DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE EXPANSION OF
THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE (ODMDS) BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

Cooperating Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Original prepared with the assistance of:
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
3106 South Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104-6137

February 2020


-------
Table of Contents

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE EXPANSION OF THE PORT
EVERGLADES HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE (ODMDS)

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA	13

1	PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED	13

1.1	PROJECT AUTHORITY	13

1.2	ODMDS LOCATION	13

1.3	NEED OR OPPORTUNITY	15

1.4	RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS	17

1.5	DECISIONS TO BE MADE	18

1.6	SCOPING AND ISSUES	18

1.6.1	ISSUES EVALUATED IN DETAIL	18

1.6.2	IMPACT MEASUREMENT	19

1.6.3	ISSUES ELIMINATED FROM DETAIL ANALYSIS	20

1.7	PERMITS, LICENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS	20

2	ALTERNATIVES	21

2.1	DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES	21

2.1.1	ALTERNATIVE SITE 1: NORTH-SOUTH DISPOSAL ZONE - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE	24

2.1.2	ALTERNATIVE SITE 2: EAST-WEST RELEASE ZONE	25

2.1.3	NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (STATUS QUO)	28

2.2	ISSUES AND BASIS FOR CHOICE	28

2.3	PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE	28

2.4	ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION	28

2.5	ALTERNATIVES NOT WITHIN JURISDICTION OF LEAD AGENCY	32

2


-------
2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES	32

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	43

3.1	SEDIMENT	45

3.1.1	PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS	45

3.1.2	CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS	48

3.2	VEGETATION	50

3.3	THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES	50

3.3.1	SEA TURTLES	53

3.3.2	MARINE MAMMALS	54

3.3.3	MARINE FISHES	55

3.3.4	LISTED CORAL AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT	55

3.4	HARDBOTTOM HABITATS	58

3.5	FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES	68

3.5.1	MARINE HABITATS	68

3.5.2	AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN	70

3.5.3	MARINE MAMMALS	72

3.5.4	AQUATIC RESOURCES	75

3.5.5	FISHERIES RESOURCES	77

3.6	ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT	81

3.7	COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES	88

3.8	WATER QUALITY	89

3.8.1	SALINITY	89

3.8.2	WATER TEMPERATURE	89

3.8.3	DISSOLVED OXYGEN	89

3.8.4	TURBIDITY	90

3.8.5	WATER CHEMISTRY	90

3


-------
3.8.6 HUMAN-RELATED DISCHARGES	93

3.9	OCEAN OUTFALL	93

3.10	HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE	93

3.11	AIR QUALITY	93

3.12	NOISE	94

3.13	RECREATION RESOURCES	94

3.14	NAVIGATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY	94

3.15	HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES	94

3.16	MILITARY USAGE	95

4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS	97

4.1	GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS	97

4.2	VEGETATION	97

4.3	THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES	97

4.4	HARDBOTTOM HABITATS	98

4.5	FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES	100

4.6	ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT	102

4.7	COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES	104

4.8	WATER QUALITY	104

4.9	AIR QUALITY	105

4.10	NOISE	105

4.11	RECREATION RESOURCES	105

4.12	NAVIGATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY	106

4.13	HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES	106

4.14	ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION	106

4.15	NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES	106

4


-------
4.16	CUMULATIVE IMPACTS	107

4.16.1	PAST PROJECTS	107

4.16.2	CURRENT PROJECTS	107

4.16.3	REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS	107

4.16.4	CONCLUSIONS	111

4.17	IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES	112

4.17.1	IRREVERSIBLE	112

4.17.2	IRRETRIEVABLE	112

4.18	UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS	112

4.19	LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND MAINTENANCE/ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY	112

4.20	INDIRECT EFFECTS	113

4.21	COMPATIBILITY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL OBJECTIVES	113

4.22	CONFLICTS AND CONTROVERSY	113

4.23	UNCERTAIN, UNIQUE, OR UNKNOWN RISKS	114

4.24	PRECEDENT AND PRINCIPLE FOR FUTURE ACTIONS	114

4.25	ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS	114

4.26	COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS	114

4.26.1	NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969	114

4.26.2	ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973	114

4.26.3	FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958	114

4.26.4	NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 {INTER ALIA)	115

4.26.5	CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1972	115

4.26.6	CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1972	115

4.26.7	COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972	115

4.26.8	FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT OF 1981 	115

4.26.9	WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ACT OF 1968 	115

5


-------
4.26.10	MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972	115

4.26.11	ESTUARY PROTECTION ACT OF 1968	116

4.26.12	FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976	116

4.26.13	SUBMERGED LANDS ACT OF 1953	116

4.26.14	COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT AND COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1990	116

4.26.15	RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899	116

4.26.16	ANADROMOUS FISH CONSERVATION ACT	116

4.26.17	MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT	116

4.26.18	MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT	

4.26.19	MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

4.26.20	E.O. 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS	117

4.26.21	E.O. 11988, FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT	117

4.26.22	E.O. 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE	117

4.26.23	E.O. 13089, CORAL REEF PROTECTION	117

4.26.24	E.O. 13112. INVASIVE SPECIES	118

5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT	119

5.1	SCOPING AND DRAFT EA	119

5.2	AGENCY COORDINATION	119

5.3	COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE	119

1.0 INTRODUCTION	1

1.1 SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN TEAM	1

2.0 SITE MANAGEMENT	2

2.1	DISPOSAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS	2

2.2	MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES	4

2.3	DISPOSAL HISTORY AND DREDGED MATERIAL VOLUMES	5

2.4	DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS	6

6


-------
2.4.1 PREVIOUSLY DISPOSED MATERIALS	6

2.4.2. ANTICIPATED MATERIALS	6

2.4.3	ASSOCIATED BEACH QUALITY MATERIALS	6

2.4.4	DREDGE MATERIAL QUALITY VERIFICATION	7

2.5	TIME OF DISPOSAL	7

2.6	DISPOSAL TECHNIQUE	8

2.7	DISPOSAL LOCATION	8

2.8	PERMIT AND CONTRACT CONDITIONS	12

2.9	PERMIT PROCESS	12

2.10	INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES	12

3.0 SITE MONITORING	12

3.1	BASELINE MONITORING	13

3.2	DISPOSAL MONITORING	19

3.3	POST DISPOSAL MONITORING	19

3.4	MATERIAL TRACKING AND DISPOSAL EFFECTS MONITORING	20

3.4.1	SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF PAST MONITORING SURVEYS	21

3.4.2	FUTURE MONITORING SURVEYS	22

3.5	REPORTING AND DATA FORMATTING	28

3.5.1	PROJECT INITIATION AND VIOLATION REPORTING	28

3.5.2	DISPOSAL MONITORING DATA	28

3.5.3	POST DISPOSAL SUMMARY REPORTS	28

3.5.4	ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING	28

Monitoring results will be summarized in subsequent revisions to the SMMP	29

4.0 MODIFICATION OF THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR ODMDS SMMP	29

5.0 REFERENCES	2

7


-------
PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR ODMDS	5

Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS	21

See: http://dqm.usace.army.mil/Specifications/lndex.aspx	27

For scows, the monitoring profile, TDS profile or Ullage profile shall be used	27

8


-------
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project vicinity map showing the location of the two proposed alternatives, the

existing ODMDS, and the entrance to the Port Everglades channel	14

Figure 2. MDFATE and STFATE capacity modeling conducted by Taylor Engineering (Taylor 2010)
shows simulated, high-quantity dredged material exceeding the boundaries of the existing Port
Everglades ODMDS	17

Figure 3. Results of modeling, using both an east-west (red) and a north-south (blue) disposal
release configurations denoted in the center of the site in red and blue, respectively. Resulting
expansion areas were designed to contain all sediment deposition of a thickness greater than 1
cm, denoted by red and blue contours, and to be located within the area of existing sidescan

sonar data	22

Figure 4 - Alternative Site 1 including potential disposal release zone developed based on
modeling conducted in 2010	26

Figure 5. Alternative Site 2 including potential disposal release zone developed based on
modeling conducted in 2010	27

Figure 6. Graphic showing the location of the initially proposed expansion area that extends
into the Navy Use Area. The optimized expansion area was shifted to the north and west to
avoid the Navy Use Area. The figure shows the outlines encompassing resulting deposition
areas from modeling. The optimized expansion area show resulting deposition areas from a

north-south oriented disposal zone (blue) and an east-west oriented disposal zone (red).
Alternative Site 1 fully encompasses the blue deposition area, while Alternative Site 2 fully
encompasses the red deposition area	30

Figure 7. Project location in relation to major oceanic features	44

Figure 8. 2007, 2011 (left) and 2014 (right) Sediment and water sample locations	45

Figure 9 - Proposed Expanded Port Everglades ODMDS Habitat Types (Newfields 2013)	47

Figure 10. Designated critical habitat for Elkhorn and staghorn corals in the Florida Area	56

Figure 11. Project Vicinity in reference to Acropora Critical Habitat and Exclusion Areas	57

Figure 12. Natural reefs, including both coral reefs and hardbottom, in the project vicinity. The
closest hardbottom habitat as mapped by Broward County is approximately 1.08 nautical miles
from Alternative 2, the Alternative located furthest west	60

9


-------
Figure 13. Hardbottom Adjacent to ODMDS Expansion Areas. The existing ODMDS and
proposed expansion area are shown in light blue; the tan polygons and lines indicate soft
bottom; purple indicates areas of rock or hardbottom; the red stars note tilefish; and the red
star in the upper right corner of the ODMDS expansion area is a possible modern shipwreck.
Figure provided by Mr. John Reed (HBOI/FAU) (NOAA Fisheries 2011)	61

Figure 14 - Areas of Suspected Hardbottom in the ODMDS Expansion Areas as identified by NSU
(NMFS 2011)	62

Figure 15 - Substrate type within areas of suspected hardbottom in the ODMDS expansion
areas (Newfields, 2013) Expanded view of the inset (light blue) in Figure 13 showing imaging
locations (+) performed in Alternative 1 and 2	63

Figure 16 - Plan and profile views of hardbottom at sampling station (evidence of rubble
hardbottom) in suspected hardbottom area in the alternative ODMDS expansion area	64

Figure 17 - Plan and profile views of hardbottom at sampling station (evidence of hardbottom)
in suspected high probability area in the alternative ODMDS expansion area	65

Figure 18 - Plan and profile views of hardbottom at sampling station (Evidence of Scattered
Rock) in suspected high probability area in the alternative ODMDS expansion area	66

Figure 19 - Potential Hardbottom Targets in Alternative 1	67

Figure 20. Potential Hardbottom Targets in Alternative 2	68

Figure 21. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Southeast Florida region. The East Florida
Coast Closed Area, a Federal Fishery Management Zone, is located within the project
boundaries	71

Figure 22. Eighteen trawled fish species, by order, collected in epifaunal trawl samples Source:
USACE 2011	79

Figure 23. Sixty-two trawled epifaunal taxa by major taxonomic group (includes all epifaunal
trawl samples) (source ANAMAR 2012)	80

Figure 24. CBRS units in the vicinity of the project area	88

Figure 25. Overlay of predicted disposal footprint for Alternative 1 on potential hardbottom
targets as identified from sidescan sonar mosaic. 10 and 5 cm contours indicate dredged
material layer thickness	99

10


-------
Figure 26. Overlay of predicted disposal footprint for Alternative 2 on potential hardbottom
targets as identified from sidescan sonar mosaic. 10 and 5 cm contours indicate dredged
material layer thickness	100

Figure 27. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects	110

11


-------
LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A.	DRAFT SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

APPENDIX B.	PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE (placeholder)

APPENDIX E.	COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS (placeholder)

12


-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE EXPANSION OF
THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE [ODMDS) BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1	PROJECT AUTHORITY

The Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to
promulgate ocean clumping criteria, designate recommended ocean disposal sites for all
authorized materials, and issue permits for dumping of materials other than dredged materials
into ocean waters. Under Sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1412), also known as the Ocean
Dumping Act, the EPA and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have the responsibility for
ensuring that ocean dredged material disposal activities will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, amenities, or the marine environment.

Section 102 of the MPRSA authorizes the EPA to designate sites or times at which dumping may
occur and establish criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications. It also requires
the EPA, in conjunction with the USACE, to develop site management and monitoring plans
(SMMPs) for dredged material disposal sites. Section 103 of the MPRSA authorizes the USACE
to issue permits for the transportation of dredged material, subject to compliance with the EPA
environmental criteria (Ocean Dumping Criteria at 40 CFR Part 227) and the EPA's concurrence
with USACE's finding of compliance.

The Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS was designated by EPA Region 4 in February 2005 (70 FR
2808, 1/18/2005). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in support of designation was
published in July 2004. The November 2004 Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP placed
project volume restrictions of 500,000 cubic yards (cy) per dredging event until capacity
modeling was completed. In 2009, the USACE initiated capacity modeling for the proposed Port
Everglades expansion project. Preliminary results have indicated that the existing ODMDS is
insufficient in size to contain the potential volume of dredged material from future projects.
Therefore, it has been determined that there is a need to enlarge the existing ODMDS.

1.2	ODMDS LOCATION

The ODMDS is located east northeast of Port Everglades and approximately 3.25 nautical miles
(nmi) (6.0 km) offshore of Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida (Figure 1). Water depths at

13


-------
the project site range from 587 ft, (179 m) to 761 ft, (232 m). The Alternative sites and existing
ODMDS are defined by the boundary coordinates presented in Table 1.

TewiPriye-Park

Alternative Site 1
(Preferred Alternative)

'Park:

495

Alternative
Site 2

English Park

Dump Site
(dre&ged material)
(see n&e S)
iXvf*s

-51FV&/0' 1964

South Beach Parte-

Existing ODMDS1

Port Everglades
Channel Entrance

lobn U Lloyd :
saeh State Park

US Army Corps
of Engineers

Jacksonville District

PROJECT VICINITY MAP

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion Areas

hlQAA Raster Naottcal Ciwt - Sozmtoss Mosa&c - ESRI Sarw»r

Figure: 1

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:60,000

Source: NOAA/ESRI/GEC

Map Extents

Figure 1. Project vicinity map showing the location of the two proposed alternatives, the existing
ODMDS, and the entrance to the Port Everglades channel.

14


-------
Table 1. Coordinates and total area in square nautical miles (nmi2) for the existing Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS and Proposed Alternative Sites 1 and 2.

Site



Geographic (NAD83,
Decimal Degrees)

State Plane (Florida East
NAD83)

Area
nmi2





Latitude

Longitude

N

E



Existing ODMDS

Center

26°07.000'

-80°01.500'

649292.40

976098.20

0.90

SE

26°06.500'

-80°01.000'

646284.00

978856.00

SW

26°06.500'

-80°02.000'

646243.00

973386.00

NW

26°07.500'

-80°02.000'

652301.00

973341.00

NE

26°07.500'

-80°01.000'

652342.00

978810.00















Alternative Site 1

Center

26°07.625'

-80°01.784'

653067.18

974516.67

3.20

SE

26°06.500'

-80"01.000'

646,283

978,856

SW

26°06.500'

-80"02.578'

646,220

970,225

NW

26°08.750'

-80"02.578'

659,851

970,124

NE

26°08.750'

-80"01.000'

659,915

978,753















Alternative Site 2

Center

26°07.4G4'

-80°01.825'

652090.13

974299.72

2.89

SE

26°06.493'

-80°01.000'

646242.90

978855.70

SW

26°06.504'

-80°02.666'

646242.90

969745.00

NW

26°08.434'

-80°02.650'

657932.00

969745.00

NE

26°08.423'

-80°00.984'

657932.00

978855.70

1.3 NEED OR OPPORTUNITY

Port Everglades is a major cargo and cruise ship port in Florida contributing $14 billion of
economic activity to Florida's economy and nearly 10,000 jobs via the companies that provide
direct services to the Port (http://www.porteverglades.net/about-us/). With the enlargement
of the Panama Canal, larger ships are currently calling on Port Everglades, although light-loaded
and not able to fully maximize their capacity, due to existing depth limitations. In order to
allow these vessels to fully maximize their capacity, the USACE has completed a Congressionally
authorized feasibility study and FEIS for dredging and expansion activities at Port Everglades. In
2017 the Record of Decision was rescinded and a supplemental NEPA document is being
prepared. The proposed expansion would deepen the entrance channel from -45 feet to -55
feet mean lower low water (MLLW) (plus up to two feet of required and allowable overdepth)
and to deepen all other channels to -48 feet MLLW (plus up to two feet of required and
allowable overdepth) (USACE, 2015). Subsequent to the release of the USACE 2015 FEIS, the
USACE is reinitiating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for dredging and
expansion activities for Port Everglades. It is EPA's understanding that the Preferred Alternative
identified in the FEIS will remain the same.

15


-------
The existing ODMDS was designated to accommodate dredged material from periodic
maintenance events in the Port. The Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS received its final
designation by the EPA in February 2005 (70 FR 2808) following the completion of a July 2004
EIS for the ODMDS designation. However, capacity modeling (Figure 2) indicates the existing,
approved ODMDS is insufficient in size to contain any expansion projects.

Broward County has identified a need to dispose of non-beach quality dredged material from
the Port Everglades Sand Bypass Project (SAJ-2008-2034). Project volumes are expected to
exceed 500,000 cubic yards (Creed, 2013) requiring site expansion. The U.S. Navy and U.S.
Coast Guard also have facilities in the area that may require use of the ODMDS although no
need has currently been identified.

The proposed 6.63 mcy of dredged material associated with the proposed Port Everglades
expansion project (Taylor 2010) in addition to continued maintenance material. Additionally,
surveys performed of the existing ODMDS indicate that fine material has potentially moved
northward out of the existing smaller site. Therefore, there is a need to expand the existing
ODMDS to accommodate dredged material resulting from the planned Port Everglades Harbor
expansion project and future maintenance dredging needs. The need for ocean disposal is
based primarily on the lack of economically, logisticaMy, and environmentally feasible
alternatives for the disposal of the projected quantities of dredged material deemed unsuitable
for beach re-nourishment or beach placement (USACE, 2015). The 2018 WRDA (America's
Water Infrastructure Act) authorizes the Port Everglades expansion.

16


-------
Approximate Height Above Existing Grade

RANGE

MIN

HEIGHT (cm)

MAX

HEIGHT (cm )

COLOR

1

1.0

5.0

¦

2

5.0

10



3

10

30



4

30

300



5

300

600



6

600

900

¦

7

900

950

¦

j—MDFATE MODEL GRID

PORT EVERGLADES
ODMDS
(2009 SMMP)

DISPOSAL
(SEE

0	3.000'	6.000*

SC fiLE- 1* = 3,000'

Figure 2. MDFATE and STFATE capacity modeling conducted by Taylor Engineering (Taylor 2010) shows
simulated, high-quantity dredged material exceeding the boundaries of the existing Port Everglades
ODMDS.

1.4 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

The following documents are relevant to the proposed ODMDS expansion:

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site and the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site. USEPA, July 2004

Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site - Site Management and
Monitoring Plan, USEPA/USACE, November 2004

17


-------
Revisions to the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) Site
Management and Monitoring Plan, USEPA/USACE, May 2009

Sediment and Water Quality of Candidate Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Port
Everglades and Palm Beach, Florida, USEPA, prepared for USACE, June 1999

Rapid Seafloor Reconnaissance and Assessment of Southeast Florida Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites Utilizing Sediment Profile Imaging - Post-Disposal SPI Mapping at the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS, Germano & Associates, Inc., prepared for USEPA, May 2006

Evaluation of Dredged Material Behavior at the Port Everglades Harbor Federal Project Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site; by Taylor Engineering, Inc. for ANAMAR Environmental, Inc.,
prepared for USACE, June 2010 (Updated November 2010)

Port Everglades ODMDS Survey, Port Everglades, Florida, by ANAMAR Environmental
Consulting, Inc., prepared for USACE, November 2010

Site Designation Study for the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
Expansion: May 2011 Survey Results. ANAMAR Environmental Consulting, Inc., prepared for
USACE, January 2012

1.5	DECISIONS TO BE MADE

This EA evaluates the expansion of the current authorized Port Everglades ODMDS to a size that
will allow for dredged material disposal needs in excess of 500,000 cubic yards as projected for
the proposed Port Everglades maintenance operations, expansion, and sand bypass dredging
events and the alternatives considered to accomplish that goal.

1.6	SCOPING AND ISSUES

1.6.1 Issues Evaluated in Detail

The following issues were identified to be relevant to the proposed action and appropriate for
detailed evaluation:

•	Vegetation;

•	Threatened and Endangered Species;

•	Hardbottom Habitats;

•	Fish and Wildlife Resources;

•	Essential Fish Habitat;

•	Coastal Barrier Resources;

•	Water Quality;

•	Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes;

18


-------
•	Air Quality;

•	Noise;

•	Recreation Resources;

•	Navigation and Public Safety;

•	Historic and Cultural Resources; and

•	Military Usage.

1.6.2 Impact Measurement

The following provides the means and rationale for measurement and comparison of impacts of
the proposed alternatives.

In the deep-water marine environment of the existing and proposed alternative ODMDSs, there
is a finite amount of information available on which to design the expanded ODMDS and
measure and compare the impacts of the proposed alternatives. For the proposed ODMDS
expansion, the EPA considered sidescan sonar surveys; biological, sediment, and water quality
surveys; still photography; and modeling tools such as Short-Term Fate (STFATE) and Multi-
Dump Fate (MDFATE) to evaluate the impacts of the proposed alternatives (described in
Section 2).

The available sidescan sonar data along with plan view and Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI)
photography was reviewed to identify the most appropriate area in which to expand the
existing ODMDS. Sidescan sonar data provides scientists with an understanding of existing
bottom features and is useful in identifying potential benthic structure and other features such
as potential shipwrecks. It is a key factor in locating suitable ODMDS sites in deep-water
environments.

Simulations of dredged material disposal at the existing Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS were
conducted using the Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Modeling System
(ADDAMS). STFATE and MDFATE modeling studies were used to determine the need for
expansion and the required size of the expanded ODMDS. Several simulations were performed
on multiple disposal release zone configurations within the existing ODMDS. The results found
that the area of the deposition contour exceeding the existing ODMDS boundary for all model
simulations was excessive, thus indicating a need to expand the ODMDS (Figure 2). Expansion
alternative configurations were determined based on containing dredged material (1 cm
thickness or less beyond the boundaries.)

Alternative ODMDS configurations were identified using sidescan sonar data to identify possible
locations for the ODMDS expansion and modeling to determine the size of the expansion sites.
Biological, water quality and sediment data from the May 2011 site study and cultural resource
surveys conducted in November 2011 and July 2012 were then used to confirm the suitability of

19


-------
the proposed alternative sites and, where possible, measure and compare impacts within the
proposed alternatives.

1.6.3 Issues Eliminated from Detail Analysis

Aesthetic Resources and Solid Waste were not considered important or relevant issues to the
proposed action, as they are not located in the action area.

1.7 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND ENTITLEMENTS

Refer also to Sections 1.1.4, Permits, Licenses and Entitlements and 4.35, Compliance with
Environmental Requirements of the 2004 Final EIS for site designation.

EPA Region 4 and the USACE Jacksonville District share responsibility for control and
management of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS under the MPRSA. The MPRSA assigns
basic responsibility to the EPA and the USACE for ensuring that ocean dredged material disposal
activities will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, amenities, or the
marine environment (MPRSA Sections 102 and 103). Section 102 of the MPRSA authorizes the
EPA to designate sites or times at which dumping may occur and to establish criteria for
reviewing and evaluating permit applications and also requires the EPA, in conjunction with the
USACE, to develop site specific SMMPs for each ODMDS. Section 103 of the MPRSA authorizes
the USACE to issue permits for the transportation of dredged material, subject to compliance
with the EPA environmental criteria (Ocean Dumping Criteria at 40 CFR Part 227) and the EPA's
concurrence with the USACE's finding of compliance.

During preparation of this EA, a process of coordination and concurrence has been conducted
through the distribution of the EA for this proposed action to Federal and Florida state agencies,
offices, and organizations having authority over issues associated with this action. Appendix B
of the Final EA will include all such correspondence.

20


-------
2 ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternatives that were studied in detail. Based on the information
and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment and the Environmental
Effects, this section presents the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of all alternatives
in comparative form, providing a clear basis for choice among the options for the decision-
maker and the public.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The existing ODMDS was designed to accommodate material from operation and maintenance
(O&M) dredging events and small new work projects (i.e., projects that generate less than
500,000 cy of dredged material). The Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP requires capacity
modeling for amounts over 500,000 cy of material.

Considering the Port Everglades expansion and the Sand Bypass project are each expected to
generate more than 500,000 cy of dredged material, studies were initiated to determine the
size and location of an ODMDS that could accommodate the volume of dredge material
anticipated to be generated by these activities.

STFATE and MDFATE were performed using 6.63 million cubic yards of dredge material to
determine the needed size of the expanded ODMDS. The results confirmed that dredged
material deposition exceeded the existing ODMDS footprint. The modeling studies identified an
initially proposed expansion area; however, the southern portion of the potential expansion
area encroached into a Navy Use Area that had specifically been avoided during the original site
designation at the request of the Navy (see Section 2.4). Existing sidescan sonar survey data of
areas adjacent to the existing ODMDS and outside of the Navy Use Area were reviewed to
identify other possible expansion sites.

Modeling of the expanded ODMDS was done using both an east-west and a north-south
disposal release configuration (Figure 3). Resulting expansion areas were designed to contain
all sediment deposition of a thickness greater than 1 cm and to be located within the area of
existing sidescan sonar data.

The results generated two potential expansion areas: a 3.21 sq. nmi site with a north-south
oriented release zone; and a 2.89 sq nmi site with an east-west oriented release zone. The
western edge of both alternative sites is approximately 3.25 nmi offshore.

21


-------
| | Previously
mapped
sidescan
sonar survey
data

i i East-West

Figure 3. Results of modeling, using both an east-west (red) and a north-south (blue) disposal release
configurations denoted in the center of the site in red and blue, respectively. Resulting expansion areas
were designed to contain all sediment deposition of a thickness greater than 1 cm, denoted by red and
blue contours, and to be located within the area of existing sidescan sonar data.

22


-------
To be considered as a potential ODMDS, alternatives are considered under the five general (40
CFR Part 228.5) and 11 specific (40 CFR Part 228.6) criteria of the MPRSA. The general criteria
are:

(1)	40 CFR 228.5(a). The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only at
sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal activities with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.

(2)	40 CFR 228.5(b). Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental conditions during
initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere within the site can be expected
to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant
concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.

(3)	40 CFR 228.5(c). [Removed from regulation.]

(4)	40 CFR 228.5(d). The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any immediate adverse impacts and permit the
implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent adverse
long-range impacts. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal site will be
determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.

(5)	40 CFR 228.5(e). USEPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have been
historically used.

The 11 specific criteria are:

(1)	Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography and distance from coast;

(2)	Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living
resources in adult or juvenile phases;

(3)	Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas;

(4)	Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and proposed methods of
release, including methods of packing the waste, if any;

(5)	Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;

23


-------
(6)	Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics of the area, including
prevailing current direction and velocity, if any;

(7)	Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the area
(including cumulative effects);

(8)	Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, fish
and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance and other legitimate uses
of the ocean;

(9)	The existing water quality and ecology of the site as determined by available data or
by trend assessment or baseline surveys;

(10)	Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the disposal
site;

(11)	Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or cultural
features of historical importance.

The general and specific criteria were considered in the 2004 EIS for the ODMDS designation,
Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 respectively, for the designation of the existing ODMDS (USEPA 2004)
and are incorporated by reference. Consideration of the criteria for the expansion Alternatives
1 and 2 are not expected to deviate from the findings for the designation of the existing site.
Section 2.6 examines a comparison of the proposed alternatives and compliance with the
general criteria and specific criteria in Table 2 and Table 3.

2.1.1 Alternative Site 1: North-South Disposal Zone - Preferred Alternative

Alternative 1, a 3.2 sq. nmi. (2,701 acres) site has a release zone that was modeled in a north-
south orientation and is the environmentally and operationally preferred alternative (Figure 4).
Although the release zone was modeled in a particular alignment for the analysis, it can be
changed in response to operational concerns by modifying the SMMP. The western edge of the
site is located approximately 3.3 nmi (6.1 km) offshore and the center of the site is located
approximately 4.0 nmi (7.4 km) offshore. Water depths range from 604 to 735 feet (184 to 224
meters). Previously collected sidescan sonar data (EPA 2004) and data collected from the OSV
Bold site survey in May 2011 (ANAMAR 2012), indicate the bottom within the Alternative 1
expansion area is primarily a homogenous mix of sand and silt with scattered rubble, and minor
amounts of clay.

Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferred alternative. Although Alternative 1 covers 0.32
nmi2 (11%) more area than Alternative 2, it is estimated to impact less potential hardbottom
based on photographic and sidescan sonar data for estimated hardbottom as presented in

24


-------
Section 3.4. Alternative 1 is also the preferred alternative based on operational considerations.
The strong northerly current of the Florida Current/Gulf Stream averages 1.3 m/s (2.5 knots);
however, the current varies considerably with reported velocities from one to four knots
(Taylor 2010; USEPA 2004). The USACE Operation Division has stated the north-south
configuration of the disposal release zone in Alternative 1 will provide additional control and
safety when unloading material. An elongated north-south disposal release zone configuration
will permit a disposal vessel to orient parallel to the strong current allowing added control of
the vessel. An analysis of dredged material disposal vessel tracks during the Miami Harbor
Phase II construction dredging showed some vessels experienced an increased transit time from
the Miami Harbor to the Miami ODMDS. This increased transit time was due to decreased
vessel control and maneuverability. It was noted that early in the project, when vessels
approached the ODMDS from the west/north-west, more re-approaches were required than
later in the project when vessels approached directly from the north, parallel to the current
(USACE 2012). This same strong Florida Current is experienced at the Miami ODMDS, which is
located approximately 22 nmi south of the site location.

Prior survey work has indicated that fine material from prior disposal events may have exited
the existing site. Due to this potential migration of sediments out of the site to the north,
Alternative 1 is better suited to containing such movement in the future due to the north-south
length of the proposed boundaries.

2.1.2 Alternative Site 2: East-West Release Zone

Alternative Site 2, a 2.89 sq. nmi. (2,449 acre) has a release zone which was modeled in an east-
west orientation (Figure 5). The western edge of the site is located approximately 3.2 nmi (5.9
km) offshore and the center of the site is located approximately 3.9 nmi (7.2 km) offshore.
Water depths range from 604 to 735 feet (184 to 224 meters). Previously collected sidescan
sonar data (EPA 2004) and data collected from the OSV Bold site study in May 2011 (ANAMAR
2012), indicate the bottom within the Alternative Site 2 expansion area is primarily a
homogenous mix of sand and silt and clay with scattered rubble.

25


-------
Figure 4 - Alternative Site 1 including potential disposal release zone developed based on modeling
conducted in 2010.

26


-------
conducted in 2010.

27


-------
2.1.3 No Action Alternative (Status Quo)

The No-Action Alternative is defined as not designating an expanded ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA. The existing site is limited to 500,000 cy of dredged material per
dredging event without project specific capacity modeling studies to verify that material will be
contained within the site appropriately. The existing ODMDS is not adequate for the proposed
Port Everglades expansion project nor the upcoming Sand Bypass project nor disposal of
dredged material from other non-federal dredging projects that would total more than 500,000
cy. Thus, the No-Action Alternative would not provide an acceptable USEPA-designated
disposal site for use by the USACE or other entities for the disposal of large quantities of
dredged material. Without an expanded disposal site, the expansion of Port Everglades Harbor
would be adversely impacted with subsequent effects upon the national, regional and local
economies (USACE, 2015).

2.2	ISSUES AND BASIS FOR CHOICE

The alternatives were evaluated based on their ability to provide the required capacity for
disposing of dredged materials both for future O&M dredging operations and the proposed
harbor expansion and sand bypass projects and their location in relation to other options.

2.3	PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Based on the analysis provided in this EA and the evaluation of the alternatives with respect to
any potential issues identified, Alternative 1 is recommended as the Preferred Alternative
based on environmental preference and operational constraints. Alternative 1 with the North-
South disposal zone is found to affect less potential hardbottom in the project areas and also
provides the most operationally favorable alternative by allowing disposal vessels to orient
parallel to the current when necessary. This allows the vessel pilots the safest and most
accurate approach to dispose of dredged material.

