly carried by sightseeing vessels operating out of Miami and Fort Lauderdale in the lower reach of the study area, totaled 110,778 in 1961. In 1970, the total was 342,793.
Commercial and recreational fishing boats make extensive use of the Jacksonville-to-Miami section of the waterway and although precise and com prehensive figures are not available it is generally conceded that these vessels, plus touring pleasure craft, make up the overwhelming proportion of waterway users. The only record available as to type of craft plying the study area reach is that kept by bridge tenders at the Palm Valley highway bridge about midway between Jacksonville and St. Augustine. Even this record is incomplete since only those vessels large enough to require opening of the bridge, which has a nine-foot clearance, are recorded and identified. However, some indication of the traffic, and its considerable increase over the 10-year period of record, can be gained by comparing the annual traffic figures compiled at the bridge for 1961 and 1972. In 1961, the total number of vessels recorded, north and southbound, was 4,597. The total north and south traffic in commercial motor vessels and barges was 837, the total for commercial fishing craft was 414, and the total for pleasure boats, which includes recreational fishermen, was 3,257. In 1972, comparable figures show that the total number of bridge openings for vessels was 7,761, a 69 percent Increase. The total for commercial motor vessels and barges was 837, for commercial fishermen 264, and for pleasure craft, 6,660. Again, it should be noted that the figures do not reflect the pleasure craft and recreational fishing boats that do not require the bridge to be opened to insure safe passage.
Some additional insight into the waterway's importance as a recrea tional asset is provided by data supplied by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Boat registration figures for 1971 for the 11 counties in the study area show a total of 94,483 craft, of which 6,495 are commercial and 87,988 private. Even these totals are not all inclusive since under State law only those motor-powered vessels with engines developing in excess of 10 horsepower require a license. Thus, sailboats and fishing boats with outboard motors in the popular under 10-hp. class are not included in the department's list. The rise in boat ownership can be seen by comparing boat registration figures for the 11 counties for 1964, the earliest year with data records similar to 1971. In 1964, the total number of craft was 60,206, with 59,663 private and 543 commercial. While the increase is notable in all three categories it is particularly significant in commercially licensed craft. Tables on Waterway traffic tonnage, excursion passengers and boat owner ship in the study area reach are presented in appendix 2 of this state ment.
Characteristics of the Waterway within the study area vary due to the fact it makes use of rivers, streams, lagoons, estuaries, and land cuts in winding its way along the coast. Generally, the waterway can be considered tidal with a range that varies from a high of 4.5 feet mean sea level at St. Augustine Harbor to near zero m.s.l. at Indian River. Currents also vary ranging up to 4 m.p.h. in the reach from Jacksonville to Bakers Haulover Inlet and up to 1.3 m.p.h. from that inlet to Miami. Factors affecting currents indicate natural streamflow, seasonal runoff, the ocean tides, topography, and the presence of inlets, river mouths, and harbors connecting directly with the ocean. These are located at various points along the reach and include the St. Johns River at Jacksonville, St. Aigustine Harbor, Matanzas River, Ponce de Leon Inlet south of Daytona Beach, Sebastian Inlet between Melbourne and Vero Beach, Ft. Pierce Harbor, St. Lucie Inlet near Stuart, Jupiter Inlet just north of Palm Beach, Palm Beach Harbor, South Lake Worth Inlet, Boca Raton Inlet, Hillsboro Inlet, Port Everglades Harbor at Fort Lauderdale, Bakers Haulover Inlet at the north end of Miami Beach, and Miami Harbor.
Water quality is considered fair to good in the study area reach of the waterway with salinity varying from 1 to 30 parts per thousand. There are some problem areas where discharge of sewage into the waterway or into connecting streams or rivers occurs, i.e., in the Indian River and Lake Worth areas where tidal action is minimal and prevents thorough flushing.
Climate in the study area is mild and heavily influenced by the moderating effect of the ocean. Temperatures in terms of means range from Jacksonville's 67.9 to Miami's 75.3. Rainfall in the study area is mainly seasonal of the tropical type, heaviest in the summer months. •The amount increases from north to south in the study area reach, ranging from about 50 inches annually in the Jacksonville-Daytona area to 60 inches in West Palm Beach-Miami area. The prevailing winds vary seasonally and are moderate to strong in storms. The waterway, however, is generally protected from strong winds and rough water. However, the open waters in Mosquito Lagoon and Indian River in Brevard County, and Lake Worth in Palm Beach County are an exception and can be quite choppy. Most of the study area reach lies outside of the hurricane belt except at the extreme ends at Miami and, to a lesser extent, Jacksonville.
Vegetation in the study area is varied but mainly that associated with the coastal marshes, strands, and dunes through which the waterway passes. The more important species are noted in the discussion of the environmental setting of specific dredge and spoil areas and a list of common species is contained in appendix 1 accompanying this statement.
A number of State parks, State and national wildlife refuges, and bird sanctuaries lie within the study area reach and the estuaries, bays, marshlands, and islands along the waterway provide abundant habitat for wildlife with small rodents, snakes, lizards, amphibians, and various species of birds predominating. Fishes are plentiful, mainly salt water and euryhaline species including many varieties of game fish. Commonly occurring wildlife and fish species are discussed in the description of the environmental setting of specific dredge and spoil areas and a full listing is contained in appendix 1.1/
Historically and archeologically, Florida's east coast is one of the State's most important areas. Shell middens and burial mounds which have contributed materially to knowledge of pre-Columbian Indian Tribes are found in various places in the study area and artifacts are on display at several Indian museums along the coastal reach. The upper portion of the reach, between Matanzas Inlet, St. Augustine, and Jacksonville * is the site of the first white settlement in North America and rich in historical significance, museums, reconstructions, and explorations. The proposed work will have no effect on any known historical or archeological sites.
1/ A more complete listing of major fish and wildlife is included as appendix 1. The portion of the study area in which work is proposed for FY-74 is a 177-mile stretch beginning north of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, at mile 119.7 and extending to near the entrance to Lake Worth at mile 296.7. Eleven shoal areas along this reach are proposed for dredging with dredged material to be placed in diked upland areas. The specific environmental setting of each of these shoal areas as listed in Section 1, Project De scription, of this statement, is as follows:
Shoals 1-4. The northernmost group of shoals, Nos. 1 through 4, are in the vicinity of New Smyrna Beach. Each of the disposal areas selected in this group are spoil islands adjacent to the channel that were created by previous excavations. They are quite similar in their vegetation, habitat, and wildlife populations. The islands are surrounded by a mangrove fringe that flourishes in the intertidal zone and provides an excellent habitat for birds. The higher ground in the central part of the islands is covered by groundsel and other small bushes on the perimeter, with weeds and bare ground in the central portion. Several of the islands have grassy shallows beyond the mangrove fringe. Birds observed on the spoil islands and in the mangrove fringe in the vicinity included Great Blue heron, American egret, snowy egret, brown pelican, numerous gulls, terns and similar shore birds.
The largest population center in the vicinity of this northern group of shoals is New Smyrna Beach with a 1970 population of 10,580. Other towns nearby include Port Orange (3,781), Edgewater (3,302), Oak Hill (747), and Ponce Inlet (328). Principal use of the waterway in this area as in the IWW, as a whole, is for recreation purposes. Numerous sport fishing boats are based along this segment of the IWW, and many more traverse the shoal area to use the Ponce de Leon Inlet for access to the Atlantic Ocean. (Ponce Inlet is the only IWW exit to the Atlantic between Matanzas and the locks at Cape Canaveral.)
