SAJ-2017-00019(SP-LCK)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) as described below:

APPLICANT:  Palm Beach County
                       Department of Environmental Resources Management
                       Attn: Robert Robbins
                       2300 North Jog Rd., 4th floor
                       West Palm Beach, FL 33411-2743

WATERWAY AND LOCATION: The proposed project site is located along the shoreline and in the navigable Atlantic Ocean from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) range monuments R-13 to R-38 (Section 05, Township 41 South, Range 43 East), in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Directions to the site are as follows: Take I-95 North to Indiantown Road east exit. Continue east on Indiantown Road and take a left onto State Highway A1A and then take a right onto Beach Drive. Take a left where Beach Drive ends onto Ocean Trail Way until the road end (northern extent of beach fill).

APPROXIMATE COORDINATES:
Beach locations

PROJECT PURPOSE:

Basic: The basic project purpose is shoreline stabilization.

Overall: The overall project purpose is a North County Comprehensive shoreline stabilization project.

EXISTING CONDITIONS: The project site is along the Coast of Palm Beach County between beach monuments R-13 to R-38. Prominent geomorphic features of Jupiter Carlin Beach (Segment 1) and Juno Beach (Segment III), include the Jupiter Inlet ebb shoal, nearshore hardbottom. The offshore system can be characterized as marine intertidal, unconsolidated sediment with natural community structures and approximately 8.82 acres of exposed hardbottom within the turbidity mixing zone. The borrow area is located 909 meters seaward of any hardbottom, 408 meters seawa5rd of small patch reefs, and 433 meters west of a high relief ridge system.

Offshore of Juno Beach (Segment III), nearshore hardbottom is present in water depths of approximately 3-4 meters and characterized as intertidal and subtidal and consists of unconsolidated low relief hardbottom covered with short, sparse turf algae separated by areas of non-vegetated sandy bottom. The hardbottom is fairly low-relief south of the project area to R-44; between R-44 and R-45, the relief increases significantly.

PERMIT HISTORY:
Jupiter Carline Beach: The Jupiter Carlin Beach (Segment I), was originally restored in 1995 as part of a federally authorized Jupiter-Carlin Park Restoration Project and was completed using sand from the ebb tidal shoal of Jupiter Inlet. The project included the placement of 603,800cy of fill material and construction of 4.3 acres of artificial reef to mitigate for adverse impacts to 8 acres of nearshore hardbottom. In March 2002, beach nourishment within the same footprint was conducted using sand from an offshore borrow site (approximately 625,000cubic yards). The mitigation was determined as successful. Authorized emergency dune work was completed in June of 2007 for the parking lot only in Jupiter Beach as a result of damage from tropical storms. On September 10, 2013, the Corps authorized the placement of approximately 822,000 cubic yards (cy) of beach quality sand at Carlin Park with an average beach fill volume of 148 cy/ft between monuments R-13 and R-19. The fill template included fill locations described as: berm, dune and advance nourishment. The project also included a variable width construction berm with a crest elevation of +7.5 ft North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD) and a 1V:10H foreshore slope extending to the existing bottom. The dune design included a 12.5 ft-NAVD variable crest width that ties into the existing 10.5 ft-NAVD contour on its landward side sand transitions with a 1V:3H slope from the dune crest to the berm on its seaward side. The Corps issued a modification on August 7, 2015 to allow upland sand material via truck haul. Total placement of the 2015 project was 410,800 cy which included 270,800 cy from an upland sand mine and 140,000 cy dredged from an offshore borrow area and placed as part of the USACE FCCE effort.

Juno Beach: The Corps issued a permit for Juno Beach (Segment III) in January 2000, to dredge and place approximately 1.0 million cubic yards of sand sourced from an offshore borrow area located about 2 miles northeast of Jupiter Inlet along 2.45 miles of shoreline between monuments R-26 to R-38. The sand placement provided a berm elevation of +7.5 feet NGVD, 175 foot wide design beach width, and slopes seaward from the berm crest with a 1V:10H slope to the toe of fill. The Corps re-verified the project on 9 March 2009. The first re-nourishment of the project was constructed in 2010 with the placement of about 916,192 cy of sand sourced from an offshore borrow area located about 1 mile offshore and 4 miles south of the project limits. It was determined that the sand sampling data indicted the beach material was not meeting the Terms and Conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Biological Opinion for the project, and as a result the Corps issued a Notice of Noncompliance on March 3, 2010. A remediation plan was received on March 5, 2010. The Corps issued a modification on March 9, 2010, to allow for use of an alternative borrow area and reconfigure the borrow area cut template as well as to allow the screening of beach fill utilizing two mobile track screening plants during daylight hours.