2.4	ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION

The initially proposed expansion area (Figure 6) was eliminated from detailed evaluation at the
request of the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy has authority over the authorization of activities
occurring in this area as a result of Federal Regulations (see NOS 2010 for limits and
regulations). These regulations state, "(1) Anchoring, trawling, dredging, or attaching any
object to the submerged sea bottom shall be prohibited in the above described area." The
initial modeling results indicated that using the existing release zone with the increased
volumes would create an expanded ODMDS site that encroached upon the Navy Use Area (see
Figure 6). Additionally, during the original site designation, in a letter dated June 30, 1995, the
Navy requested that the EPA exclude the Navy Use Area to avoid impacting operations
conducted by the Navy in the site. During the alternative review for the proposed expansion,

28


-------
USACE and the EPA re-verified with the Navy that the Navy Use Area should be avoided, and
the Navy concurred with that determination (USN, 2010). Therefore, this alternative was
eliminated from detailed evaluation and options for expanding the ODMDS to the north were
explored.

Alternatives to ocean disposal were considered, as required by Section 102 of the MPRSA and
NEPA. Based on the current conditions and in consideration of the analyses conducted and
discussed in the 2004 EIS for the ODMDS designation, the following alternatives were
eliminated from detailed analysis in this EA:

Upland Disposal: Two potential sites, land belonging to Port Everglades and land belonging to
the Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL), were examined as potential upland
dredged material disposal sites. Due to development within the Port and further evaluation of
the FLL's runway expansion plans, both the Port and FLL have withdrawn the use of their
upland properties as upland placement options.

Further, the potential upland disposal sites were considered environmentally valuable in their
own right, and neither was more cost-effective than ocean disposal. There are currently no
other known upland sites suitable for the placement of dredged materials in the project
vicinity. As a result, upland disposal is not a viable option for the placement of dredged
materials from the Port Everglades Harbor Federal Navigation Project (USACE, 2015).

29


-------
Area. The figure shows the outlines encompassing resulting deposition areas from modeling. The
optimized expansion area show resulting deposition areas from a north-south oriented disposal zone
(blue) and an east-west oriented disposal zone (red). Alternative Site 1 fully encompasses the blue
deposition area, while Alternative Site 2 fully encompasses the red deposition area.

Beach Placement: The issue of potentially reducing the opportunity for beneficial use of the
dredged material, such as beach nourishment and placement, due to the availability of ocean
disposal was addressed during the designation of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS (USEPA
2004). The Federal Standard is defined, by the USACE, as the least costly dredged material
disposal or placement alternative identified by the USACE that is consistent with sound
engineering practices and meets all Federal environmental requirements. Establishing the
Federal Standard is not the same as selecting a disposal alternative, but rather establishes a
base plan which defines the disposal or placement cost assigned to the navigation purpose of
the project.

30


-------
Beach placement is typically the least-cost disposal option when the dredged material meets
the standards set by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for beach or
nearshore placement. The State of Florida's Beach Management Rule, Chapter 62B-41.007,
Subsections 5(j)-5(k) defines beach quality material as material that maintains the general
character and functionality of material occurring on a beach and in adjacent dunes and coastal
systems. Such material is predominantly carbonate, quartz, or other similar material with a
particle size distribution ranging from 0.062 millimeters (mm) and 4.76 mm, must be similar in
color and grain size distribution to existing material at the placement site, and must not contain
any of the following:

•	Greater than 5 percent (%), by weight, silt, clay, or colloids passing the #230 sieve;

•	Greater than 5%, by weight, fine gravel retained on the #4 sieve;

•	Coarse gravel, cobbles, or material retained on the %-inch sieve in a percentage or size
greater than that of material on the native beach;

•	Construction debris, toxic material, or other foreign matter; and

•	Any materials or characteristics that would result in cementation on the beach.

Sandy sediment derived from the maintenance of coastal navigation channels is deemed
suitable for beach placement with up to 10 percent fine material passing the #230 sieve,
provided that it meets the above criteria and appropriate water quality standards. Such
material containing 10-20 percent fine material passing the #230 sieve and meeting all other
sediment and water quality standards is considered suitable for placement on nearshore
portions of beaches.

When beach or nearshore placement is the least-cost disposal option, the Federal Government
is responsible for 100 percent of the disposal costs associated with placement. However, if
some of the material does not meet the standards for beach placement or for other reasons
beneficial use is not the base plan, the USACE has various legislative authorities to share the
incremental costs of the beneficial use or beach placement above the base plan. The EPA and
the USACE strongly support beneficial use projects. However, in some cases, beneficial uses will
not be available and ocean disposal will be needed. The success of beneficial use projects
depends on the creation of partnerships between Federal and non-Federal interests and
requires local leadership and local financial commitments to succeed.

The majority of excavated materials from the planned Port Everglades Harbor expansion
project will be silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder-sized components. To separate beach
compatible sand from the mixed sediments would require significant expense, plus

31


-------
identification of a site where separation of beach compatible sand could be conducted.
Considering that a majority of the dredged material found in the Port Everglades Navigation
Project Harbor may not meet the standards for beach or nearshore placement, alternative
disposal options to beach placement are needed. The USACE evaluated beach placement in an
April 2005 EA (USACE 2005). Historically, shoal material from the entrance channel has
consistently met the standards and is expected to be placed on Dr. Von D. Mizell-Eula Johnson
State Park (USACE 2005) under the authorization of the Broward County SPP when capacity is
available on the receiving beach.

2.5	ALTERNATIVES NOT WITHIN JURISDICTION OF LEAD AGENCY

Upland placement is not within the jurisdiction of the EPA. However, EPA strongly supports
upland uses of dredged material where it adds value and conserves resources.

2.6	COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2 provides a comparison of the proposed alternatives and compliance with the five
general criteria for designation outlined in 40 CFR 228.5. Table 3 provides a comparison of the
proposed alternatives and compliance with the eleven specific criteria for designation outlined
in 40 CFR 228.6. Table 4 summarizes the major features and consequences of the alternatives
that were considered. The primary difference between the two alternatives (other than the No
Action Alternative) is that Alternative Site 1 allows for less potential hardbottom impacts and as
well maximum operational efficiency and vessel safety. Section 4, Environmental Effects
provides a more detailed discussion of the impacts of the alternatives considered.

32


-------
Table 2. A comparison of the proposed alternatives and compliance with the general criteria for
designation outlined in 40 CFR 228.5.

GENERAL CRITERIA

Compliance

40 CFR 228.5(a) The dumping of materials into the
ocean will be permitted only at sites or in areas
selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine
environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing
fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy
commercial or recreational navigation.

The existing ODMDS does not support any
exclusive commercial or recreational fishery,
recreational boating, or specially designated
shipping lanes (USEPA 2004). Alternative Sites 1
and 2 encompass and are adjacent to the existing
ODMDS and are expected not to impact these
activities.

40 CFR 228.5(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal
sites will be so chosen that temporary perturbations
in water quality or other environmental conditions
during initial mixing caused by disposal operations
anywhere within the site can be expected to be
reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects
before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine
sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or
shellfishery.

The western edge of both alternative sites is
approximately 3.25 nmi east of the nearest
shoreline such that the prevailing current will not
transport dredged material to reef. Temporary
changes caused by the physical movement of
sediment through the water column will be
reduced to ambient conditions before reaching
any environmentally sensitive area. The western
edge of both alternatives are approximately 0.6
nmi west of the western edge of the existing
ODMDS and are similarly expected not to impact
any environmentally sensitive area.

40 CFR 228.5(c) If at any time during or after disposal
site evaluations studies, it is determined that existing
disposal sites presently approved on an interim basis
for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site
selection set forth in Sections 228.5 through 228.6,
the use of such sites will be terminated as soon as
suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.

[No longer in regulation.]

40 CFR 228.5(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will
be limited in order to localize for identification, to
control any immediate adverse impacts, and to permit
the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range
impacts. The size, configuration, and location of any
disposal site will be determined as a part of the
disposal site evaluation or designation study.

The size and configuration of Alternative Sites 1
and 2 were designed using modeling studies that
determined an area to contain all proposed
dredged material deposition of a thickness of one
centimeter or greater. This criterion was chosen
to avoid dredged materials from being deposited
outside of the designated boundaries of the
disposal site. Both alternatives will allow for the
implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-
range impacts.

33


-------
40 CFR 228.5(e) USEPA will, wherever feasible,
designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of
the continental shelf and other such sites that have
been historically used.

The continental shelf in the vicinity of the
proposed sites has a width of approximately 0.63
nmi (USEPA 2004). Alternative Sites 1 and 2 lay
approximately 2.7 nmi beyond the edge of the
shelf. The locations of the Alternative Sites were
chosen to encompass the existing ODMDS which
has been used previously.

Table 3. Comparison of the proposed alternatives and compliance with the specific criteria for
designation outlined in 40 CFR 228.6

SPECIFIC CRITERIA

Alternative Site 1

Alternative Site 2

No Action Alternative

(1) Geographical

The western edge of

The western edge of

The western edge of the

position, depth of

the site is

the site is

site is approximately 3.8

water, bottom

approximately 3.3 nmi

approximately 3.2 nmi

nmi east of the nearest

topography and

east of the nearest

east of the nearest

shoreline. The center of the

distance from coast;

shoreline. The center

shoreline. The center

site is approximately 4.3



of the site is

of the site is

nmi east of the nearest



approximately 4 nmi

approximately 3.9 nmi

shoreline. Water depths



east of the nearest

east of the nearest

within the site range from



shoreline. Water

shoreline. Water

587 to 76135 feet.



depths within the site

depths within the site

Sediment within the site is



range from

range from

predominantly sand (64.3%



approximately 587 to

approximately 587 to

Sand) (ANAMAR 2012).



761 feet. Sediment

761 feet. Sediment





within the site is

within the site is





predominantly sand

predominantly sand





(55.7-64.9% Sand)

(55.7-64.9% Sand)





(ANAMAR 2012).

(ANAMAR 2012).



(2) Location in relation

Same as No Action

Same as No Action

The existing ODMDS is not

to breeding,

Alternative

Alternative

located in exclusive

spawning, nursery,





breeding, spawning,

feeding, or passage





nursery, feeding, or

areas of living





passage areas for adult or

resources in adult or





juvenile phases of living

juvenile phases;





resources.

(3) Location in relation

The center of

The center of

The center of the existing

to beaches and

Alternative Site 1 is

Alternative Site 2 is

ODMDS is located

other amenity areas

located approximately

located approximately

approximately 4.3 nmi from



4.0 nmi from the

3.9 nmi from the

the nearest coastal beach.

34


-------
such as natural and
artificial reefs

nearest coastal beach.
The site is
approximately 0.68
nmi east of the nearest
artificial reef (the
Qualmann Barge). The
natural reef tract lay
1.8 nmi inshore of the
site. No significant
impacts are expected
to resources or
amenity areas
associated with
Alternative 1. The
project area does not
support any significant
recreational and
commercial fisheries
resource.

nearest coastal beach.
The site is
approximately 0.58
nmi east of nearest
artificial reef (the
Qualmann Barge). The
natural reef tract lay
1.7 nmi inshore of the
site. No significant
impacts are expected
to resources or
amenity areas
associated with
Alternative 2. The
project area does not
support any significant
recreational and
commercial fisheries
resource.

The site is approximately
1.68 nmi east of the
nearest artificial reef (the
Qualmann Barge). No
significant impacts
expected to resources or
amenity areas associated
with the existing ODMDS.
The existing ODMDS was
found to not support any
significant recreational and
commercial fisheries
resource (USEPA 2004).

(4) Types and

quantities of wastes
proposed to be
disposed of, and
proposed methods
of release, including
methods of packing
the waste, if any;

Only material that
meets EPA Ocean
Dumping Criteria 40
CFR 220-229 will be
placed in the proposed
site. Maintenance
volumes are estimated
to average

approximately 30,000
cubic yards per year
however yearly
dredging is uncommon.
Maintenance material
typically consists of
varying percentages of
sand and silt.

Additional volumes
include up to an
estimated 6.63 mcy of
new work material.
New work material will
consist of silt, sand,
gravel, cobble and

Same as Alternative 1.

Only material that meets
EPA Ocean Dumping
Criteria 40 CFR 220-229 will
be placed in the proposed
site. Maintenance volumes
are estimated at
approximately 30,000 cubic
yards per year however
yearly dredging is
uncommon. Maintenance
material typically consists
of varying percentages of
sand and silt. With the no
action alternative, the
existing ODMDS would
continue to be available for
maintenance and disposal
of dredged material from
projects not exceeding
more than 500,000 cy per
dredging event.

35


-------


potentially bolder size
components.





(5) Feasibility of
surveillance and
monitoring;

Same as No Action
Alternative

Same as No Action
Alternative

USEPA expects monitoring
and surveillance at the
existing ODMDS to be
feasible. Due to the depths
(>700 feet) and location on
the edge of the Florida
Current, larger survey
vessels (coastal class or
larger) are required.

(6) Dispersal, horizontal
transport and
vertical mixing
characteristics of
the area, including
prevailing current
direction and
velocity, if any;

Similar to the No
Action Alternative.
Currents are expected
to be slightly less as
the western boundary
of the site is closer to
shore.

Same as Alternative 1

The strong northerly
current of the Florida
Current/Gulf Stream
averages 1.3 m/s (2.5
knots), however varies
considerably with reported
current velocities from one
to four knots (Taylor 2010;
USEPA 2004). It was found
that there is little possibility
for sediment transport
from the existing ODMDS,
due to Florida current
eddies, to impact any
resource areas(USEPA
2004).

(7) Existence and
effects of current
and previous
discharges and
dumping in the area
(including

cumulative effects);

Same as No Action
Alternative

Same as No Action
Alternative

One previous disposal
event has occurred at the
existing site. Material was
found to have moved
beyond the northern
boundary of the existing
site. Chemical
concentrations of many
analytes were higher in
sediments within the
existing ODMDS than
outside of the boundaries,
but of no concern
ecologically.

36


-------
(8) Interference with

Same as No Action

Same as No Action

The existing ODMDS does

shipping, fishing,

Alternative

Alternative

not interfere with shipping,

recreation, mineral





fishing, recreation or other

extraction,





legitimate uses of the

desalination, fish





ocean (USEPA 2004). This

and shellfish





is not expected to change

culture, areas of





with the No Action

special scientific





Alternative.

importance and







other legitimate







uses of the ocean;







(9) The existing water

Same as No Action

Same as No Action

Water quality of the

quality and ecology

Alternative

Alternative

existing site is typical of the

of the site as





Atlantic Ocean. The

determined by





location of the Florida

available data or by





Current determines

trend assessment or





whether the site waters are

baseline surveys;





predominately coastal or
oceanic. The site supports a
benthic and epibenthic
fauna characteristic of
upper continental slope
habitat.

(10) Potentiality for

Same as No Action

Same as No Action

There are no components

the development

Alternative

Alternative

in the dredged material or

or recruitment of





consequences of its

nuisance species





disposal that are expected

in the disposal





to attract or result in

site;





recruitment of nuisance
species to the ODMDS.

(11) Existence at or in

Surveys conducted in

Same as Alternative 1

No significant cultural

close proximity to

2011 and 2012 did not



features were identified

the site of any

identify any cultural



within the existing ODMDS.

significant natural

features of historical





or cultural

importance.





features of







historical







importance.







37


-------
Table 4. Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts of Alternatives Considered.

ALTERNATIVE

Alternative Site 1 (Preferred
Alternative)

Alternative Site 2

No Action Alternative(Status Quo)

ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTOR







VEGETATION

N/A

N/A

THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES

Designation of either alternative for the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS
would have no effect and therefore would not jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened or endangered species

No direct or indirect impacts

HARDBOTTOMS

Designation of Alternative 1 will
impact less potential hardbottom -
Total area of potential hardbottom
affected by estimated material
deposition of 10 cm thickness or
greater for Alternative 1 is 1.36 acres
(0.05% of total area.)

Designation of Alternative 2 will
impact more potential hardbottom
- Total area of potential
hardbottom affected by estimated
material deposition of 10 cm
thickness or greater for Alternative
2 is 2.89 acres (0.12% of total area.)

No additional direct or indirect impacts

38


-------
ALTERNATIVE

Alternative Site 1 (Preferred
Alternative)

Alternative Site 2

No Action Alternative(Status Quo)

ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTOR







FISH AND WILDLIFE
RESOURCES

Designation of either alternative would have only minor and temporary
effects none of which would be greater than at the existing site. - Most
larger fish species are highly mobile and can avoid the area during a
disposal event; smaller benthic organisms have a prolific capacity to
reproduce and any effect to the populations of these smaller species arising
from the impacts resulting from a disposal event would be temporary and
minor; and the benthic community is highly dynamic and capable of
recovering from short term perturbations such as a temporally dispersed
disposal event.

No additional direct or indirect impacts

39


-------
ALTERNATIVE

Alternative Site 1 (Preferred
Alternative)

Alternative Site 2

No Action Alternative(Status Quo)

ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTOR







ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Expanding the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS may temporarily
affect EFH and Federally managed
fisheries - Direct and indirect
impacts to the water column and
benthos will be mitigated through
appropriate testing of the dredged
material prior to disposal; Effects on
Federally managed species include
changes in habitat (sediment
structure) for benthic organisms/
temporary and minimal impact on
habitat/ not relevant due to
absence of certain managed species
in the expansion area. Alternative
#1 includes area 2,701 acres in size,
characterized by a homogenous mix
sand/silt and clay. Alternative 1
covers less potential hardbottom
within the project area (1.36 acres).

Expanding the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS may temporarily
affect EFH and Federally managed
fisheries - Direct and indirect
impacts to the water column and
benthos will be mitigated through
appropriate testing of the dredged
material prior to disposal. Effects on
Federally managed species include
changes in habitat (sediment
structure) for benthic organisms/
temporary and minimal impact on
habitat/ not relevant due to
absence of certain managed species
in the expansion area. Alternative 2
includes an area 2,449 acres in size
with more potential hardbottom
habitats within the project area
(2.89 acres).

No additional direct or indirect impacts

40


-------
ALTERNATIVE

Alternative Site 1 (Preferred
Alternative)

Alternative Site 2

No Action Alternative(Status Quo)

ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTOR







HISTORIC PROPERTIES

There is no potential for submerged historic properties to be adversely
impacted by the proposed expansion areas - Two anomalies (one magnetic
and two sidescan) were investigated. These anomalies were identified as
debris and a modern, recent shipwreck.

No direct or indirect impacts

ECONOMICS

The selection of either alternative would not result in direct socio-economic
impacts. Indirectly, selection of either alternative may have a positive
socio-economic impact on marine transportation and military usage.

No direct or indirect impacts

RECREATION

The selection of either alternative would not have any impacts to
recreation - Few activities occur in, and none is restricted to, the proposed
ODMDS.

No direct or indirect impacts

COASTAL BARRIER
RESOURCES

N/A

N/A

WATER QUALITY

The selection of either alternative will have only temporary and minor
impacts to water quality and none greater than in the existing site. - During
periods of dredged material disposal there will be temporary, localized
increases in water column turbidity and concentrations of dissolved and
particulate constituents. These effects will be dissipated by natural
dispersion, mixing, and eventual sinking of particles.

No additional direct or indirect impacts

HAZARDOUSJOXICAND
RADIOACTIVE WASTE

N/A

N/A

41


-------
ALTERNATIVE

Alternative Site 1 (Preferred
Alternative)

Alternative Site 2

No Action Alternative(Status Quo)

ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTOR













AIR QUALITY

The selection of either alternative will have temporary and minor impacts
to air quality due to emissions from transport vessels.

N/A

NOISE

The selection of either alternative will have temporary and minor noise
impacts due to transport vessels. However, there are no sensitive noise
receptors in the vicinity of the ODMDS.

N/A

NAVIGATION

Selection of either proposed site would not impact navigation or public
safety - There are no designated shipping lanes or travel corridors near the
Alternatives. Adequate public notice to mariners will be issued in advance
of disposal events.

No direct or indirect impacts

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
AND CONSERVATION

As the proposed sites are essentially in the same location, the selection of
either alternative would require the same amount of energy.

No direct or indirect impacts

NATURAL OR DEPLEATABLE
RESOURCES

N/A

No direct or indirect impacts

SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES

N/A

No direct or indirect impacts

42


-------
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The proposed ODMDS expansion area is at the edge of the Florida Current (also referred to as
the Gulf Stream) and on the Florida-Hatteras Slope off the East Florida Escarpment. The Florida
Current/Gulf Stream is formed by the merging of the Loop Current from the Gulf of Mexico and
the Antilles Current from the Caribbean. The Florida Current/Gulf Stream flows northward
(with intermittent reversals) through the Florida Straits to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The
Florida Straits is a deep valley, approximately 75.6 nmi (140 km) wide, between Florida and the
Bahamas Banks; the greatest depth is 4,921 ft (1,500 m) (Stommel 1965). Ocean currents tend
to be driven by the Florida Current/Gulf Stream and cyclonic shear vorticity (circular wind-
driven movement) along the western edge of the current. Frontal zones at the edge of the
Florida Current/Gulf Stream are generally variable and unstable. The western Florida
Current/Gulf Stream edge has horizontal wave-like meanders and submesoscale eddies with
strong horizontal shear (Lee 1975; Shay et al. 1998). Figure 7 shows the project location in
relation to major oceanic features that may affect the local currents and water quality.

43


-------
Drlando

a

T3

o

"5
i*

o

UL

Little Bahama
Bank

Project Location

X

Q,



O
a>

O)

.A

o
o

O)

50

100

CD

Andros

n Miles
200

o

o

r ,

US Army Corps
of Engineers »

Jacksonville District

Project Location Related to
Major Oceanic Features

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion

ESRI Oceans Raster

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:2,000,000

Source: NOAA/ESRI/GEC

Figure 7. Project location in relation to major oceanic features.

44


-------
3.1 SEDIMENT

Physical and chemical analyses were performed on sediment samples from the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS and ODMDS proposed expansion area. Sediment data collected from 1984 and
1998 were discussed in the FEIS for the designation of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS and
are incorporated by reference (LJSEPA 2004), Supplementary sediment samples from the
proposed expansion area were collected in 2007, 2011, and 2014. Additionally, SPI and
Planview (PV) photographs were taken throughout the expansion area in 2011. Results from
the 2007 (ANAMAR 2010) and 2011 (ANAMAR 2012) sediment sampling and the 2011
photographic analysis (Newfields 2013) are included herein.

3.1.1 Physical Characteristics

In 2007, sediment samples were collected from three stations to the north of the existing
ODMDS (Figure 8). Samples ranged from 26.1% sand to 79.5% sand. The remainder was found
to be predominantly silt with some clay, with less than 1% gravel for each sample.

Figure 8. 2007, 2011 (left) and 2014 (right) Sediment and water sample locations.

Sediments collected during the 2011 survey from five stations (including inside the existing
ODMDS and both inside and outside the proposed expansion areas) show surface sediments
contained primarily sand (55.7 to 64.9 percent, by weight); 49 to 54.3 percent of this was fine

45


-------
sand (Table 5). Silt and clay were also a major component of samples, representing 35.1 to 44.3
percent (ANAMAR 2012).

In 2014, sediments collected were finer inside the ODMDS than outside the ODMDS on
average, primarily due to the higher percentage of fines at three stations located near the
center of the site. These three locations contained higher percentages of fines (53%, 33.9% and
39.4% respectively) than other stations both inside and outside. This is due to prior use of the
site to dispose of approximately 314,000 cubic yards of material. However, all areas have the
same USCS classification code (Table 5).

Table 5. Summary of Sediment Grain Size Ana

ysis in Relation to the Expansion Areas.

Location of Pooled
Samples1

Percent Gravel2
(Range)

Percent Sand2
(Range)

Percent Silt and
Clay2 (Range)

uses3

Classification(s)

Inside ODMDS

0.0

64.3

35.7

SC-CS

Inside Expansion Area 1

0.0-0.0

55.7-64.9

35.1-44.3

SC-CS (all samples)

Outside Expansion Area 1

0.0-0.0

58.3-63.6

36.4-41.7

SC-CS (all samples)

1Results of the ODMDS sample (Station PE11-1) were averaged with the field split sample.

2Particle sizes: gravel >4.750 mm, sand = 0.075-4.749 mm, silt and clay <0.075 mm
3USCS (Unified Soil Classification System) codes are: SC = clayey sand, SM = silty sand
Source: ANAMAR 2012

The SPI/PV image analysis was consistent with the sediment sampling results. The SPI and PV
results within the proposed expanded ODMDS show the presence of compact fine to very fine
sandy sediments throughout the site as well as in the existing ODMDS. Ambient sediments
based on the 2011 survey and previous surveys (Germano & Associates 2006) consist of a grain
size major mode of very fine sand (4 to 3 phi), which was observed throughout the expanded
ODMDS. The presence of asymmetrical sand ripples on the sediment surface suggested active
bedload sediment transport in some areas of the expanded ODMDS due to bottom currents
(Newfields 2013). Benthic habitat categories were assigned to each SPI/PV station based on
sediment type and biological features. The benthic habitat categories observed at the
proposed expanded Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS are presented in Figure 9 and consist of
three categories:

1.	Hard Sand Bottom - Very Fine Sand (SA.VF)

2.	Hard Sand Bottom - Fine Sand (SA.F)

3.	Hard Rock/Gravel Bottom (HR)

Hard sand bottom with very fine sand (SA.VF) was observed throughout the proposed
expanded ODMDS with the exception of four stations in the northeast portion of the site (PE-

46


-------
08, PE-11, PE-12, and PE-15) which exhibited slightly coarser grained sediments (fine sand;
SA.F). Station PE-11 was also classified with hard rock/gravel bottom (HR) based on the
apparent presence of gravels and shell particles observed in the co-located PV image (Newfields
2013). Additional discussion of potential hard bottom within the proposed expanded ODMDS is
provided in Section 3,4,

71

iven
j 40 ft)

486

519

654

714

768

ITYfk-—
199

168

377

299

>bstn (Anchor) pA
MMERCIAL f
110.1, 1

495

354

209

549

,	624	

! PE-13

PE-14	PE-15

• m

ri-

P£j10	PE-11

720

PE-12

~

ICHORAGt
; ^ 543

i i

: PE-07

660

PE-08	PE-09

« «

P^)4	PE-

I I

$30

E-01

744

05	PE-06

PE-02	PE-03

* 726 *

756

774

780

398

509

Benthic Habitat Type

•	Indeterminate

•	Very Fine Sand (SA.VF)

~ Fine Sand (SA.F)

pyi Fine Sand with Hard Rock/Gravel
m Bottom (SA.F / HR)

~ Existing ODMDS Boundary

I	;

i Alternative Site 1

I	

I Alternative Site 2

720

708

"Soundingsfiti feet MLLW

¦PA

Figure 9 - Proposed Expanded Port Everglades ODMDS Habitat Types (Newfields 2013)

47


-------
3.1.2 Chemical Characteristics

When available, sediment chemistry results were compared to the Threshold Effects Level
(TEL), which represents the concentration below which adverse effects are expected to occur
only rarely, and the Effects Range-Low (ERL), which represents the value at which toxicity may
begin to be observed in sensitive species. Results were also compared to the Apparent Effects
Thresholds (AET), when available, which represent the concentration above which adverse
biological impacts would always be expected by that biological indicator due to exposure to
that contaminant alone (Buchman 1999). The Method Reporting Limit (MRL) is the threshold
value below which the laboratory reports a given result as non-detected (ANAMAR 2012). A
summary of organotin, metal and total organic carbon concentrations within the expansion
alternatives is given in

Table 6.

3.1.2.1 Organotins, Metals, and Total Organic Carbon

Metals were detected but no metal exceeded the TEL or ERL in any sample. Sample
concentrations for total organic carbon (TOC) ranged from 3.58% to 3.92% (ANAMAR 2010).

Samples collected in 2011 showed that the samples within the existing ODMDS had the highest
detected concentration of all organotin as compared to inside and outside of the proposed
expansion areas (ANAMAR 2012). The maximum detected concentration of chromium was
observed outside the expansion areas. No sample approached the TEL, ERL, or AET values. The
maximum detected concentration of total organic carbon was from inside the expansion area at
0.87% (ANAMAR 2012).

The 2014 sampling event indicated detectable levels of metals are low, with the exception of
copper at one station, which was above the TEL for marine sediments but below the Probable
Effects Level (PEL). Organotins were detected at fairly high levels in sediment inside the
ODMDS. Tributyltin ranged from approximately 159 ug/kg to 400 ug/kg. Tributyltin breaks
down within 1-2 months in an aerobic environment but may persist for several years in an
anaerobic environment. There is no published TEL for tributyltin (US EPA 2014).

Table 6. Summary of Organotin, Metal and Total Organic Carbon Concentrations within the Expansion
Alternatives.



Range of Values

Analyte

(mg/kg)

Arsenic

1.62-2.41

Cadmium

0.075-0.092

Chromium

10.7-12.4

Copper

2.24-2.70

48


-------
Lead

1.720-2.080

Mercury

0.014-0.020

Nickel

10.1-13.6

Selenium

0.17-0.25

Silver

0.012-0.012

Zinc

3.9-4.3
(%)

0.309-0.868
(M-g/kg)

Carbon, Total Organic

Tri-n-butyltin Cation

<0.64-0.81

Di-n-butyltin Cation

<0.28-<0.29

N-butyltin Cation

<0.39-<0.39

Total Organotins (as Sn)

0.67-0.74

3.1.2.2	Organochlorine Pesticides

Pesticides were not detected in any sample collected in 2007 (ANAMAR 2010).

Samples collected in 2011 contained detectable amounts of pesticides inside the existing
ODMDS but none were at or above any level of expected effect (TEL). No detectable pesticide
was found inside or outside the expansion area (ANAMAR 2012).

Pesticides were detected inside, but not outside, the ODMDS in 2014. However, none of the
detected pesticides were at or above TEL (US EPA, 2014) which is consistent with prior
evaluations.

3.1.2.3	Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHS)

Samples taken in 2007 showed most PAHs were detected in at least some of the samples
however no detected PAH exceeded the TEL or ERL (ANAMAR 2010).

In the 2011 sampling event only five PAH congeners were detected in total (inside and outside
the expansion areas). All PAHs were present only in concentrations below the MRL (ANAMAR
2012).

3.1.2.4	Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Congeners

No PCB congener was detected above the MRL in any sample collected in 2007 (ANAMAR
2010).

In 2011, the single sample taken from inside the existing ODMDS site had detection of 14 of the
26 PCB congeners (ANAMAR 2012). In contrast, none of the 26 PCB congeners tested were

49


-------
detected inside the expansion areas or in the surrounding area. No PCB concentrations
exceeded the TEL, ERL, or AET in any sample (ANAMAR 2012).

In 2014, The EPA/NOAA PCB summation concentration was above the TEL, but well below the
PEL. There are analytical uncertainties concerning the detected concentrations during this
sampling event primarily because no PCBs were detected in a field split sample even after
multiple extractions and analyses, however, based on prior evaluations on the site, there is no
expected environmental impact due to the presence of low quantities of PCBs inside the
existing site.

3.2	VEGETATION

The proposed project involves only deepwater submerged habitat and the water column above
it. There is no vegetation in the proposed ODMDS expansion area.

3.3	THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC § 1531-1534) establishes protection and
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they
depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NOAA Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) administer the ESA and may designate critical habitat for each species protected
under the ESA. Under the ESA, an endangered species is defined as a species in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is defined as
a species likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. Section 7 of the
ESA requires all Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries, as applicable,
before initiating any action that could affect a listed species. No effects to any listed species are
expected based on available information. Historical use of the existing site, since it was
designated in 1995, includes no reports of incidents regarding any listed species.

Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a
threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. It
is designated separately by the USFWS or NOAA Fisheries under the ESA. Critical habitat may
include an area that is not currently occupied by the species, but that will be needed for its
recovery. Critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle was designated by NOAA Fisheries on
July 10, 2014 (79 FR 39856). Unit LOGG-N-19—"Southern Florida Constricted Migratory
Corridor; Southern Florida Concentrated Breeding Area; and Six Nearshore Reproductive Areas:
Martin County/Palm Beach County line to Hillsboro Inlet, Palm Beach and Broward Counties,
Florida; Long Key, Bahia Honda Key, Woman Key, Boca Grande Key, and Marquesas Keys,
Monroe County, Florida" will split the preferred project area, as it follows the 200m depth
contour. Areas within the preferred site that are in waters shallower than 200m would be
considered to be in the designated critical habitat area, while waters deeper than 200m would
not be considered in the designated critical habitat area. The ESA consultation with NOAA

50


-------
Fisheries for the designation of the expanded site included a determination that expansion of
the ODMDS will not adversely modify designated critical habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle
(letter from NOAA Fisheries, 2014).

No other critical habitat has been identified in the preferred Alternative 1.

51


-------
Table 7. Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) Species in the Project Vicinity (Source: NOAA Fisheries

2012; USFWS 2012).