Local commercial use of the waterway is limited. A shrimp processing plant is located at Port Orange, and several shrimp boats are based both in Port Orange and in New Smyrna Beach. A prestressed concrete beam operation is located just south of New Smyrna Beach, shipping concrete beams as far away as Miami. No figures are available on total transient commercial use of the waterway in this particular segment.
The entire coastal area in the vicinity of New Smyrna Beach and nearby Daytona Beach is influenced by the seasonal tourist business. Recreation use of the Atlantic seashore is one of the chief sources of income within the project area. Shoal No. 5. Shoal No. 5 is located near Ft. Pierce. As with the previous shoaling area (1-4), disposal material from this site will be pumped to a spoil island created during a previous project. In this case, Australian pines have become established on the island on the southern perimeter and a small squatter's shanty is located on the southwest corner of the island. The central and northern shore of the island is barren except for some small shrubs and weeds.
No birdlife was observed at the time of inspection, but numerous species are known to inhabit the general area. These are included in the general list in appendix 1.
Ft. Pierce is the largest town in the local area, having a 1970 population of 29,721. Many recreation craft are based in the Ft. Pierce area, and charter boats are available for offshore sport fishing. Com mercial fishing boats also make use of the waterway, operating out of berths at Ft. Pierce.
Shoal No. 6. Shoal No. 6 is located in the vicinity of St. Lucie Inlet. The 27,500 cubic yards of sand proposed for removal is located immediately south of the intersection of the Intracoastal and Okeechobee Waterways. Stuart is the largest city in the vicinity, having a 1970 population of 28,035. Salerno (1,161) and Port Sewall (298) are the only other cities in the immediate vicinity of the project. Many fishing boats, both commercial and private, are based along the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of St. Lucie Inlet, and many more travel on this section of the waterway to gain access to the Atlantic through St. Lucie Inlet. Okeechobee Waterway is one of the most intensively used waterways in the State. A high volume of private and commercial traffic passes through the waterway in the vicinity of the proposed maintenance project.
Spoil disposal site T-420 is an upland site that was used for dis posal during a previous project. Some small trees and lesser scrub vegetation have reclaimed the island, and a mangrove fringe has become established along the shore. Birds are frequently seen inhabiting the mangroves along the shoreline; a list of these birds is shown in appendix 1.
Recreation opportunities are abundant in the immediate area. Boating, fishing, and swimming are all popular with tourists and residents alike. The tourist industry is not as developed in this section of the east coast as it is at either the Daytona-New Smyrna Beach or West Palm Beach areas. Even so, seasonal tourism is a significant source of income and one that is on the increase. Shoals 7-10. The four shoals in this segment'of the waterway are closely grouped in the vicinity of Jupiter Inlet. The'Jupiter River that flows through the inlet into the Atlantic Ocean is formed by the convergence of the Loxahatchee River, Lake Worth Creek, and the flow from Jupiter Sound. Two of the shoals are located in the channel thru Jupiter Sound and two are in the waterway in Jupiter River. The material from all four shoals will be used for nourishment on the beach in a Palm Beach County recreation park just south of the inlet.
The area in the vicinity of Jupiter and Jupiter Inlet is experiencing very rapid growth. Less than 20 miles north of West Palm Beach, Jupiter is on the northern fringe of the lower east coast development boom. The 1970 census found a population of 3,136 in Jupiter, and 396 in Jupiter Inlet Colony. Neither municipality was in existence in 1960. The nearest major city is West Palm Beach with nearly 60,000 population.
Numerous fishing and other recreation-use boats are based along this segment of the waterway. Many more transient craft pass through the area, either to use the inlet access to the Atlantic or to avoid rough water in the ocean in traveling up and down the lower east coast. Commercial fishing boats also use this reach of the waterway quite heavily.
The beach that will receive the maintenance materials for nourishment is a county recreation site known as Jupiter Beach Park. The site is popular with residents and tourists in winter as well as summer. Erosion from past winter storms and hurricanes has reduced the size of the beach. As they now exist, the beach and ocean bottom that will be affected by the project are populated by blue crabs, stone crabs, hermit crabs, shrimp, mussels, and surf-feeding fishes.
The beaches around Jupiter Inlet are a known nesting site for sea turtles (both green and loggerhead) during the summer months (May - September). The turtles lay their eggs in holes above the high-water level on the beach and cover them with sand. The eggs then incubate in the sun. The young turtles dig their way out as they hatch and make their way down to the surf and out to sea.
A list of birds known to inhabit the general area of the proposed maintenance project are included as appendix 2. The brown pelican is the only rare and endangered species known to inhabit the project vicinity.
Shoal No. 11. The southernmost site in the proposed maintenance project is a small shoal on either side of Highway A1A bridge over the water way at North Palm Beach. The shoal is located less than 1/3 of a mile before the waterway enters Lake Worth. The disposal site is on the west bank of the waterway channel about 3/4 of a mile north of the shoal area. This shoal is in an area that has undergone rapid development and population growth in recent years. The towns of North Palm Beach, Riviera Beach, and West Palm Beach form one practically continuing community. The 1970 census reported 9,035 residents in North Palm Beach, compared with 2,684 in 1960. Riviera Beach and West Palm Beach had 1970 populations of 21,401 and. 57,375, respectively, compared with 1960 populations of 13,046 and 56,208.
This section of the IWW is intensively used, especially by recreational craft. Many private boats are tied up along canal-front homes with con nections to the waterway. A large marina and basin with an entrance into the IWW is located on the south bank of the waterway between the A1A bridge and Lake Worth. The abundance of water-oriented recreation opportunities in the waterways and Lake Worth makes this section of the IWW highly traveled.
The spoil disposal site for this shoal is one that has been used for disposal in previous projects. The tract is an upland area that is domi nated by a stand of Australian pine. Other growth includes Brazilian pepperbush and small scrub vegetation. Small animals such as raccoons, rabbits, rats, lizards, and snakes inhabit the site. Bird species present include mourning doves, belted kingfisher, great blue heron, various terns and gulls, and the smaller passerine birds.
Several homes are located along the northern boundary of the disposal site, and numerous residences are located along the opposite bank of the waterway channel.
In each of the eleven shoals to be removed by the proposed work, the material is chiefly sand and is not polluted. The bottom is generally habitat for various Crustacea, including shrimp, blue crabs, hermit crabs, stone crabs and spiny lobster. American oysters are the chief pelecypod found along the waterway. Many species of fish are known to inhabit the waterways. A list of the major species is included in appendix 1.
3. Environmental impact of the proposed project. The proposed main tenance project will have some immediate adverse environmental impacts but none of a major nature or permanent effect. Completion of, the project will provide benefits considered important to the recreational and commercial utilization of the Intracoastal Waterway in general and the study area in particular.
Removal of the shoal areas by hydraulic dredge will increase turbidity in the working area and result in a temporary lowering of water quality. The less mobile members of the benthic community in the shoal areas will be destroyed by dredging, as well as any existing bottom vegetation. The accompanying turbidity would cause fish and other free-moving aquatic life to avoid the area temporarily. The bottom area is expected to be repopulated when work is complete.
