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) as described below:
APPLICANT: Florida Department of Transportation, District 2
Attn: Mr. Van Humphreys
1109 South Marion Avenue
Lake City, Florida 32025
WATERWAY AND LOCATION: The project would affect waters of the United States associated with various unnamed wetland systems and cross a tributary to Seaton Creek. The project site is located between the western terminus of Arnold Road and the Jacksonville National Cemetery at Ethel Road in Sections 39 and 40, Township 1 North, Range 26 East and Section 41, Township 2 North, Range 26 East, Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida.
Directions to the site are as follows: From downtown Jacksonville take I-95 North to Pecan Park Road. Take exit 366 from I-95 North. Turn left onto Pecan Park Road and drive approximately 3 miles to start of project.
APPROXIMATE CENTRAL COORDINATES: Latitude 30.53221°
Longitude -81.69884°
PROJECT PURPOSE:
Basic: Linear transportation.
Overall: The overall project purpose is construction of a new two lane roadway beginning at Lannie Road at the Ethel Road intersection and ending at the western terminus of Arnold Road to provide direct access to the Jacksonville National Cemetery from I-95 in Duval County.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Multiple wetland, upland and undeveloped land uses occur within the project boundary. Land use/land cover types were classified according to the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Upland types consist of Improved Pastures (FLUCFCS (211), Pine-Mesic Oak (FLUCFCS Code 414), Temperate Hardwoods (425), Harwood Conifer Mixed (434), Coniferous Plantations (441), Roads (814).
Wetland types consist of Coniferous Plantations (441) with Wet Flatwoods, Upland Cut Ditches (511), Inland Ponds and Sloughs (616), Mixed Wetland Hardwoods (617), Wetland Coniferous Forests (620), Cypress (621), Prairies (643).
Uplands:
Improved Pastures (FLUCFCS (211). Sparsely vegetated pastures are present near the eastern end of the proposed roadway footprint. Additional pasture habitat is present at the far western end of the project footprint that was likely used for cattle in the past; however, it is overgrown and appears fallow. Dense opportunistic vegetation is dominant in the fallow pasture, including dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Bahia grass (Pasalum notatum), and smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides).
Pine-Mesic Oak (FLUCFCS Code 414). Small areas of this habitat occur in the center and near the western end of the proposed project. It is the driest habitat within the corridor. Dominant species include slash pine (Pinus elliottii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), live oak (Q. virginiana), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), tarflower (Bejaria racemosa), gallberry (Ilex glabra), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum).
Temperate Hardwoods (425). A single area of this habitat occurs near the eastern end of the proposed project. This is a disturbed area, with secondary growth consisting largely of young sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings and small trees.
Harwood Conifer Mixed (434). This is the most common undisturbed upland habitat in the proposed project corridor. Dominant species include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red bay (Persea borbonia), laurel oak, water oak (Quercus nigra), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), gallberry, saw palmetto, and shiny lyonia (Lyonia lucida).
Coniferous Plantations (441). This is the most common upland habitat in the corridor. The plantations are of mixed ages, with most areas containing pines less than two years old. In other areas, the pines are nearing harvestable size. Typical species include loblolly pine, slash pine, gallberry, broomgrass, false foxglove (Agalinis spp.), flat-top goldenrod (Euthamia caroliniana), wiregrass (Aristida spiciformis), and witchgrasses (Dichanthelium spp.). Areas of very young trees are dominated by various herbaceous species, while more mature stands have fewer grasses and forbs.
Roads (814). Arnold Road terminates at the eastern end of the proposed project. Within the project, it is a narrow unpaved road.
Wetlands:
Coniferous Plantations (441) with Wet Flatwoods. This habitat is similar in vegetative composition to the upland coniferous plantation community with a dense artificial canopy of planted slash pine and loblolly pine. However, the hydrologic indicators, wetland understory vegetation, and hydric soils present classify this community as a jurisdictional wetland.
Upland Cut Ditches (511). A small and narrow ditch runs through the fallow pasture near the western end of the proposed project. It contains dogfennel, smartweed, and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
Inland Ponds and Sloughs (616). The deepest parts of the large slough near the western end of the project consist of this habitat. No defined channel is present, and perennial flowing water is absent, but signs of seasonal sheet flow (visible seasonal high water marks on tree trunks) are present. Dominant species include swamp gum, shiny lyonia, buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and blue flag (Iris virginica). The habitat appears to be less frequently inundated than the Stream and Lake Swamps habitat.
Mixed Wetland Hardwoods (617). This habitat type lacks perennial flow, a defined channel, and signs of sheet flow. Typical species include bluestem palmetto (Sabal minor), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), elm (Ulmus americana), sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and laurel oak. This habitat type occurs in several areas and usually represents the floodplain on the deeper wetland habitats of Stream and Lake Swamps and Inland Ponds and Sloughs.