Common Name

Scientific Name

Federal Status

Sea Turtles

Green Turtle

Chelonia mydas

E

Loggerhead

Caretta caretta

T

Leatherback

Dermochelys coriacea

E

Kemp's Ridley

Lepidochelys kempii

E

Hawksbill

Eretmochelys imbricate

E

Marine Mammals

North Atlantic Right Whale

Eubalaena glacial is

E

Humpback Whale

Megaptera novaeangliae

E

Finback Whale

Balaenoptera physalus

E

Sei Whale

Balaenoptera borealis

E

Blue Whale

Balaenoptera musculus

E

Sperm Whale

Physeter macrocephalus

E

Florida Manatee

Trichechus manatus latirostris

E

Fish

Smalltooth Sawfish

Pristis pectinata

E

Giant Manta Ray

Manta birostris

T

Invertebrates

Staghorn coral

Acropora cervicornis

T

Elkhorn coral

Acropora palmata

T

Pillar coral

Dendrogyra cylindrus

T

Rough cactus coral

Mycetophyllia ferox

T

Lobed star coral

Orbicella annularis

T

Mountainous star coral

Orbicella faveolata

T

Boulder star coral

Orbicella franksi

T

52


-------
3.3.1 Sea Turtles

Five of the six species of sea turtles in U.S. waters can be found in the proposed ODMDS
expansion area and are federally protected under the ESA. These species include the green,
loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp's ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles.

All sea turtles migrate at different times in their life, generally between feeding and nesting
grounds. Sea turtles mate along the migratory corridor, at breeding stations, or near the
nesting beach (Meylan and Meylan 1999). Females typically nest more than once per season,
although generally not during consecutive years. Hatchlings migrate to the ocean, where they
live for several years (Meylan and Meylan 1999). Growth rates are typically slow, and juveniles
of most species migrate from the open ocean to coastal waters once they reach a certain size
(Spotila 2004). Designated critical habitat for sea turtles is not found in the project vicinity.

Broward County is within the normal nesting and foraging area for loggerhead, green, and
leatherback sea turtles; Kemp's ridleys and hawksbills nest in scattered locations and forage on
adjacent reefs and nearshore hardbottoms (Meylan et al. 1995). In 2010, 2,283 loggerhead,
268 green turtle, and 14 leatherback nests were documented on Broward County beaches
(FWRI 2011). A total of 2,565 nests were documented in 2010, the highest number of nests
recorded since 2000 (Burney and Wright 2011). The beach and dune areas of Dr. Von D. Mizell-
Eula Johnson State Park (previously John U. Lloyd Beach State Park) have long been recognized
as important sea turtle nesting areas. In 2010, sea turtle nests in the park included: loggerhead
(202; density 51 nests/km), green (34; density 8.7 nests/km), and leatherback (2; 0.5 density
nests/km) (Burney and Wright 2011).

3.3.1.1	Loggerhead Turtle

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Adult loggerhead turtles average 3 feet in length and
250 pounds in weight. These highly migratory turtles can be found worldwide, inhabiting
continental shelves, bays, estuaries, and lagoons in temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters.
They are the most abundant sea turtle found in U.S. coastal waters. The loggerhead's range in
the Atlantic is from Newfoundland south to Argentina

3.3.1.2	Green Turtle

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Adult green sea turtles can measure about 3 feet in length
and weigh up to 350 pounds. Green sea turtles are globally distributed within tropical and
subtropical waters. Along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the US, they can be found from Texas
to Massachusetts and around the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. This species utilizes
beaches for nesting, coastal areas for feeding and open ocean convergence zones. Threats to
green turtles in the open waters associated with the proposed ODMDS sites include
entanglement in trawl nets, longlines and lines associated with traps and pots. Green sea

53


-------
turtles may be present within the waters of the proposed expansion areas at various times of
the year. Because this species is known to be an agile swimmer, individuals should be capable
of avoiding the effects associated with a disposal event in either of the alternative ODMDS
sites.

3.3.1.3	Leatherback Turtle

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The leatherback is the largest living turtle and
reptile in the world. Adult turtles average 5 feet in length but can grow to 6.5 feet and weigh
up to 2,000 pounds. Their wide range includes tropical, subtropical and temperate waters of all
major oceans where they feed on jellyfish and other soft-bodied prey. A minor nesting area is
located along the southeast coast of Florida and individuals are observed in the adjacent
offshore waters. There are mixed reports on the overall status of this species.

3.3.1.4	Kemp's Ridley Turtle

Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Kemp's Ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the
sea turtles with adults are typically weighing up to 100 pounds in weight and are about 2 feet in
length. They can be found mainly in the Gulf of Mexico and along the U.S. Atlantic coast. The
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle has been in decline many years, but an increase in the population has
recently been noted. In one day of nesting in 1947, approximately 42,000 females were
counted on a beach in Mexico. From 1973 to 1991 the number of nests declined to
approximately 200 per year. In 2011, a total of 20,570 nests were documented in Mexico, 81
percent of these nests were documented along the 18.6 miles of coastline patrolled at Rancho
Nuevo. In addition, in the United States, 199 nests were recorded in 2011, primarily in Texas
(USFWS 2015). This species is found in submerged habitats where there is muddy or sandy
substrate where they feed on crabs, fish and mollusks.

3.3.1.5	Hawksbill Turtle

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Hawksbill sea turtles are small to medium sized.
Nesting females average 2 to 3 feet in length and typically weigh up to 200 pounds. The
hawksbill sea turtle occurs in the tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and
Indian Oceans. They are most commonly associated with coral reefs however juveniles are
thought to spend time in the pelagic environment. They are observed with regularity on the
reefs off of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties where the warm Florida
Current/Gulf Stream current passes close to shore. Population estimates and trends are
difficult to determine due to its habit of solitary nesting.

3.3.2 Marine Mammals

Six cetaceans that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed ODMDS expansion area are
Federally listed as endangered: North Atlantic right whale, fin whale, sei whale, blue whale,

54


-------
and sperm whale. Currently, the humpack whale is listed as endangered throughout its range.
However, NOAA Fisheries has been recently proposed to reclassify the whale into 14 separate
distinct population segments (DPS). The DPS found in the waters offshore of southeast Florida
is the West Indies DPS, which is currently proposed for de-listing under the ESA (NOAA Fisheries
2015).

Although the Florida manatee is found in inshore waters of Broward County, due to the depths
of the ODMDS expansion areas and distance from shore, manatees are unlikely to be found in
the ODMDS expansion areas.

3.3.3	Marine Fishes

The smalltooth sawfish is one of only two federally listed fish species potentially occurring in
the vicinity of the proposed ODMDS expansion area. This species matures at 10 years of age
and can reach 25 ft. in length and an age of 30 years. This species is relatively common in the
Everglades region of Florida, but the population has been restricted to peninsular Florida.
Sawfish inhabit shallow coastal waters and are generally found very close to shore in muddy
and sandy bottoms, seldom descending to depths greater than 10 m. Current records from the
east coast of Florida remain relatively scarce compared to the west coast, Florida Bay, and the
Florida Keys. Encounter data have also demonstrated that smaller smalltooth sawfish occur in
shallower water, and larger sawfish occur regularly at depths greater than 32 ft (10 m),
frequently between 200 to 400 ft (70 to 122 m) (NOAA Fisheries 2010.)

Giant manta rays were listed in 2018 as Threatened. Giant manta rays occur worldwide in
tropical, subtropical, and temperate bodies of water and are commonly found offshore, in
oceanic waters, and near productive coastlines. Regional population sizes are small, ranging
from around 100 to 1,500 individuals, and in areas subject to fishing, have significantly
declined. The giant manta ray is the world's largest ray with a wingspan of up to 29 feet. They
are filter feeders and eat large quantities of zooplankton. Giant manta rays are slow-growing,
migratory animals with small, highly fragmented populations that are sparsely distributed
across the world (NOAA Fisheries 2018.)

3.3.4	Listed Coral and Designated Critical Habitat

Currently there are seven stony corals species listed as threatened in the waters offshore of
Broward County: Acropora palmata; Acropora cervicornis; Orbicella annularis; Orbicella
faveolata; Orbicella franksi; Dendrogyra cylindrus and Mycetophyllia ferox.

All seven species are found in shallow water (< 50 meters) on reefs throughout the Bahamas,
southeast Florida and the Caribbean where water temperatures range from 66 to 86°F
(Brainard et al. 2011). Corals depend on symbiotic zooxanthellae for food; zooxanthellae need

55


-------
sunlight to photosynthesize. The ODMDS is far below the depth threshold for any listed species
of coral.

Critical habitat for both Acropora species in the Florida Unit was designated in 2008 and
includes the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Broward County (Figure 10). Within these water
depths, NOAA Fisheries has defined that, "substrate of suitable quality and availability" is
equivalent to consolidated hard bottom or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy
macroalgae cover and sediment cover (NOAA Fisheries 2008).

Figure 10. Designated critical habitat for Elkhorn and staghorn corals in the Florida Area

The ODMDS expansion areas are located 1.8 nmi east of the nearest Acropora critical habitat
edge (Figure 11).

56


-------
Project Vicinity to Acropora Critical Habitat
Exclustion Areas

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion

NOAA Raster Nautical Chart - Seamless Mosasic - ESRI Server

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:60,000

Source: NOAA/ESRI

Legend

Sites

756

- Port Everglades Entrance Channe
I Acropora Critical Habitat
| Dania RAA

Alternative Site 2
Alternative Site 1
Existing ODMDS

852

I Miles

744

Dump Site
(dredged material)
(see note S)
Depthstom
-sofvefo? 1964

774



18 6

Haven
mm 30 ft)

Figure 11. Project Vicinity in reference to Acropora Critical Habitat and Exclusion Areas

57


-------
3.4 HARDBOTTOM HABITATS

Hardbottom habitats (hardgrounds or live bottoms) are areas of rock or consolidated sediment
that can be distinguished from surrounding unconsolidated sediments. These habitats can vary
in topography from a relatively flat, smooth surface to a scarped ledge with stepped relief. The
extent and diversity of colonization also vary according to topography, habitat diversity,
currents, light availability, and location on the shelf. Hardbottom habitats provide habitat,
food, and shelter to a large variety of organisms, including sponges, mollusks, crustaceans, sea
worms, echinoderms, sea turtles, and many species of fishes (CSA International, Inc. 2009).
Although uncolonized hardbottom habitats do not support attached faunal organisms, they are
biologically important as fish refuge habitat. Hardbottoms also provide substrate for corals.
Corals and coral reefs are managed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
(SAFMC). Coral and coral reef EFH and Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (CHAPCs) are
discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.

The classic reef distribution pattern described for southeast Florida reefs (north of Key
Biscayne) consists of an inner reef in approximately 15 to 25 ft (4.6 to 8 m) of water, middle
patch reef zone in about 30 to 50 ft (9 to 15 m) of water, and an outer reef in approximately 60
to 100 ft (18 to 30 m) of water (Duane and Meisburger 1969; Goldberg 1973; Courtenay et at.
1974; Lighty et al. 1978; Jaap 1984). These reef zones are separated by areas of sand or sand
and rubble. The overall hardground assemblage of hard corals, soft corals, and sponges along
southeast Florida's offshore reefs is very consistent (Blair and Flynn 1989). However, the hard
coral species density decreases northward from Dade County to Palm Beach County. Broward
County had 21 species of stony coral in 2010 reef surveys (Gilliam 2011).

Stony corals can be divided into corals containing zooxanthellae (dinoflagellate algae of the
genus Symbiodinium) in their tissues (zooxanthellate corals) and corals without zooxanthellae
(azooxanthellate corals). Zooxanthellate species are restricted to the photic zone and are
typically found in tropical-subtropical regions at depths that rarely exceed 230 ft.

Azooxanthellates (ahermatypic corals) do not have an obligate relationship with zooxanthellae
(symbiotic algae) and can live in deep water. Ahermatypic coral are widespread, but are most
common in cooler, deep water (down to 20,669 ft) or in cryptic, shallow-water environments
such as caves and the undersurfaces of rock ledges (Wells 1956). Ahermatypic corals require
hard substrate to settle and survive. Two types of deepwater coral reefs, Oculina and Lophelia,
are found off the coast of the southeastern U.S., primarily between Florida and North Carolina.
The geomorphology and functional structure of these deepwater coral reefs are similar, but
they occur at different depths. Deepwater ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa) coral reefs are
found at depths of 230 to 328 ft (70 to 100 m) along the shelf edge of central eastern Florida
(Reed and Farrington 2010). Lophelia/Enallopsammia coral mounds are found from north
Florida to Miami at depths of 1,312 to 2,624 ft (400 to 800 m) (Reed and Farrington 2010). The

58


-------
most widespread deepwater stony coral, white coral (Lophelia pertusa) forms reefs in 1,640 to
2,854 ft (500 to 870 m) depths in the Straits of Florida (Reed 2001). The Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS was sited to avoid hard bottom (USEPA 2004), and the nearest nearshore hard bottom is
1.08 nmi west of the ODMDS expansion areas (Figure 12).

Previous studies have suggested that hardbottom may be present in portions of the ODMDS
expansion area. A survey was done for the now-defunct Tractebel Calypso Pipeline Project in
2004 of the area to the west of the proposed ODMDS expansion area. The overlap of the
ODMDS expansion area and the Calypso Pipeline survey area (USCG 2008) was primarily soft
bottom; however, a small area of hardbottom was reported north of the expansion area (Figure
13). Additionally, two other surveys collected video and photo-documentation within the
proposed expanded ODMDS (Figure 14). Multiple transects were surveyed to a depth of 200
meters (Messing et a I, 2003) and a single transect from 200 meters extending east beyond the
proposed expanded ODMDS boundaries (Messing et al, 2006). The 2003 study identified two
benthic habitat zones in the western portion of the proposed expanded ODMDS: 1) The White
Cerianthid Zone named after an abundant burrowing anemone; and 2) the Textured Sediment
Zone where the sediment surface develops a finely grainy, or textured, appearance that may be
due to dense concentrations of small tubes, probably constructed by polychaete worms, that
protrude just above the sediment surface (Messing et al, 2003). This study also concluded that
some assemblages associated with hard substrate appear to occur in progressively deeper
water from north to south with anemone/rubble assemblages occurring deeper than 181
meters (Messing et a I, 2003). The 2006 study identified two locations with confirmed
hardbottom within the alternative ODMDS boundaries (Figure 15). The two locations were
described as 1) isolated small patch of rock rubble with anemones and hydroids; and 2) isolated
small patch of barren rock rubble.

Navy multibeam bathymetry data in 2001 within the proposed expansion area indicated some
areas with low relief that gave the appearance of hardbottom. However, none of these areas
were confirmed (B.K. Walker, National Coral Reef Institute, letter dated April 18, 2011). NSU
scientists evaluated more recent sidescan data and identified several areas with either a high or
medium probability of supporting hardbottom features inside the expansion area (Figure 14)
(NOAA Fisheries 2011). The areas of suspected hardbottom identified by NSU in the ODMDS
expansion areas were photographed during the site designation study, in May 2011 (Newfields
2013). The survey included taking sediment profile and plan view images of the seafloor at 49
stations, with specific focus on the areas identified as having a high or medium potential for
being hardbottom based on the NSU analysis.

59


-------
Legend

n Alternative Site 1
~ Alternative Site 2
Existing ODMDS
Coral and Hard Bottom Habitats in FL

US Army Corps
of Engineers ¦

Jacksonville District

i Nautical Miles

Natural Reefs

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:63,360

Source: NOAA/ESRI/GEC

Figure 12. Natural reefs, including both coral reefs and hardbottom, in the project vicinity. The closest
hardbottom habitat as mapped by Broward County is approximately 1.08 nautical miles from Alternative
2, the Alternative located furthest west.

60


-------
~

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion Area
and Existing ODMDS

00.51 2 Nautical Miles

I i i i I i i i I

Figure 13. Hardbottom Adjacent to ODMDS Expansion Areas. The existing ODMDS and proposed
expansion area are shown in light blue; the tan polygons and lines indicate soft bottom; purple indicates
areas of rock or hardbottom; the red stars note tilefish; and the red star in the upper right corner of the
ODMDS expansion area is a possible modern shipwreck. Figure provided by Mr. John Reed (HBOI/FAU)
(NOAA Fisheries 2011).

61


-------
Calypso Deep Waler Habitats

JConfirmedj
Hard bottom

Figure 14 - Areas of Suspected Hardbottom in the ODMDS Expansion Areas as identified by NSU (NMFS
2011)

62


-------
Substrate Type

¦

+ Plan View Station

[J Evidence of Hard Bottom

Existing ODMDS Boundary

[J Scattered Rocks (Possible Hard Bottom)

j Alternative Site 1

Hard Bottom Not Confirmed in High

1 j Alternative Site 2

Probability Area



PA

*Soundings in feet MLLW

Figure 15 - Substrate type within areas of suspected hardbottom in the ODMDS expansion areas
(Newfields, 2013) Expanded view of the inset (light blue) in Figure 13 showing imaging locations (+)
performed in Alternative 1 and 2.

63


-------
A total of 84 photographs were taken from the 33 stations within the areas identified as
potentially containing hardbottom by NSU. Each photograph covered an area approximately
300 cm long by 200 cm wide for a total coverage of 504 m2. Low relief natural hardbottom
structures (limestone rocky outcrops) were observed in five images from four stations. The
rocky outcrops consisted of limestone rock formations up to 1.3 meters in diameter and were
inhabited by larger and more diverse congregations of fish and invertebrates compared to non-
hardbottom areas (Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18). Images showing small carbonate rock or
coral fragments on the seabed (5 to 10 cm in diameter) were identified at six stations.
Bryozoans and anemones were sometimes attached to the small rock fragments on the surface.
The area of hardbottom was calculated using thiessen polygons. Outcrops were calculated at
28.6 acres and rocks on the seafloor at 39.7 acres. These values represent regions where
hardbottom was identified but do not provide a density of the habitat in these regions
(Newfields, 2013).

In addition, epifaunal trawl samples were taken inside and outside the ODMDS expansion
areas. One trawl sample in the ODMDS expansion area included cobble-sized carbonate rocks
and several pieces of rose coral {Manicina sp.) that had apparently been dead for a long period.
No live hard corals (Scleractinia) were found in any trawl samples (ANAMAR 2012).

64


-------
Figure 17 - Plan and profile views of hardbottom at sampling station (evidence of hardbottom) in
suspected high probability area in the alternative ODMDS expansion area.

65


-------
Figure 18 - Plan and profile views of hardbottom at sampling station (Evidence of Scattered Rock) in
suspected high probability area in the alternative ODMDS expansion area.

In an effort to review all potential data sources to identify hardbottoms, the sidescan sonar
data collected for the cultural resource assessment was reviewed to determine if any features
were notable on the bottom. Data was collected using at a frequency of 100 kilohertz and 150
meter range. To be as conservative as possible, the USAGE and the EPA classified all non-
manmade targets detected in the survey as "hardbottom" (Figure 19 and Figure 20). The size of
each target was calculated and the total area of potential hardbottom tabulated for both
alternatives. Based on this analysis, Alternatives 1 and 2 each contain 12.85 acres of potential
hardbottom within the total footprint of the expansion areas.

66


-------
Figure 19 - Potential Hardbottom Targets in Alternative 1

67


-------
Figure 20. Potential Hardbottom Targets in Alternative 2

3.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
3.5.1 Marine Habitats
3.5.1.1 Water Colum n

Detailed discussions about the water column, including flora and fauna that reside in the water
column, are included in Sections 3.5.1; 3.5.2 and 3.5.4 of the Designation FEIS and are
incorporated by reference.

The water column provides habitat for small (such as plankton) and larger (such as fish, marine
mammals, and sea turtles) marine life. Temperature, salinity, density, nutrient, and light

68


-------
gradients in the water column create distinct habitats (Barnette 2001; SAFMC 1998), providing
environments suitable for various life stages of different species (SAFMC 1998). On the east
coast of Florida, these distinctions are influenced by the Florida Current, which flows along the
continental shelf edge throughout the region and dominates the physical attributes over the
entire shelf (see Figure 7; SAFMC 1998). The western edge of the Florida Current meanders
from far offshore onto mid-shelf. The existing ODMDS is located about 3.8 nmi (7 km) from the
average position of the western boundary of the Florida Current (USACE 2001). Characteristics
of the water column are discussed in Section 3.8.

Pelagic species of the brown seaweed Sargassum are an important habitat in the water column
and near-surface waters. Most pelagic Sargassum circulates between 20°N and 40°N latitude,
and between 30°W longitude and the western edge of the Florida Current. Pelagic Sargassum
generally consists of two species, S. natans (primarily) and S. fluitans (less common). Large
quantities of Sargassum are frequently found on the continental shelf off the southeastern U.S.
Sargassum supports a diverse assemblage of marine organisms, including fungi, macro- and
micro-epiphytes, at least 145 species of invertebrates, over 100 species offish, 4 species of sea
turtles, and numerous marine birds. Sargassum provides refuge from predators for small
species and early life stages; these organisms also feed on the Sargassum and associated
invertebrates. Sargassum provides an abundant food source, attracting larger species.
Sargassum is a habitat type managed by the SAFMC as EFH (Section3.6; SAFMC 1998). Pelagic
Sargassum was frequently observed during recent surveys of the ODMDS expansion area
(ANAMAR 2012).

3.5.1.2 Benthic Habitat

Benthic habitats are characterized by physical or structural features, including topography,
substrate type, sediment grain size, and water depth, and by the presence of emergent
biogenic structures (formed by plants or animals), including coral reefs, mussel beds, and tube
assemblages (Tyrrell 2005). Recent bottom surveys conducted in the alternative ODMDS
expansion areas (ANAMAR 2012) determined that the area was primarily soft bottom, with
isolated areas of scattered rubble (see Section 3.4).

The structural foundation of sand and mud in soft bottom (sedimentary) areas can be enhanced
by sand waves or shell aggregations created by physical processes, and by tube assemblages,
burrows, or depressions created by plants or animals (Lindholm et al. 1998). Soft bottom
habitats contain epifaunal (organisms that live on the sediment), infaunal (organisms that live
within the sediment), and pelagic (free-swimming organisms that migrate in and out of the
area) assemblages, whereas hardbottom habitats typically contain only epifaunal and pelagic
assemblages.

69


-------
3.5.2

Areas of Special Concern

3.5.2.1	Marine Protected Areas (MPA)

The existing ODMDS and the proposed expansion area are located in a Fishery Management
Area called the East Florida Coast Closed Area (MPA;Figure 21). MPAs are defined under
Executive Order (EO) 13158 as any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by
Federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part
or all of the natural and cultural resources therein. MPAs are generally defined where natural
or cultural resources are given greater protection than the surrounding waters; and they
include a range of habitats, restrictions, and management approaches (NMPAC 2006). The East
Florida Coast Closed Area is a Federal Fishery Management Zone and is not restricted to vessels
or to anchoring. However, pelagic longline fishing is prohibited in accordance with 50 CFR
622.274. A number of other MPAs are located in the vicinity of the project area, as shown on
Figure 21.

3.5.2.2	Reef Tracts

There are no reefs within the proposed ODMDS expansion areas (Section 3.4). The continental
Southeast Florida reef tract extends 67.5 nmi (125 km) from Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade
County (25°34'N) northward to West Palm Beach in northern Palm Beach County (26°43'N). It is
composed of a complex of limestone ridges and shelf-edge and mid-shelf reefs (Banks et al.
2008). The Florida Reef Tract includes the region south of Soldier Key to the Dry Tortugas
(Vaughan 1914).

3.5.2.3	Critical Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

Designated critical habitat is discussed in Section 3.3 (Threatened and Endangered Species).
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) are discussed in Section 3.6 (EFH).

70


-------
I

SS Copenhagen Underwater Arch. Pres.

!

Hugh Taylor Birch SP

3

John U. Lloyd Beach SP/OFW
Westlake OFW
North Beach OFW

i

—r	

Oleta River SP/OFW

Biscayne Bay AP/OFW

V	BAr

I

PROJECT AREA

r

East Florida Coast Closed Area

Biscayne Bay-Card Sound Spiny Lobster Sanct.

Half Moon Underwater Arch. Pres.

Bill Baggs Cape Florida SP



East Everglades OFW

Southern Glades WEA

Biscayne NP, Sponge Harvest PA, and OFW



North Key Largo Hammock OFW

NP

Crocodile Lake NWR/OFW

0 2.5 5

10

¦ Miles
15

John Pennekamp Coral Reef SP,

US Army Corps
of Engineers »

Jacksonville District

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:500,000

Source: NOAA/ESRI

Figure 21. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Southeast Florida region. The East Florida Coast
Closed Area, a Federal Fishery Management Zone, is located within the project boundaries.

71


-------
3.5.3 Marine Mammals

Although 24 species of marine mammals could potentially occur in the proposed ODMDS
expansion area (Table 8), many are considered rare or uncommon in Florida's Atlantic marine
waters (ASM 2012). All marine mammals that may be found near the project area are
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and/or the ESA. The
north Atlantic right whale, humpback whale (the distinct population segment of humpback
whales found in the project area are currently proposed to be removed from the protections of
the ESA, yet remain protected by the MMPA), fin whale, sei whale, blue whale, and the sperm
whale are the six federally listed marine mammals that could occur in the area. Federally listed
threatened and endangered species were discussed in Section3.3.

The bottlenose dolphin and the Atlantic spotted dolphin are the two marine mammals most
likely to occur in the proposed ODMDS expansion areas (NOAA 2005). Other species are listed
in Table 8 and will not be discussed. Many of these stocks are managed as depleted under the
MMPA. Numbers of whales and dolphins reported stranded in Broward County from 1978 to
2011 include: bottlenose dolphin (12), pygmy sperm whale (9), dwarf sperm whale (6), Risso's
dolphin (5), Gulf stream beaked whale (3), Atlantic spotted dolphin (4),Pan-tropical spotted
dolphin (2), Cuvier's beaked whale (1), sperm whale (3), humpback whale (1) and rough-
toothed dolphin (1) (NOAA Fisheries, 2012).

72


-------
Table 8. Marine Mammal Species that May Occur in the Project Area.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Occurrence

North Atlantic right whale

Eubalaena glacial is

Uncommon

Humpback whale

Megaptera novaeangliae

Rare

Fin whale

Balaenoptera physalus

Rare

Sei whale

Balaenoptera borealis

Rare

Blue whale

Balaenoptera musculus

Unknown

Bryde's whale

Balaenoptera brydei

Rare

Sperm whale

Physeter macrocephalus

Rare

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Stenella frontalis

Rare

Bottlenose dolphin

Tursiops truncatus

Common

Minke whale

Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Rare

Pygmy sperm whale

Kogia breviceps

Uncommon

Dwarf sperm whale

Kogia simus

Rare

Short-finned pilot whale

Globicephala macrorhynchus

Uncommon

False killer whale

Pseudorca crassidens

Rare

Gervais' beaked whale

Mesoplodon europaeus

Rare

True's beaked whale

Mesoplodon mirus

Rare

Blainville's beaked whale

Mesoplodpon densirostris

Rare

Cuvier's beaked whale

Ziphius cavirostris

Rare

Rough-toothed dolphin

Steno bredanensis

Rare

Pantropical spotted dolphin

Stenella attenuata

Rare

Atlantic spotted dolphin

Stenella frontalis

Rare

Spinner dolphin

Stenella longirostris

Rare

Striped dolphin

Stenella coeruleoalba

Rare

Killer whale

0 rein us orca

Rare

Pygmy killer whale

Freesa attenuata

Uncommon

Risso's dolphin

Grampus griseus

Rare

Harbor seal

Phoca vitulina

Rare

Hooded seal

Cystophora cristata

Rare

Bottlenose dolphins are common in the coastal marine areas along the Atlantic Coast south of
Long Island and around the Florida peninsula (Waring et al. 2006). In 2009, the Western North
(W.N.) Atlantic Coastal bottlenose dolphin stock was split into multiple stocks, including the
Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal Stock. The Central Florida Coastal stock is

73


-------
present in coastal Atlantic waters from 29.4°N south to the western end of Vaca Key (about
24.69°N - 81.11°W) where the stock boundary for the Florida Keys stock begins (NOAA
Fisheries 2010). There is no obvious boundary defining the offshore extent of this stock. In
waters less than 10 m depth, 70 percent of the bottlenose dolphins were of the coastal
morphotype. Between 10 and 20 m depth, the percentage of animals of the coastal
morphotype dropped, and at depths greater than 40 m, nearly all (over 90 percent) were of the
offshore morphotype. These spatial patterns may not apply in the Central Florida Coastal stock,
as there is a significant change in the bathymetric slope and a close approach of the Florida
Current/Gulf Stream to the shoreline south of Cape Canaveral. The best estimate for the
Central Florida Coastal stock is 6,318 and the resulting minimum population estimate is 5,094
(NOAA Fisheries 2010). The offshore form is distributed primarily along the outer continental
shelf and continental slope in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean; however, the offshore
morphotype has been documented to occur relatively close to shore over the continental shelf
south of Cape Hatteras, NC. The minimum population estimate for western North Atlantic
offshore bottlenose dolphin is 70,775 (Waring et al. 2011).

There are two species of spotted dolphin in the Atlantic Ocean, the Atlantic spotted dolphin
(Stenella frontalis), formerly S. plagiodon, and the pantropical spotted dolphin (S. attenuate).
The Atlantic spotted dolphin is distributed from southern New England, south through the Gulf
of Mexico and the Caribbean to Venezuela (Waring et al. 2005). Although considered rare in
waters off southeast Florida, they have been observed off Miami and Pompano Beach and
would likely occur in the area (ASM 2007; NOAA 2005). Atlantic spotted dolphins are generally
found over the continental shelf, but they can inhabit deep oceanic waters (OBIS SEAMAP
2007). The Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs in two forms which may be distinct sub-species: the
large, heavily spotted form which inhabits the continental shelf and is usually found inside or
near the 200 m isobath; and the smaller, less spotted island and offshore form which occurs in
the Atlantic Ocean but is not known from the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA Fisheries 2007a). Where
they co-occur, the offshore form of the Atlantic spotted dolphin and the pantropical spotted
dolphin can be difficult to differentiate (NOAA Fisheries 2007a).

The western North Atlantic population is genetically separate and is provisionally being
considered a separate stock from the Gulf of Mexico stock(s) for management purposes (NOAA
Fisheries 2007a). Western North Atlantic dolphins may be genetically separated into two stocks
around Cape Hatteras, NC, but these are not currently recognized as distinct management
units. The best abundance estimate of Atlantic spotted dolphins is 50,978 (NOAA Fisheries
2007a). The minimum population estimates based on the combined abundance estimates is
36,235. The best recent abundance estimate for pantropical spotted dolphins is 4,439 (NOAA
Fisheries 2007b).

74


-------
3.5.4

Aquatic Resources

3.5.4.1	Benthos

Benthic organisms are important components of the habitat and provide an important food
source for many species. Temporal and spatial variations in benthic communities affect the
distribution and abundance of bottom-feeding fish. The abundance and species composition of
benthic communities are affected by environmental factors, including temperature, sediment
type, and the availability of organic matter (Stevenson et al. 2004).

The infaunal community in the ODMDS expansion area is complex and diverse (ANAMAR 2012).
At least 141 taxa were identified in the Site Designation Study (ANAMAR 2012); approximately
75.5 percent of the total species were annelid worms. Tubificid oligochaete worms,
polychaetes (Prionospio sp., Levinsenia reducta, Cirrophorus (= Paradoneis) lyra, and
Spiophanes kroeyeri), bivalve mollusks (Nuculana carpenteri, Cardiomya costellata) and
Philomedid Ostracod crustaceans were abundant. Pyramidellid gastropods, sea cucumbers
(Leptosynapta sp.), acorn worms (Balanoglossus sp.), ribbon worms (nemerteans), sea
anemones (actiniaria), horseshoe worms (Phoronis sp.), and turbellarian flatworms
(platyhelminthes) were less abundant (ANAMAR 2012).

Previous surveys of benthic infauna in the area were conducted in November 1984 (Barry A.
Vittor & Associates, Inc., 1985) as well as in May and August 1998 (USEPA 1999). Analyzes of
these surveys was included in Section 3.5.4 of the FEIS for site designation and is incorporated
by reference.

3.5.4.2	Plankton

There are three main groups of plankton: bacterioplankton, phytoplankton, and zooplankton
(Knox 2001). Plankton communities have important roles in marine waters. Bacterioplankton
are primarily decomposers. Phytoplankton are the primary producers of the water column and
form the base of the estuarine food web. Zooplankton are faunal components of the plankton.
A detailed discussion concerning plankton is included in Section 3.5.1 of the FEIS for site
designation and is incorporated by reference.