Some upland vegetative cover would be lost as a result of the proposed work. Selective clearing of some vegetation may be done on three of the southerly disposal sites to prepare them to receive dredged material. In addition, some vegetation would be covered by the dredged material. Diking would be utilized to retain dredged material and meet State water quality requirements by reducing turbidity asso ciated with disposal of material. Diking would protect biologically productive areas such as the mangrove fringe around the disposal site islands in the New Smyrna Beach area (Shoals 1-4). Diking also would be utilized above the high-water line on disposal sites in the Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie, and Lake Worth areas. At these latter sites, some of the Australian pine and scrub vegetation would be cleared before depositing dredged material which would displace small animals and birds currently using this habitat.
It should be noted that in all cases of environmental damage or disruption caused by clearing or covering of vegetation, the affected sites can be expected to recover in time with new growth. All of the disposal sites proposed in the maintenance project, with the exception of the beach at Jupiter Beach Park, are sites that previously have been utilized for disposal and much of the existing vegetative cover is growth that occurred after the site received dredged material..
Material dredged from the four shoal areas near Jupiter Inlet will be placed on the eroding beach at Jupiter Beach Park immediately south of the inlet as nourishment. Sampling of shoal material indicates it is unpolluted, mostly sand with some fine shell fragments and some silt and that it meets State standards for beach placement. It is similar in quality and content to the existing beach material which should reduce the impact of its placement cn the beach. The fill will be distributed by hydraulic dredge pipeline above,and below the high tide along a beach frontage of about 1,000 feet. Some littoral, sublittoral, and benthic organisms would be destroyed and accompanying turbidity would displace free-swimming marine life temporarily.
It is expected that fill site would soon be repopulated by inver tebrates and other organisms lost or displaced when work was completed. Of special environmental concern is the use of this general area near Jupiter Inlet by sea turtles for nesting sites during late spring and early summer. The turtles normally come ashore at night with the high tide, dig holes above the high water line, lay eggs, cover them with sand, and return to the ocean. Should beach fill cover these nests, the eggs or hatched young could be destroyed. Scheduling of the fill placement to avoid the nesting seasons or close surveillance of the beach prior to filling would reduce this risk. Dredging will be scheduled insofar as possibly to prevent destruction of eggs and young turtles. Recreational use of the beach would be restricted during fill placement but the inconvenience would be temporary with a wider, more stable beach available for public use upon completion of the project.
Traffic on the study reach of the waterway would suffer some in convenience in the vicinity of dredging operations but removal of the shoals would provide a safer, wider trafficway for recreational and commercial craft.
4. Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should the project be implemented. Some.loss of animal and vegetable life due to dredging of the waterway shoals and placement of the dredged material on upland disposal sites and on the beach at Jupiter Beach Park would be unavoidable. In addition, some vegetation, primarily Australian pines, would be lost in preparing some of the disposal sites for placement of dredged material. However, repopulation and vegetative recovery of the affected" areas is expected upon completion of work.
Displacement of animal and bird species utilizing selected disposal areas for habitat cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. Some disruption and displacement of aquatic life in the waterway and in the offshore area near the Jupiter Beach Park fill site also would occur. These effects would be temporary and no permanent adverse impact would be likely.
The effect of the project on sea turtles in the Jupiter Inlet area is uncertain. The turtles could simply avoid the area until the beach fill is completed. The fill could be scheduled to prevent the possible destruction of m s t s and young. Dredging will be scheduled insofar as possible to prevent destruction of eggs and young turtles.
Some inconvenience to bathers at Jupiter Beach Park and traffic in the vicinity of shoal dredging in the waterway would occur but scheduling of work to avoid peak use times could minimize such effects.
Degradation in water quality at the site of dredging operations and fill placement would be unavoidable but diking of upland disposal sites, periodic testing to insure compliance with State turbidity and water quality regulations and the relatively good quality of dredged material should effectively reduce the adverse impact. Turbidity stemming from the work would cause a temporary decrease in light penetration of the water and some interference with the foraging of non-mobile filter-, feeders, such as periwinkles, clams, and similar shellfish.
Operation of the dredge and hydraulic pipeline would result in unavoidable noise which could be disturbing to residents near the work areas, particularly in the housing developments at Jupiter Inlet and Lake Worth entrance. However, this will be of short duration. 5. Alternatives to the proposed project. Three basic alternatives to the proposed maintenance project were considered: (1) To forego the project, (2) remove only some of the shoals, and (3) select alternate methods or sites for dredged material disposal.
To not perform the proposed work would result in worsening of the shoaling that is impeding safe and unrestricted use of the waterway by recreational and commercial craft. A reduction in the number of shoals proposed for clearing would only postpone work that would ultimately be required if the waterway was to be utilized to its designed extent. However, the unavailability of suitable upland disposal sites did cause the deletion of several shoal sites in the Daytona Beach area.
Environmental considerations ruled out the use of open water and diked open water disposal sites since it was considered these would create too much stress on aquatic life.
Coordination between representatives of State, local, and Federal agencies resulted in the overall plan for removing the 11 selected shoal areas by hydraulic dredge and placing the material on diked upland dis posal sites and as nourishment on the eroding beach at Jupiter Beach Park. A letter dated 11 January 1972 was mailed to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested private individuals inviting participation in a field trip to select disposal sites. The field trip took place 25-27 January 1972 and the sites selected in accord with ecological concerns and engineering feasibility.
6. Relationship between local short-term use of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The major long-term commitment of resources was made when the existing project was authorized and construction completed in 1965. The completion of the proposed maintenance project will have a beneficial impact on navigation and recreation. There is no foreseeable adverse effect on long-term productivity.
7. Any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources should the project be implemented. The labor and materials required for the construction and operation of the project will be irretrievable.
3. Coordination with others.
a. Public participation. A letter dated 11 January 1972 was sent to all interested local, State, and Federal agencies inviting them to attend a field inspection trip to select disposal sites. Representatives in attendance on the 25-27 January field trip included the Florida Depart ment of Natural Resources, Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, Coastal Coordination Council, U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Florida Inland Navigation District, and the East Volusia Mosquito Control District. No opposition was expressed to the selected sites. b. As required by the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act, coordination with other agencies was initiated. The comments of agencies who responded to the 3 November 1972 coordination letter are summarized below and copies of the correspondence are included as a part of this EIS.
(1) U. S. Coast Guard
Comment: No objections to the proposed project.
Response: None.
(2) U. S. Department of Agriculture— SCS
Comment: Concur in your assessment of the impact on the area, have no suggestions for changes.
Response: None.
(3) Florida State Museum
Comment: "The shoal material to be taken from one location and placed in another is given as 172,000 yd^. If we assume an average cutting depth of 2 yds and an average fill depth of 2 yds, then the area altered amounts to 172,000 yd2 (some 35 acres). If we also assume a very low productivity in the channel of one gram carbon fixed (in photosynthesis) per yd2 per day, and a recolonization time of one year, then the total loss in organic production is some 63 metric tons of organic matter. Likewise, if we assume an average carbon fixation of 2 grams per yd? per day (very low estimate) in the fill area prior to spoil placement, then another 126 metric tons would be lost. Even though these are real ball parks measures, they are probably on the conservative side.
