July 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT FOR INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (IWW) BROWARD COUNTY, REACH 1 AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, REACH 4 (CUTS P-59 TO P-60) BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA US Army Corps of Engineers JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT US Army Corps of Engineers JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT PROPOSED FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DREDGING AND DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT FOR INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY BROWARD COUNTY, REACH 1 AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, REACH 4 (CUTS P-59 TO P-60) FEDERAL NAVIGATION PROJECT IN BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District (Corps) has conducted an environmental assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The Corps assessed the effects of the following actions in the Environmental Assessment (EA), dated June 2018, for the operations and maintenance (O&M) dredging and dredged material placement for the Intracoastal Waterway (IWW) Broward County, Reach 1 Federal Navigation Project in Broward County, Florida and Palm Beach County, Reach 4 (cuts P-59 to P-60) Federal Navigation Project in Palm Beach County, Florida. The final recommendation is contained in the EA and is incorporated herein by reference. The proposed work consists of the following: • Routine O&M dredging on an “as needed” basis of an estimated 75,000 cubic yards (CY) of silt and silty sand from the IWW Broward County, Reach 1 Federal channel to maintain an authorized depth of twelve feet (ten feet required project depth plus up to two foot allowable over depth); • Routine O&M dredging on an “as needed” basis of an estimated 7,000 CY of poorly graded sand from the shoal in the IWW Palm Beach County, Reach 4, cuts P-59 to P-60 to maintain an authorized depth of ten feet (nine feet required project depth plus one foot allowable over depth). • Determination of the exact placement location(s) to use will be reliant upon available funds, location, and CY of sediments to be dredged as well as the placement site’s capacity, authorizations, and location in relation to the dredging. Dredged material is proposed for placement in the following locations: o Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) owned property and/or previously authorized and approved upland dredged material management area (DMMA). Sites MSA 726 and 641A will be used in the upcoming dredge cycle; o Nearshore environment north and/or south of the Hillsboro Inlet; o Beach approximately 300 linear feet (LF) north of the Hillsboro Inlet; o Beach approximately 500 LF south of the Hillsboro Inlet, between R-28 to i R-32; o Hillsboro Inlet Impoundment Basin. Congress originally authorized the project in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1927 (Public Law 69-560), which was further modified by later acts of Congress. Construction of the project occurred in approximately 1965, prior to the implementation of NEPA. This particular reach has not needed operations and maintenance dredging since its original construction in the mid-1960s due to the low input of sediments and its ability to maintain the authorized depths. Based on available records, this NEPA assessment is the first one completed for the channel. In addition to the “No Action” and preferred alternatives, the Corps evaluated a final array of seven alternatives with varying levels of benefits and costs. The Corps incorporated all practicable means to avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects into the recommended plan. The Corps will implement the environmental commitments as detailed in the EA to minimize impacts. The Corps determined that the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the Preferred Alternative is compliant with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines as required by the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines evaluation is found in Appendix C of the EA. The Corps will submit a Federal Consistency Determination (FCD), found in Appendix B of the EA, to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the State of Florida’s review during the public and agency review and comment period in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. In addition, the Corps will obtain a water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from FDEP prior to construction and will implement the conditions imposed by that water quality certification in order to minimize adverse impacts to water quality. Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, this project has been coordinated with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through the South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion dated September 25, 1997, as amended. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is ongoing. Pertinent correspondence is found in Appendix A. This project’s dredging footprint is included in the project scope and description of the Regional General Permit SAJ-93 issued by the Corps’ Regulatory Division on April 26, 2016. The Corps concluded the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation through the issuance of the permit and no additional EFH consultation is required. Placement of dredged material in upland sites does not require EFH consultation. Placement of dredged material in the proposed southern nearshore and beach placement areas is similar to the effects analyzed for the issuance of the Hillsboro Inlet permit and EFH consultation; therefore, no additional consultation is required. If at a future date, the Corps selects northern nearshore and/or beach placement areas for the placement of dredged material, that decision would require EFH consultation. ii The Corps completed consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer and the appropriate federal-recognized Tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, and Appendix A contains the pertinent correspondence. The Corps has determined that the preferred alternative poses no effect to historic properties. The Corps will release the EA, Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact, and associated appendices for a 30-day public and agency review. The Corps will respond to all comments submitted during the public comment period and include them in the final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact. The Corps considered all applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations in the evaluation of the alternatives. Based on these reports, the reviews by other Federal, State and local agencies, Tribes, input of the public, and the review by my staff, it is my determination that the Preferred Alternative would not significantly affect the human environment; therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. Date: Jason A. Kirk Colonel, U.S. Army District Commander iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 PROJECT AUTHORITY ....................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ...................................................................................................... 5 1.5 DECISION TO BE MADE .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 SCOPING AND RELEVANT ISSUES..................................................................................................................... 6 1.6.1 SCOPING ................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.6.2 RELEVANT ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 7 1.6.3 ISSUES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 7 1.7 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 7 1.7.1 PERMIT HISTORY .................................................................................................................................... 7 2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 POTENTIAL DREDGING METHODOLOGIES ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) – O&M DREDGING OF BROWARD COUNTY, REACH 1 AND PALM BEACH COUNTY, REACH 4 (CUTS P-59 TO P-60) WITH DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT OPTIONS ...... 10 2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................