The total zooplankton volume in an area near the Port Everglades ODMDS expansion area for
the Calypso LNG Deepwater Port project area ranged from 0.12 to 1.73 ml/m3, with an average
of 0.70 ml/m3 (USCG 2008). The most abundant zooplankton taxa encountered in the USCG
(2008b) study are presented in Table 9.

75


-------
Table 9. Zooplankton Taxa and Densities Represented in the Calypso LNG Deepwater Port Project Area
during Two Sampling Events.

Taxa

Density (number/m3)

Scientific Name

Common Name

February

March

Average

Calanoida

Copepods

0.55

2.38

1.47

Sagittoidea

Chaetognaths (Arrow worms)

0.28

0.86

0.57

Pleocyemata

Crabs, lobsters

0.49

0.47

0.48

Other Maxillopoda

Ostracods, copepods, barnacles

0.11

0.83

0.47

Dendrobrachiata

Prawns, shrimp

0.37

0.28

0.33

Hyperiidea

Hyperiidean amphipods

0.00

0.61

0.30

Sergestoidea

Prawns

0.23

0.30

0.27

Euphausiacea

Krill

0.27

0.11

0.19

Mysida

Opossum shrimp

0.11

0.06

0.09

Hydrozoa

Hydroids

0.00

0.13

0.06

Notes:

a.	Density values presented represent the average of all bongo net samples (all mesh sizes,
all depths, all stations).

b.	Values are considered to be the minimum densities as not all non-target taxa were
counted.

c.	Density values presented represent the average of all life stages encountered (i.e., nauplii,
megalopa, phyllosoma, and juveniles).

Source: USCG 2008

Ichthyoplankton are the planktonic stages (eggs and larvae) of fish with limited or no ability to
swim that is dispersed mainly transported by currents. Eggs and/or larval stages of most
estuarine and marine fishes, with benthic or pelagic adults, are part of the planktonic
community (Leiby 1984).

Currents provide a transport mechanism to move fish eggs and larvae to or from areas
conducive to survival and directly influence recruitment and subsequent year-class success
(Norcross and Shaw 1984). Many organisms spawn near circular currents (gyres), upwelling, or
other directional circulations that frequently are associated with major current systems.

The Florida Current/Gulf Stream, near the proposed ODMDS expansion area, is the beginning of
the Florida Current/Gulf Stream and stretches from the Florida Straits to Cape Hatteras in North

76


-------
Carolina (Gyory et al. 2005). The Florida Current/Gulf Stream provides a mechanism to disperse
larvae and is considered EFH for various species of managed fish. Eggs and larvae spawned
within the productive Florida Straits would be transported north through the project area by
currents. The intensity and magnitude, and the distance from shore, of the Florida Current
front are highly variable. Eddies associated with the frontal edge can have the potential to
transport eggs and larvae offshore; however, ichthyoplankton are generally retained in
nearshore waters because the strength of the Florida Current prevents their mixing into the
northbound Florida Current water (USCG 2008). The average egg density in samples collected
near the ODMDS was 1,069 eggs/million gallons (0.0011 eggs per gallon or 28 per 100 m3)

(USCG 2006). The average larval density was 1,102 larvae/million gallons (0.0011 larvae per
gallon or 29 per 100 m3), representing at least 33 (identified) taxa (USCG 2008).

3.5.5 Fisheries Resources

Federally managed species and non-managed species are found in the proposed ODMDS
expansion area. This section describes general finfish and shellfish resources in the Project
area, as well as species observed in the area.

3.5.5.1 Finfish

Finfish species that could potentially occur in the proposed ODMDS expansion area can be
categorized as reef, demersal, coastal pelagic, oceanic pelagic or mesopelagic species,
depending on habitat utilization. The Florida Current/Gulf Stream and associated eddies
provide valuable fish habitat. Species and life-stage-specific patterns vary between the inshore
and offshore Florida Current/Gulf Stream fronts. Anchovies and mackerels use inshore fronts,
whereas dolphin and swordfish utilize offshore fronts (SAFMC 2002). Most swordfish were
reported along the oceanic front between nearshore waters and the Florida Current/Gulf
Stream, which may meander as close as five miles offshore.

In April 2006, a benthic video survey was conducted near the ODMDS expansion area for the
Calypso LNG Deepwater Port project area to evaluate the habitat present (Figure 13) (Messing
et al. 2006). Although the purpose of this study was not to identify local fish species, at least 16
species were observed during the survey.

77


-------
Table 10. Fish Species Identified during Calypso Pipeline Survey (Source:Messing et al. 2006)

Common Name

Species or Taxa

Common Name

Species

Blind torpedo

Benthobatis marcida

Gulf Stream flounder

Citharichthys arctifrons

Shortnose greeneye

Chlorophthalmus agassizi

Great northern
tilefish

Lopholatilus
chamaeleonticeps

Armored searobin

Peristedion sp.

Spiny eel

Notcanthidae

Blueline tilefish

Caulolatius microps

Tripod fish

Bathypterois sp.

Frogmouth (gaper)

Chaunax pictus

Rattail

Nezumai sp.

Blackbelly rosefish

Helicolenus dactylopterus

Blacktail codling

Laemonema
melanurum

Unknown skate

Rajidae

Catshark

Scyliorhinidae

Unidentified eels

Synaphobranchidae

Rattail

Coelorhynchus sp.

Unidentified
scorpionfishes

Scorpaenidae





In May 2011, as part of the site designation survey, the EPA conducted epibethic and infaunal
surveys. Table 11 lists the finfish species collected during that survey. A total of 15 families
(representing 10 orders) were collected in the trawl samples in the ODMDS expansion areas
during the site designation study (Figure 22; ANAMAR 2012). Four species of Perciformes
represented 22 percent of all fish species collected; however, the bar jack and the rainbow
runner, are pelagic species. The most abundant fish species caught in trawls in the ODMDS
expansion area during the site designation study was the Gulf Stream flounder (Citharicthys
arctifrons). Other abundant species included the highfin scorpionfish (Pontinus rathbuni) and
the fawn cusk-eel (Lepophidum profundorum) (ANAMAR 2012). The spotted hake may forage
for benthic invertebrates and fishes in the area. The blind torpedoes and rosette skates
captured during the trawl survey likely use the area for foraging. Many of the invertebrates and
the fishes are potential prey for deepwater apex predators such as the sharpnose sevengill
shark (Heptranchias perlo) and bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) (ANAMAR 2012).

Although not captured during the EPA site designation surveys, blueline tilefish were
documented within the upper northeast corner of the proposed ODMDS expansion area near a
modern sailboat shipwreck during a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) (NOAA Fisheries, 2011).

78


-------
Table 11. Fish Species Observed during Trawling

Common Name

Species or Taxa

Common Name

Species

Rosette skate

Leucoraja garmani

Fourspot flounder

Paralichthys oblongus

Blind torpedo

Benthobatis marcida

Deepwater flounder

Monolene sessilicauda

Argentine

Argentina georgei

Highfin scorpionfish

Pont in us rathbuni

Shortnose greeneye

Chlorophthalmus agassizi

Rimspine searobin

Peristedion thompsoni

Shortbeard codling

Laemonema barbatulum

Blackmouth bass

Synagrops bellus

Metallic codling

Physiculusfulvus

Bar jack

Caranx ruber

Spotted hake

Urophycis regia

Rainbow runner

Elagatis bipinnulata

Fawn cusk-eel

Lepophidium profundorum

Spotfin dragonet

Foetorepus agassizii

Blackfin goosefish

Lophius gastrophysus

Gulf Stream flounder

Citharichthys arctifrons

Argentiniformes
(argentines): 1.

Aulopiformes
(greeneyes, etc.)
1

Rajiformes
(skates,
guitarfishes): 1.

Torpediniformes
(electric rays,
torpedos): 1

Pleuronectiforme
s (flounders, etc.):

3

Gadiformes
(codlings, hakes,
etc.): 3

Ophidiiformes
(cusk-eels. etc.): 1

Lophiiformes
(goosefishes.
etc.): 1
Scorpaeniformes
(scorpionfishes.
etc.): 2

Figure 22. Eighteen trawled fish species, by order, collected in epifaunal trawl samples Source: USACE
2011.

3.5.5.2 Epifauna

Epifaunal taxa collected in trawls during the site designation study were primarily fishes and
arthropods (Figure 23). The highest total epifaunal density (87.79 individuals per 1,000 m3) was

79


-------
observed west of the ODMDS expansion area during the site designation study (Table 12)
(ANAMAR 2012).

Echinoderms.
(brittle stars, sea
urchins, etc.): 8

Cnidaria
(jellyfishes.

corals,
anemones): 6

Bivalves: 5

Cephalopoda
(squid): 1

.Sipunculid
Worms: 1

Annelid Worms: 4

Figure 23. Sixty-two trawled epifaunal taxa by major taxonomic group (includes all epifaunal trawl
samples) (source ANAMAR 2012).

Table 12. Total Epifaunal Density per Station, by Rank.

Total Epifaunal Density per Station, by Rank

Station
Number

Relationship to Expansion Areas

Total Epifaunal Density
(individuals/1,000 m3)

PE11-6

Inside Expansion Areas

57.86

PE11-7

Inside Expansion Areas

30.47

PE11-8

Outside (south of) Expansion Areas

31.27

PE11-9

Outside (west of) Expansion Areas

87.79

Source: ANAMAR 2012
3.5.5.3 Shellfish

The commercially important species potentially occurring in the proposed ODMDS expansion
area generally prefer soft bottom habitat. They include one shrimp species (royal red shrimp)
and the golden crab. Several squid and octopus species are found at depths similar to that of
the proposed ODMDS expansion area (Carpenter 2002). In addition, 20 species of brachyuran
crabs are known from depths greater than 656 ft (200 m) on the continental slope and margin
of the northern Florida Straits (Soto 1985). The golden crab is found along a variety of soft
substrate in water depths ranging from 675 to 3,300 ft (205.7 to 1005.8 m) (NOAA Fisheries
2007c). Deepwater shrimp, such as the royal red shrimp and the seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus

80


-------
kroyeri) are found in the south Atlantic at depths up to 1,500 ft (457 m) (SAFMC 1998). Royal
red shrimp occur over mud, sand, muddy sand, and white calcareous mud, typically in depths
between 820 and 1,558 ft (18.3 to 474.9 m) (NOAA Fisheries 2007d). The rock shrimp occurs in
water deeper than 600 ft (182.9 m), but prefer sandy bottoms in depths between 60 and 240 ft
(18.3 and 73.1 m) (Hill 2005).

Various other species of shellfish were observed during benthic surveys in the area during the
site designation study, including the lesser bobtail squid (Semirrosia tenera), the bathyal
swimming crab (Bathynectes longispina), the inflated spiny crab (Rochinia crassa), a deepwater
crab (Eumunida picta), the Jonah crab (Cancer borealis), a symmetrical hermit crab (Family
Pylochelidae), a right-handed hermit crab (Family Paguridae), and an unidentified shrimp
(ANAMAR 2012).

3.5.5.4 Invasive Species

No invasive species were reported in the ODMDS expansion areas for the site study (ANAMAR
2012). Invasive species that have been observed in the Atlantic Ocean off Broward County
include a coral species with an established population, the orange cup coral (Tubastrea
coccinea), and a single specimen of the crustacean Asian tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon)

(USGS 2011). Invasive fish species with established populations in the vicinity of the proposed
ODMDS expansion area include the venomous lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles complex), fairy
basslet (Gramma loreto), and tessellated blenny (Hypsoblennius invemar) (USGS 2011; Hare
and Whitfield 2003; Semmens et al. 2004). Small numbers of the following species have been
collected in the area: sohal surgeonfish (Acanthurus sohal), sailfin tang (Zebrasoma desjardinii),
yellow tang (Z. flavescens), brown tang (Z. scopas), orbiculate batfish (Platax orbicularis), blue
ringed angelfish (Pomacanthus annularis), Arabian angelfish (P. asfur), emperor angelfish (P.
imperator), yellowbar angelfish (P. maculosus), semicircle angelfish (P. semicirculatus),
bluefaced angelfish (P. xanthometapon), peacock hind (Cephalopholis argus), and panther
grouper (Chromileptes altivelis) (USGS 2011; Semmens et al. 2004).

3.6 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS expansion areas fall under the jurisdiction of the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). The SAFMC has identified and described EFH
for hundreds of marine species covered by eight Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). In
addition, the NOAA Fisheries has prepared a FMP for Highly Migratory Species (tunas, billfishes,
sharks, and swordfish) which includes associated EFH. A list of species managed by the SAFMC
and South Atlantic species managed under Federally-Implemented Fishery Management Plans
that could potentially be affected by the project is provided in

81


-------
Table 13. EFH Assessment forthe designation of the original ODMDS is found in Appendix I of
the FEIS. EFH consultation is ongoing and any conservation recommendations will be presented
in the final EA.

The categories of EFH for managed species which could potentially be found in the ODMDS
expansion area are: artificial/manmade reefs; coral and coral reefs, live/hard bottoms,
Sargassum; and water column. The Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) for managed
species which may be found in the ODMDS include: Hermatypic (reef-forming) coral habitat and
reefs, hard bottom, and Sargassum habitat. Maps of all EFH boundaries are available on the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website through the use of the EFH
Mapper, found at http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html.

According to a letter from NOAA Fisheries "Deepwater hard and soft bottom habitats within,
and in close proximity, to the ODMDS expansion area are designated EFH for species managed
under the Snapper-Grouper, Golden Crab, and Shrimp Fisheries" (NOAA Fisheries, 2011). In
addition, species from the Highly Migratory Pelagic Fisheries may be present in the area (

82


-------
Table 13).

Areas which meet the criteria for HAPCs for coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom in east
Florida include the Phragmatopoma (worm reefs) reefs off the central east coast of Florida;
nearshore (0-4 meters; 0-12 feet) hard bottom off the east coast of Florida from Cape
Canaveral to Broward County); and offshore (5-30 meter; 15-90 feet) hard bottom off the east
coast of Florida from Palm Beach County to Fowey Rocks; Biscayne Bay, Florida (SAFMC 1998).

The Stetson-Miami Terrace HAPC was established by the SAFMC in 2009 and is the largest
deepwater coral HAPC off the coast of east Florida; this HAPC follows thel,312 ft (400m) depth
contour and covers a large area north to south of 22,876 square miles (SAFMC/ NOAA Fisheries
2009). The Miami Terrace is a 40-mile-long carbonate platform between Boca Raton and South
Miami in depths of 656 to 1,312 ft (200 to 400 m) (Reed et at. 2006). The Miami Terrace
provides high-relief rocky habitat for rich communities of benthic invertebrates and fishes, as
well as various species of coral. This HAPC is located approximately 0.5 nmi east of the
southeastern corner of the proposed ODMDS expansion area. The expanded ODMDS overlays
the SE corner of the existing ODMDS, thus there is no change to the existing condition.

The Florida Current/Gulf Stream and associated eddies provide valuable fish habitat. Species
and life-stage-specific patterns vary between the inshore and offshore Florida Current/Gulf
Stream fronts. Anchovies and mackerels use inshore fronts, whereas dolphin and swordfish
utilize offshore fronts (SAFMC 2002). Most swordfish were reported along the oceanic front
between nearshore waters and the Florida Current/Gulf Stream, which may meander as close
as five miles offshore.

83


-------
Table 13. EFH Species for Marine Waters Managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
and within the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan with Potential for EFH
within the ODMDS Expansion Area

Species

Scientific Name

Life stage
Ecotype

EFH Description

Shrimp Fishery Management Plan

Royal Red Shrimp

Pleoticus robust us

adults

Upper regions continental slope
180-730m, mud/sand substrate;
Florida Current/Gulf Stream

Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (representative species)

Snowy grouper

Epinephelus niveatus

eggs/larvae
adults

Coral reefs, live/hard bottom,
submerged aquatic vegetation,
artificial reefs and medium to
high profile outcroppings on and
around the shelf break zone from
shore to at least 182.8 m where
the annual water temperature
range is sufficiently warm to
maintain adult populations.
Water column above adult
habitat and pelagic environment,
including Sargassum, Florida
Current/Gulf Stream

Yellowedge grouper

Epinephelus flavolimbatus

eggs/larvae
adults

Warsaw grouper

Epinephelus nigritus

eggs
adults

Speckled hind

Epinephelus drummondhayi

adults

Wreckfish

Polyprion americanus

adults

Above description to at least 609
m

Vermilion snapper

Rhomboplites aurorubens.

juvenile
adults

Coral reefs, live/hard bottom,
submerged aquatic vegetation,
artificial reefs and medium to
high profile outcroppings on and
around the shelf break zone from
shore to at least 182.8 m where
the annual water temperature
range is sufficiently warm to
maintain adult populations.
Water column above adult
habitat and pelagic environment,
including Sargassum, Florida
Current/Gulf Stream

Blackfin snapper

Lutjanus buccanella

adults

Silk snapper

Lutjanus peru

juvenile
adults

Greater amberjack

Seriola dumerilii

juvenile
adults

Blueline tilefish

Caulolatilus bermudensis

eggs
adults

Golden tilefish

Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps

adults

Golden Crab Fishery Management Plan

Golden crab

Chaceon fenneri

adults

Continental shelf; foraminiferan
ooze, dead coral mounds, ripple
habitat, dunes, black pebble
habitat, low outcrop, soft-
bioturbated habitat 320-567 m,
Florida Current/Gulf Stream



84


-------
Coral, Coral Reef, and Live/Hardbottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan

Coral



all stages

Ahermatypic stony corals,
extends to outer shelf depths. For
Antipatharia (black corals)
includes rough, hard, exposed,
stable substrate, offshore in high
salinity waters in depths
exceeding 18 m, not restricted by
light penetration on the outer
shelf; octocorals except the order
Pennatulacea (sea pens and sea
pansies) includes rough, hard,
exposed, stable substrate in
subtidal to outer shelf depths;
Pennatulacea includes muddy,
silty bottoms in subtidal to outer
shelf depths

Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

Atlantic bluefin tuna

Thunnus thynnus

eggs/larvae

Florida Straits north to waters off
South Carolina

Atlantic skipjack tuna

Katsuwonus pelamis

eggs/larvae

juvenile to
adult

Portions of the Florida Straits;
continuous EFH from the
southern east coast of Florida
through the Florida Keys.

Atlantic yellowfin tuna

Thunnus albacares

eggs/larvae

Portions of the Florida Straits

Swordfish

Xiphias gladius

eggs/larvae

juvenile to
subadult

adult

From NC extending south around
peninsular Florida through the
Gulf from the 200 m isobath to
the EEZ boundary; associated
with the western edge of the
Florida Current/Gulf Stream

Blue marlin

Makaira nigricans

eggs/larvae

juvenile

adult

Off Florida; Florida Keys to
southern Cape Cod

White marlin

Tetrapturus albidus

juvenile

Florida Keys to mid-east coast of
Florida

85


-------




adult



Sailfish

Istiophorus platypterus

eggs/larvae

juvenile

adult

Florida Straits from 5 mi offshore
out to the EEZ boundary; Atlantic
east coast from the Florida Keys
to past north Florida

Longbill spearfish

Tetrapturus pfluegeri

juvenile
adults

Florida Keys to the mid-east coast
of Florida

Bignose shark

Carcharhinus altimus

juvenile
adult

East coast of Florida

Caribbean reef shark

Carcharhinus perezi

all stages

Atlantic coastal areas from the
southern to mid-Florida coast

Night shark

Carcharhinus signatus

all stages

Southern and mid-east coast of
Florida

Silky shark

Carcharhin us falciform is

all stages

Atlantic east coast from Florida to
NJ

Longfin mako shark

Isurus paucus

all stages

Atlantic from southern Florida
through SC

Blue shark

Prionace glauca

adult

Atlantic off Florida

Oceanic whitetip shark

Carcharhinus longimanus

all stages

Atlantic from southern Florida to
southern New England

Bigeye thresher shark

Alopias superciliosus

all stages

Atlantic east coast from southern
to the mid-Florida coast

Great hammerhead shark

Sphyrna mokarran

all stages

Atlantic east coast from the
Florida Keys to NJ

Nurse shark

Ginglymostoma cirratum

juvenile

Atlantic east coast of Florida

Blacktip shark

Carcharhinus limbatus

adult

In the Atlantic from the mid-east
coast of Florida to the mid-coast
of SC

Bull shark

Carcharhinus leucas

juvenile

East coast of Florida to SC in the
Atlantic

86


-------




adult



Lemon shark

Negaprion brevirostris

juvenile

Atlantic east coast of Florida

Scalloped hammerhead shark

Sphyrna lewini

juvenile
adult

Atlantic east coast of Florida
through NJ/NY

Dusky shark

Carcharhinus obscurus

neonate
juvenile
adults

Atlantic east coast of Florida

Spinner shark

Carcharhinus brevipinna

juvenile
adult

Atlantic east coast of Florida to
GA

Tiger shark

Galeocerdo cuvier

juvenile

Atlantic east coast from Florida to
New England

87


-------
3.7 COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES

The proposed project involves only deep-water submerged habitat and the water column
above it. Figure 24 lists the designated Coastal Barrier Resource Units in Broward County.

Sea
Ramh

UM

Laliderdafe-Bv-The-Sea

Oakland

\ ~ .	Courtry

1 Park	club

UiV Ji	/

¦ , i I.'	/

p«»	| Lake

Wi lion Manors ,	/

\	11

Legend

~	Alternative Site 1 (Preferred Alternative)

~	Alternative Site 2
Existing ODMDS
CBRS Unit

CBRS Otherwise Protected Area

0 0.5 1

I Miles

US Army Corps
of Engineers ¦

Jacksonville District

Coastal Barrier Resource System
Units in the Project Vicinity

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion

NOAA Raster Nautical Chart - Seamless Mosasic - ESRI Server

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:100,000

Source: NOAA/ESRI/GEC

Figure 24. CBRS units in the vicinity of the project area.

88


-------
3.8 WATER QUALITY

Section 3.8 of the 2004 EIS for designation of the Port Everglades ODMDS provides a detailed
analysis about water quality in the vicinity of the ODMDS that is incorporated into this EA by
reference. Water quality data collected since site designation is included below.

3.8.1	Salinity

Surface water salinity in the Atlantic Ocean ranges from approximately 34 to 37 parts per
thousand (ppt). The subsurface core waters of the Florida Current are characterized by
salinities of approximately 36.2 to 36.6 ppt (Suez 2006). Salinity recorded in the ODMDS
expansion areas just north of the existing ODMDS during an October 2007 survey was nearly
constant (35.9 to 36.6 ppt) with water depth (ANAMAR 2010) and during a May 2011 survey
was also nearly constant (35.0 to 36.4 ppt) at both stations sampled (ANAMAR 2012).

3.8.2	Water Temperature

Water temperatures in the area tend to be warmer further offshore on the surface; this is
attributed to the influence of the Florida Current. Water column profiles were examined in the
ODMDS expansion areas just north of the existing ODMDS in 2007, 2011, and 2014. In October
2007, temperatures ranged from a high of 29°C at the surface to a low of 15°C near the bottom.
A thermocline existed between 230 and 560 ft (70 and 170 meters) (ANAMAR 2010). Two
water column profiles were examined during the site study in May 2011; results were similar
(ANAMAR 2012). Water temperatures ranged from 8.1 near the seafloor to 26.7°C in an
isothermic layer extending from the water's surface to about 70 ft (21.3 m) deep at both
stations. The mean temperature change was about 0.4°C per 16 ft (4.9 m) of water depth at
both stations. A thermocline of 1.0°C or more temperature decrease per 16 ft (4.9 m) was
observed between about 180 and 280 ft (54.9 to 85.3 m) deep at both stations (ANAMAR
2012). In September 2014, the range was 29°C at the surface and 8°C at the bottom with a
deep thermocline at 145 meters depth (US EPA, 2014).

3.8.3 Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is an important indicator of water quality and is critical to ecosystem health.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations of 5 parts per thousand or higher are considered optimal. Fish
and other animals become stressed when the concentration of dissolved oxygen dips below 2
ppt. Dissolved oxygen concentrations can vary seasonally due to wind mixing and levels of
primary productivity (algae growth). Dissolved oxygen levels in the ODMDS expansion areas
just north of the existing ODMDS during the site designation study in May 2011 ranged from 6.6
mg/l to 7.3 mg/l in the surface waters extending to 180 ft (55m) below the surface. Below this
surface layer, dissolved oxygen concentrations decreased steadily to 4.4 mg/l at 330 feet
(100m) and remained relatively constant to the seafloor (ANAMAR 2012). In October 2007,
remained consistently around 5.7 to 6.0 mg/l in the upper 330 feet (100m) then dropped to a

89


-------
range of 4.0 to 4.2 mg/l at depths of 460 ft (140m) and below (ANAMAR 2010). DO in
September 2014 was nearly the same as in 2011 with a surface concentration near 6 mg/l and a
bottom concentration of 4.4 mg/l.

3.8.4 Turbidity

Turbidity is a measure of water clarity and how much the material suspended in water
decreases the passage of light through the water. Suspended materials include soil particles
(clay, silt, and sand), algae, plankton, microbes, and other substances. High levels of turbidity
and total suspended solids (TSS) can negatively affect water quality by reducing light
penetration, limiting the ability of aquatic organisms to find food, degrading available habitat,
and fouling the gills of fish and invertebrates. TSS levels in the existing ODMDS varied between
3 and 26 mg/L throughout the water column. Maximum TSS levels coincided with the depth of
the thermocline, where particulates generally accumulate (USEPA 2004). Turbidity levels are
consistently low with a majority of readings below 0.5 FTU (Formazin Turbidity Unit). TSS levels
in the ODMDS expansion areas during the site designation study in May 2011 ranged from a
low of 6.0 mg/L in 213 ft (64.9 m) of water within a thermocline to a high of 13.0 mg/L in 410 ft
(125 m) of water within an isotherm (ANAMAR 2012). Measured TSS levels are presented in
Table 14 (ANAMAR 2012).

The photic zone can be defined as greater than or equal to 2 percent of surface
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) values. The photic zone was found to be within
approximately 200 ft (61 m) of the water's surface in the ODMDS expansion areas during the
site designation study in May 2011 (ANAMAR 2012). Similarly, the photic zone was identified
within the upper 180 ft (55m) in October 2007 (ANAMAR 2010).

Table 14. Total Suspended Solids in the Water Column in the ODMDS Expansion Areas just Northwest
(PE11-6) of the Existing ODMDS in May 2011

Position within Water
Column

Depth of

Sample

(ft)

Depth of
Sample (m)

Total Suspended

Solids

(mg/L)

Turbidity
(FTU)

Near surface

16.4

5.0

8.5

0.2

Within thermocline

213.2

65.0

6.0

0.3

Within lower
isotherm

410.0

125.0

13.0

0.2

Near bottom

623.2

190.0

7.0

0.2

Source: (ANAMAR 2012)

3.8.5 Water Chemistry

Chemical analyses were performed on site water samples taken from the ODMDS proposed
expansion area in 2007 (ANAMAR 2010). Water samples were collected at four depths; near

90


-------
the surface, above the thermocline, below the thermocline and near the bottom. Samples
were analyzed for general chemistry parameters including ammonia, cyanide, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sulfate, as well as total organic carbon, metals, organochlorine pesticides,
PAHs, pentachlorophenol, organic tins and PCBs. No organic tins or PCBs were detected in any
of the water samples. Only the pesticides beta-BHC, 4,4'DDT, and gamma-Chlordane were
detected at quantifiable concentrations with 4,4'DDT exceeding federal water quality criteria
(criteria continuous concentration [CCC]) in two samples at concentrations of 0.0017 to 0.0023
|j.g/l. Benzo(g,h,i) perylene, indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene and naphthalene were the only PAHs
detected at quantifiable concentrations. These PAHS were at low levels below federal water
quality criteria. No analytes were detected above the federal water quality criteria for the
criteria maximum concentration [CMC]). Water chemistry parameters are summarized in Table
14 below (ANAMAR 2010).

91


-------
Table 15. Quantifiable Analytes and General Chemistry Parameters in the Water Column in the ODMDS
Expansion Areas in October 2007

Analyte

Maximum Detected
Concentration

Federal Water Quality Criteria
CCCVCMC2



Mg/I

Arsenic

1.54

36/69

Cadmium

0.021

8.8/40

Chromium

0.18

Na

Copper

0.18

3.1/4.8

Lead

0.027

8.1/210

Mercury

<0.20

0.94/1.8

Nickel

0.28

8.2/74

Selenium

<1.0

71/290

Silver

<0.050

na/1.0

Zinc

1.10

81/90

Beta-BHC

0.0022

Na

4,4'DDT

0.0023

0.001/0.13

Gamma-Chlordane

0.00041

Na

Benzo(g,h,i) perylene

0.0032

Na

Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene

0.0029

Na

Naphthalene

0.0035

Na



mg/l

Ammonia as Nitrogen

0.08

Na

Cyanide, Total

0.013

Na

Nitrate+Nitrite as Nitrogen

0.21

Na

Total Kjedahl Nitrogen (TKN)

1.1

Na

Orthophosphate as
Phosphorus

0.04

Na

Phosphorus, Total

0.16

Na

Sulfate

2790

Na

Sulfide, total

<0.05

Na

Total Organic Carbon

1.4

Na

Source: (ANAMAR 2010)

1CCC=Criteria Continuous Concentration
2CMC=Criterion Maximum Concentration

92


-------
3.8.6 Human-Related Discharges

The western edge of proposed ODMDS expansion area Alternative 1 would be located
approximately 3.5 nmi northeast from Port Everglades. Port Everglades is a busy commercial
and recreational port adjacent to the Florida cities of Fort Lauderdale, Dania Beach, and
Hollywood, with 4,183 ship calls for the 2011-2012 fiscal year (Port Everglades 2012). Port
Everglades is one of the largest cruise ship ports in the United States. Port Everglades is the
busiest container port in Florida with over 25 million tons of cargo moved, over 3.8 million
multi-day cruise passengers, and most of South Florida's petroleum. (Port Everglades 2019).

Potential sources of human-related discharges in the Port Everglades area include vessels. A
single cruise ship with 3,000 passengers can generate 25,000 gallons of raw sewage and
143,000 gallons of sanitary wastewater every day (Oceana 2007). Ships can discharge raw
sewage to the ocean once they are at least 3 miles from the coastline. The impact of this
discharge to water quality in the vicinity of the ODMDS expansion area depends on the current
regime at any given time. The sea buoy for Port Everglades is approximately two miles
southwest of the existing ODMDS. Vessels frequent the area directly south of the proposed
expansion area and could therefore affect water quality in the vicinity (BOEM 2012).

3.9	OCEAN OUTFALL

In 2008, the state of Florida signed legislation that prohibits the construction of any new ocean
outfall pipes in Florida, eliminates the six (now five) ocean outfall pipes in Palm Beach, Dade,
and Broward Counties, requires these counties meet advanced wastewater treatment
guidelines and prohibits ocean discharge after 2025. Broward County currently has one ocean
outfall. The remaining Broward County outfall is located more than 10 nmi from the proposed
expansion area and therefore not expected to affect the area.

3.10	HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Hazardous, toxic or radioactive materials cannot be disposed of in the ODMDS. Surveys of the
proposed ODMDS did not indicate the presence of any hazardous, toxic or radioactive waste in
the proposed expansion area (ANAMAR 2012).

3.11	AIR QUALITY

The EPA, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, set National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air
Act identified two types of NAAQS. Primary standards set limits to protect public health,
including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased
visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

93


-------
Broward County is currently in attainment for all criteria pollutants. Air quality in the proposed
ODMDS expansion area is good due to either onshore or offshore breezes. The EPA has
authority over OCS sources in the area. Under the EPA rules, OCS sources within 25 miles of the
state's boundaries are subject to the same Federal and state requirements that would apply if
the source were located onshore. The air over the OCS water is not classified, but it is
presumed to be better than the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Air quality in adjacent
onshore areas may be affected by releases of air pollutants from OCS sources.

3.12	NOISE

Section 3.11 of the designation FEIS is incorporated by reference. Ambient noise levels offshore
are generally low. Noise in this area is limited to that of the vessels passing through the area.
Recreational boaters contribute minimally to the amount of noise in the area. Noise levels
fluctuate during the year, the highest levels usually occur during the spring and summer
months due to increased coastal activities. The proposed ODMDS expansion area does not
encompass any noise-sensitive institutions, structures or facilities and will not cause more noise
than currently exists at the site.

3.13	RECREATION RESOURCES

Recreational resources are natural or man-made lands or waters designated or managed by
local, state, or Federal agencies for leisure use by visitors and local residents. Offshore
recreational resources include recreational fishing, sailing, and boating areas, diving areas, and
other water sport areas. Section 3.13 of the 2004 designation FEIS provides a detailed analysis
on recreational resources and is incorporated by reference. Expansion of the ODMDS will not
affect recreation and has no more effect than the existing site.