"Thus the question of environmental impact could be phrased like this: what is the impact of loosing some 189 metric tons of annual organic matter production on those ecosystems of which the altered areas are components?"
Response: Evaluating the impact of "loosing" annual organic matter pro duction on those ecosystems of which the altered area is a part is not considered to be within the scope of the NEPA law. We would, however, like to commenf on the accuracy of the information offered by Dr. Snedaker. In checking his calculations, we find that his estimates are off by a factor of 2. The total organic matter which might be lost is some 94.2 metric tons, not the stated 189 metric tons. In addition, no consideration was given to the fact that there will not be a complete loss of production during the theoretical one-year recolonization time as repopulation will begin shortly after each phase of removal is com pleted.
(4) Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Comment: No adverse comments.
Response: None.
(5) Florida Department of Transportation
Comment: No adverse comments.
Response: None.
(6) Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Comment: No adverse comments on the environmental impact statement.
Response: None.
(7) U. S. Department of Interior
Comment: Analyses of archeological and historical environmental resources are missing from the draft environmental impact statement. The final statement should discuss archeological and historical values and show whether these values are present or absent.
Response: No known archeological or historical sites will be affected by the project. A statement to this effect has been added to the final impact statement. The State archeologist made no comment on the project.
Comment: A cordgrass and mangrove fringe appears to be present in the lower elevations of disposal area T-420 (St. Lucie Inlet).
Response: All dikes for each of the disposal areas were placed above the mean high water line out of any mangrove/cordgrass marsh areas.
(8) U. S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce
Comment: It would seem possible to avoid interfering with the nesting activities of sea turtles and to avoid, therefore, the adverse impact of destroying sea turtle eggs and newly hatched young turtles if the restora tion of Jupiter Inlet beaches with dredge spoil were restricted to that period of the year when sea turtles do not tend to use the beaches for nesting. Response: The reach will be kept under surveillance during the period of construction and any nest built in endangered sites will be relbcated. Dredging will be scheduled insofar as possible to prevent destruction of eggs and young turtles.
(9) Florida Board of Trustees
Comment: Diking the spoil disposal areas and controlling runoff should be specified to minimize or eliminate turbidity in the surrounding waters.
Response : Dikes will be built for each of the disposal sites, and run off water over the weir will be required to meet State pollution control standards. This criteria will assure maintenance of water quality for the aquatic preserve.
(10) Florida Department of Natural Resources
Comment: "Pages 7, 8, and 9 include figures which have little or no relation to the need for the project. For instance, the substantial increase in use of the waterway is by recreational boats (which for the most part do not need the approved project depth). The traffic that does require approved project depth (commercial motor vessels and barges) experienced a 5.0% decline from 1961-1971 according to the figures pre sented. The inclusion of such superfluous information to justify the benefits unnecessarily jeopardizes the credibility of the report."
Response: The impact statement does not attempt to "justify" this maintenance project by including figures on waterway traffic. The usage statistics were included to give the reader some general back ground information.
Comment: "The treatment of impact of this project upon marine resources suffers from shallowness of analysis. Biological considerations are now here equal to the detailed analyses of social parameters included in the same statement. The conclusions in paragraphs No. 6 and No. 7, most notably, are not supported by this statement.
"At the very least, detailed analysis of infauna of the to-be-dredged shoal areas and flora of proposed spoil sites should be prepared. Detailed analyses of the turtle nesting-site tracts should also be prepared."
Response : Field inspection of the proposed disposal sites by repre sentatives of all interested parties (including DNR) yielded the con sensus that the upland disposal sites selected were of low biological productivity. This decision, coupled with the fact that none of the shoals contained polluted material, led to the conclusion that no significant biological damage would occur from the material disposed. Detailed benthic studies were not conducted. However, such studies are planned for future projects of this nature. Environmental statements prepared on projects in a continuing construc tion or operation and maintenance status will be submitted in order of priority over a three-year period. Projects of greatest ecological concern with least alternative potentials will be considered highest in priority.
(11) Florida Department of Administration
Comment: The environmental impact statement has been referred to various State agencies for comments.
Response: Response has been made to all State agency comments.
(12) Environmental Protection Agency
Comment: The draft statement does not indicate that core samples of the material to be dredged have been taken, but the material is described as being sand, shell, and silt. To meet the turbidity requirements of the Florida Water Quality Standards, it is necessary that all material be retained and settled in a dikes area or behind a silt barrier for a sufficient length of time to meet the 50 Jackson Unit requirement.
Response: The shoal material was determined to be primarily sand and shell, with some fines by taking core borings in each of the shoals. The contractor will be required to meet the 50 Jackson Unit regulation set by the State of Florida for water returned to the waterways.
Comment: It is also necessary that the spoil areas be diked to retain the spoil within approved sites so that adjacent mangrove, marsh, and productive shallow water areas are not damaged or buried by uncontained spoil.
Response: All disposal areas will be diked (except the beach nourishment at Jupiter Inlet), and all dikes will be built above mean high water— out of productive marsh.
Comment:
Revision of the maps, with appropriate symbols and a key chart so that the extent of the diking and type of overflow structure is more clearly shown, would be helpful. All effluent discharge from the diked areas should be returned to the waters adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway as shown, but all retention basin inlets should be remote from the out fall. The area and depth of the diked retention basins and the length of the weir or number of drop inlet outfalls for each basin should be designed to meet the turbidity requirements of 50 Jackson Units at the outfall. Response: On all Corps projects where diking is required for material disposal, the input pipeline is placed as far from the outlet weir as possible. The greater the distance between input and outfall, the greater the precipitation of suspended particles by the time the water reaches the outfall weir. This in turn means less downtime for pump ing while waiting for the water to reach turbidity standards, hence lower cost. Again, contractors are required to meet Florida Water Quality Standards for effluent returned to State waters.
Comment:
Oil, bilge, garbage, and sanitary wastes generated aboard the dredge should not be discharged to the watercourse, but disposed of in a manner meeting Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
Response: Project construction will not generate any appreciable amount of solid waste. Existing Corps regulations require proper control and disposal of human and organic wastes generated by the construction force. All State laws for disposition of wastes generated by the project will be adhered to.
Comment: The statement on page 24, "The effect of the project on sea turtles in the Jupiter Inlet area is uncertain. The turtles may simply avoid the area until the beach fill is completed" is not congruous with the statement regarding scheduling of work on Page 22. The spoiling of sand in the beach area should be scheduled so that it takes place after the incubation and hatching of the turtles and before nesting time. Definite scheduling of the work and close surveillance prior to beginning work should eliminate the destruction of eggs and young turtles.
Response: Dredging will be scheduled insofar as possible to prevent destruction of eggs and young turtles.
Comment: In another area of concern, we feel that insufficient consider ation has been given to disposal of solid waste that would be generated by the project. Also, mosquito control authorities should be consulted on the selection and management of areas for placement of spoil. Properly placed spoil should not fill salt marsh mosquito breeding areas where feasible nor impede normal tidal drainage of salt marsh. The same general principles apply to spoil disposal in freshwater areas.,
Response: Project construction will not generate any appreciable amount of solid waste. Corps regulations require proper disposal of such waste according to State and Federal laws. Mosquito Control Authorities were invited to attend the disposal site selection trip. A representative of the East Volusia Mosquito District did attend. No salt water marshes or Intertidal areas were filled by disposal material, nor was any tidal drainage of salt or fresh water marsh impeded. Comment: Finally, there may be short-term adverse effects on the ambient air quality if vegetation from land clearing and construction waste materials are disposed of by open burning. If these materials are disposed of in this manner, it should be done in accordance with the applicable State air pollution regulations.
