HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABILITATION PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HERBERT HOOVER DIKE SUPPLEMENTAL MAJOR REHABILITATION REPORT (MRR) HHD Supplemental MRR EA June 2015 FONS! FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HERBERT HOOVER DIKE SUPPLEMENTAL MAJOR REHABILITATION REPORT PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Based on the information analyzed and presented in the Environmental Assessment attached hereto, dated March 2015, reflecting pertinent information obtained from agencies having jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise, I conclude that the proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment and does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. Reasons for this conclusion are, in summary: a. The proposed action is considered maintenance on an existing Federal project and construction would occur within the Federal right of way except for staging areas at sites currently owned by the sponsor. b. The goal of the rehabilitation of the Herbert Hoover Dike is to reduce risk to public safety and health. Levee seepage and stability have a direct effect on the capability of the levee to provide the authorized protection. The Flood Control Act of 1948 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to operate and maintain the Herbert Hoover Dike levees and Federal culverts. c. Adverse impacts to protected species are not anticipated. Special measures would be incorporated during project construction to avoid or minimize adverse effects to any listed endangered, threatened, or species of special concern that may be present (see Environmental Compliance and Commitments Section 5). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is engaging in informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through review of this Environmental Assessment and request for concurrence on species determination herein. If warranted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps would initiate formal consultation as appropriate. Upon completion of coordination of this Environmental Assessment with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the proposed action would be in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. d. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is coordinating a consistency determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act through the circulation of this Environmental Assessment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the proposed action is consistent with Florida's Coastal Management Program. The Consistency Determination can be referenced in Appendix A of this report. e. The proposed action has been coordinated with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and appropriate federally recognized tribes was initiated 10 September 2010 and is ongoing. HHD Supplemental MRR EA June 2015 FONS! The Corps has determined the Preferred Alternative would have no effects to historic properties included in, or potentially eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office determined that no adverse effects would incur due to the Preferred Alternative in a letter dated 26 March 2015. f. The project will be in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Corps will provide information to support issuance of a water quality certificate as designs and specifications are developed and coordinated with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. All State water quality requirements would be followed. Refer to Section 1.7, Permits, Licenses, and Entitlements for a list Water Quality Certificates obtained by the Corps. g. This finding has been coordinated with the public and agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.4(e) and Engineer Regulation ER 200-2-2 (part 11 and Appendix A). The point of contact is Stacie Auvenshine at 904-232-3694 or [email protected]. In view of the above and after consideration of public and agency comments received on the project, I have concluded that the proposed action for the rehabilitation of Herbert Hoover Dike would not result in a significant adverse effect on the human environment. This Finding incorporates by reference all discussions and conclusions contained in the Environmental Assessment enclosed herewith. ALAN M. DODD Date Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander HHD Supplemental MRR EA June 2015 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................................... 8 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 HISTORY OF HHD ............................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 PROJECT AUTHORITY ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.4 LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGULATION SCHEDULES .................................................................................. 16 1.5 AGENCY GOAL AND OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................... 16 1.6 HHD ENVIRONMENTAL AND RELATED DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 16 1.6.1 Status of the Dam Safety Modification Study ............................................................................ 18 1.7 RELATED PROJECTS ........................................................................................................................... 19 1.8 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS ........................................................................................ 20 1.9 DECISION TO BE MADE ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................... 21 2.1.1 Alterative 1: No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 21 2.1.2 Alternative 2: Cutoff Wall .......................................................................................................... 21 2.1.3 Alternative 3: Internal Drainage System .................................................................................... 23 2.1.4 Alternative 4: Property Acquisition and Relocation .................................................................. 24 2.2 ISSUES AND BASIS FOR CHOICE ........................................................................................................ 25 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ................................................................................ 25 2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................. 25 3.0 Affected Environment (Existing Conditions) ......................................................................................... 26 3.1 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 26 3.1.1 Embankment .............................................................................................................................. 26 3.2 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3 HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS ............................................................................................................. 27 3.4 WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 34 3.5 VEGETATION ..................................................................................................................................... 37 3.6 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................................................ 38 3.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ....................................................................................... 38 3.7.1 Federally Listed Species Expected to Occur Within the Study Area.......................................... 42 3.7.2 State Listed Species Expected to Occur Within the Study Area ................................................ 51 3.8 NOISE................................................................................................................................................. 52 3.9 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................................................... 52 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES .................................................................................................. 53 HHD Supplemental MRR EA June 2015 Table of Contents 3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS .......................................................................................................................... 53 3.12 PUBLIC SAFETY ...............................................................................................................................