3.14	NAVIGATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Marine transportation includes all vessels that access the ocean via channels or navigable
waterways. In the waters off of Broward County, marine vessels currently participate in a
variety of activities, including commercial, recreational, Federal, and state operations. There
are two primary traffic routes offshore Port Everglades, an inshore north-south route and an
offshore north-south route. The inshore route is located approximately 6 to 8 nmi offshore and
east of the proposed ODMDS expansion area (FAU 2012). Additionally, in 2009 Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) analyzed US Coast Guard Automated Identification System
(AIS) data to determine levels of vessel traffic offshore Port Everglades (BOEM 2012). The
proposed ODMDS expansion area is located in an area of relatively low vessel activity.

3.15	HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

The earliest widely accepted date of occupation by aboriginal inhabitants of Florida dates from
around 12,000 years ago (Milanich 1994). This earliest cultural period, called the Paleo-lndian

94


-------
period, lasted until about 10,000 YBP (years before present). Sea level was lower and the
continental shelves were exposed - an area almost twice the width of the current size of the
state. Few Paleo-lndian archeological sites are recorded in south Florida. Known sites are
clustered along the Atlantic coast and inland waterways.

There is no potential for submerged prehistoric archeological sites to exist within the ODMDS
project area. The ODMDS project area is located off the continental shelf in water depths of
600 to 700 feet, which was never available for human occupation at any time.

This area of the Florida coastline was the scene of numerous wrecks throughout the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Southbound ships hugged the coast to avoid the northward flowing
Florida Current/Gulf Stream and northbound ships often found themselves in danger from large
storms and hurricanes. Many ships were wrecked off the coast of south Florida. The Florida
Master Site File (FMSF) lists 16 historic shipwrecks within the vicinity of the alternative ODMDS
sites. One of these, the USS Copenhagen is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) and three others, including the Robert Edminster, have been determined potentially
eligible for the NRHP.

On August 25, 2011, the Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR) concurred with the
USACE's recommendations for the necessity of a submerged cultural resources survey of the
ODMDS alternative project areas (DHR Project File No. 2011-03638). This survey was
conducted in November, 2011, and resulted in the report titled, Submerged Cultural Resources
Remote Sensing Survey of the Port Everglades Channel and Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS), Broward County, Florida (PCI 2011). PCI identified a total of two potentially
significant anomalies that may be associated with historic properties within the ODMDS
alternatives. These anomalies consisted of one magnetic target with an associated sidescan
image and one sidescan image. In July 2012, the USACE conducted a refinement survey of the
two anomalies and was able to determine that one was debris and the other was a modern,
recent shipwreck.

3.16 MILITARY USAGE

Broward County is home to the USN's Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Divisions South
Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF), located just south of Port Everglades at Dania
Beach, Florida. This site has been a continuously operating Navy range for over fifty years. The
SFOMF performs electromagnetic signature tests of Navy assets. The range is the Navy's only
deep and shallow water magnetic research and development ranges (NAVSEA 2012). During
naval activities, surface ships and submarines operate in nearby waters as part of testing and
exercises. During fiscal year 2011, a total of 26 military ships called at Port Everglades,
generating $358,551 for the port (Broward County 2012). Figure 7 shows the location of the
proposed ODMDS expansion areas relative to the Navy Use Area. This area is adjacent to the

95


-------
expanded footprint of the ODMDS, but no boundary was extended to the south so there will be
no changes in operation related to the Naval operations.

96


-------
4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This section is the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of the alternatives (see Table
4 in Section 2 Alternatives, for summary of impacts). The following includes anticipated
changes to the existing environment including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

4.1	GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

General environmental effects of disposal of dredged material at this location are discussed in
Chapter 4 of the EIS for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor ODMDS and the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS (EPA 2004). The two Alternatives considered here are very similar. They have
approximately 86 percent of their submerged bottom in common, as is seen in, and both fully
contain the existing ODMDS.

Based on an analysis of existing data and the results of the OSV Bold site study in May 2011,
many of the environmental parameters analyzed are the same for both Alternatives however
Alternative 1 will affect less potential hardbottom in the project area. Alternative 1 was chosen
as the Preferred Alternative as it is the environmental preferred site and allows for increased
operational safety.

Under the no-action alternative, the ODMDS will not be expanded and there will be no
additional environmental effects. However, ocean disposal of the anticipated larger quantities
of dredged material could occur on a limited basis pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA (see
Section 2.1.3). The impacts to the marine environment associated with a Section 103 site
selection and its limited use would be evaluated by the USACE at the time of selection.

4.2	VEGETATION

Since there is no vegetation located in the existing ODMDS, vegetation would not be affected
by either of the Alternatives, nor the No-Action Alternative.

4.3	THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

The 2004 EIS for the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS designation details the environmental
impacts of the current ODMDS and concludes that designation of this ODMDS would not
adversely affect or threaten the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species.
The proposed expanded ODMDS has similar biological and physical parameters.

No evidence of impacts to listed species from the use of the existing site have been identified,
therefore, as with the original designation of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, selection of
either expanded ODMDS (east-west release zone or north-south release zone) will not affect
listed species.

97


-------
None of the seven species of listed corals are found in waters exceeding 50 meters (NOAA
Fisheries, 2005 and Brainard et al 2011) and therefore are not proximate to the expanded
ODMDS aerial footprints.

All additional species which may be present in the area of the ODMDS are motile and capable of
moving away from any short-term disturbance which may occur.

4.4 HARDBOTTOM HABITATS

Hardbottom habitats potentially affected by this action include coral reefs located west of the
alternatives (Figure 12) and non-reef hardbottom habitats within the proposed expansion areas
(Figure 15).

Presence of hardbottom associated with rubble areas within the proposed ODMDS expansion
areas is possible. Direct impacts are limited to these areas. Any present rubble areas could be
significantly affected by burial. Multi-dump fate (MDFATE) modeling was conducted on the 6.63
mcy of dredged material estimated to come from the proposed Port Everglades Harbor
deepening project as a maximum impact scenario. This is the largest project anticipated to
utilize the ODMDS. The model estimated the area and thickness of material deposition when
disposed from a pre-determined disposal release zone within Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
Contours were developed to show the estimated area covered by more than five but less than
ten cm and ten or greater cm dredged material thickness layers (Figure 2). The amount of
seafloor expected to be covered by more than five but less than ten cm of dredged material for
Alternative 1 is approximately 0.36 nmi2 (230 acres). The amount of seafloor expected to be
covered by 10 or greater cm for Alternative 1 is approximately 1.06 nmi2 (678 acres) (Table 16).
For Alternative 2, the amount of seafloor expected to be covered by more than five but less
than ten cm is approximately 0.39 nmi2 (250 acres). The amount of seafloor expected to be
covered by 10 or greater cm for Alternative 2 is approximately 1.33 nmi2 (851 acres) (Table 16).
Both alternatives include a portion of the existing site in the coverage estimate.

Table 16. Estimated area of dredged material deposition.



Total Site Size
(ac)

Estimated area (ac) covered by 5
to less than 10 cm material

Estimated area (ac) covered
by >10 cm material

Alternative 1

2,721

230 (8.5%)

678 (25%)

Alternative 2

2,449

250 (10.0%)

851 (34.7%)

The contours were overlaid on the cultural resources sidescan sonar mosaic to examine the
number of targets covered by the more than five but less than ten cm of dredged material and
greater than 10 cm layers for Alternative 1 (Figure 25) and Alternative 2 (Figure 26). To be as
conservative as possible, we classified all non-manmade targets detected in the survey as

98


-------
"hardbottom". The size of each target was calculated and the total area of potential
hardbottom affected by the estimated material deposition tabulated for both alternatives
(Table 17).

Table 17. Total area of potential hard

bottom affected by the estimated material deposition



Total Site Size
(ac)

Targets (ac) covered
by 5 to less than 10
cm of material

Targets (ac) covered
by >10 cm of
material

Targets (ac)
covered by > 5cm
material

Alternative 1

2,721

1.33 (0.05%)

1.36 (0.05%)

2.69 (0.10%)

Alternative 2

2,449

1.41 (0.06%)

2.89 (0.12%)

4.30 (0.18%)

Legend
| Sidescari Sonar Mosaic
° Sidescan Targets/Potential Hardbottom
n Alternative Site 1
Existing ODMDS
^ 10cm contour-Alternative 1
5 cm contour-Alternative 1

Figure 25. Overlay of predicted disposal footprint for Alternative 1 on potential hardbottom targets as
identified from sidescan sonar mosaic. 10 and 5 cm contours indicate dredged material layer thickness

99


-------
Legend
| Sidescan Sonar Mosaic
o Sidescan Targets/Potential Hardbottom

~	Alternative Site 2

~	Existing ODMDS

^ 10cm contour-Alternative 2
5 cm contour-Alternative 2

Figure 26. Overlay of predicted disposal footprint for Alternative 2 on potential hardbottom targets as
identified from sidescan sonar mosaic. 10 and 5 cm contours indicate dredged material layer thickness.

Based ori the photographic and side scan sonar data for estimated hardbottom as presented in
Section 3.4 and above, Alternative 1 will have less impact on potential hardbottom within the
project area.

4.5 FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Breeding, spawning, and feeding activities offish undoubtedly occurs in the proposed expansion
areas; however, these activities are not believed to be confined to, or concentrated in, the
proposed expansion areas. Most of the larger species are highly mobile and can avoid the area
during a short duration disposal event. Thus, these populations will not be impacted by
disposal events

Smaller organisms inhabiting the water column such as phyto-, icthyo- and zooplankton have
limited mobility and some of these individuals may be impacted during a disposal event.
However these species have a prolific capacity to reproduce and any effect to the populations

100


-------
of these smaller species arising from the impacts resulting from a disposal event would be
temporary and minor.

Benthic organisms inhabiting the soft bottom habitats in the proposed expansion areas include
epifaunal (organisms that live on the sediment) and infaunal (organisms that live within the
sediment). Disposal events will cover some portion of a proposed expansion area and may
result in minor and temporary impacts to the benthic community. The degree to which these
species are affected depends on the amount of material deposited and the composition
(sediment structure) of this material. Model results of the amount of material deposited are
discussed in Section 4.3 above and summarized in Table 16.

The benthic community is highly dynamic and capable of recovering from short term
perturbations such as a disposal event. Some species are capable of burrowing back to the
surface if covered by sediment while individuals of other species will re-occupy the newly
created habitat. Depending on whether the sediment composition changes, species
composition may also change as some benthic species have a preference for a particular range
of grain sizes.

Slow-moving epifaunal invertebrates may be buried and smothered as dredged material is
deposited. Recolonization of a disposal mound can begin within a few days after dumping
(Germano and Rhoades 1984). Adult infaunal organisms buried under thin overburden layers
(<10cm) have an upward escape response. The thicker part of the deposit is primarily
recolonized through larval recruitment or immigration of organisms from adjacent, undisturbed
areas. Macroinfaunal recolonization occurs in three stages: (1) small opportunistic polychaetes;
(2) dense aggregations of tubiculous amphipods and tellinid bivalves; and (3) deep burrowing
polychaetes, caudate holothurians, infaunal ophiuroids, or burrowing urchins (Rhoads and
Germano 1986). Larval recruitment and establishment by all stages following disposal can
require several years (Rhoads et. al 1978). However, tropical soft-bottom macrobenthic
assemblages can respond quickly (three months) to the disturbance associated with the
dumping of dredged material (Cruz-Motta and Collins 2004). In 2006, the EPA conducted a
study of the recovery of the benthic communities at the existing Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS. Approximately nine months after disposal of 60,000 cubic yards of material at the
existing ODMDS, Stage 2 and increasing numbers of Stage 3 communities recolonized the area;
this largely represented a return to ambient conditions relatively soon following disposal
(Germano & Associates, Inc. 2006). Germano & Associates, Inc. (2006) suggested that the
native benthic communities in the ODMDS are subjected to high current velocities and are
adapted to frequent physical disturbance, thus displaying rapid recolonization.

Therefore, designation of either alternative for the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS would only
have minor and temporary effects and would not have any long-term adverse effects on the

101


-------
continued existence offish and wildlife resources. Effects will be monitored consistent with
the SMMP (Appendix A).

4.6 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

Section 3.6 describes the existing conditions of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), Federally
managed fisheries, and associated species such as major prey species, including affected life
history stages. The following describes the individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed
alternatives on EFH, Federally managed fisheries, and associated species such as major prey
species, including affected life history stages.

Expanding the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS may temporarily affect EFH and Federally
managed fisheries. Impacts such as increased turbidity, and the release of sediment-bound
contaminants, may have a minor and short-term impact on the water column following the
discharge of solids and solutes from a barge (Gordon 1974). The latter will be minimized as all
material will be evaluated for compliance with the Limiting Permissible Concentrations and be
determined suitable for ocean disposal (not toxic in multiple tests) per the MPRSA. Thus
dredged material is not expected to have an impact on EFH or local fauna.

Direct and indirect impacts to the water column and benthos will be mitigated through
appropriate testing of the dredged material prior to disposal. The greatest potential for impact
would likely occur as a result of accumulation of dredged material and associated changes in
sediment characteristics that may cause impacts to benthic-dwelling organisms and the burial
of rubble zones within the proposed ODMDS boundaries. However, the benthic community in
the area of the proposed ODMDS expansion is adapted to frequent physical disturbance due to
high current velocities in the general area.

Effects of the expanded ODMDS to Federally managed species are as follows:

• The Royal Red Shrimp - Royal red shrimp EFH includes the upper regions continental
slope in 590 -2,395 ft (180-730 m) depths, over mud/sand substrate and the Florida
Current/Gulf Stream as it provides a dispersal mechanism for larvae. Dredged material
disposal may bury the bottom habitat and less-motile fauna and affect feeding. Disposal
may temporarily increase turbidity levels. Deposition of material with higher silt
content could alter the bottom type in the disposal areas. Royal red shrimp can utilize a
variety of bottom types including muddy sand or sand, and any effects on royal red
shrimp within the project area would vary. Depending upon the volume of dredged
material placed on the habitat, local recovery may not occur or the impacts may only be
minimal and temporary. Based on the EPA's 2006 monitoring of the 2005 disposal
event, bottom sediments had recovered to approximately pre-project conditions within
a year. Adverse impacts to the Florida Current are not expected.

102


-------
•	Golden Crab - EFH for golden crab includes the U.S. Continental Shelf through the
Florida Straits; in addition, the Florida Current is EFH because it provides a mechanism
for larval dispersal. Dredged material disposal may bury the bottom habitat and less-
motile fauna and affect feeding. Disposal may temporarily increase turbidity levels.
Deposition of material with higher silt content could alter the bottom type in the
disposal areas. Golden crabs can utilize a variety of bottom types including substrates
containing a mixture of silt-clay and foraminiferan shell, unconsolidated bottom,
including ripple habitat, dunes, soft bioturbated habitat, and low relief and any effects
on golden crab within the proposed ODMDS expansion area would vary. Depending
upon the volume of dredged material placed on the habitat, recovery may not occur or
the impacts may only be minimal and temporary. Based on the EPA's 2006 monitoring
of the 2005 disposal event, bottom sediments had recovered to approximately pre-
project conditions within a year.

•	Snapper-Grouper Complex - Areas which meet the criteria for EFH-HAPC in the vicinity
of the proposed ODMDS expansion area include live/hardbottom, artificial reefs and
medium-to-high profile offshore outcroppings on and around the shelf break zone from
shore to at least 600 ft (183 m) [but to at least 2,000 ft (610 m) for wreckfish]. EFH also
includes the water column above the adult habitat and the additional pelagic
environment, including Sargassum and the Florida Current/Gulf Stream as it provides a
dispersal mechanism. Surveys at the ODMDS expansion areas indicate that little
potential exists for these habitats, with the exception of the limited rubble areas, to
exist in the proposed expansion areas. Disposal could increase turbidity levels,. Adverse
impacts to the water column, Florida Current, and/or Sargassum are not expected.

•	Highly Migratory Species - EFH in the vicinity of the proposed ODMDS expansion for
highly migratory species is limited to the water column, the Florida Current/Gulf Stream
in particular, and Sargassum. Highly migratory species are very motile and would be
unlikely to be buried by dredged material disposal. Disposal may temporarily increase
turbidity levels, potentially altering behavior patterns and feeding. Adverse impacts to
the water column, Florida Current/Gulf Stream, and/or Sargassum are not expected.

•	Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hardbottom Habitat - EFH for ahermatypic stony corals,
which are not light restricted, extends to outer shelf depths. EFH for black corals
includes rough, hard, exposed, and stable substrate that is located offshore in high
salinity waters in depths exceeding 18 meters. EFH for octocorals includes rough, hard,
exposed, stable substrate in subtidal to outer shelf depths within a wide range of
salinities and light penetration. Only small areas of hardbottom were observed in the
ODMDS expansion areas, primarily in the northernmost suspected hardbottom area,
and cobble-sized carbonate rocks and several pieces of dead rose coral were only found

103


-------
in one trawl sample. No live hard corals were observed in the ODMDS expansion areas.
Although a small amount of hard bottom may become buried by dredged material, live
corals are unlikely to be affected. Some of the dredged material will contain rock that
may increase the amount of hardbottom in the ODMDS expansion areas. MDFATE
modeling has suggested that most (1-cm contour) of the dredged material would remain
within the ODMDS expansion areas. Depending on prevailing current patterns at the
time of disposal, there is a slight chance that hardbottom areas outside the ODMDS
expansion areas could be temporarily affected by turbidity from disposal.

4.7	COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES

The proposed ODMDS expansion will occur in offshore waters approximately 4 nmi from the
mainland and will have no impact on coastal barrier resources.

4.8	WATER QUALITY

Water quality impacts are expected to be temporary and minor.

During periods of dredged material disposal there will be temporary, localized increases in
water column turbidity and concentrations of dissolved and particulate constituents.

Chemically reduced inorganic compounds associated with particles sinking through the upper
water column may be oxidized, causing a transient increase in the chemical oxygen demand.
Oxidation of labile organic material may consequently reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the water column temporarily. However, because the water column is well oxygenated,
offsite impacts are not expected and any onsite impacts should be of short duration. Plumes of
suspended sediments will result in increases in turbidity levels, suspended particulate
concentrations, and decreased light transmittance. These effects will be dissipated by natural
dispersion, mixing, and eventual settling of particles. Based on dispersion modeling conducted
for the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, any temporary perturbations in water quality resulting
from disposal of dredged material would be reduced to ambient or undetectable levels within a
short distance of the release point (USEPA 2004).

Only dredged material evaluated and found acceptable in accordance with the joint
USEPA/USACE guidance (USEPA/USACE, 1991 and USEPA/USACE, 2008) can be disposed in the
ocean. The testing evaluates the potential for unacceptable effects such as toxicity and
bioaccumulation of contaminants. These required tests reduce the possibility of unacceptable
water column and benthic effects caused by dredged material contaminants. Additionally,
Federal marine water quality criteria (CMC) will not be exceeded at any time outside the
ODMDS boundaries or after 4 hours of disposal within the ODMDS. All dredged material must
be evaluated and shown that no undesirable effects will occur due to chronic toxicity (40 CFR
227.6).

104


-------
High-level radioactive wastes are prohibited from ocean disposal (40 CFR 221.5) and low-level
radioactive waste disposal requires congressional approval for ocean disposal (33 U.S.C. 1414).
ODMDS use will be limited to dredged material disposal.

4.9	AIR QUALITY

Selection of either expansion site will result in short-term impacts from increased dredge,
barge, or scow traffic associated with transporting disposal material. However, no significant
impacts to regional air quality are expected as a result of the transport and disposal of dredged
materials to any of the proposed alternative sites. Air quality impacts at dredging sites
associated with the dredge plant during dredging operations were not assessed in this EA as
they will be assessed on a project-specific basis. Emissions from the tug vessels and hopper
dredges include particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), carbon
monoxide (CO), and volatile organic carbons (VOCs; hydrocarbons). Estimated emission rates
for the existing ODMDS were presented in Section 4.15 of the FEIS (USEPA, 2004) and are not
expected to differ for the expanded ODMDS. Emissions associated with the dredging of material
in Port Everglades are not a part of this action. Thus, the impacts will be minor and temporary.

4.10	NOISE

The noise at either expansion site would increase during disposal of dredged material however
the impacts will be minor and temporary. Surface noise for a tugboat is expected to be 82 dB at
50 ft. (Port of Oakland and the USACE San Francisco District 1998). Noise from the tugboats
hauling barges or from hopper dredges to and from the ocean disposal sites would be too far
from shore to have any meaningful noise impact on noise-sensitive land uses.

Subsurface noise would also increase during disposal and monitoring activities in the vicinity of
the proposed expansion sites. This elevated noise level will be temporary and would not be
expected to result in any significant adverse impacts to wildlife or aquatic organisms in the
areas. Additional discussion of noise issues at the alternative sites is found in the 2004 EIS for
the ODMDS designation (USEPA 2004). Normal shipping traffic operations far exceed the minor
increases expected during disposal operations at the ODMDS.

4.11	RECREATION RESOURCES

The coastal waters of Broward County are used for a variety of recreational activities including
swimming, water skiing, sailing, boating, surfing, skin diving, and SCUBA diving. Few of these
activities occur in, and none is restricted to, the proposed ODMDSs because of depth of water
and distance offshore are not where these activities typically occur. Thus, the selection of
either alternative would not have any impacts to recreation.

105


-------
4.12	NAVIGATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Selection of either proposed site is unlikely to impact navigation or public safety. The
expansion areas lie inshore of the two primary offshore north-south traffic patterns and in an
area of relatively low vessel activity (see Section 3.13). Both alternatives are not located in any
restricted passage areas, precautionary zones, or anchorages. Adequate public notice to
mariners will be issued by the U.S. Coast Guard in advance of such disposal events.

Furthermore, because the ultimate purpose of dredging operations is to provide adequate
water depths and access to vessel traffic for channels and berths within Port Everglades Harbor,
the proposed action could be considered a beneficial impact.

4.13	HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

A submerged cultural resources survey, incorporating the use of a magnetometer and sidescan
sonar, was conducted in November 2011, within the Port Everglades ODMDS project alternative
areas pursuant to the Florida Division of Historic Resources Performance Standards for
Submerged Remote Sensing Surveys (Florida DHR, Version 2.1). The resulting report,
Submerged Cultural Resources Remote Sensing Survey of the Port Everglades Channel and
Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), Broward County, Florida (PCI, 2011)
recommended one magnetic and two sidescan anomalies that possessed characteristics of
potentially significant historic resources (shipwrecks) for avoidance or further investigation.
USACE conducted a refinement investigation of the three, potentially significant anomalies in
July, 2012, to determine if they represented significant historic properties. The anomalies were
identified as debris and a modern, recent shipwreck. Therefore, there are no effects to historic
properties.

According to the 2004 EIS for the ODMDS designation, there are no natural or cultural features
of historical importance in or near the existing ODMDS. No portion of the proposed project
exists within or adjacent to any Native American properties.

4.14	ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION

The energy requirements for this activity are limited to fuel for transportation of the dredged
material to the disposal site. As the proposed sites are essentially in the same location, the
selection of either alternative would require the same amount of energy.

4.15	NATURAL OR DEPLETABLE RESOURCES

In this case, the depletable resources would be the fuel for the transportation of the dredged
material to the disposal site equipment and human energy required for the project. As the
proposed sites are essentially in the same location, the selection of either alternative would
require the same amount of natural or depletable resources.

106


-------
4.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impact is the "impact on the environment which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other
actions (40 CFR 1508.7)."

4.16.1	Past Projects

4.16.1.1 Previous Interim Designated ODMDSs

Dredged material disposal occurred at an interim designated ODMDS nearer to shore. The
interim site for Port Everglades Harbor was discontinued after a 1984 EPA survey indicated that
some damage to nearby inshore, hard bottom areas may have occurred due to the movement
of fine material associated with disposed dredged material. This resulted in the designation of
the existing ODMDS in 2004 further offshore.

4.16.2	Current Projects

4.16.2.1	Maintenance of Port Everglades Federal Navigation Project

This project will continue to require periodic dredging to maintain adequate depths for access
and safe navigation. Ocean dredged material disposal will continue to be required for this
project. The need for ocean disposal is based primarily on the lack of economically, logistically,
and environmentally feasible alternatives for the disposal of the projected quantities of
dredged material deemed unsuitable for beach nourishment or other beneficial uses (USACE
2005).

4.16.2.2	Wastewater Outfalls

No wastewater outfalls are active in the project vicinity.

4.16.3	Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects
4.16.3.1 Offshore Wind and Hydrokinetic Facilities

The BOEM issues leases and grants for both offshore wind and hydrokinetic projects and
permits the construction and operation of offshore wind farms; however, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) permits the development of hydrokinetic facilities. BOEM has
prepared an EA for the proposed lease of OCS blocks 7003, 7053, and 7054 (77 FR 24735).
However, those areas were determined to be outside of the ODMDS expansion area. Florida
Atlantic University (FAU) is requesting leases for additional OCS blocks (blocks 7040 and 7001)
that could overlap with the ODMDS expansion area (Figure 27).

107


-------
FAU has applied to BOEM for a lease to deploy an experimental demonstration device about 17
miles off the coast of Fort Lauderdale. The Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy
Center, operated by FAU, is exploring the potential for harnessing the Florida Current. A single-
anchor mooring and buoy would be used to test equipment that could generate electricity from
the Florida Current. Devices to be deployed would be limited to 100 kilowatts of capacity and
23-foot-diameter rotors.

According to BOEM (2013) the primary impact-producing activity associated with hydrokinetic
activities is vessel traffic. Additional vessel strikes to marine mammals and sea turtles and
conflicts with navigation are expected to be insignificant. Impacts from vessel discharges and
potential spills are not expected to cause a significant impact to water quality. The impacts of
the proposed action to the benthic resources are expected to be minimal to non-existent and
limited to periods during the actual deployment of the mooring system, and periodic impacts to
the seafloor from contact of the shock chain with the seafloor (e.g. chain sweep). FAU intends
to deploy three single-anchor moorings attached to a mooring and telemetry buoy (MTB) for
use in testing various Ocean Current Technologies in the Florida current. The three MTBs will
be moved to various sites within the lease over the five-year lease period resulting in up to 13
separate deployments. The BOEM notes in the Revised EA that up to 1.638 square kilometers
(0.632 square miles) of habitat will be affected over the 5-year lease period which is a negligible
percentage of the total benthic habitat on the Miami Terrace. (BOEM 2013)

4.16.3.2 Navigation Improvements to the Federal Project at Port Everglades Harbor

In 2015 (USACE 2015), a feasibility study and FEIS was completed for navigation improvements
to the Federal Navigation Project at Port Everglades Harbor, including channel and basin
deepening and widening, that may be required to increase safety for the existing and future
fleet and more efficiently handle current and future shipping demands. The Preferred
Alternative is for an Outer Entrance Channel 55 ft deep (plus one ft of required overdredge and
one foot of allowable overdredge for a total dredge depth of -57 ft MLLW) 0.25 west of the sea
buoy to the jetties then transitioning to an Inner Entrance Channel at 48 ft deep (plus one foot
required overdredge and one foot allowable overdredge for a total dredge depth of -50 ft
MLLW). The channel depth of 48 ft (-50 ft total dredge depth) continues into the Main Turning
Basin, Widener, Southport Access Channel, and deepening approximately 1,500 linear ft of the
Turning Notch from 42 ft to 48 ft (plus one foot of required overdredge and one foot of
allowable overdedge for a total dredge depth of -50 ft MLLW) after the expansion by Broward
County discussed in Section 1.3.

The Preferred Alternative is expected to generate approximately 5.47 million cubic yards of
dredged material. A small portion of the material will be utilized for construction of mitigation
measures with the remaining portion of the material being placed in the ODMDS (Jerry W.
Scarborough, USACE, personal communication, letter dated Apr. 27, 2010). Impacts from ocean

108


-------
disposal would be similar to that as described in Section 4.0; however, the total seafloor area to
be impacted would be a function of the total volume of material for disposal.

Subsequent to the release of the USACE 2015 FEIS, the USACE is reinitiating NEPA for navigation
improvements to the Federal Navigation Project at Port Everglades Harbor, due to new
information resulting from dredging activities at Miami Harbor. It is the EPA's understanding
that the Preferred Alternative identified in the 2015 FEIS will remain the same.

4.16.3.3	Port Everglades Master Plan (Turning Notch Improvements)

The Turning Notch has been deepened and expanded by Port Everglades to provide a depth of
-42 feet to accommodate larger ships and create additional berth space for the current class
cargo ships calling at Port Everglades. This project was included in the Port's five-year Capital
Improvement Program from the 2006 Port Everglades Master/Vision Plan.

4.16.3.4	Broward County Storm Damage Reduction/Shore Protection Project

The Federal storm damage reduction/shore protection project allows for the restoration of
beaches to a general width of 100 ft with a berm elevation of 10 ft above mean low water, and
periodic nourishment thereafter. Dredged material from Port Everglades harbor that is beach
quality may be used for these projects. The storm damage reduction/shore protection project
is a nearshore activity, and would not likely result in impacts to offshore environments. Small
amounts of rock screened from the sand may be placed in the ODMDS.

109


-------
Legend

	Federal Beach Nourishment Project

	Non-Federal Beach Nourishment Project

Rock Dump Site
| Port Everglades Harbor Deepening
Port Everglades Sand Bypass Project
__] OCS Blocks with Proposed Lease Areas
| Turning Notch Project
Potential Sand Borrow Areas

~	Alternative Site 1

~	Alternative Site 2
Existing ODMDS

7002

7052

7003

7053

7103

7004

7054

7104

7005

7055

7105

Nautical Miles

US Army Corps
of Engineers »

Jacksonville District

Location of Potential Future Projects
in the Project Vicinity

Port Everglades ODMDS Expansion

NO A A Raster Nautical Chart - Seamless Mosasic - ESRI Server

Date: November 2012

Scale: 1:150,000

Source: NOAA/ESRI/GEC

Figure 27. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

110


-------
4.16.3.5 Port Everglades Entrance Sand Bypass Project

The Port Everglades Sand Bypass Project proposes to create and modify inlet infrastructure on
the north side of the inlet sufficient to facilitate the economical collection of littoral materials
that will be available for future mechanical bypassing to the beaches south of the inlet. The
project will include the creation of a sand trap, modification to and improvement of the existing
north jetty, removal of a portion of the rubble spoil shoal north of the inlet, construction of a
rock rubble barrier at the western extent of the remaining rubble shoal, and construction of a
small interior groin on the western end of the north jetty notch. Disposal events will be
managed per the attached SMMP (Appendix A).

A primary component of the sand bypass project will be a 7.1 acre (2.87 hectare) sand trap
excavated to an elevation of -49 ft (-14.9 meters), NAVD88. The sand trap will be located on
the north side of the Port Everglades Entrance channel immediately adjacent to the north jetty.
Creation of the sand trap will include the excavation of approximately 325,000 cubic yards
(248,500 cubic meters) of sand, rubble, and rock. Of this, it is expected that up to 45,000 cubic
yards (34,400 cubic meters) of the material is a mixture of beach compatible sand and rock
rubble. The balance of the material is limestone (carbonate) rock of varying characteristics and
granite boulders and granite stone debris from the old jetty. An attempt will be made to
recover and re-use some if not all of the collected boulders along sections of the planned jetty
improvements. Otherwise, it is expected that these materials will be disposed of in the
ODMDS.

This project would also include removal of approximately 125,000 cy (95,600 cubic meters) of
rubble from the rubble spoil shoal located approximately 800 ft (243 m) north of the north jetty
down to natural hardbottom or a maximum depth of about -20 ft (-6.1 m) NAVD88. The
material will be loaded onto scows and towed offshore to the ODMDS for disposal. Impacts
from ocean disposal would be similar to that as described in Section 3; however, the total
seafloor area to be impacted would be a function of the total volume of material for disposal.

4.16.4 Conclusions

The designation of an expanded ODMDS is not expected to introduce new human activities in
the project vicinity. Commercial shipping and recreational and commercial fishing are expected
to continue. Temporary increased vessel traffic associated transportation of dredge material
may lead to an increased risk of collisions with vessels transiting to and from the ODMDS
expansion area. The increased vessel traffic associated with these projects may also affect
water quality at a greater frequency than existing circumstances. These effects are expected to
be temporary.

Ill


-------
The proposed expansion areas are not expected to contribute to any cumulative impacts of the
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above. Except for possible
impacts to a limited amount of hardbottom, the impacts of the proposed expansion areas and
expected to be temporary and minor to threatened and endangered species, water quality, fish
and wildlife resources and essential fish habitat.