Response: From the Corps contract specifications, all trees and brush within the disposal area shall be cut off at the surface of the ground or at elevations not higher than 3 feet below the surface of the dredged material. All logs, brush, slash, and other debris which are products of the clearing operations shall be disposed of within the disposal area by covering with not less then 3 feet of disposal material.
(13) Office of Economic Opportunity
Comment: We have no reason to believe that the proposed action will have an adverse environmental impact on the low income neighborhoods involved.
Response: None.
c. Citizens Groups. No citizens groups responded to either the invitation for participation in the disposal site selection trip or the coordination letter with the draft impact statement. APPENDIX 1
LIST OF COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF
PLANTS AND ANIMALS MENTIONED IN THIS STATEMENT
Osteichthys
Bluefish Pcmatcmus caltatrix Spotted seatrout Cynoacion nebulosus Mangrove snapper Lut.ianu3 griseus Pompano Trachinotus carolinus Jack crevalle Caranx hippos Snook Centropomus undecimalis Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalu3 Ladyfish Elops saurus Red bass Sciaenops ocellatus Gafftopsail catfish Eagre marinus Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis Atlantic croaker Micropogon undulatus Silver perch Bairdiella chrysura Atlantic spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Oyster toadfish Opsanus tau Smooth puffer Lagocephalus laevigatus Lane snapper Lutianus synagris Moonfish Vomer cctapinnis Black drum Pogonias cromis Hogfish Laclinolaimus maximus Atlantic menhaden Erevoortia tyrannus Tarpon Megalops atlantica Striped mullet Mugil cephalus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus
Reptilia
Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Green turtle Chelonia mydas
Aves
Osprey Pandion haleatus Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Great blue heron Ardca herodias Belted kingfisher Megaceyle alcyon Common merganser Mergus merganser Southern bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus leucocephalus American egret Cosmeridous albus Snowy egret Leucophoyx thula Mourning dove Zenaidura macroura Invertebrata
Crustacea Stone crab Menipoe mercenaria Blue crab Callinectes saoidus Spiny lobster Panuliru3 argus Brown shrimp Penacu3 aztecu3 White shrimp Penaeus setifarus Hermit crab Paguridae
Pelecypoda American oyster Ostrea virpinica Periwinkles Littorina spo. Starfish Asterias forbesi
Plants
Australian pine Casuarina spp. Brazilian pepperbush Schinus terebinthifolius Groundsel Baccharis halimifolia Red mangrove Rhizophora mangle Black mangrove Avicienna tomentosa APPENDIX 2
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI, FLORIDA
Section included: St. Johns River to Miami, Fla., 349 miles. Controlling depth: 12 feet, St. Johns River to Ft. Pierce and 10 feet from Fort Pierce to Miami except for widely separated spot shoals in outside quarters. Project depth: 12 feet, Jacksonville to Fort Pierce thence 10 feet to Miami, 370 miles, including 21 miles of Jacksonville Harbor, Fla., project.
Comparative statement of traffic
Year Tons Excursion Year Tons Excursion passengers passengers
1961 628,525 110,778 1966 1,151,797 197,188 1962 - - 612,904 143,858 1967 966,638 191,981 1963 692,107 103,192 1968 691,329 221,147 1964 591,977 95,746 1969 966,282 333,278 1965 867,496 143,476 1970 1,092,284 342,793
Freight traffic, 1970
Oceangoing
(Short tons) Domestic coastwise
Commodity Total Through- Receipts Shipments Northbound Southbound
Total 18,173 2,135 137 13,609 2,292 o q i a /. q a *; /, Q ^ c ; z o x u d o u x UI u nyaroxicie H- y yuD 3315 Iron, steel shapes, exc sheet 408 408 3411 Fabricated metal products- 2,050 450 1,600 3511 Machinery, except electrical 4,871 4,656 215 3611 Electrical mach and equip- 2,600 2,560 40 3721 Aircraft and parts 81 10 8 10 53 3731 Ships and boats 2,948 1,875 129 560 384 TV. t o t;n 4118 waterway improvement mat 250 z j u
Ton-miles, oceangoing, 4,452,054 • - INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY"," JACKSONVILLE TO MIAMI", FLA.--Cont' d Freight traffic 1970— Cont'd.
Internal (Short tons)
Through Commodity Total Inbound Outbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound
Total 1 ,074,111 674,867 7,104 2,676 1,480 56,795 331,189 0911 Fresh fish, except shellfish 4,920 3,210 158 1,465 87 0912 Shellfish, except prepared 939 57 1 0 861 1 1 1442 Sard, gravel, crushed rock 2 0 0 2 0 0 1471 A o h o a nnn 2061 /, h m a 4/, Jh n Xui a T _ _ 2095 674 130 372 27 145 2414 IXulDcX) pOStS, pOlcS, piillig" 175 75 1 0 0 2421 iU u lily v» L 70 70 2491 nUUU UklilUldv.LulCb , IILU 50 50 c RHR 2621 Dtancmro newsprint paper J f C J O D 9 0 3 0 1 7 071 2911 X1 9 QAH7 0 J XOi a 9 nnAuuo 2913 581 581 1 ft Q A H 1 o o c i 2914 X
TOTAL VESSELS COMMERCIAL VESSELS GOVERNMENT VESSELS MONTH PONTOONS LESS PONTOONS MOTOR BARGES FISHING PLEASURE MOTOR BARGES N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S JANUARY 92 192 2 2 2 2 16 15 14 1 2 34 136 3 4 3 3
FEBRUARY 2 0 1 2 1 143 1 2 17 1 1 1 1 9 7 81 104 7 3 1 1
MARCH 290 149 2 0 14 19 1 1 9 6 237 1 1 2 3 3 2 3
APRIL 707 163 2 0 19 13 1 1 8 2 663 125 3 6
MAY 3 672 142 15 13 1 1 8 8 2 635 115 2 2 1 2
JUNE 3 334 184 7 7 4 7 1 1 319 154 2 3 1 1 2
JULY 267 241 8 8 14 1 0 7 2 235 2 2 1 1 2
AUGUST 198 194 15 1 2 25 2 1 2 4 154 154 2 2 1
SEPTEMBER 128 251 1 2 16 2 1 14 13 7 80 2 1 1 1 1 1 2
OCTOBER 1 0 0 664 9 8 8 19 9 13 72 623 1 1 1 00 DECEMBER 476 17 23 14 23 19 9 40 417 2 1 6 3
NOVEMBER 92 877 15 19 14 26 17 40 43 788 2 2 . 1 2
TOTAL 26 3099 3676 172 178 170 176 116 105 2593 3160 27 28 2 1 29 YEAR 1961
MONTH PONTOONS TOTAL NUMBER OF VESSELS COMMERCIAL BOATS PLEASURE GOVERNMENT BOATS LESS PONTOONS MOTOR BARGES FISHING MOTOR BARGES N S N S N S N S N S N S N S N S
JANUARY 1 1 0 157 2 2 17 14 15 51 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 4 FEBRUARY 83 93 15 16 13 1 1 2 0 8 31 53 3 5 1 MARCH 198 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 14 2 0 23 3 138 62 3 2 1 APRIL 2 0 433 1 1 0 19 16 1 1 1 2 25 9 374 71 4 2 MAY 454 74 14 15 8 1 0 28 5 402 41 2 2 1 JUNE 230 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 13 1 1 5 7 192 69 2 JULY 33 169 138 28 28 24 24 5 1 1 1 0 83 1 1 1 1 AUGUST 1 0 1 129 27 25 17 16 2 1 2 49 70 6 6 SEPTEMBER 89 171 16 19 1 2 13 1 1 17 49 119 1 3 OCTOBER 31 115 483 24 26 2 0 16 26 45 35 393 1 0 3 1 NOVEMBER 1 0 2 587 18 19 1 2 15 16 41 46 503 1 0 8 DECEMBER 85 275 2 2 2 1 17 18 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL 31 53 2169 2428 245 236 175 181 234 180 1470 1787 43 40 2 4 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES . Private and Commercial Boat Lioonsos 1971
Privato County Total Commercial 8,552 Brevard 9,220 668 16,639 Broward 17,331 692 29,235 Dado 30,459 1,224 11,228 Duval 12,123 895 117 Fla&Lor 222 105 Indian River 1,754 301 X 1 45*3 2,000 Martin 2,367 367 11,649 Palm Beach 12,384 735 844 St. Johns 1,199 355 1,486 St. Lucie 1,755 269 4,785 Volusia 5,669 884