PROPOSED WORK: The applicant proposes to construct the North County Comprehensive Shore Protection Project, which includes comprehensive re-nourishment and periodic maintenance, of approximately 4.9 miles
of critically eroded Palm Beach County shoreline between FDEP R-13 and R-38. The project combines two previously constructed and authorized shore protection projects; the Jupiter-Carlin Beach (SAJ-1990-00902) (Segment I), and the Juno Beach Shore Protection Project (SAJ-1997-06559)(Segment III), into a single project and proposes fill between the two existing projects in the form of dune restoration only. The project is subdivided into three segments I, II, and III as described in the above locations. The shoreline along Segment II connects the two previously authorized projects and is located between FDEP R-19 and R-26, which is an area that has been only partially nourished to date through multiple, small dune construction projects. Approximately 13,500 cubic yards of material were placed for dune construction along the shoreline between R-19 and R-26 (Segment II), between 1997 and 2016 in order to provide storm protection to Highway A1A. The applicant proposes the use either an upland sand mine or offshore borrow area. Below is a description of the proposed work within each Segment:

Segment I: The proposed project seeks to reconstruct a beach berm with a variable-width berm crest at an elevation of +8.0 feet (2.4 m), North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) where the berm slopes at 1v:50h to an elevation of +6 ft (1.8 m) with a seaward beach face extending to the existing seabed at a slope of 1 vertical on 10 horizontal (1v:10h). The seaward edge of the construction berm varies between 229 and 440 feet seaward of the project area R-monuments, R-13 to R-19. The proposed construction template maintains the same berm footprint utilized in previous nourishment projects while incorporating a more turtle friendly berm orientation. In addition to the construction berm, the project includes reconstruction of a dune with a variable-width crest having a maximum elevation of +12.5 feet (3.8 m) NAVD88 and 1v:4h side slopes to the berm crest. The seaward edge of the dune crest varies between 69 and 136 feet seaward of the project area R-Monuments, R-13 to R-19. The applicant also proposes to discharge approximately 708,000 cy of beach material between R-13 and R-19 in the existing authorized beach template.

Segment II: The proposed project seeks to construct a 7,700 linear foot dune (36,600 cy) landward of the high tide line between R-19 and R-26, with a proposed dune crest of +12.5 feet (3.8 m) NAVD88, with a maximum width of 40 feet, and a seaward slope of 1v:4h. The seaward toe of the dune will be setback from the existing mean high water line shoreline by a minimum of 50 feet where possible. The applicant also proposes to vegetate the constructed dune with native salt-tolerant dune plants.

Segment III: The proposed project seeks to reconstruct a variable-width construction berm having a crest elevation of +8.0 ft (2.4 m) NAVD88 where the berm slopes at 1v:50h to an elevation of +6 ft (1.8 m) with a seaward beach face extending to the existing seabed at a slope of 1v:10h. The seaward edge of the construction berm varies between 205 and 355 feet seaward of the project area R-monuments (R-26 to R-38), and proposes a dune crest elevation of +12.5 feet (3.8 m) NAVD88 and minimum crest width of 20 feet (6.1 m), with a seaward slope of 1v:4h between the dune crest and beach berm. The proposed construction template maintains the same berm footprint utilized in previous nourishment projects while incorporating a more turtle friendly berm orientation. The applicant also proposes to discharge approximately 596,000 cy of beach material between R-26 and R-38 in the existing authorized beach template.

The applicant proposes sand from either two upland sand mines (the Stewart and Ortona sand mines), or from an offshore borrow area spanning about 477 acres and centered about 2 nautical miles northeast of Jupiter Inlet. Excavation of the borrow site would be completed with a trailing suction hopper dredge and direct pump-out to the project shoreline. The ambient seabed within the borrow area has an elevation of about -60 to -70 feet (-18.3 to -21.3 m) NAVD88. Based upon a 2015 bathymetric survey and vertical limits of excavation ranging between -71 and -75.5 feet (-21.6 and -23.0 m) NAVD88, the quantity of sand in the proposed borrow area is expected to be sufficient for multiple renourishment events. Construction is presently planned for the Fall of 2018. Construction of the 4.9 mile project shoreline is anticipated to require about 4 months.

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION INFORMATION – The applicant has provided the following information in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: No hardbottom impacts are proposed or anticipated beyond what was already previously mitigated for. Palm Beach County will continue to monitor the nearshore hardbottom via their currently ongoing environmental monitoring program. The nearshore hardbottom was digitized in 2014 and showed a total of 8.82 acres within the turbidity mixing zone for the project. All of this acreage was identified along the Segment I shoreline. No other occurrences of nearshores resources were identified within or adjacent to Segment II or III project extents. The proposed borrow area is located 909 meters seaward of hardbottom, 409 meters seaward of small patch reefs, and 434 meters west of a high relief ridge complex.