4.17	IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES

4.17.1	Irreversible

An irreversible commitment of resources is one in which the ability to use and/or enjoy the
resource is lost forever. One example of an irreversible commitment might be the mining of a
mineral resource.

Designation of either proposed expansion area will not result in the irreversible ability to use
and/or enjoy any resources.

4.17.2	Irretrievable

An irretrievable commitment of resources is one in which, due to decisions to manage the
resource for another purpose, opportunities to use or enjoy the resource as they presently exist
are lost for a period of time. An example of an irretrievable loss might be where a type of
vegetation is lost due to road construction.

Designation of either proposed expansion area will not result in the irretrievable commitment
of resources. Other than creating a potential for altering the structure of benthic communities
by possibly changing the characteristics of the substrate, no irretrievable loss of resources is
expected.

4.18	UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Unavoidable adverse environmental effects are not expected to differ from the original site
designation for either alternative. See Section 4.3.6 of the 2004 FEIS (USEPA, 2004).

4.19	LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND MAINTENANCE/ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Use of the proposed ODMDS in the manner described should have no effect on long-term
productivity. Effects are not expected to differ from that presented in the original site
designation FEIS. See Section 4.6 of the 2004 FEIS (USEPA 2004).

112


-------
4.20 INDIRECT EFFECTS

The proposed action may facilitate area dredging projects by providing a disposal option and
thereby increase the associated environmental impacts of dredging (water quality degradation,
wetland losses). The proposed action would benefit the shipping industry and economy.

Potential, but unlikely, indirect effects to the coral reefs include transport of disposal plumes
shoreward towards the nearshore reefs located in less than 30 meters (100 ft) of water. The
outermost reefs are located approximately 2.5 nmi (4,630 meters) west of the center [1.8 nmi
(3,333 meters) west of western edge] of the proposed ODMDS expansion area. By expanding
the sites with either alternative, the western edge of the expanded ODMDS will be
approximately 0.5 nmi (926 meters) closer to the third reef line than it is with the existing
ODMDS boundaries. The potential for turbidity plumes to reach these areas was evaluated.
Extreme (99 percentile) westerly currents were modeled and silt-clay concentrations were
predicted to diminish rapidly to less than 1 mg/l within 1,500 meters of the disposal location.
Sand concentrations were predicted to diminish to less 1 mg/l within 2,400 meters (CERC 1998).
As part of the monitoring efforts associated with the Miami ODMDS, located a similar distance
offshore and with a similar relationship to the Florida Current, currents were monitored for
exceedance of a 12 cm/sec (1 hour average) shoreward threshold. The 12cm/sec threshold was
determined as the velocity necessary to transport plumes to the nearshore reefs (Proni et al.
1998). Evaluation of more than a year's worth of records determined that the 12 cm/sec
threshold was only exceeded 2.5 percent of the time (Proni et al. 1998). Most of these
exceedances were only short duration (<2 hrs) and only 11 exceeded five hours. Therefore, the
potential for indirect effects on the nearshore reefs is minimal.

4.21	COMPATIBILITY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL OBJECTIVES

The proposed action is expected to be consistent with Federal, State and local plans and
objectives.

The proposed project was proposed by the USEPA and USACE Jacksonville District and is
compatible with federal objectives. The project is being reviewed by the state of Florida for
consistency with the state's coastal zone management plan. Local government (Broward
County) is the originator of the plan to expand Port Everglades.

4.22	CONFLICTS AND CONTROVERSY

No known conflicts or controversy have been identified from the public or government
agencies related to the expansion of the Port Everglades ODMDS.

113


-------
4.23	UNCERTAIN, UNIQUE, OR UNKNOWN RISKS

The EIS for the designation of the existing ODMDS (USEPA, 2004) did not identify any uncertain,
unique or unknown risks associated with designation of the existing ODMDS. No new risks have
been identified that are associated with either proposed expansion sites.

4.24	PRECEDENT AND PRINCIPLE FOR FUTURE ACTIONS

Designation of an expanded ODMDS would create a larger ODMDS in the Atlantic Ocean to be
used for the disposal of dredged material associated with port expansion activities and future
maintenance dredged material from the Port Everglades Harbor Federal Navigation Project and
other local projects.

4.25	ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

The USACE and the EPA commit to the following:

•	Disposal of dredge material will meet the Ocean Dumping Criteria established by MPRSA
and the standards set by USEPA and USACE in guidance; and

•	Environmental monitoring of the expanded ODMDS as set out in the SMMP for the
expanded site (dependent upon available funding).

Please refer to the SMMP for additional information.

4.26	COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

4.26.1	National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Environmental information on the project has been compiled and this EA has been prepared.
The project is in compliance with NEPA.

4.26.2	Endangered Species Act of 1973

Currently, NMFS is finalizing a Biological Opinion for the South Atlantic District that
incorporates all aspects of the transport and disposal of dredged material. As a result of the
ongoing consultation, this project will be fully coordinated under the Endangered Species Act.
Any items specific to transport and disposal of dredged material provided in the Biological
Opinion will be incorporated into the final Site Management and Monitoring Plan.

4.26.3	Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958

The Act, and its amendments, was established to assure that fish and wildlife resources have
equal consideration with other values when planning water resources development
projects. Coordination is not required because this project does not fall under the types of
projects requiring coordination under the Act.

114


-------
4.26.4	National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (inter alia)

Consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was initiated in August,
2011, and with additional information in a letter dated October 15, 2012, and is ongoing in
accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and as part of the
requirements and consultation processes contained within the NHPA implementing regulations
of 36 CFR 800. The Florida State Historic Resources Officer responded to the determination
made by the Corps for EPA with a concurrence dated February 4, 2013. This project is also in
compliance, through ongoing consultation, with the Archeological Resources Protection Act
(96-95), the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (PL 100-298; 43 U.S.C. 2101-2106); American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (PL 95-341), Executive Orders (E.O) 11593, 13007, & 13175 and
the Presidential Memo of 1994 on Government to Government Relations. Consultation is
ongoing with the SHPO and appropriate federally recognized tribes.

4.26.5	Clean Water Act of 1972

As the proposed expansion areas are located outside of the jurisdictional limits of this Act, a
Section 404(b) evaluation is not applicable to this project and was not prepared.

4.26.6	Clean Air Act of 1972

Designating an expanded ODMDS boundary does not cause any impacts to air quality. Air
emissions associated with the projects utilizing the ODMDS are evaluated under the respective
NEPA document for that project. No air quality permits would be required for this project.

4.26.7	Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

A federal consistency determination in accordance with 15 CFR 930 Subpart C will be included
in the final EA. The State consistency review was performed during the coordination of the
draft EA and the State's final consistency determination is dated November 6, 2013. However,
due to the intervening time consultation is being revisited.

4.26.8	Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981

No prime or unique farmland would be impacted by implementation of this project. This act is
not applicable.

4.26.9	Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968

No designated Wild and Scenic river reaches would be affected by project related activities.
This act is not applicable.

4.26.10	Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Incorporation of the safe guards used to protect threatened and endangered species during
disposal operations would protect any marine mammals in the area and not result in a "take;"

115


-------
therefore, this the designation is in compliance with the Act. As previously stated in Section
3.5.2, marine mammals are expected to be rare in the vicinity of the ODMDS with the exception
of the bottlenose dolphin. USACE and USEPA do not anticipate the take of any marine mammal
during any activities associated with the ODMDS designation or utilization. A trained and
government-certified sea turtle and marine mammal observer will be stationed on hopper
dredges during disposal operations. Appropriate actions will be taken to avoid marine mammal
species during disposal operations. If a marine mammal is noted to be in the vicinity of disposal
operations, the contractor will be advised to avoid interactions with the animal to the
maximum extent practicable, while maintaining safe vessel operations.

4.26.11	Estuary Protection Act of 1968

No designated estuary would be affected by project activities. This act is not applicable.

4.26.12	Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976

The Draft EA is being coordinated with the NOAA Fisheries. This project is in compliance with
the Act.

4.26.13	Submerged Lands Act of 1953

The project would not occur on submerged lands of the State of Florida. The project has been
coordinated with the State and is in compliance with the act.

4.26.14	Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990

There are no designated coastal barrier resources in the project area that would be affected by
this project. These acts are not applicable.

4.26.15	Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

The proposed work would not obstruct navigable waters of the United States. The proposed
action has been subject to the public notice, public hearing, and other evaluations normally
conducted for activities subject to the act. The project is in full compliance.

4.26.16	Anadromous Fish Conservation Act

Anadromous fish species would not be affected. The project has been coordinated with the
National Marine Fisheries Service and is in compliance with the Act.

4.26.17	Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act

No migratory birds would be affected by project activities. The project is in compliance with
these Acts.

116


-------
4.26.18	Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

The MPRSA regulates the transportation and subsequent disposal of materials, including
dredged materials, into ocean waters. The proposed ODMDS expansion is being designated
pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. The five general (40 CFR 228.5) and eleven specific (40
CFR 228.6) criteria for the selection of sites have been discussed and included in Section 2.6.

4.26.19	Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Consultation was initiated with NOAA Fisheries by USEPA with the Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment is underway. This project will be fully coordinated under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act and therefore, in full compliance with the Act.

4.26.20	E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands

No wetlands would be affected by project activities. This project is in compliance with the goals
of this Executive Order.

4.26.21	E.O. 11988, Flood Plain Management

This project does not occur in any floodplain; therefore, this Executive Order does not apply to
project activities.

4.26.22	E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice

The proposed activity would not result in adverse human health or environmental effects or
exclude persons from participating in, deny persons the benefits of, or subject persons to
discrimination because of their race, color, or natural origin. Further, the proposed activity
would not impact "subsistence consumption offish and wildlife." The proposed project
complies with this Executive Order.

4.26.23	E.O. 13089, Coral Reef Protection

Executive Order 13089 (E.O. 13089) on Coral Reef Protection, signed by the President on June
11,1998, recognizes the significant ecological, social, and economic values provided by the
Nation's coral reefs and the critical need to ensure that Federal agencies are implementing
their authorities to protect these valuable ecosystems. E.O. 13089 directs Federal agencies,
including USEPA and the USACE whose actions may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems, to take
the following steps:

1.	Identify their actions that may affect U.S. coral reef ecosystems;

2.	Utilize their programs and authorities to protect and enhance the conditions of such
ecosystems; and

117


-------
3. To the extent permitted by law, ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out will not degrade the conditions of such ecosystems.

It is the policy of USEPA and the USACE to apply their authorities under the MPRSA to avoid
adverse impacts on coral reefs. Protection of coral reefs have been carefully addressed through
the application the site designation criteria which require consideration of the potential site's
location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, and passage areas of living marine
resources and amenity areas (40 C.F.R. 228.6[a][2] and [3]), interference with recreation and
areas of special scientific importance (40 C.F. R. 228.6[a][8]), and existence of any significant
natural or cultural features at or in close proximity to the site (40 C.F.R. 228.6[a][ll]) (see
Section 2.6, Table 3). Based on application of these criteria and the analysis in Sections 3.5.2.2,
the proposed expansion sites should not have adverse effects on coral reefs.

4.26.24 E.O. 13112, Invasive Species

The proposed action will not positively or negatively affect the status of invasive species.

118


-------
5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

5.1	SCOPING AND DRAFT EA

A scoping letter dated March 11, 2011, was issued for this action and a scoping meeting was
held on March 31, 2011. The Draft EA was originally made available to the public by notice of
availability dated August 28, 2013. This EA is being released due to the significant intervening
time between the original release and the current need to expand the site.

5.2	AGENCY COORDINATION

A Coastal Zone Consistency (CZC) Determination was requested for concurrence from Florida
Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that the proposed federal project is
consistent with Florida's Coastal Zone Program. Concurrence from the State was received on
November 6, 2013. Concurrence from SHPO was dated February 4, 2013. These consultations
are being revisited and will be part of the final EA.

EFH Coordination on EFH is ongoing and will be completed before finalization. All coordinations
will also be revisited during this process to review for new information that may be relevant to
this expansion.

5.3	COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE

Comments received in response to the scoping meeting and any other agency coordination
letters will be included in Appendix B and a summary of the comments and the response will be
included in the Final EA in Appendix C.

119


-------
REFERENCES

An, P., S.M. Smith, L. K. Shay, H. Peters, J. C. VanLeer and A. J. Mariano. 2000. Four Dimensional
Current Experiment. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. University
of Miami. Miami, FL.

American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2007. Florida State-Specific List of Indigenous
Mammals. Online at http://www.mammalsociety.org/statelists/flmammals.html

American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2012. Mammals of Florida. Online at
http://www.mammalsociety.org/mammals-florida

Anamar Environmental, Inc. 2010. Port Everglades ODMDS Survey, Port Everglades, Florida.
Prepared for USACE, Jacksonville District

Anamar Environmental, Inc. 2012. Site Designation Study for the Port Everglades Harbor

Ocean Dredge Material Disposal Site Expansion: May 2011 Survey Results. Prepared for
USACE, Jacksonville District

Banks, K.W., Riegl, B.M., Richards, V.P., Walker, B.K., Helme, K.P., Jordan, L.K.B., Phipps, M.,
Shivji, M.S., Speiler, R.E. and Dodge, R.E. 2008. The reef tract of continental southeast
Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, USA). In: Riegl, B.M. and
Dodge, R.E. (Eds.) Coral Reefs of the USA, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 175-
220.

Barnette, M. 2001. A Review of the Fishing Gear Utilized within the Southeast Region and their
Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA
Fisheries -SEFSC-449. 62 pp.

Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. 1985. Benthic Macroinfaunal Analysis of the Port Everglades
and Palm Beach, Florida, Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Surveys, November
1984. Submitted to EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA, under contract with Battelle,

Washington, D.C.

Blair, S.M. and B.S. Flynn. 1989. Biological Monitoring of Hard Bottom Reef Communities off
Dade County, Florida: Community Descriptions. Diving for Science 9-24.

Brainard, R.E., C. Birkeland, C.M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M.W. Miller, M. Patterson, and G.A. Piniak.
2011. Status review report of 82 candidate coral species petitioned under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFS-
PIFSC-27, 530 pp.

Broward County. 2012. Port Everglades Fiscal Year 2011 Commerce Report, pp 92.

http://www.porteverglades.net/includes/media/docs/PEG300-2011Commerce-SINGLE-
17C.pdf

120


-------
Buchman, M.F. 1999. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables, NOAA HAZMAT Report 99-1,
Seattle, WA, Coastal Protection and Restoration Division, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. 12 p.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2013. Lease Issuance for Marine Hydrokinetic
Technology Testing on the Outer Continental Shelf Offshore Florida Revised
Environmental Assessment. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2013-01140

Burks, S.L., and R.M. Engler. 1978. Water Quality Impacts of Dredged Material Disposal:

Laboratory Investigations. Technical Report DS-78-04, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Burney, C. and Wright, L.J. 2011. Sea Turtle Conservation Program Broward County, Florida
2010 Report. Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania, Florida,
Technical Report 11-01 for the Broward County Board of County Commissioners.

Carpenter, K. (ed.). 2002. The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic, FAO

Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes and American Society of Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 5(1-3). Rome, FAO.

Courtenay, W.R., D.J. Herrema, M.J. Thompson, W.P. Azzinaro, and J. Montfrans,

1974.Ecological monitoring of beach erosion control projects, Broward County, Florida,
and adjacent areas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Fort Belvior, Va. Tech. Memo. 41. 88 pp.

Creed, C. 2013. March 20. Re: Port Everglades Inlet Sand Bypass 0289308-001-JC [personal
email].

CSA International, Inc. 2009. Ecological Functions of Nearshore Hardbottom Habitat in East
Florida: A Literature Synthesis. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Tallahassee, FL. 186 pp + apps.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/EFNHBE.pdf

Dial Cordy and Associates, Inc. 2010. Port Everglades Feasibility Study: Acropora Coral Survey
Final Report. Prepared for Jacksonville District USACE, Jacksonville, FL. Dial Cordy and
Associates, Inc., Hollywood, FL. 10 p.

Duane, D.B., and E.P. Meisburger. November 1969. Geomorphology and Sediments of the

Nearshore Continental Shelf Miami to Palm Beach, Florida. TM-29, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, V A, 120 pp.

Duing, W. and D. Johnson. 1971. Southward Flow under the Florida Current. Science. 173:428-
430.

121


-------
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). 2011. 2010 Sea Turtle Statewide Nesting Totals.
http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/statewide/

FAU Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center OCS Renewable Energy Program
Interim Policy Lease Project Application. 2012. Submitted to the Department of
Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. February
13, 2012.

Germano & Associates, Inc. 2006. Rapid Seafloor Reconnanissance and Assessment of

Southeast Florida Ocean Dredged Materail Disposal Sites Utilizing Sediment Profile
Imaging. May 2006 Post-Dispsoal SPI Mapping at the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management
Division, Coastal Section.

Gilliam, D.S. 2011. Southeast Florida Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 2010 Year 8
Final Report. Florida DEP Report #RM085. Miami Beach, FL. pp. 42.

Gilliam, D.S. and B.K. Walker. 2011. Benthic Habitat Characterization for the South Florida
Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF): Protected Stony Coral Species Assessment.
Prepared for Seaward Services, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL. Nova Southeastern University
Oceanographic Center (NSUOC), Dania, FL. 48 p.

Goldberg, W. 1973. The Ecology of the Coral-Octocoral Communities off the Southeast Florida
Coast: Geomorphology, Species Composition, and Zonation. Bulletin of Marine Science
23:465-488.

Gordon, R.B. 1974. Dispersion of dredge spoil dumped in nearshore waters. Est. Coast Mar. Sci.
2:349-358.

Gyrory, J., E. Rowe, A.J. Mariano and E.H. Ryan. 2005. The Florida Current. CIMAS (Cooperative
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies).
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/florida.html

Hare, J.A. and P.E. Whitfield. 2003. An integrated assessment of the introduction of lionfish
NCCOS 2. 21 pp. http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/documents/lionfish ia.pdf

Hill, K. 2005. Panulirus argus, Spiny Lobster. Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce.
http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLSpec/Panuli argus.htm.

Holdgate, M.W. 1986. Summary and Conclusions: Characteristics and Consequences of
Biological Invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
B314:733-742.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2007. Global Ballast Water Management
Programme, http://globallast.imo.org/.

122


-------
Jaap, W. C. 1984. The Ecology of the South Florida Coral Reefs: A community Profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS - 82/08. 138 pp.

Knox, G.A. 2001. The Ecology of Seashores. CRC Marine Science Series, CRC Press, LLC, Boca
Raton, FL. 557 p.

Lee, T.N. 1975. Florida Current Spin-off Eddies. Deep-Sea Res. 22:753-765.

Leiby, M. 1984. Life History and Ecology of Pelagic Fish Eggs and Larvae cited in Marine Plankton
Life Cycle Strategies. K. Steidinger and L. Walker (eds.). CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

Lighty, R.G., I.G. Macintyre, and R. Stuckenrath. 1978. Submerged Early Holocene Barrier Reef
South-east Florida Shelf. Nature (London) 276 (5683):59-60.

Lindholm, J., P. Auster, L. Kaufman and R. Matthias. 1998. Post-Settlement Survivorship of

Juvenile Atlantic Cod and the Design of Marine Protected Areas cited in Effects of Fishing
Gear on the Seafloor of New England. E. Dorsey and J. Pederson (eds.). Conservation
Law Foundation, Boston, MA.

Martinez-Pedraja, J, Shay, L., Cook, T., Haus, B. 2004. Technical Report: Very-High Frequency

Surface Current Measurement Along the Inshore Boundary of the Florida Current During
NRL 2001. Division of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography; Applied Marine Physics
Division, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami,
Miami, FL.

Messing, C.G., Moyer, R., Gilliam, D.S., B.K. Walker, and R.E. Dodge. 2003. Deep-water
Biological Habitat Survey Report for the Tractebel Calypso Natural Gas Pipeline
Extension of Existing Survey to 200 m Depth. National Coral Reef Institute, Nova
Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, FL. June 2003.

Messing, C.G. B.K. Walker, R.E. Dodge, J. Reed, S.D. Brooke. 2006. Calypso LNG Deepwater Port
Project, Florida. Marine Benthic Video Survey. National Coral Reef Institute, Nova
Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, FL. Submitted to Ecology
and Environment, Inc. and SUEZ Energy, North America, Inc.

Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea Turtle Nesting Activity in the State of Florida
1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications, No. 52. State of Florida, Department
of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute. 51 p.

Meylan, A. and P. Meylan. 1999. Introduction to the Evolution, Life History, and Biology of Sea
Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida.

123


-------
NOAA Fisheries. 2007a. Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (Stenella frontalis): Western North Atlantic
Stock, Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) by Species/Stock, October
2007, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pclfs/sars/ao2007cloas-wn.pclf

NOAA Fisheries. 2007b. Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata): Western North
Atlantic Stock Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) by Species/Stock,
October 2007, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2007dops-wn.pdf

NOAA Fisheries. 2007c. Golden Crab Species Description and Distribution. Online at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/profile/southatlantic/goldencrab
life history.htm.

NOAA Fisheries. 2007d. Royal Red Shrimp Life History: Royal Red Shrimp Life History. Online at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/profile/southatlantic/royalredshr
imp life history.htm.

NOAA Fisheries. 2008. 50 CFR 223-226. Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat
for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals; Final Rule. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, November 2008.

NOAA Fisheries. 2010. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus)\\Nestem North

Atlantic Central Florida Coastal Stock, Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs)
by Species/Stock, November 2010

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ao2010dobn-wnacfc.pdf

NOAA Fisheries. 2011. Response to Request for Scoping on Port Everglades Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site Expansion to the EPA, Region 4 and CESAJ-Jacksonville District.
Miles Croom, NOAA Fisheries, Habitat Conservation Division, May 16, 2011.

NOAA Fisheries 2012. NOAA National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response

Database and the NOAA SER Marine Mammal Stranding Database. Accessed November
12, 2012.

NOAA Fisheries 2015. Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 Distinct

Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 80 FR 22303.
April 21, 2015.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Email from L. Garrison (NOAA
Protected Resources Division) to P. Valentine-Darby (Ecology & Environment)
concerning common marine mammals in the Project area. December 18.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-NOAA Fisheries. 2010. Smalltooth
Sawfish (Pristis pectinata Latham) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, St.

124


-------
Petersburg, Florida, October 2010

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/smalltoothsawfish 5yearreview.pdf

National Marine Protected Areas Center (NMPAC). 2006. Marine Protected Areas of the United
States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, http://www.mpa.gov/all about mpa/basics.html.

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). 2012. Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock
Division's South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility (SFOMF) (SFOMF)
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/carderock/pub/who/sites/south fl.aspx

Newfields. 2013. Analysis of Sediment Profile and Plan View Images at the Proposed Expanded
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protections Agency Region 4. July 31, 2013.

Norcross, B. and R. Shaw. 1984. Oceanic and Estuarine Transport of Fish Eggs and Larvae: A
Review. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:153-165.

Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center (NSUOC). 2008. Broward County Port
Everglades Sand Bypass Project: Benthic Habitat Mapping and Assessment. Prepared
for Olsen Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, FL. Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic
Center, Dania, FL. 54 p.

Ocean Biogeographic Information System - Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate
Populations (OBIS SEAMAP). 2007. Species Profile on Ste net la frontalis.
http://seamap.env.duke.edu/species/552460

Oceana. 2007. North America - Why are Cruise Ships a Problem.

http://www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-cruise-ship-pollution/faq.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (PCI) 2012. Submerged Cultural Resources Remote Sensing
Survey of the Port Everglades Channel and Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site,
Broward County, Florida. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. Memphis, TN.

Pequegnat, W.E., Pequegnat, L.H., James, B.M., Kennedy, E.A., Fay, R.R., and Fredericks, A.A.,
1981. Procedural Guide for Designation Surveys of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites. Final Report by TerEco Corporation. Technical Report EL-81-1, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Port Everglades. 2011. Port Everglades Braces for another Record Cruise Season. Port
Everglades Press Release 11/2011

http://port.sun ny.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&articlelD=1050&menulD=998

125


-------
Port Everglades. 2012. Port Everglades Waterborne Commerce Chart FY 2011-2002 (Unaudited,
Revised 3/27/2012) http://www.porteverglades.net/includes/media/docs/Copy-of-
Waterborne-Commerce-Chart--2011-Final.pdf

Port of Oakland and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998. Final Environmental Impact

Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Final Feasibility Study for the Proposed
Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, Alameda County, California. USACE,
San Francisco District. May 1998.

Proni, J.R., C. McArthur, G. Schuster (1998) Adaptive Dredged Material Disposal for the Port of
Miami. Proceedings of the Ports '98 Conference, ASCE, Long Beach, CA. March, 1998.

Reed, J. 2001. Comparison of Deep-Water Coral Reefs and Lithoherms off the Southeastern

USA. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals. Halifax, Nova
Scotia, 2001.

Reed, R., D. Weaver, and S. Pomponi. 2006. Habitat and Fauna of Deep-Water Lophelia Pertusa
Coral Reefs off the Southeastern U.S.: Blake Plateau, Straits of Florida, and Gulf of
Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 78(2):343-375.

Reed, J.K. and S. Farrington. 2010. Distribution of deep-water commercial fisheries species-
golden crab, tilefish, royal red shrimp- in deep-water habitats off eastern Florida from
submersible and ROV dives. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service. 163 pp.

Saucier, R.T., Calhoun, C.C., Jr. Engler, R.M., Patin, T.R., and Smith, H.K., 1978. "Executive
Overview and Detailed Summary, Dredged Material Research Program." Technical
Report DS-78-22,Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg.

Semmens, B.X., E.R. Buhle, A.K. Salomon, and CM. Pattengill-Semmens. 2004. A hotspot of
non- native marine fishes: evidence for the aquarium trade as an invasion pathway.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 266: 239-244.

Shay, N., T.N. Lee, E.J. Williams, H.C. Graber and C. Rooth. 1998. Effects of low-frequency
current variability on near- inertial sub-mesoscale vorticies. J. Geophys. Res. 103:
18691-18714.

Shefter, A., Grose, B. 1996. A Real Time Talking Port Entrance Current Monitoring System,

OCEANS 96 MTS/IEEE Conference Proceedings, Broward County Convention Center, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.

Smith, N.P. 1983. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Summer Upwelling along Florida's
Atlantic Shelf. Journal of Physical Oceanography. 13:709-1,715.

126


-------
Soloviev, A.V, M.E. Luther, and R.H. Weisberg, 2001. Energetic Super-tidal Oscillations with 10
hr Period on the Shelf of Southeast Florida: Are They a Near-resonant Baroclinic Seiche?
Western Boundary Current Virtual Poster Session. Nova. Southeastern University
Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, Florida; and Department of Marine Science,
University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Soloviev, A., J. Wood. 2011. Power Point Presentation. Southward Flow under the Florida

Current and Coastal Countercurrent in the Straits of Florida. IAPSO Session PO-6. 29
June 2011. Melbourne, Australia.

Soto, L.A., 1985. Distributional patterns of deep-water brachyuran crabs in the Straits of Florida.
Journal of Crustacean Biology 5, 480-499.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South
Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan,
the Red Drum Fishery Management Plan, the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management
Plan, the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan, the Golden Crab Fishery
Management Plan, the Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan, the Coral, Coral Reefs,
And Live/Hard Bottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan, the Sargassum Habitat Fishery
Management Plan, and the Calico Scallop Fishery Management Plan. South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council Charleston, South Carolina.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2002. Fishery Management Plan for
Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region. Charleston, SC.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and NOAA Fisheries. 2009.

Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1 for the South Atlantic Region:
Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery Of The South
Atlantic Region, Amendment 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal
Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, Amendment 6 to the
Fishery Management Plan For Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hardbottom Habitats of the
South Atlantic Region, Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Golden
Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic Region, Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management
Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, Amendment 1 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic, Amendment
19 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, North Charleston, South
Carolina, and National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 286 p.

Spotila, J. 2004. Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide to Their Biology, Behavior, and Conservation.
John Hopkins University Press, MD.

127


-------
Stevenson, D., L. Chiarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm, J. McCarthy, and M. Pentony. 2004.
Characterization of the Fishing Practices and Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the
Northeast U.S. Shelf, and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on Essential
Fish Habitat. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service. NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-NE-181.

Stommel, H. 1965. The Gulf Stream. Univ. California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, p 33.

SUEZ Energy North America, Inc. (SUEZ). 2006. Deepwater Port License Application Calypso LNG
Project, Florida, Volume II - Environmental Evaluation. Calypso LNG, LLC.

Taylor Engineering, Inc. 2010. Evaluation of Dredged Material Behavior at the Port Everglades
Harbor Federal Project Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site; for Anamar
Environmental, Inc., prepared for USACE, Jacksonville District

Tyrrell, M. 2005. Gulf of Maine Marine Habitat Primer. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine
Environment, http://www.gulfofmaine.org/habitatprimer.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) (1998) Dispersion
Characteristics for Palm Beach and Port Everglades ODMDSs Unpublished Misc. Paper.
1998.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Port Everglades/Palm Beach Dredged Material

Fate Studies. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC)
2001.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact for Maintenance Dredging of Port Eveglades, Broward County
Florida. February 2005. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Jacksonville,
Florida

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. March 30. Letter from Alfred A. Patano, Jr.

District Commander to Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, EPA Region 4 Administrator
requesting expansion of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Analysis of scow transit times and delays at Miami
Harbor. Submitted to EPA via E-mail.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2015). Port Everglades Harbor, Florida Feasibility Report
with Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District. Jacksonville, Florida.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Neptune LNG

Deepwater Port License Application. (Docket No. USCG-2005-226113). U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

128


-------
U. S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2007. Ballast Water Management Program. Office of Operating and
Environmental Standards, http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/bwm.htm.

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Calypso LNG

Deepwater Port License Application. DOT Docket Number: USCG-2006-26009. U.S.
Coast Guard, November 2007, Volume I.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Sediment and Water Quality of Candidate
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites for Port Everglades and Palm Beach, Florida. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Wetlands, Coastal, and Oceans Branch.
Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
and the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Wetlands, Coastal, and Oceans Branch,
Atlanta, GA. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Jacksonville District,
Jacksonville, FL

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1991.
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual "Green
Book, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Wetlands, Coastal, and Oceans
Branch, Atlanta, GA., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004.
Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site - Site Management and
Monitoring Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Wetlands, Coastal,
and Oceans Branch, Atlanta, GA., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008.

Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM) - Requirements and Procedures for
Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material in the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic
and Gulf Coast Waters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Wetlands,
Coastal, and Ocean Branch, Atlanta, GA., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009.

Revisions to the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS)
Site Management and Monitoring Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4,
Wetlands, Coastal, and Oceans Branch, Atlanta, GA., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Palm Beach/Port Everglades FL, Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) Status and Trends Assessment Report.

129


-------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Report,
Species by County, Broward County, Florida.

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/countvSearch!speciesBvCountyReport.action?fips=1201
1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2015. Kemp's Ridley sea turtle fact sheet. Updated April
2015. Accessed from

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/kemps-ridley-sea-
turtle.htm

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. NAS - Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, Query by
County/State, Broward County, FL http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/stco.aspx

US Navy (USN).2010. Email from Nancy Allen, NAVFAC-SE to April Patterson re-stating Navy's
desire for EPA to avoid Navy area south of existing ODMDS.

Vaughan, T. 1914. The Building of the Marquesas and Tortugas Atolls and a Sketch of the

Geological History of the Florida Reef Tract. Papers from the Tortugas Laboratory of the
Carnegie Institution of Washington 6:55-67.

Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, C.P. Fairfield, and K. Maze-Foley (eds.). 2006. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2005, U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NE-194.

Waring GT, Josephson E, Maze-Foley K, Rosel, PE, editors. 2011. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2010. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 219. 598 p.
Appendix V. 2008. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Western North Atlantic
Offshore Stock.

Wells, J. 1956. Scleractinia. Cited in Moore, R. (ed.). 1956. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology
Part F, Coelenterata. Geological Society of America. University of Kansas Press.

Windom, H.L., 1976. Environmental aspects of dredging in the coastal zone." CRC Critical
Reviews in Environmental Control. VOL 6, No. 2. CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio.

130


-------
This page intentionally left blank

131


-------
APPENDIX A.