87,988 Total 94,483 6,495
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Private and Commercial Boat Liconses 1964
Commercial Privato County Total 6,068 Brevard 6,086 18 9,672 Broward 9,764 92 19,054 Dado 19,208 154 8,738 Duval 8,788 50 216 Flagler 216 0 1,161 Indian River 1,166 5 1 1423 Martin 1,438 15 7,029 Palm Beach 7,117 88 693 St. Johns 763 70 X f 300 St. Lucie 1,315 15 4,309 Volusid. 4,345 36
Totals 60,206 543 59,663
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Address reply to: COMMANDER (oan) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Seventh Coast Guard District R o o m 1018, Federal Building 51 SW. 1st Avenue Miami, Fla. 33130 • 3260 Serial: 4689 7 November 1972
From: Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District To: District Engineer, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Fla.
Subj: Maintenance Dredging in Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Fla.
Ref: (a) Your SAJWE of 3 November 1972
1. The Seventh Coast Guard District raises no objections to the proposed project outlined in reference (a)
'r . ETNIELSEN By direction UNITI VTES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL C ___ ! .VATION SER V IC E State Office, P. 0. Box 1208, Gainesville, Florida 32601
November 8, 1972
*Col. Tommy L. Everhart Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District P. 0. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Dear Col. Everhart:
Subject: Maintenance Dredging Intracoastal Waterway Jacksonville to Miami, Florida
The draft environmental statement for the subject job has been referred to the Soil Conservation Service for review and comment.
We have reviewed the statement, and concur in your assessment of the impact on the area. We have nothing to add and have no sug gestions for changes.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
Hampton Burns /- /State Conservationist T i l l ! ! VI.OIUOA S T A T E MOS7->JTivi • UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Ol I K l. Ol t ill' DIIU l'lO K
Sj^ertiber 1972
Lt. Col. Tommy L. Everhart Acting District Engineer U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL 32201
Dear Colonel Everhart:
Our comments concerning the several "Draft" statements which have been forwarded to the Florida State Museum for review must seem redundant. In actual fact they are, for all of the various statements are surely inadequate. In general they appear to be drawn in response to the requirement that a state ment be made. We have noted general inadequacies in our earlier comments and those apply with equal force to the one at hand--"Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida, Maintenance Dredging. "
Rather than offer repetitive comments concerning this project I have asked a colleague to examine this particular statement from a different standpoint. His comment follows:
"I have reviewed this draft with an eye toward the ecological considerations contained therein. I find none, nor can I find any data which can be used to evaluate the overall impact on that regional eco system. As there was nothing to review, I decided to take some of the data in the draft, together with some assumptions, and try to pro ject the magnitude of the impact. My findings:
"The shoal material to be taken from one location and placed in another is given as 172,000 yd^. If we assume an average cutting depth of 2 yds and an average fill depth of 2 yds, then the area altered amounts to 172,000 yd^ (some 35 acres). If we also assume a very low productivity in the channel of one gram carbon fixed (in photo synthesis) per yd2 per day, and a recolonization time of one year, then the total loss in organic production is some 63 metric tons of organic matter. Likewise, if wc assume an average carbon fixation "of 2 grams per yd2 per day (very low estimate) in the fill area prior to spoil placement, then another 126 metric tons would be lost. Even though these are real ball parks measures, they are probably on the conservative side.
"Thus the question of environmental impact could be phrased like this: what is the impact of loosing some 189 metric tons of annual organic matter production on those ecosystems of which the altered areas are components? Of course, we can't answer this because all we know of these systems is what the Statement offers; an incomplete species list and little else. "
Sincerely,
J. C. Dickinson, Jr. Director
cc: Dr. Samuel C. Snedaker Asst. Prof, of Environmental Engineering Science and Aquatic Sciences 208 Florida State Museum University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32601 1 orrARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES STATE OF FLORIDA Reubin O'O Askew, Governor
POST OFFICE BOX 210 O JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32201 O PHONE (904) 354-3961 Wilson T. Sawder, M.D., Director
November 14, 1972
Mr. Don L. Spicer, Chief Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations Division of State Planning 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Dear Mr. Spicer:
In response to your letter of November 8, 1972, concerning Environmental Impact Statement for maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, we have no adverse comments.
Very truly yours,
Nick Mastro, Assistant Chief Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
cc: Dr. Wade N. Stephens STATE OF FLORIDA
JAY W. BROWN ...... Road Operations .... Mast Transit Operations RAY G. L'AMOREAUX ...... Planning and Programming TOM WEBB, JR, .... Administration
November 20, 1972
Mr. Don L. Spicer Chief, Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations Department of Administration 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Dear Mr. Spicer:
Subject: SAI No. 73-0558-E Draft Environmental Statement Maintenance Dredging - Intracoastal waterway Jacksonville to Miami, Florida
This agency has reviewed the subject submittal and finds that the actions contemplated by the sponsor will have no effects on matters of concern to this Department. We therefore offer no ad verse comments.
The opportunity to review this proposal is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
RAY G. L'AMOREAUX, DIRECTOR DIVISION OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING
£^N.Cl*rfro#s, P.E. Chief, Bureau of Planning F l o r i d a G a m e a n d F r e s h W a t e r F is h C o m m i s s i o n
...... " rhairm. n JAMES B. WINDHAM WILLIAM M. BLAKE O. L. PEACOCK, JR. HOWARD ODOM C. A. PEACOCK, JR.. Chairman j ack,onw„ „ Tamp, Ft. Pierce Marianna Miami
DR. O. E. F R Y E . JR.. Director FARRIS BRYANT BUILDING H. E. W ALLACE, Assistant Director 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
December 13, 1972
Hr. Don L. Spicer, Chief bureau of Intergovernmental Relations 725 South Bronough Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Mr. Spicer:
Our field inspection team has reviewed the above referenced project and offers no adverse comments on the environmental impact statement.