Wetland Coniferous Forests (620). This habitat type occurs within the pine plantations in the center of the proposed corridor. While often shaped like cypress domes, these wetlands contain a mix of species. They are dominated by slash pine and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), and also contains red maple, maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), and swamp tupelo.
Cypress (621). A single cypress dome occurs within the proposed corridor. It is similar to Wetland Coniferous Forests, but pond cypress is more dominant. Other species include chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), yellow-eyed grass (Xyris caroliniana) and maidencane.
Wet Prairies (643). In young pine plantation habitats, open wet areas often fringe forested domes or occur surrounded by open upland areas. Dominant species include hypericum (Hypericum fasciculatum), yellow-eyed grass, maidencane, blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergianum), broomgrass, and beaksedges.
PROPOSED WORK: The applicant seeks authorization to discharge fill material over 12.04 acres of waters of the United States (wetlands) to construct a new two lane roadway that spans approximately 3.4 miles. In addition, the project would incur approximately 64.88 acres of secondary wetland impacts
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:
Avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts has been employed to the maximum extent practicable through the Quality Enhancement Strategies process associated with FDOT projects. Specifically, the project has been designed to avoid wetland impacts where practicable, although complete avoidance would make the project impracticable. Many of these wetlands proposed to be impacted are degraded in comparison to natural habitat due to grazing, nutrient-loading and/or hydrological alterations associated with the current land uses. Where traversing wetlands was unavoidable, efforts were intentionally made to have perpendicular crossings at narrow points of wetlands. The bridge and culvert designs also help to minimize impacts to the aquatic and adjacent wetland systems, help ensure flood flow capacity and provide corridors to wildlife.
The original direct wetland impacts were estimated to be 17.70 acres, while the secondary impacts were estimated to be 98.23 acres. In an effort to reduce wetland impacts, no wetlands are proposed to be impacted for the construction of stormwater management facilities. In addition, a significant portion of the proposed alternative has now been designed with curb and gutter, which reduces the footprint of the roadway by 40 percent from 150 feet to 90 feet. The eastern portion of the road will remain a rural road typical section. In addition to the curb and gutter design alternative, the unnamed tributary of Seaton Creek, a forested, freshwater wetland, is proposed to be bridged. Native vegetation will be used to stabilize exposed soil in the immediate vicinity of the wetland. Impervious surface runoff will be treated before discharge into the tributary. The impact and functional loss to this forested, freshwater wetland system has been reduced by the greatest degree practicable.
COMPENSATORY MITIGATION – The applicant has offered the following compensatory mitigation plan to offset unavoidable functional loss to the aquatic environment:
All proposed impacts will be offset through the purchase of mitigation bank credits from a federally approved mitigation bank. The chosen bank will be located in the same watershed basin as the proposed project, and will therefore be appropriate mitigation and will not result in cumulative impacts to the watershed. All mitigation proposed will be completed in compliance with, and to the satisfaction of, all state and federal regulatory requirements.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
The Corps is not aware of any known historic properties within the permit area. By copy of this public notice, the Corps is providing information for review. Our final determination relative to historic resource impacts is subject to review by and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer and those federally recognized tribes with concerns in Florida and the Permit Area.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: Wood stork (Mycteria americana), Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couper)
Based upon review of the Wood Stork Key for Central and North Peninsular Florida dated September 2008, the proposed project resulted in the following sequential determination: A > B > C = “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” the wood stork. This determination is based on the project not being located within 2,500 feet of an active colony site and project impacts to suitable foraging habitat would be less than 0.5 acre..
The Corps has determined the proposed project will have no effect on the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
A large portion of the project area consists of existing roadways along the I-295 and I-95 corridors. This includes paved travel lanes, medians, road shoulders, swales, small ditches, overpasses, ramps, and landscaped buffers. The woodpeckers live and forage in mature pine forests, specifically those with longleaf pines averaging over 80 to 120 years old and loblolly pines averaging 70 to 100 years old. The red-cockaded woodpeckers live in groups with a breeding pair and as many as four helpers, usually male offspring from the previous year. Each group needs about 200 acres of old pine forest to support its foraging and nesting needs. Therefore, the Corps determination for the proposed project is “no effect” to the woodpecker.
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi): The potential impacts to the endangered Eastern Indigo snake were evaluated using The Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key, August 2013. Use of the Eastern Indigo snake key resulted in the following sequential determination: A > B > C = “not likely to adversely affect” the Eastern Indigo snake. This is due to there are no gopher tortoise burrows, holes, cavities, or other refugia where a snake could be buried or trapped and injured during project activities.
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. Our initial determination is that the proposed action would not have a substantial adverse impact on EFH or Federally managed fisheries in Seaton and Thomas Creeks or the Nassau River. 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 Panama City Permits Section, Post Office Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida 32232 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, Mr. Randy Turner, in writing at the Jacksonville Permits Section, Post Office Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida 32232, by electronic mail at Randy.L.Turner@usace.army.mil, by fax at (904) 232-1904, or by telephone at (904) 232-1670.
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 US Army Corps of Engineers (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.