DRAFT SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

i


-------
DRAFT PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION	1

1.1 SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN TEAM	1

2.0 SITE MANAGEMENT	2

2.1	DISPOSAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS	2

2.2	MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES	4

2.3	DISPOSAL HISTORY AND DREDGED MATERIAL VOLUMES	5

2.4	DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS	6

2.4.1 PREVIOUSLY DISPOSED MATERIALS	6

2.4.2. ANTICIPATED MATERIALS	6

2.4.3	ASSOCIATED BEACH QUALITY MATERIALS	6

2.4.4	DREDGE MATERIAL QUALITY VERIFICATION	7

2.5	TIME OF DISPOSAL	7

2.6	DISPOSAL TECHNIQUE	8

2.7	DISPOSAL LOCATION	8

2.8	PERMIT AND CONTRACT CONDITIONS	12

2.9	PERMIT PROCESS	12

2.10	INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES	12

3.0 SITE MONITORING	12

ii


-------
3.1	BASELINE MONITORING	13

3.2	DISPOSAL MONITORING	19

3.3	POST DISPOSAL MONITORING	19

3.4	MATERIAL TRACKING AND DISPOSAL EFFECTS MONITORING	20

3.4.1	SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF PAST MONITORING SURVEYS	21

3.4.2	FUTURE MONITORING SURVEYS	22

3.5	REPORTING AND DATA FORMATTING	28

3.5.1	PROJECT INITIATION AND VIOLATION REPORTING	28

3.5.2	DISPOSAL MONITORING DATA	28

3.5.3	POST DISPOSAL SUMMARY REPORTS	28

3.5.4	ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING	28

Monitoring results will be summarized in subsequent ie\ isions to the SMMP	29

4.0 MODIFICATION OF THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR ODMDS SMMP	29

5.0 REFERENCES	2

porti:\ i KCii.\di:s ii \ki:okoi)\ii)s	5

APPIADIX I)	

TYPICAL CONTR ACT LAMil AGli	

Port Everglades I larbor ODMDS	21

See: http://dqm.usace.army.mil/Specifications/Index.aspx	27

For scows, the monitoring profile, TDS profile or Ullage profile shall be used	27

iii


-------
Figures

Figure 1. Expanded Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS Location Map.®	4

Figure 2. Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS Disposal Release Zones and Depth®	11

Til M es

Table 1. Port Everglades ODMDS Corner Coord mates'H'J]	2

Table 2. Dredged Material Disposal Projects placed into the ODMDS (2005-2013 )®	6

Table 3. Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS Disposal Maintenance Release Zones®	8

Table 4. New Work Release Zones®	10

Table 6. Surveys and Studies Conducted at the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS®	14

Table 7. Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS Monitoring Strategies and Thresholds for Action® .. 23

iv


-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION

It is the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (US ACE) under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) of 1972 to manage and monitor each of the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites
(ODMDSs) designated by the EPA pursuant to Section 102 of MPRSA. Section 102(c)(3) of the
MPRSA requires development of a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for each
ODMDS and review and revision of the SMMP not less frequently than every 10 years. The
1996 document, Guidance Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites (EPA/US ACE, 1996) and the EPA Region 4 and US ACE
South Atlantic Division Memorandum of Understanding (EPA/USACE, 2017) have been used as
guidance in developing this SMMP.

A SMMP was originally developed as part of the designation process and was published in
November 2004 as part of, Final EIS for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site and the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site,
(EPA, 2004), with SMMP revisions in May 2009. The current revision to the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS SMMP incorporates the expanded boundaries of the ODMDS. The SMMP
provisions shall be requirements for all dredged material disposal activities at the site. All
MPRSA Section 103 ocean disposal permits or contract specifications shall be conditioned as
necessary to assure consistency with the SMMP.

1.1 SITE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN TEAM

An interagency SMMP team was established to assist the EPA and USACE in developing the
2004 Port Everglades ODMDS SMMP. The team consisted of the following agencies and their
respective representatives:

•	Jacksonville District USACE

•	EPA Region 4

•	Port of Port Everglades

•	State of Florida (Coastal Zone Management Office)

•	National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

•	U.S. Coast Guard, Station Fort Lauderdale

These agencies will continue to be consulted in revisions to the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS
SMMP and will be asked to participate where appropriate. The team will assist the EPA and
USACE on deciding on appropriate disposal practices, appropriate monitoring techniques, the
level of monitoring, the significance of results and potential management options.

U.S. EPA Region 4 / USACE Jacksonville District

1


-------
Specific responsibilities of the EPA and the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers respectively
are as follows:

The EPA is responsible for designating/de-designating, management of MPRSA Section
102 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites, for evaluating environmental effects of
disposal of dredged material at these sites, and for reviewing and concurring, concurring
with conditions, or not concurring on dredged material suitability determinations.

The USACE is responsible for evaluating dredged material suitability, issuing MPRSA
Section 103 permits, regulating site use and developing and implementing disposal
monitoring programs.

2.0	SITE MANAGEMENT

Section 228.3 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229) states: "Management of a
site consists of regulating times, rates, and methods of disposal and quantities and types of
materials disposed of; developing and maintaining effective ambient monitoring programs for
the site; conducting disposal site evaluation studies; and recommending modifications in site use
and/or designation." This plan may be modified if it is determined that such changers are
warranted as a result of information obtained during the monitoring process.

2.1	DISPOSAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The regulatory designation language for the expanded Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS can be
found in 40 CFR Section 228.15(h)(22). The western edge of the expanded Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS (figure 1) is located 3.3 nautical miles (nmi) offshore and is 2.25 nmi by 1.43
nmi in size (3.21 nmi2). As of 2013, it had a depth range of-179 to -232 meters (-587 to -761
feet), with an average depth of 207 meters (-678 feet). The site is centered at approximately
26°07.625'N latitude and 80°01.789'W longitude (NAD 83) or state plane coordinates 653067 ft
N and 974489 ft E (NAD83). The site coordinates are as follows:

Table 18. Port Everglades ODMDS Corner Coordinates

Vertices

( iciHJI'iipllIC

Y\l.) S3

Suilc Plane
(rioruki Lcisl tw(i| I S I'D NAD S3



1 .alUndo (North)

l.ongiliklc (\Vcsl_)

1 iasl i iiij

Northing

2


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

NE

26°08.750'N

80°01.000'W

978,753 E

659,915 N

NW

26°08.750'N

80°02.578'W

970,124 E

659,851 N

SW

26°06.500'N

80°02.578'W

970,225 E

646,220 N

SE

26°06.500'N

80°01.000'W

978,856 E

646,283 N

Physical and biological conditions at the existing and expanded ODMDS are described in, Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site and the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site,
(EPA 2004) and the Environmental Assessment on Expansion of the Port Everglades Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS) Broward County, Florida (EPA 2019).

3


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Fort

Lauderdale

Port

Everglade

Expanded Port Everglades
arbor ODMDS

Figure 28. Expanded Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS Location Map.

2.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Appropriate management of an ODMDS is aimed at assuring that disposal activities will not
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, the marine environment or economic
potentialities (MPRSA §103 (a)). The primary objectives in the management of the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS are:

4


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

•	Protection of the marine environment;

•	Documentation of disposal activities and compliance; and

•	Maintenance of a long-term disposal alternative for dredged material generated in the
Port Everglades, Florida vicinity

The following sections provide the framework for meeting these objectives to the extent
possible.

2.3 DISPOSAL HISTORY AND DREDGED MATERIAL VOLUMES

The expanded Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS is intended to be used for the disposal of
dredged material from both maintenance and new work projects from the greater Broward
County, Florida vicinity. The primary user of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS is the
USACE for the Port Everglades Federal Navigation Project, including material from the
Entrance Channel, Main, North, and South Turning Basins, South Access Channel and the
Turning Notch. A secondary user is the Port Everglades Port Authority, including material from
the South Turning Basin beyond Civil Works authorized depths, Port Slips, and Port Berthing
Areas. Broward County has also proposed using the ODMDS for disposal material from the Port
Everglades Sand Bypass Project (permit application number SAJ-2008-2034). The U.S. Navy
and U.S. Coast Guard also have facilities in the area that may require use of the ODMDS
although no need has currently been identified.

Historically, an ocean site approved for ocean dumping on an interim basis (interim MPRSA
disposal site) located approximately 1.6 nautical miles from shore was used for ocean disposal of
dredged material from Port Everglades Harbor. Use of this site was discontinued in the 1980s.
This former site has been documented to contain various amounts of man-made debris including
concrete pilings, steel and concrete frameworks, and tires (Messing, 2003).

Due to the lack of an ODMDS in the vicinity of Port Everglades after the interim site was
discontinued, the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS was designated in 2005 approximately 4.3
nmi offshore. The ODMDS, 1 nmi2 in size, was designated to accommodate dredged material
from periodic maintenance events from the Port Everglades Harbor. The Jacksonville District
Corps of Engineers estimated an annual average disposal rate of approximately 30,000 cubic
yards of material. In 2005, 46,686 cubic yards of dredged material from Port Everglades Harbor
was disposed in this site. In 2013, 413,932 {in situ) cubic yards of dredged material was
disposed at the site (USACE, 2013). Potential navigation improvements may generate up to 6.63
million cubic yards of material requiring disposal at the ODMDS. MDFATE and STFATE
modeling show the expanded 3.21 nmi2 site is sufficient to contain all of the estimated material
from this construction project and continuing maintenance events. Maintenance volumes from
the Port Everglades Federal Navigation Project are not expected to significantly increase and are
expected to average approximately 300,000 cy over a ten-year period. No other maintenance
events have taken place except those listed below since 2005.

5


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Tabic 10 Divdui'd ATaleiial Disposal Projects placed into the ODMDS (2005-2013)

Year

Volume (e> )

in situ

Dredue \rea

1) red no
Melliod

1 )ispiisal
l.oealion

Sponsor

2005

46,686

NTB

Hopper

ODMDS

Civil Works

2013

353,243

MTB, NTB, SAC, TN (federal)

Clam Shell

ODMDS

Civil Works

2013

60,689

STB, Berth 19, 30 (port)

Clan Shell

ODMDS

Port Everglades

1MTB (Main Turning Basin); NTB (North Turning Basin); STB (South Turning Basin); SAC (South Access Channel); TN
(Turning Notch).

2.4 DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
2.4.1 Previously Disposed Materials

Materials disposed in the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS have historically consisted of sand,
silt, clay, and a small amount of gravel from Port Everglades Harbor and entrance channel.
Material from the Harbor that was found to be suitable for beach nourishment was placed on
nearby beaches in accordance with State of Florida standards and not evaluated under MPRSA as
disposal material.

2.4.2. Anticipated Materials

Two basic sources of material are expected to be disposed at the site; new work dredged material
and maintenance material from Port Everglades harbor and entrance channel. These materials
will consist of mixtures of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder sized components in varying
percentages. Maintenance material is expected to be silty sands with some small rock and shell.
New work material is expected to be more variable. The geotechnical boring analysis conducted
as part of the disposal modeling conducted by Taylor Engineering (Taylor, 2010) for the Port
Everglades Deepening Project estimates approximately 34% of the 6.63 million cubic yards of
material to be dredged is either hard rock (requiring blasting for pre-treatment), medium rock or
soft rock (can be excavated without pre-treatment). Depending on dredging method the size of
the rock disposed could be as large as 30 inches in diameter for cutterhead dredges (Herbich,
1002) and 3 to 10 feet in diameter for mechanical dredges (USACE, 2003). The remaining
material is expected to be sand (56%) and silt (12%).

2.4.3 Associated Beach Quality Materials

USACE Beneficial Use of Dredged Material EM 1110-2-5026 requires that the beneficial use of
dredged material be maximized within the coastal system. Dredged materials that qualify for
beach or near-shore placement per the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
(FDEP)' Sand Rule' shall be beneficially placed in such location under CWA Section 404

6


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

authorities, to the maximum extent practicable. It is expected that the State of Florida will
exercise its authority and responsibility, regarding beach nourishment, to the full extent during
any future permitting activities. Beneficial use of beach compatible dredged material for beach
nourishment is strongly encouraged and supported by the EPA.

2.4.4 Dredge Material Quality Verification

The suitability of dredged material for ocean disposal must be verified by the USACE and
agreed to via written concurrence from the EPA prior to disposal. Verification will be valid for
three years from the most current verification.

Verification process:

1)	Case-specific evaluation against the exclusion criteria (40 CFR 227.13(b))

2)	Determination of testing requirements for non-excluded material based on the potential of
sediment contamination since last verification.

3)	When applicable, execute testing and determination of suitability of non-excluded
material for ocean disposal.

Verification documentation for suitability will be completed prior to use of the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS. Documentation will be in the form of a MPRSA Section 103 Evaluation.
Potential testing and the Evaluation will follow the procedures outlined in the 1991 EPA/US ACE
Dredged Material Testing Manual and 2008 Southeast Regional Implementation Manual
(SERIM) or the appropriate updated versions. This includes how dredging projects will be
subdivided into project segments for sampling and analysis. The MPRSA Section 103 Evaluation
will be in the form outlined in Appendix C of the SERIM. Water Quality Compliance
determinations will be made using the STFATE (ADDAMS) model and the input parameters
provided in Appendix A of this document. Only material determined to be suitable through the
verification process by the USACE and the EPA will be placed at the Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS.

2.5 TIME OF DISPOSAL

At present no restrictions have been determined to be necessary for disposal related to seasonal
variations in ocean current or biotic activity. As monitoring results are compiled, should any
such restrictions appear necessary, disposal activities will be scheduled so as to avoid adverse
impacts. Additionally, if new information indicates that endangered or threatened species are
being adversely impacted, restrictions may be incurred.

Transportation of dredged material shall only be allowed when weather and sea state conditions,
and scow loading level, will not interfere with safe transportation and will not create risk of
spillage, leak or other loss of dredged material during transit. No disposal trips shall be initiated
when the National Weather Service has issued a gale warning for local waters during the time

7


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

period necessary to complete dumping operations. Transportation for the purposes of ocean
dumping begins when the vessel is full and begins transiting to the ODMDS.

2.6	DISPOSAL TECHNIQUE

Disposal shall be initiated within the specified disposal release zone and shall be completed
(doors closed) prior to departing the ODMDS. While in route to the ODMDS, the disposal vessel
must remain within the navigation channel while west of the buoy G"3". No dredged material
shall not be leaked or spilled from vessels while west of the G"3" buoy. Leakage or spillage of
material east of the sea buoy is limited to 1.5' of draft loss (average between forward and aft
sensors) during transit to the ODMDS. Transit to the ODMDS begins as soon as dredged
material loading into the disposal vessel is completed and the vessel begins moving to the
ODMDS. All appropriate measures to avoid spillage during transit must be taken. Appropriate
measures may include but are not limited to: up-to-date U.S. Coast Guard and/or American
Bureau of Shipping certification of all disposal-related vessels; maintenance (inspection and/or
replacement) of gaskets on barge doors, pre-transit testing of barge door hydraulics, and pre-
transport verification of appropriate weather and sea state conditions. Additionally, for large
projects (greater than 500,000 cubic yards), disposal scow operators will be required to utilize a
Scow Certification Checklist (Appendix B). Standard surveillance and evasive measures to
protect sea turtles and marine mammals shall also be employed during all disposal operations at
the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS.

2.7	DISPOSAL LOCATION

40 CFR §227.28 requires that disposal occur no less than 330 feet (100 meters) inside the
designated site boundaries. Release zones have been established to satisfy this criterion as well
as manage dredged material disposal and contain impacts to within the ODMDS boundaries.
Two release zones have been developed based on computer modeling and field monitoring. One
is for new work projects that contain significant rock, which is subdivided into Zones 1-5, and
the other for maintenance projects. The release zones will be specified as part of the dredged
material quality verification process and included in the EPA's MPRSA Section 103 concurrence
letter. The release zones are described below in Tables 3 and 4 and shown in Figure 2.

Utilization of the ODMDS for projects greater than 50,000 cy requires a plan for disposal
distribution to be approved by USACE Jacksonville and US EPA Region 4 prior to
commencement.

New Work material is to be disposed of in the New Work Zones 1-5 (table 4 and figure 2.)
Specifically, any load containing a majority of rock larger than 12" diameter should be placed
into zones 4 and 5.

Table 20. Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS Disposal Maintenance Material Release Zone

State Plane (FloridaEast 0901 U.S. Ft)
NAD 83

8


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP



Latitude (North)

Longitude (West)

Easting

Northing

NW

26° 06.9280'N

80°01.8150'W

974,362

648,843

NE

26° 06.9280'N

80° 01.2720'W

977,348

648,866

SW

26° 06.7660'N

80°01.8150'W

974,386

647,862

SE

26° 06.7660'N

80° 01.2720'W

977,356

647,884

9


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 21. New Work Release Zones 1-5

Vertices

Geographic NAD 83

State Plane (Florida East 0901 U.S. Ft)
NAD 83



Latitude (North)

Longitude (West)

Easting

Northing

ZONE 1NE

26° 07.8942'N

80° 02.0004'W

654689.246

937321.117

Zone 1 NW

26° 07.8942'N

80° 01.8342'W

654696.010

974229.988

Zone 1 SE

26° 07.9000'N

80° 02.0004'W

653929.544

973326.762

Zone 1 SW

26° 07.7688'N

80° 01.8342'W

653936.307

974235.650

Zone 2 NE

26° 07.9000'N

80° 02.0004'W

653929.544

973326.762

Zone 2 NW

26° 07.7688'N

80° 01.8342'W

653936.307

974235.650

Zone 2 SE

26° 07.6434'N

80° 02.0004'W

653169.841

973332.407

Zone 2 SW

26° 07.6434'N

80° 01.8342'W

653176.605

974241.311

Zone 3 NE

26° 07.6434'N

80° 02.0004'W

653169.841

973332.407

Zone 3 NW

26° 07.6434'N

80° 01.8342'W

653176.605

974241.311

Zone 3 SE

26° 07.518'N

80° 02.0004'W

652410.139

973338.052

Zone 3 SW

26° 07.518'N

80° 01.8342'W

652416.902

974246.972

Zone 4 NE

26° 07.518'N

80° 02.0004'W

652410.139

973338.052

Zone 4 NW

26° 07.518'N

80° 01.8342'W

652416.902

974246.972

Zone 4 SE

26° 07.3926'N

80° 02.0004'W

651650.438

973343.696

Zone 4 SW

26° 07.3926'N

80° 01.8342'W

651657.200

974252.632

Zone 5 NE

26° 07.3926'N

80° 02.0004'W

651650.438

973343.696

Zone 5 NW

26° 07.3926'N

80° 01.8342'W

651657.200

974252.632

Zone 5 SE

26° 07.2672'N

80° 02.0004'W

650890.736

973349.340

Zone 5 SW

26° 07.2672'N

80° 01.8342'W

650897.498

974258.292

10


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

§

ALT_1_NfW r-

EXPANDED ODMDS

ALT_1_SW

ZONE 1 ME

ZONW1 SW
ZOMW 2 NW

ZOHW2SW
20NW 3 NW

ZONWJ.fW
ZONW.4.NW

ZONW 4 SW
ZONW S NW

J ZOMC_1_#4E
ZONE2KE

i !

- ZONE 2 3E
1	1 ZONEJNI

,1 i
i I

ORIGINAL ODMDS

ZONE4IE
"• ZONC.»_Ni

ZONE.S.3E

iwkmck wrtmw zo*tm

A1.T 1 NE

AJLT_1 _5E

Figure 29. Depth contours and release zones within Port Everglades ODMDS

ll


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

2.8	PERMIT AND CONTRACT CONDITIONS

The disposal monitoring and post-disposal monitoring requirements described under Site
Monitoring will be included as permit conditions on all MPRSA Section 103 permits and will be
incorporated in the contract language for all federal projects. A summary of the management and
monitoring requirements to be included are listed in Table 3. Template language that can be used
is included in appendices (see Appendix C and D).

2.9	PERMIT PROCESS

All disposal of dredged material in the ocean, with the exception of Federal Civil Works
projects, requires an ocean dumping permit issued by the USACE pursuant to Section 103 of the
MPRSA. Permitting procedures are outlined in 33 CFR Parts 320, 324 and 325. Additional
guidance is available in the SERIM.

2.10	INFORMATION MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL

PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES

As discussed in the following sections, a substantial amount of diverse data regarding use of the
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS and effects of disposal is required from many sources. If this
information is readily available and in a useable format it can be used to answer many questions
typically asked about a disposal site such as:

o	What is being dredged?

o	How much is being dredged?

o	Where did the dredged material come from?

o	Where was the dredged material placed?

o	Was dredged material dredged and disposed correctly?

o	What will happen to the environment at the disposal site?

To streamline data sharing, EPA Region 4 and USACE South Atlantic Division have agreed on
an extensible Markup Language (XML) standard for sharing of disposal monitoring data (see
also Section 3.5). Additional standards will continue to be investigated for sharing of other
disposal site related information (e.g. environmental monitoring data, testing data, etc.).

3.0 SITE MONITORING

The MPRSA establishes the need for including a monitoring program as part of the Site
Management Plan. Site monitoring is conducted to ensure the environmental integrity of a
disposal site and the areas surrounding the site and to verify compliance with the site designation
criteria, any special management conditions, and with permit requirements. Monitoring programs
should be flexible, cost effective, and based on scientifically sound procedures and methods to
meet site-specific monitoring needs. The intent of the program is to provide the following:

12


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

(1)	Information indicating whether the disposal activities are occurring in compliance
with the permit and site restrictions;

(2)	Information indicating the short-term and long-term fate of materials disposed of in
the marine environment; and

(3)	Information concerning the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of the
disposal.

The main purpose of a disposal site monitoring program is to determine whether dredged
material site management practices, including disposal operations, at the site need to be changed
to avoid significant adverse impacts. A monitoring program, under MPRSA, also establishes an
empirical basis for site designation/de-designation, assesses trends in environmental condition
changes due to dredge disposal operations, determining if dumping shall be prohibited (MPRSA
103 ((c)(2)), and in support of future modifications to site management and monitoring plans as
required under MPRSA 102((c)(3)).

3.1 BASELINE MONITORING

Site characterization surveys of the ODMDS were conducted by EPA and the USACE as part of
the designation process. Results from these surveys can be used in part as baseline data for the
monitoring of impacts associated with use of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. The results of
investigations presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for designation of Palm
Beach Harbor (EPA 2004), Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS (EPA, in press), and subsequent surveys are listed in Table 4 will serve as the
main body of data for the monitoring of the impacts associated with the use of the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS. In addition, a baseline hard-bottom habitat study will be conducted
prior to use of the expanded portion of the ODMDS for disposal of new work material
(Appendix E).

13


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 22. Surveys and Stuc

ies Conducted at t

le Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

Survey/Study Title

Conducted
By:

Date

Purpose

Results

Benthic Macroinfaunal
Analysis of the Port
Everglades and Palm
Beach, Florida ODMDS
Surveys

Battelle for U.S.
EPA Region 4

1984

Characterization Survey
(sediment analysis, benthic biota)

Characterization of benthos for February & November
1984.

Field Studies in Nearshore
Areas at Port Everglades,
Palm Beach County, and
Brevard County, Florida

Continental
Shelf Associates
for U.S. EPA
Region 4

1986

Benthic characterization of one
square mile candidate site (4-mile
candidate site) through sidescan
and bathymetry.

No high relief ledges, rock outcrops or steep slopes
detected. Occasional rubble or cobbles and some low
relief rock outcrop.

Video, Still Camera, and
Side Scan Sonar Survey of
the Seafloor Within and
Downcurrent of a Tentative
Alternative ODMDS off
Port Everglades, Florida

Continental
Shelf Associates
for U.S. EPA
Region 4

1986

Look for presence of natural
resources (critical habitat) and
presence of manmade obstruction
on the bottom and down current
of site.

Data showed a predominately fine-to-course sediment
covered bottom with scattered rocks, areas of rock
rubble and sand ripples.

Sediment & Water Quality
of Candidate Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal
Sites for Port Everglades
and Palm Beach, Florida

U.S. EPA
Region 4

1999

CHARACTERIZATION
SURVEY (WATER COLUMN
PROFILES, WATER QUALITY,
SEDIMENT
CHARACTERISTICS,
BENTHIC BIOTA)

Conditions at the site are relatively pristine. Water
column is clear with low suspended sediment
concentrations (2-20mg/l). Sediments consists of
mostly fine sand (70%) and have low level of
contaminants.

Sidescan Survey of
Candidate Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites for

U.S. EPA
Region 4

1999

Look for presence of natural
resources (critical habitats) and
presence of manmade
obstructions on the bottom.

The side-scan sonar data indicated a fine sandy bottom
with scattered rubble zones throughout the site and
areas 2 miles to the north and 2 miles south of the site.
No areas of rock outcrops or potential wrecks were

14


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 22. Surveys and Stuc

ies Conducted at t

le Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

Survey/Study Title

Conducted
By:

Date

Purpose

Results

Port Everglades and Palm
Beach, Florida







identified through the side-scan record within the site
or north or south of the site.

Pre-Disposal Bathymetry

USACE

July 2005

Pre-disposal survey

Established baseline condition for post-disposal
bathymetry

Post-Disposal Bathymetry

USACE

December
2005

Post-disposal survey

No changes were observable from the pre-disposal
survey.

Rapid Seafloor
Reconnaissance and
Assessment of Southeast
Florida Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Sites
Utilizing Sediment Profile
Imaging - Post Disposal
SPI Mapping at the Port
Everglades ODMDS

Germano &
Associates for
U.S. EPA
Region 4

May 2006

Map the spatial distribution of
disposed dredged material on the
seafloor, characterize physical
changes in the seafloor resulting
from disposal, and evaluate the
extent of benthic infaunal
recolonization through the
mapping of infaunal successional
stages.

Dredged material formed an elliptical deposit on the
seafloor with the upper half of the elliptical deposit
occurring to the north of the disposal site. The main
physical change resulting from disposal appeared to be
a subtle shift in sediment texture. Overall, at the
majority of stations within the dredged material
footprint and in surrounding areas, it did not appear
that there had been any adverse changes in oxygen
demand, redox state, or other geochemical properties
as a result of disposal. Local benthic communities are
rapidly recolonizing the sandy dredged material that
had been deposited at the Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS and are at an intermediate stage of
recolonization. The release zone was moved in 2009 to
keep future disposal deposits within the ODMDS
boundaries.

15


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 22. Surveys and Stuc

ies Conducted at t

le Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

Survey/Study Title

Conducted
By:

Date

Purpose

Results

Site Expansion Preliminary
Characterization Study

EPA Region 4 /
Water & Air
Research /
ANAMAR

October
2007

Characterize the grain size,
chemistry, and biology of the
benthos and the physiochemical
properties of the water column
for future potential site
expansion.

Water column is well mixed over the upper 70 meters.
Photic zone extends to 55 meters. DO is low (<5mg/l)
below 140 meters. No chemicals were found above
federal water quality criteria. Sediments ranged from
sandy silt to silty sand. Organic tins, metals and PAHs
were detected at low levels in the sediments.

Site Designation Study for
the Port Everglades Harbor
Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site Expansion

ANAMAR
Environmental
Consulting for
USACE

May 2011

Characterization survey (water
column profiles, water quality,
sediment characteristics, benthic
biota)

Water column is well mixed over the upper 20 meters.
Photic zone extends to 65 meters. DO is low (<5mg/l)
below 100 meters. Total suspended solids ranged from
6 to 13 mg/1. Sediments were silt/clay & med/fine
sand. Sediments in the expansion area had lower levels
of metals, organic tins, PAHs, pesticides and PAHs
than the within the ODMDS.

Pre-Disposal Photographic
Mapping for the Port
Everglades Harbor Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal
Site Expansion

EPA Region 4
and Newfields

May 2011

Baseline SPI data for future SPI
surveys and to photograph areas
identified as having potential for
hard bottom habitats.

Sediments consisted of compact fine to very fine sand
throughout the site. Stage III organisms present
throughout the site in low densities. Exposed limestone
rocky outcrops present in some locations. Carbonate
rocks also present. The rocky outcrops provide habitat
for fish, crab, sea anemones, and other epibenthic
organisms. The area of rocky outcrops was estimated

16


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 22. Surveys and Stuc

ies Conducted at t

le Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

Survey/Study Title

Conducted
By:

Date

Purpose

Results









from point data using thiessen polygons at 28.6 acres,
and rocks at 39.7 acres.

Pre-Disposal Bathymetry

USACE

Feb 2012

Pre-disposal survey

The shallowest portion of the site is the northwest
corner (~180meters); the deepest the southeast corner
(~230meters)

Post-Disposal Bathymetry

USACE

May 2013

Post-disposal survey

No discernable change in bathymetry, (see figure 2)

Benthic Mapping Survey of
the Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS

EPA Region 4
and Battelle

September
2014

Map footprint of 2013
maintenance event and document
changes to the benthic habitat

The revised release zone was effective at containing
almost all of the dredged material disposal impact
within the ODMDS boundaries. Only one station (50
meters south of the ODMDS) had any measurable
amount of dredged material in excess of 5 cm.

The sea star Coronaster briareus, a species managed
by the SAFMC, was the only species to show a benthic
habitat preference being almost twice as abundance on
unconsolidated soft sediment dredged material relative
to native soft sediment and dredged material hard
carbonate bottoms. Given the estimated successional
stage, OSI, and high level of bioturbation, it appeared
that infaunal communities have successfully
recolonized the dredged material within 17 months of
completion of the 2013 disposal event.

17


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

18


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

3.2	DISPOSAL MONITORING

For all disposal activities, an electronic tracking system (ETS) must be utilized. The ETS will
provide surveillance of the transportation and disposal of dredged material. The ETS will be
maintained and operated to continuously track the horizontal location and draft condition
(accuracy± 0.1 foot) of the disposal vessel (i.e. hopper dredge or disposal scow) from the point
of dredging or loading to the disposal site and return to the point of dredging or loading. Data
shall be collected at least every 0.25 nautical mile or every 4 minutes during travel to and from
the ODMDS and twelve seconds or every 30 feet of travel, while the hull status is open within
the ODMDS. In addition to the continuous tracking data, the following trip information shall be
electronically recorded for each disposal cycle:

a.	Load Number;

b.	Disposal Vessel Name and Type (e.g. scow);

c.	Estimated volume of Load;

d.	Description of Material Disposed;

e.	Source of Dredged Material; and

f.	Date, Time and Location at Initiation and Completion of Disposal Event.

It is expected that disposal monitoring will be conducted utilizing the Dredge Quality
Management (DQM) system for Civil Works projects [see

http://dqm.usace.army.mil/Specifications/lndex.aspx1. although other systems are acceptable.
Disposal monitoring and ETS data will be reported to EPA Region 4 on a weekly basis (within
one week of disposal) utilizing the extensible Markup Language (XML) specification and
protocol per Section 3.5. More frequent reporting may be required on a project specific basis.
EPA Region 4 and the USACE lacksonville District shall be notified within 24 hours if disposal
occurs outside of the ODMDS or specified disposal zone or if any apparent leaking or spilling of
dredged material occurs as indicated by a loss of disposal vessel draft. The draft change
threshold for notification will be determined at the time of project authorization under Section
103 oftheMPRSA.

3.3	POST DISPOSAL MONITORING

The USACE or other site user will conduct a bathymetric survey within 30 days after disposal
project completion. Surveys will not be required for projects less than 50,000 cubic yards.
Bathymetric surveys will be used to monitor the disposal mound to assist in verification of
material placement, to monitor bathymetry changes and trends and to ensure that the site
capacity is not exceeded, i.e., the mound does not exceed the site boundaries. Surveys will
conform to the minimum performance standards for Corps of Engineers Hydrographic Surveys
as described in the USACE Engineering Manual, EMI 110-2-1003, Hydrographic Surveying

19


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

dated November 30, 2013

rhttp://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM 1110-2-
1003.pdf] or updates. The number and length of transects required will be sufficient to
encompass the release zone and a 500 foot-wide area around it. Single beam surveys will be
taken along lines spaced at 200-foot intervals or less. Multibeam surveys will provide 100%
coverage. The minimum performance standards from Table 3-1 in Hydrographic Surveying shall
be followed. Horizontal location of the survey lines and depth sounding points will be
determined by an automated positioning system utilizing a differential global positioning system.
The vertical datum will be referenced to prescribed NOAA Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)
datum. The horizontal datum should be referenced to the local State Plane Coordinate System
(SPCS) for that area or in Geographical Coordinates (latitude-longitude). The horizontal
reference datum should be the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

3.4 MATERIAL TRACKING AND DISPOSAL EFFECTS MONITORING

Surveys can be used to address possible changes in bathymetric, sedimentological, chemical, and
biological aspects of the ODMDS and surrounding area as a result of the disposal of dredged
material at the site. A summary of available technologies is provided in USACE (1990).
Techniques anticipated to be utilized at the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS include, but is not
limited to:

•	Multibeam Sonar: Mapping disposed dredged material; identifying hard bottom.

•	Sidescan Sonar: Mapping disposed dredged material; identifying hard bottom.

•	Sediment Profile Imaging: Mapping disposed dredged material; characterizing physical,
chemical and biological seafloor processes; evaluating benthic infaunal recolonization
through the mapping of infaunal successional stages.

•	Planview Image Acquisition and Analysis: enumeration of biological features (biogenic
mounds, burrows, tracks, feeding pits/furrows and epifauna); enumeration of physical
sedimentary features (rocks, hard bottom, sand ripples), and apparent presence/absence of
dredged material.