If we can be of further assistance regarding this project please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
H. E. Wallace Assistant Director United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
December 18, 1972
District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1+970 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Dear Sir: post______i- • Reference is made to your November 3, 1972, letter tbnAtis ijfctaigtant Secretary of the Interior requesting the Department1 s'■comments cerning the draft environmental statement in connection with mainte nance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida. These comments are submitted in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190•
The draft environmental impact statement appears to adequately assess most of the environmental effects that the proposed maintenance dredging will have on fish and wildlife. The proposed action also will not adversely affect any existing, proposed, or known potential units of the National Park Service, or any known historic, natural, or environ mental education site eligible or considered potentially eligible for the National Landmark Programs.
We note that analyses of archeological and historical environmental resources are missing from the draft environmental statement. The final statement should discuss archeological and historical values and show that such values are present or absent. If any such values are present, then the project effects upon these cultural, environmental resources should be identified and discussed in terms of impacts, unavoidable adverse effects, alternatives, short-term versus long-term productivity, and irretrievable and irreversible commitments. An archeological survey of the project site may be needed to (l) determine whether or not such values are present and, if so, their significance and extent; (2) provide a basis for an adequate evaluation for environmental statement needs; and (3 ) define any salvage program and costs needed to mitigate loss to the archeological-historical resources base.
In figure 3, disposal area T-U20 appears to encompass marsh areas within its boundaries. A cordgrass and mangrove fringe appears to be present in the lower elevations of this area, facing the Intracoastal Waterway. We suggest that an enlarged photograph should be included in the statement showing whether the low-lying marsh areas are excluded from the proposed disposal area. A statement mentioning this marsh should be included in the text.
Sincerely yours.
(Miss) June Whelan Field Representative to the Secretary Southeast Region THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE Washington, D.C. 20230
December 19, 1972
Lt. Col. Tommy L. Everhart Acting District Engineer Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Dear Colonel Everhart:
The draft environmental impact statement for Maintenance Dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Florida, which accompanied your letter of November 3, 1972, has been received by the Department of Commerce for review and comment. * The Department of Commerce has reviewed the draft environ mental statement and has the following comments to offer for your consideration.
On page 18 in the section on Environmental Setting With out the Project, it is stated that "The beaches around Jupiter Inlet are a known nesting site for sea turtles (both green and loggerhead) during the summer months (May- September)." Then, on page 22 in the section on Environ mental Impact of the Proposed Project, it is stated with regard to the nests of sea turtles that "Should beach fill cover these nests, the eggs or hatched young could be des troyed. Scheduling of the fill placement to avoid the nesting seasons or close surveillance prior to beginning work would reduce this risk." Finally, on page 24 in the section on Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided Should The Project Be Implemented, it is stated that "The effect of the project on sea turtles in the Jupiter Inlet area is uncertain. The turtles may simply avoid the area until the beach fill is completed." It would seem possible to avoid interfering with the nesting activities of sea turtles and to avoid, there fore, the adverse impact of destroying sea turtle eggs and newly hatched young turtles if the restoration of Jupiter Inlet beaches with dredge spoil were restricted to that period of the year when sea turtles do not tend to use the beaches for nesting. If it is possible to schedule the fillin g of Jupiter Inlet beaches to the period October-April, the potentially adverse impact referred to in the statement could be avoided, and the second statement quoted above could be revised to in dicate that fill placement w ill be scheduled during the period October-April to avoid the nesting seasons of sea turtles, and that surveillance of the beach w ill always be conducted prior to depositing f ill material.
We have noted that the disposal sites would be diked to prevent slumping. This, we believe, is a commendable p r a c t ic e .
We hope these comments w ill be of assistance to you in the preparation of the final statement.
S in c e r e ly ,
S id n ey i f . G a lle r Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental A ffairs STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
ELLIOT BUILDING — TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32304
Joel Kuperberg E»eculive Director December 19,19p-3-
Mr. Don L. Spicer, Chief Dureau o f Intergovernmental Relations Department of Administration Division of State Planning 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Dear Mr. Spicer:
Department of the Army: Jacksonville D istrict Corps of Engineers-Proposed Navigation Channel Maintenance of Shoal Areas in the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami. SAI Project Number 73-0558______
The Trustees' staff has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement regarding the proposed navigation channel maintenance of shoal areas in the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami.
Environmental concerns appear to be adequately described and accounted for, with the exception of the State of Florida aquatic preserves which are located along east coast inland waterways. The following comments are submitted:
1. Water quality must be maintained if an aquatic preserve is to function as a sanctuary for fish, shellfish, and w ildlife. In order to meet the desired goal of removing shoals in these preserves and s till retain water quality, effective controls should be maintained over dredging and spoiling. Dyking the spoil disposal areas and controlling runoff should be specified, to minimize or eliminate turbidity in the surrounding waters.
2. The Corps is to be complimented on their effective use of aerial photographs in this study. The photography has been useful in this review and provided valuable information with regard to the physiography of the areas.
3. E nclosed are copies of the Board of Trustees' resolutions regarding the establishment of the aquatic preserve system and copies of the resolutions establishing the individual aquatic preserves through which this project passes. v;e would like to review the final environmental impact state ment when completed. •
S in c e r e ly ,
d p e 1 Kuperberg Executive Director State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
RANDOLPH HODGES LARSON BUILDING / TALLAHASSEE 32304 / TELEPHONE 224-7111 Executive Director
November 30, 1972
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Don Spicer Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
FROM: Randolph Hodges'^ Executive Director
SUBJECT: Environmental impact statement for maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami. SAI Project No. 73-0558-E.
The environmental impact staU '<_.at on the subject project has been reviewed by the interested offices of this Department.
Comments pertinent to the environmental impact statement are summarized below:
"Survey and Management Office - "The treatment of impact of this project upon marine resources suffers from shallowness of analysis. Biological considerations are now here equal to the detailed analyses of social parameters included in the same statement. The conclusions in paragraphs No. 6 and No. 7, most notably, are not supported by this statement.
"At the very least, detailed analysis of infauna of the to-be- dredged shoal areas and flora of proposed spoil sites should be prepared. Detailed analyses of the turtle nesting-site tracts should also be prepared. (State surveillance of this aspect of the project should be mandatory.)"
Division of Interior Resources - "The economic benefits of continued growing commercial and recreational use of the water way amply offset the temporary setback of ’natural' environmental conditions resulting from dredging."
Bureau of Beaches and Shores - "Based on core samples reported, we concur in beach spoil areas for Shoal No.'s 7, 8, 9, and 10." State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
RAN'POl.I’II HODGES Kxrculivc Director
December 20, 1972
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Spicer, Chief Bureau of Intergovernmental ■ Relations
FROM: Randolph HodgeS-^ Executive Director
SUBJECT: Environmental impact statement for maintenance dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami. SAI Project No. 73-0558-E.
Please add the following comments as supplemental to my memorandum report of November 30, 1972, on the above subject. These comments were provided by the Coastal Coordinating Council:
"This agency concurs with the selection of sites for spoil disposal.