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: The applicant has provided the following explanation why additional compensatory mitigation should not be required: Previously constructed projects along the Jupiter-Carlin (Segment I) project have resulted in direct and indirect impacts to nearshore hardbottom resources. These impacts have been mitigated for previously. Based upon the most recent nearshore hardbottom survey conducted in 2014, prior to the latest renourishment of Jupiter/Carlin Beach, some of the hardbottom areas have become re-exposed. The proposed project template will directly re-bury approximately 6.39 acres of re-exposed nearshore hardbottom mapped in 2014. Once equilibrated, the fill is expected to re-bury an additional 1.05 acres for a total of 7.44 acres of nearshore hardbottom that falls within an area which has already been mitigated. All nearshore hardbottom that will be affected by the proposed project is located in the nearshore waters of Jupiter/Carlin Beach, between the northern project limit (R-13) and about R-18.6. There are no exposed hardbottom resources located between R-18.6 and a point 5,000 feet south of R-38, the southern project limit. The nearest nearshore hardbottom resources to the project southern limit occurs at about R-43.5. Mitigation for all previous direct and indirect hardbottom impacts has been completed as required. No additional mitigation is proposed or anticipated given that no alterations to the previously authorized fill templates are proposed. The applicant will monitor the nearshore hardbottom throughout the project and south of the project limits. To date, 12.6 acres of artificial reef have been constructed as mitigation for impacts associated with the original authorization for the Segment I and III shore protection projects.

CULTURAL RESOURCES: The Corps is not aware of any known historic properties within the permit area. In 2016 the Tidewater Atlantic Research group completed a cultural resource investigation that identified multiple magnetic anomalies and/or sonar targets, however no major ship wrecks were identified. By copy of this public notice, the Corps is providing information to the State Historic Preservation Officer for review. Our final determination relative to historic resource impacts is subject to review by and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer and if applicable, those federally recognized tribes with concerns in Florida and the Permit Area.

ENDANGERED SPECIES: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined the proposal may affect the threatened and endangered nesting sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelys kempii, Dermochelys coriacea, Caretta caretta, Lepidochelys kempii), and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the loggerhead designated terrestrial critical habitat Unit LOGG-T-FL-09, the threatened manatee, the threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus), threatened red knot (Calidri canutus rufa), and the beach jacquemontia. The Corps will request initiation of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by separate letter.

The Corps has also determined the proposed project may affect the swimming sea turtles (loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles), and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following: northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), nearshore reproductive and migratory critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtles within Unit LOGG-N-18, and the endangered smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate). The Corps has determined that the proposed project will have no effect on, Acropora spp. or it designated critical habitat, and may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the following listed coral species: Dendrogyra cylindris, Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, Orbicella franksi, and Mycetophyllia ferox.
Section 7 consultation was completed for the swimming sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish for the existing authorization which were covered under the South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for Hopper Dredging (SARBO) dated October 29, 1997. The Corps has completed an evaluation of the impacts the proposed re-authorization may have on the above listed species and have determined that the SARBO is still appropriate to apply to the project.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): This notice initiates consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service on EFH as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1996. Based on 2014 hardbottom data, the expected equilibrium beach fill template will cover approximately 7.44 acres of hardbottom that is within the existing authorized fill template and has been previously mitigated for. The benthic habitat is utilized by various life stages of penaeid shrimp complex, red drum, reef fish, stone crab, spiny lobster, migratory/pelagic fish, and snapper/grouper complex. Constructions of artificial reefs, which provide similar ecological functions to the buried hardbottom within the project area, have mitigated the effects associated with hardbottom burial for past projects. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or Federally managed fisheries in the South Atlantic Region. Our final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service.

NOTE: This public notice is being issued based on information furnished by the applicant. This information has not been verified or evaluated to ensure compliance with laws and regulation governing the regulatory program. The jurisdictional line has not been verified by Corps personnel.

AUTHORIZATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: Water Quality Certification may be required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or one of the state Water Management Districts.

COMMENTS regarding the potential authorization of the work proposed should be submitted in writing to the attention of the District Engineer through the Palm Beach Gardens Regulatory Permits Section, 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 500, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, within 21 days from the date of this notice.

The decision whether to issue or deny this permit application will be based on the information received from this public notice and the evaluation of the probable impact to the associated wetlands. This is based on an analysis of the applicant's avoidance and minimization efforts for the project, as well as the compensatory mitigation proposed.

QUESTIONS concerning this application should be directed to the project manager, Ms. Linda C. Knoeck, in writing at the Palm Beach Gardens Regulatory Permits Section, 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 500, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; by electronic mail at Linda.C.Knoeck@usace.army.mil; or, by telephone at (561)472-3530.

IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Marine Fisheries Services, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, environmental groups, and concerned citizens generally yields pertinent environmental information that is instrumental in determining the impact the proposed action will have on the natural resources of the area.

EVALUATION: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including cumulative impacts thereof; among these are conservation, economics, esthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historical properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food, and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will also include application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, EPA, under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act or the criteria established under authority of Section 102(a) of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. A permit will be granted unless its issuance is found to be contrary to the public interest.

The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other Interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this determination, comments are used to assess impacts to endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY: In Florida, the State approval constitutes compliance with the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. In Puerto Rico, a Coastal Zone Management Consistency Concurrence is required from the Puerto Rico Planning Board. In the Virgin Islands, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources permit constitutes compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within the designated comment period of the notice and must state the specific reasons for requesting the public hearing.