"If the project is conducted in accordance with recommendations of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (regarding sea turtles) and within water quality standards of the Department of Pollution Control, there should be few if any long term prob lems associated with the project.
"Pages 7, 8, and 9 include figures which have little or no relation to the need for the project. For instance, the sub- , stantial increase in use of the waterway is by recreational boats (which for the most part do not need the approved project depth. The traffic that does require approved project depth (commercial motor vessels and barges) experienced a 50% decline from 1961-1971 according to the figures presented. The inclu sion of such superfluous information to justify the benefits unnecessarily jeopardizes the credibility of the report." S t a t e o r F l o h i d a S&pariismii uf Aiiimuiiitratiau Division of State Planning Reubln O'D. Askew 725 SOUTH BRONOUGH GOVERNOR
Ta l l a h a s s e e Earl M. Starnes L. K. Ireland. Jr. 32304 STATE PLANNING DIRECTOR SECRETARY OP AOMtNtSTAATION (900 224-3117 December 22, 1972
Colonel Emmett C. Lee, J r . District Engineer U. S. Army Corps o f Engineers Jacksonville District P. 0. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Dear Colonel Lee:
Functioning as the state planning and development clearinghouse con templated in U. S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, we have reviewed the following draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers:
Intracoastal Waterway, ^Jacksonville to Miami. SAI Project No. 73-0553-E.
During our review, we referred the environmental impact statement to the following agencies, which we identified as interested in the project: the Board o f Trustees o f the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; Department of Commerce; Department o f Community A ffa ir s ; the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services - Division of Health; Department of Natural Resources; Department of Pollution Control; Department of Transportation; and to the Environmental Information Center. Agencies were requested to review and give us comments on the statement and in so doing consider possible effects that actions contemplated could have on matters of their concern. The Department of Natural Resources points out several areas of weakness in the statement which should be supplemented. See attached letter. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services - Division of Health, and the Department of Transportation offer no adverse comments on the statement. See attached le tte rs . The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission made a field inspection and offers no adverse comments. See attached letter. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund comments that the environmental concerns appear to be adequately described except for a few loca tions near the aquatic preserve. See attached letter. The Department of Commerce and Department of Community Affairs gave no adverse comments by telephone. No responses were received from the Department of Pollution Control, or through the Environmental Information Center.
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines con cerning statements on proposed federal actions affecting the environment, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and U. S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, this letter, with attachments, should be appended to the final environmental impact statement on this project. The comments by the Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund should be addressed in the final environmental impact statement, and the statement should include that information specifically called for by the Department of Natural Resources.
We request to be forwarded one copy of the final environmental state ment prepared on this project.
^Siqcerely,
Don L. Spicer \ Chief Bureau o f Intergovernmental Relations
\ CC: Mr. Randolph Hodges Mr. Joel Kuperberg Mr. John R. LaCapra Mr. W. N. Lofroos Mr. B ill Partington Mr. David H. Scott Mr. Charles Shepherd Dr. Wade Stephens Mr. H. E. Wallace ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV 1421 Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303
December 8, 1972
Lieutenant Colonel Tommy L. Everhart Acting District Engineer Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Dear Colonel Everhart:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Maintenance Dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway at Jacksonville, Florida and offer the following comments:
Good coverage is given to the water quality aspects of the project but it is felt there is a need for further delineation of the diking spoil sites and the methods by which turtles will be protected during nesting and incubation periods. Specifically, we recommend revision of statements regarding diking on Page 21 so they are in agreement with the statement on Page 12. Also, there is need for clarification of the statement regarding turtles on Page 24 so that it agrees with statements on Page 22.
The Draft Statement does not indicate that core samples of the material to be dredged have been taken, but the material is described as being sand, shell, and silt. To meet the turbidity requirements of the Florida Water Quality Standards, it is necessary that all material be retained and settled in a diked area or behind a silt barrier for a sufficient length of time to meet the 50 Jackson Unit requirement.
It is also necessary that the spoil areas be diked to retain the spoil within approved sites so that adjacent mangrove, marsh, and productive shallow water areas are not damaged or buried by uncontained spoil. The state ment of Page 12, "Eleven shoal areas along this reach are proposed for dredging material to be placed in diked upland areas" indicates that all spoil sites will be diked. The statement on Page 21, "Diking would be utilized in critical areas to retain dredged material and meet State water quality requirements by reducing turbidity associated with disposal ma terial" indicates that diking will only be used in critical areas. Unless the natural ground slope is such that the spoil will be completely contained without peripheral diking, w e believe that all areas should be completely diked except, of course, the beach nourishment site, which m u s t be left open on the ocean side.
Revision of the maps, with appropriate symbols and a key chart so that the extent of the diking and type of overflow structure is m o r e clearly shown, would be helpful. All effluent discharge from the diked areas should be returned to the waters adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway as shown, but all retention basin inlets should be remote from the outfall. The area and depth of the diked retention basins and the length of the weir or nu m b e r of drop inlet outfalls for each basin should be designed to meet the turbidity requirements of 50 Jackson Units at the outfall.
Oil, bilge, garbage, and sanitary wastes generated aboard the dredge should not be discharged to the watercourse, but disposed of in a mann e r meeting Federal, State and loccj. laws and regulations.
The statement on Page 24, "The effect of the project on sea turtles in the Jupiter Inlet area is uncertain. The turtles m a y simply avoid the area until the beach fill is completed" is not congruous with the state m e n t regarding scheduling of wo r k on Page 22. The spoiling of sand in the beach area should be scheduled so that it takes place after the incubation and hatching of the turtles and before nesting time. Definite scheduling of the wo r k and close surveillance prior to beginning wo r k should eliminate the destruction of eggs and young turtles.
In another area of concern, w e feel that insufficient consideration has been given to disposal of solid waste that would be generated by the project. Also, mosquito control authorities should be consulted on the selection and ma n a g e m e n t of areas for placement of spoil. Properly placed spoil should not fill salt ma r s h mosquito breeding areas where feasible nor impede normal tidal drainage of salt marsh. The s a m e general principles apply to spoil disposal in freshwater areas.
Finally, there m a y be short-term adverse effects on the ambient air quality if vegetation fr o m land clearing and construction waste materials are disposed of by open burning. If these materials are disposed of in this manner, it should be done in accordance with the applicable State air pollution regulations. We would like to have five copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement when it is available, and if we can be of further assistance to you, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Jack E. Ravan Regional Administrator EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF ECONOMIC WASHINGTON' C.C. 2m5Cv> OPPOfflIITY
January 10, 1973
Emmett C, Lee, Jr. Re: Draft Environmental Statement Colonel, Corps of Engineers Maintenance Dredging of the Department of the Army Intracostal Waterway, Jackson- P.O. Box 4970 ville to Miami, Florida Jacksonville, Florida
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your letter of December 5, 1972 regarding the draft statement on the above mentioned project.
This office in coordination with our Regional Office and the affected community action agencies have carefully reviewed this statement. On the basis of information from this review, we have no reason to believe that the proposed action will have an adverse environmental impact on the low income neighborhoods involved. Should we receive any further information we will advise.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft statement.
Sincerely,
/ / Arthur J. Reid,*^Jr. Director Intergovernmental Relations