•	Benthic infauna sampling: document and quantify benthic infauna communities; identify
absence of any pollution sensitive organisms.

•	Benthic chemical sampling: document changes in sediment chemistry and identify any
contaminant concentrations that may pose a threat to the environment or human health.

•	Benthic grain size sampling: document changes in the grain size of the benthos that could
affect benthic populations.

•	Water quality sampling: document any changes in the chemical and physical properties of
the water column that may adversely affect the marine environment or human health;
collect data for risk assessment models for evaluating the effects of dredged material
disposal.

20


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

3.4.1 Summary of Results of Past Monitoring Surveys

Surveys conducted at the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS are listed in Table 4. Two disposal
events have occurred since site designation. After the first event, no measurable change in
bathymetry was detectable. A post disposal benthic assessment using Sediment Profile Imaging
(SPI) showed that dredged material disposal formed an elliptical deposit on the seafloor within
the northern portion and extending north of the original ODMDS. This resulted in a shift to a
slightly sandier substrate at the ODMDS. There was no indication of any adverse changes in
oxygen demand, redox state, or other geochemical properties as a result of disposal. Results
suggested that while benthic communities over the dredged material deposit were rapidly
approaching those on the ambient seafloor relatively soon after disposal, this process was still
ongoing at the time of the survey and not yet complete. Limited sampling conducted as part of
the site expansion survey in 2011 indicated that concentrations of metals, organic tins, PAHs,
PCBs and pesticides within the original ODMDS are above background levels. However, they
remain below levels found in the dredged material tested and accepted for ocean disposal and
therefore no adverse effects are expected.

As a result of the post-disposal SPI survey referenced above, the release zone was modified. The
2013 maintenance dredging project utilized the new release zone. In 2014, a SPI and trend
assessment study was conducted. The SPI results demonstrated that the revised release zone was
effective at containing almost all of the material within the ODMDS boundaries. Only one
station about 50 meters south of the ODMDS boundary was impacted by more than 5 cm of
dredged material (6 cm). The main physical change in benthic habitats resulting from dredged
material disposal was a subtle shift in sediment texture and redox state of surface sediments with
grain size slightly coarse, establishment of hard bottom within the ODMDS boundary, a higher
proportion of fine shell hash, and apparent shallowing of the aRPD layer depth relative to native
sediments. Most of the difference between dredged material and native sediment was likely due
to elevated percentages of silt clay in the dredged material. High levels of biogenic activity were
found at the majority of unconsolidated soft sediment stations, including stations composedof
either dredged material or native sediments. Except for there being fewer feeding mounds at
dredged material stations than observed at native sediment stations, there were no other patterns
in density and spatial distribution of biogenic features across the area. The sea star Coronaster
briareus was the only species to show a benthic habitat preference being almost twice as
abundant on unconsolidated soft sediment dredged material relative to native soft sediment and
dredged material hard carbonate bottoms. It appears that infaunal communities have successfully
recolonized the dredged material within 17 months of completion of the 2013 disposal event.

Macroinfauna sampling as part of the 2014 trend assessment study showed that annelids,
primarily polychaetes, comprised the majority of the taxa assemblages, both inside (62.5%) and

21


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

outside (67.4%) of the Port Everglades ODMDS. The mean number of individual organisms and
taxa density was over 50% greater outside the ODMDS was also greater than inside the
ODMDS. The mean number of taxa was also greater outside the ODMDS versus inside.
However, due the large variability between stations, there was statistically no difference inside
versus outside the Port Everglades ODMDS in regard to benthic assemblages.

3.4.2 Future Monitoring Surveys

Based on the type and volume of material disposed and impacts of concern, various monitoring
surveys can be used to examine if material is leaving the site, the direction the disposed dredged
material is moving, and what environmental effect the material is having on the site and adjacent
areas.

It is expected that changes in sediment composition within the ODMDS due to disposed dredged
material will likely alter the benthic community structure. However, based on previous benthic
studies, it is unlikely that permanent or long-term adverse impacts will result due to changes in
sediment composition (see section 3.4.1).

A Trend Assessment study is planned for 2024. Additionally, an SPI study will be conducted
following the next major new work project to evaluate the effectiveness of the new work release
zone on maintaining material within the ODMDS.

22


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 23. Port

iverglades Harbor ODIV

DS Monitoring Strategies and Thresholds for Action













Management Options

Goal

Technique

Sponsor

Rationale

Trigger/
Frequency

Threshold for Action

Threshold Not
Exceeded

Threshold Exceeded

Characterize
Existing Hard
bottom (quantity
and quality)

pending

Site User
or

USACE/
EPA

Determine baseline
for impact
assessment

Prior to use of
expansion area

N/A

N/A

N/A

Quantify the
amount of
natural hard-
bottom habitats
buried and the
quantity and
quality of hard-
bottom habitat
created

Same as above

USACE
and EPA

Determine the net
effect of ODMDS use
onEFH

Within 2 years
of project
completion
and 10 years
thereafter

Functional assessment
shows net decrease in
function

Monitor once
more at a
future time
further

removed from
site usage.

-Modify disposal practices
-Continue Monitoring
-Alter site utilization

23


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 23. Port

iverglades Harbor ODIV

DS Monitoring Strategies and Thresholds for Action

Goal

Technique

Sponsor

Rationale

Trigger/
Frequency

Threshold for Action

Management Options

Threshold Not
Exceeded

Threshold Exceeded

Trend

Assessment

(40CFR228.9)

Water and

Sediment

Quality,

Benthic

Community

Analysis

(40CFR228.13)

EPA

Periodically evaluate
the impact of disposal
on the marine
environment (40CFR
228.9)

Approximately
every 10 years
or as

warranted due
to heavy use.

-Absence from the site of
pollution sensitive biota

-Progressive non-seasonal
changes in water or
sediment quality

Continue

Monitoring

Regularly

-Conduct Environmental
Effects Monitoring or
Advanced Environmental
Effects Monitoring

-Review dredged material
evaluation procedures

24


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 23. Port

iverglades Harbor ODIV

DS Monitoring Strategies and Thresholds for Action













Management Options

Goal

Technique

Sponsor

Rationale

Trigger/
Frequency

Threshold for Action

Threshold Not
Exceeded

Threshold Exceeded

Environmental

Effects

Monitoring

Chemical
Monitoring

EPA

Determine if
chemical
contaminants are
significantly
elevated1 within and
outside of site
boundaries

If disposal
footprint
extends
beyond the site
boundaries or
if results of
monitoring or
other

information
warrant.

Contaminants are found
to be elevated

Discontinue
monitoring

-	Implement case specific
management options (i.e.,
Remediation, limits on
quantities or types of
material).

-Perform biological testing of
site material

-Consider isolating dredged
material (capping)

-	Institute Advanced
Environmental Effects
Monitoring



Benthic
Monitoring

EPA

Determine whether
there are adverse
changes in the
benthic populations
outside of the site and
evaluate recovery
rates



Adverse changes
observed outside of the
site that may endanger the
marine environment





25


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 23. Port

iverglades Harbor ODIV

DS Monitoring Strategies and Thresholds for Action













Management Options

Goal

Technique

Sponsor

Rationale

Trigger/
Frequency

Threshold for Action

Threshold Not
Exceeded

Threshold Exceeded

Advanced
Environmental
Effects
Monitoring

Tissue

Chemical

Analysis

EPA/
USACE

Determine if the site
is a source of adverse
bioaccumulation
which may endanger
the marine
environment

Implement if

Environmental

Effects

Monitoring

(chemistry)

warrants.

Benthic body burdens
and/or risk assessment
models indicate potential
for food chain impacts.

Discontinue
monitoring

-Discontinue site use

- Implement case specific
management options (i.e.
Remediation, limits on
quantities or types of
material).



Benthic
Monitoring



Determine if the site
is a source of adverse
sub-lethal2 changes in
benthic organisms
which may endanger
the marine
environment



Sub-lethal effects are
unacceptable.





Monitor

Bathymetric

Trends

Bathymetry

User/
USACE

Determine the extent
of the disposal
mound and major
bathymetric changes

Pre and post
disposal for
significant
projects
(>50,000cy)

Disposal mound occurs
outside ODMDS
boundaries

Continue
Monitoring for
each

utilization

-Modify disposal
method/placement

-Restrict disposal volumes

-Enlarge site

26


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

Table 23. Port

iverglades Harbor ODIV

DS Monitoring Strategies and Thresholds for Action

Goal

Technique

Sponsor

Rationale

Trigger/
Frequency

Threshold for Action

Management Options

Threshold Not
Exceeded

Threshold Exceeded

Short and Long-
term Fate of
Disposed
Dredged
Material

Sediment
Profile Imaging

User/
EPA

Confirm aerial extent
of disposal mound
and benthic impact.

Following
change in
release zone
and major new
work projects

Measurable deposition
(>5cm) outside of site
boundaries

-Continue site
use without
restrictions

-Increase buffer as needed.

-Restrict disposal volumes.

-Create berms to retard
dredged material transport.

Compliance

Disposal Site
Use Records in
EPA Region 4's
XML format

Site User

-Ensure management
requirements are
being met

-To assist in site
monitoring

Weekly during
the project

Disposal records required
by SMMP are not
submitted or are
incomplete

Continue
Monitoring

-Restrict site use until
requirements are met

1 Significantly elevated: Concentrations above the range of contaminant levels in dredged sediments that the Regional Administrator and the
District Engineer found to be suitable for disposal at the ODMDS.

2 Examples of sub-lethal effects include without limitation the development of lesions, tumors, development abnormality, and/or decreased
fecundity.

27


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

3.5 REPORTING AND DATA FORMATTING

3.5.1	Project Initiation and Violation Reporting

The USACE or other site user shall notify EPA 15 days prior to the beginning of a dredging
cycle or project disposal. The user is also required to notify the USACE and the EPA within 24
hours if a violation of the permit and/or contract conditions related to MPRSA Section 103 or
SMMP requirements occur during disposal operations.

3.5.2	Disposal Monitoring Data

Disposal monitoring data shall be provided to EPA Region 4 electronically on a weekly basis. In
some cases, reporting may be required on a more frequent basis. Data shall be provided per the
EPA Region 4 XML format and delivered as an attachment to an email to
DisposalData.R4@epa.gov. The XML format is available from EPA Region 4.

3.5.3	Post Disposal Summary Reports

A Post Disposal Summary Report shall be provided to EPA within 90 days after project
completion. These reports should include: dredging project title; permit number and expiration
date (if applicable); contract number; name of contractor(s) conducting the work, name and type
of vessel(s) disposing material in the ODMDS; disposal timeframes for each vessel; volume
disposed at the ODMDS (as paid in situ volume, total paid and un paid in situ volume, and gross
volume reported by dredging contractor), number of loads to ODMDS, type of material disposed
at the ODMDS; identification by load number of any misplaced material; dates of pre and post
disposal bathymetric surveys of the ODMDS and a narrative discussing any violation(s) of the
103 concurrency and/or permit (if applicable). The narrative should include a description of the
violation, indicate the time it occurred and when it was reported to the EPA and USACE, discuss
the circumstances surrounding the violation, and identify specific measures taken to prevent
reoccurrence. The Post Disposal Summary Report should be accompanied by the bathymetry
survey results (plot and X, Y, Z ASCII data file), a summary scatter plot of all disposal start
locations, and a summary table of the trip information required by Section 3.2 with the exception
of the disposal completion data. If all data is provided in the required XML format, scatter plots
and summary tables will not be necessary.

3.5.4	Environmental Monitoring

Material tracking, disposal effects monitoring, and any other data collected shall be provided to
federal and state agencies as appropriate. Data will be provided to other interested parties
requesting such data to the extent possible. Data will be provided for all surveys in a report
generated by the action agency.

28


-------
Draft Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS SMMP

The report should:

1)	Indicate how the survey relates to the SMMP and previous surveys at the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS

2)	Provide data interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations; and

3)	Project the next phase of the SMMP and any management alterations, required for future
site use

Monitoring results will be summarized in subsequent revisions to the SMMP.

4.0 MODIFICATION OF THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR ODMDS SMMP

Should the results of monitoring surveys or reports from other sources indicate that continued
use of the ODMDS would lead to unacceptable effects as determined by EPA and USACE; the
ODMDS SMMP will be modified to mitigate the adverse impacts. The SMMP will be reviewed
and revised at a minimum of every ten years. The SMMP will be reviewed and updated as
necessary if site use changes significantly. For example, the SMMP will be reviewed if the
quantity or type of dredged material placed at the site changes significantly or if conditions at the
site otherwise indicate a need for revision.

29


-------

-------
5.0 REFERENCES

Herbich, J.B. 1992. Handbook of Dredging Engineering. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. 1992.

Messing, Charles G., Moyer, R., Gilliam, D.S., Walker, B.K., Dodge, R.E., 2003. Deep-water

biological habitat survey report for the Tractebel Calypso natural gas pipeline extension
of existing survey to 200m depth. Submitted to URS Corporation. June 2003.

Taylor, 2010. Evaluation of Dredged Material Behavior at the Port Everglades Harbor Federal
Project Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. Prepared for ANAMAR Environmental
Consulting by Taylor Engineering. November 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1990. Selected Tools and Techniques for Physical and
Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Sites. Dredging Operations
Technical Support Program Technical Report D-90-11. Waterways Experiment Station.
September 1990.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Beneficial Use of Dredged Bedrock in the New
York/New Jersey Harbor. USACE Engineer Research and Development Center. TR-03-7.
July 2003.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Port Everglades Harbor, Maintenance
Dredging, 42-foot Project, W912EP-13-C-0001 Post Disposal Summary Report.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In press. Environmental Assessment on
Expansion of the Port Everglades Ocean Dredged Material Site (ODMDS).


-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for Designation of the Palm Beach Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
and the Port Everglades Harbor Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site, July 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Palm Beach/Port Everglades FL, Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) Status and Trends Assessment Report SESD
Project #14-0339. September 2-11, 2014. USEPA Region 4, Science and Ecosystem
Support Division. Athens, GA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. Evaluation of
Dredged Material Proposedfor Ocean Disposal (Testing Manual), February 1991.
Prepared by Environmental Protection Agency Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
and Department of Army United States Army Corps of Engineers under EPA Contract
No. 68-C8-0105.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1996. Guidance
Document for Development of Site Management Plans for Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites, February 1996. Prepared by Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Water and Department of Army United States Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South

Atlantic Division, 2007. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, South Atlantic Division and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region, 4
on Ocean Dredged Material Disposal, April 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South
Atlantic Division, 2008. Southeast Regional Implementation Manual (SERIM)
Requirements and Procedures for Evaluation of the Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material
in Southeastern Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Waters, August 2008.


-------
APPENDIX A

WATER COLUMN EVALUATIONS
NUMERICAL MODEL (STFATE) INPUT PARAMETERS


-------
Water Column Evaluations
Numerical Model (STFATE) Input Parameters
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

Site Description

Parameter

Value

Units

Number of Grid Points (left to right)

40



Number of Grid Points (top to bottom)

60



Spacing Between Grid Points (left to right)

400

ft

Spacing Between Grid Points (top to bottom)

400

ft

Constant Water Depth

645

ft

Roughness Height at Bottom of Disposal Site

.0051

ft

Slope of Bottom in X-Direction

0

Deg.

Slope of Bottom in Z-Direction

1.0

Deg.

Number of Points in Ambient Density Profile Point2

5



Ambient Density at Depth = 0 ft

1.0237

g/cc

Ambient Density at Depth = 65 ft

1.0238

g/cc

Ambient Density at Depth = 164 ft

1.0246

g/cc

Ambient Density at Depth = 328 ft

1.0272

g/cc

Ambient Density at Depth = 645 ft	1.0282	g/cc

Ambient Velocity Data3

Parameter	Value	Units

Profile

2-Point at constant depth


-------
Parameter

Value

Units

X-Direction Velocity = 33 feet

-2.7

ft/sec

Z-Direction Velocity = 33 feet

1.1

ft/sec

X-Direction Velocity =197 feet

-2.2

ft/sec

Z-Direction Velocity = 197 feet	0.9	ft/sec

Disposal Operation Data

Parameter (New Work Zone)

Value

Units

Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid

13,307

ft

Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid

7,078

ft

Dumping Over Depression	0

Parameter (Maintenance Zone)	Value	Units

Location of Disposal Point from Top of Grid

18,173

ft

Location of Disposal Point from Left Edge of Grid

9,157

ft

Dumping Over Depression	0

Input, Execution and Output

Parameter

Value

Units

Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site







6636

ft

- Distance from Top Edge





Location of the Upper Left Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge

3461

ft


-------
Parameter



Value

Units

Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Top Edge



20282

ft

Location of the Lower Right Corner of the Disposal Site
- Distance from Left Edge



12139

ft

Duration of Simulation



14,400

sec

Long Term Time Step



600

sec

Coefficients

Parameter

Keyword

Value



Settling Coefficient

BETA

O.OOO1



Apparent Mass Coefficient

CM

1.0001



Drag Coefficient

CD

0.5001



Form Drag for Collapsing Cloud

CDRAG

1.0001



Skin Friction for Collapsing Cloud

CFRIC

0.0101



Drag for an Ellipsoidal Wedge

CD3

0.1001



Drag for a Plate

CD4

1.0001



Friction Between Cloud and Bottom

FRICTN

0.0101



4/3 Law Horizontal Diffusion Dissipation Factor

ALAMDA

0.0011



Unstratified Water Vertical Diffusion Coefficient

AKYO

Pritchard Expression

Cloud/Ambient Density Gradient Ratio

GAMA

0.2501



Turbulent Thermal Entrainment

ALPHAO

0.394



Entrainment in Collapse

ALPHAC

0.1001



Stripping Factor

CSTRIP

0.0031



1	Model Default Value

2	Profile from EPA 2011 measurements (ANAMAR 2012)

3	Velocity data represents average conditions. Determined from WES 1998 analysis of ADCP data offshore Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

4	Calculated from NOAA Field Work at Miami (1991)


-------
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

X=6636
Z=3461

D=33 ft

3 A

r~;
rsi

—.>

1.1 ft/sec

X

D=197 ft

% A

fN
fN

	->

0.9 ft/sec

New Work
Disposal Location
X= 13307 ft
Z=7078 ft

Maintenance Release Zone

Disposal Location

X=20282
Z=12139

t

N

Model Grid
40x60
@ 400 ft/grid

z+

>


-------
Port Everglades ODMDS Background Water Concentration.

Compounds

Background Concentration Levels (ju.g/1)

Arsenic

1.54 1

Cadmium

0.021 1

Chromium (VI)

0.15 1

Copper

0.16 1

Lead

0.012 1

Mercury

0.1-1-2

Nickel

0.25 1

Selenium

0.5 ^

Silver

0.01 !'2

Zinc

0.881

Cyanide

1.0

Tributyltin (TBT)

0.025 !-2

Aldrin

0.0043 !'2

Chlordane

0.1 ^

DDT

0.0017 1

Dieldrin

0.0043 !'2

alpha - Endosulfan

0.0043 !-2

beta - Endosulfan

0.0043 !'2

Endrin

0.0043 !-2

gamma-BHC (Lindane)

0.0043 !'2

Heptachlor

0.0043 !-2


-------
Heptachlor Epoxide

0.0043 !'2

Toxaphene

.24 ^

Pentachlorophenol

0.47 !-2

1	Samples collected by EPA, Region 4, October 2007 at the Port Everglades ODMDS (USACE
2010) - Values taken from near bottom samples.

2	Analyte not detected. Value based on one half the reporting limit.


-------
APPENDIX C
SCOW CERTIFICATION TEMPLATE


-------


SCOW CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST USACE PERMIT or CONTRACT #



4/17/2015

[PROJECT NAME] DATE:







CHECKLIST ITEM

RECORD DATA

INITIALS





TO BE FILLED OUT AND SIGNED WrTHIN 1 HOUR PRIOR
TO DEPARTURE TIME IN NO. 3.

CONTRACTOR

Permittee or
Authorized
Representative





1. OCEAN DISPOSAL TRIP NUMBER











2. DEPARTURE DATE TO ODMDS











3. DEPARTURE TIME TO ODMDS











4. DEPARTURE LOCATION (dredge, berth, etc.)











5. SCOW NAME









6. SCOW CAPACITY (CY)









7. TUG NAME











8. TUG CAPTAIN'S NAME











9. DREDGED MATERIAL SOURCE (area, reach, berth, etc.)











10. CUBIC YARDS HAULED











11. SCOW FORE DRAFT/AFT DRAFT/AVG AND TIME











12. SCOW FORE DRAFT / AFT DRAFT / AVG AND TIM E
(must be at least one hour prior to time in No. 11)











13. DRAFT CHANGE (No 12-No. 11)











14. FREEBOARD OF MATERIAL AND/OR WATER SURFACE









15. NWS COASTAL MARINE FORECAST (outto 20 nm)

DATE/TIME OF REPORT







[area]

WAVE HT (FT)







WRITE-IN APPROPRIATE FORECAST PERIODS

WIND SPEED (KTS)

(ie, TODAY, TONIGHT, TOMORROW)

PERIOD (SEC)



COMMENTS:







16. SCOW TRACKING SYSTEM FUNCTIONING?

	1 YES i	1 NO







17. HELMSMAN DISPLAY FUNCTIONING ON TUG?

	1 YES |	1 NO







18. GPS FUNCTIONING ON TUG?

	1 YES |	1 NO









19. COMMENTS









20. CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE

PRINT NAME:

TIME/DATE:





21. PERMITTEE/REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE

PRINT NAME:

TIME/DATE:





22. THE DECISION TO PROCEED TO THE OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE, BASED UPON ALL AVAILABLE DATA INCULDING THE RECORDING
AND CALCULATIONS ON THIS FORM, IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT OF THE TUG CAPTAIN AS TO THE
SAFETY OF THE CREW AND VESSEL.



TUG CAPTAIN'S SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME:

TIME/DATE:



DATE/TIME OF DUMP:

BARGE X OR LONGITUDE:

BARGE Y OR LATITUDE:

TUG X OR LONGITUDE:

TUG Y OR LATITUDE:

DATE/TIME OF DISPOSAL VESSEL CLOSURE:

BARGE X OR LONGITUDE:

BARGE Y OR LATITUDE:

TUG X OR LONGITUDE:

TUG Y OR LATITUDE:

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS. ETC.




-------
APPENDIX C

GENERIC SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR MPRSA SECTION 103
PERMITS PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR, FL ODMDS


-------
GENERIC SPECIAL CONDITIONS
FORMPRSA SECTION 103 PERMITS

I. DISPOSAL OPERATIONS

A. For this permit, the term disposal operations shall mean: navigation of any vessel used in
disposal of operations, transportation of dredged material from the dredging site to the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS, proper disposal of dredged material at the disposal area within the
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, and transportation of the hopper dredge or disposal barge or
scow back to the dredging site.

B. The Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS is defined as the rectangle with 26°07.00'N latitude and
80°01.50'W longitude (NAD 83) or state plane coordinates 649292.4 ftN and 976098.2 ft E
(NAD83). The site coordinates are as follows:

Vertices

( ICOiJ I Liph IC

Y\l) S3

Slale Plane
(l londu 1 !asl twu| I S I'D \.\l) S3



Latitude (North)

Longitude (West)

Easting

Northing

NE

26°07.50'N

80°02.00'W

973341.1 E

652301.1 N

NW

26°07.50'N

80°01.00'W

9788810.0 E

652342.1 N

SW

26°06.50'N

80°02.00'W

973386.1 E

646,242.9 N

SE

26°06.50'N

80°01.00'W

978,855.7 E

646,283.9 N


-------
C. No more than [NUMBER] cubic yards of dredged material excavated at the location defined
in [REFERENCE LOCATION IN PERMIT] are authorized for disposal at the Port Everglades
Harbor ODMDS.

D. The permittee shall use an electronic positioning system to navigate to and from the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS. For this section of the permit, the electronic positioning system is
defined as: a differential global positioning system or a microwave line of site system. Use of
LORAN-C alone is not an acceptable electronic positioning system for disposal operations at the
Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. If the electronic positioning system fails or navigation
problems are detected, all disposal operations shall cease until the failure or navigation problems
are corrected.

E. The permittee shall certify the accuracy of the electronic positioning system proposed for use
during disposal operations at the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. The certification shall be
accomplished by direct comparison of the electronic positioning system's accuracy with a known
fixed point.

F. The permittee shall not allow any water or dredged material placed in a hopper dredge or
disposal barge or scow to flow over the sides or leak from such vessels during transportation to
the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS prior to the sea buoy G"3". No more than 1.5 feet of draft
loss is allowable while east of sea buoy G"3".

G. A disposal operations inspector and/or captain of any tug boat, hopper dredge or other vessel
used to transport dredged material to the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS shall insure
compliance with disposal operation conditions defined in this permit.

1. If the disposal operations inspector or the captain detects a violation, he shall report the
violation to the permittee immediately.


-------
2. The permittee shall contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District's
Regulatory Division [TELEPHONE NUMBER] and EPA Region 4 at (404) 562-8082
(cc: OceanDumpingR4@epa.gov) to report the violation within twenty-four (24) hours
after the violation occurs. A complete written explanation of any permit violation shall
be included in the disposal summary report.

H. When dredged material is disposed, no portion of the hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow
shall be outside of the boundaries of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS as defined in Special
Condition B. Additionally, disposal shall be initiated within the disposal release zone defined by
the following coordinates:

Vertices

Geographic NAD 83

State Plane (Florida East 0901 U.S. Ft)
NAD 83



Latitude (North)

Longitude (West)

Easting

Northing

NW









NE









SW









SE









I. During transit to the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, the disposal vessel shall remain within
the navigation channel until east of the buoy "G3". Transit begins when the vessel is full and
begins to proceed to the ODMDS.


-------
J. The permittee shall use an electronic tracking system (ETS) that will continuously track the
horizontal location and draft condition of the disposal vessel (hopper dredge or disposal barge or
scow) to and from the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. Data shall be collected at least every
500 feet during travel to and from the ODMDS and every minute or every 200 feet of travel,
whichever is smaller, while approaching within 1,000 feet and within the ODMDS. The
permittee shall use Florida State Plane or latitude and longitude coordinates (North American
Datum 1983). State Plane coordinates shall be reported to the nearest foot and latitude and
longitude coordinates shall be reported as decimal degrees out to 6 decimals. Westerly
longitudes are to be reported as negative. Draft readings shall be recorded in feet out to 2
decimals.

K. The permittee shall record electronically for each load the following information:

a.	Load Number

b.	Disposal Vessel or Scow Name

c.	Estimated volume of Load

d.	Description of Material Disposed

e.	Source of Dredged Material

f.	Date, Time and Location at Start at Initiation and Completion of Disposal Event

g.	The ETS data required by Special Condition I.J.

L. The permittee shall conduct a bathymetric survey of the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS
within 30 days following project completion.

1. The number and length of the survey transects shall be sufficient to encompass the
release zone specified in Special Condition H and a 500 foot wide area around the site.
The transects shall be spaced at 500-foot intervals or less.

2. Vertical accuracy of the survey shall be ±0.5 feet. Horizontal location of the survey
lines and depth sounding points will be determined by an automated positioning system
utilizing either microwave line of site system or differential global positioning system.
The vertical datum shall be mean lower low water (m.l.l.w) and the horizontal datum


-------
shall use Florida State Plane or latitude and longitude coordinates (North American
Datum 1983). State Plane coordinates shall be reported to the nearest 0.10 foot and
latitude and longitude coordinates shall be reported as decimal degrees to 6 decimal
points.

M. Enclosed is the Regional Biological Opinion (RBO) dated [INSERT DATE], for swimming
sea turtles, whales, and sturgeon. The RBO contains mandatory terms and conditions to
implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with "incidental take" that is
also specified in the RBO. Your authorization under the Corps permit is conditional upon your
compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with the incidental take of
the attached RBO, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference in the permit.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions associated with the incidental take of the RBO,
where a take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would
also constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit. However, depending on the affected
species NMFS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and
conditions of its RBO and with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For further clarification on
this point, you should contact the appropriate agency. Should they determine that the conditions
of the RBO have been violated; normally they will enforce the violation of the ESA, or refer the
matter to the Department of Justice.

II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

A. All reports, documentation and correspondence required by the conditions of this permit shall
be submitted to the following addresses: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regulatory
Division, Enforcement Section, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019 and U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4's Oceans Wetlands Streams Protection
Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303 (OceanDumpingR4@epa.gov). The Permittee
shall reference this permit number, [INSERT PERMIT NUMBER], on all submittals.


-------
B. At least 15 days before initiating any dredging operations authorized by this permit, the
Permittee shall provide to the Corps and EPA Region 4 a written notification of the date of
commencement of work authorized by this permit, including permit/contract numbers, start date,
expected end date, and other pertinent information.

C. Electronic data required by Special Conditions I.J and I.K shall be provided to EPA Region 4
on a weekly basis. Data shall be submitted as an extensible Markup Language (XML) document
via Internet e-mail to DisposalData.R4@epa.gov. XML data file format specifications are
available from EPA Region 4.

D. The permittee shall send one (1) copy of the disposal summary report to the Jacksonville
District's Regulatory Division and one (1) copy of the disposal summary report to EPA Region 4
documenting compliance with all general and special conditions defined in this permit. The
disposal summary report shall be sent within 90 days after completion of the disposal operations
authorized by this permit. The disposal summary report shall include the following information:

1. The report shall indicate whether all general and special permit conditions were met.
Any violations of the permit shall be explained in detail.

2. The disposal summary report shall include the following information: dredging project
title; dates of disposal; permit number and expiration date; name of contractor(s)
conducting the work, name and type of vessel(s) disposing material in the ODMDS;
disposal timeframes for each vessel; volume disposed at the ODMDS (as paid in situ
volume, total paid and un paid in situ volume, and gross volume reported by dredging
contractor), number of loads to ODMDS, type of material disposed at the ODMDS;
identification of any misplaced material (outside disposal zone or the ODMDS
boundaries); dates of pre and post disposal bathymetric surveys of the ODMDS and a
narrative discussing any violation(s) of the 103 permit. The disposal summary report
should be accompanied by the bathymetry survey results (plot and X,Y,Z ASCII data
file).


-------
III. PERMIT LIABILITY

A.	The permittee shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of this permit.

B.	The permittee and all contractors or other third parties who perform an activity authorized by this permit
on behalf of the permittee shall be separately liable for a civil penalty for each violation of any term of this
permit they commit alone or in concert with the permittee or other parties. This liability shall be individual,
rather than joint and several, and shall not be reduced in any fashion to reflect the liability assigned to any
civil penalty assessed against the permittee or any other third party as defined in 33 U.S.C. Section 1415(a).

C.	If the permittee or any contractor or other third party knowingly violates any term of this permit (either
alone or in concert), the permittee, contractor or other party shall be individually liable for the criminal
penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. Section 1415(b).


-------
APPENDIX D

TYPICAL CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR IMPEMENTING SMMP

REQUIREMENTS

3.3 DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL
3.3.1 General

All material dredged shall be transported to and deposited in the disposal area(s) designated on
the drawings. The approximate maximum and average distance to which the material will have
to be transported are as follows:

Disposal Area	Maximum Distance	Average Distance

Statute Miles	Statute Miles

Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS

[INSERT DISPOSAL ZONES [XX miles]	[XX miles] AREA 2]

[IF MATERIAL FROM DIFFERENT PROIECT AREAS GO TO DIFFERENT DISOSAL
AREAS, IT SHOULD BE SPECIFIED HERE]


-------
3.3.2 Ocean Disposal Notification

a. The Corps or the contractor shall notify EPA Region 4's Oceans, Wetlands, and Stream
Protection Branch (61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303) at least 15 calendar days and
the local Coast Guard Captain of the Port at least 5 calendar days prior to the first ocean
disposal. The notification will be by certified mail with a copy to the Contracting
Officer. The following information shall be included in the notification:

(1)	Project designation; Corps of Engineers' Contracting Officer's name and contract
number; and, the Contractor's name, address, and telephone number.

(2)	Port of departure.

(3)	Location of ocean disposal area (and disposal zone(s)).

(4)	Schedule for ocean disposal, giving date and time proposed for first ocean
disposal.

3.3.3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites (ODMDS)

The material excavated shall be transported to and deposited in the Port Everglades Harbor
ODMDS as shown on the drawings. When dredged material is disposed, no portion of the
hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow shall be outside of the boundaries of the Port
Everglades Harbor ODMDS. Additionally, disposal shall be initiated within the disposal release
zone(s) defined by the following coordinates:

[insert coordinates for appropriate release zone(s)]

Vertices

Geographic NAD 83

State Plane (Florida East 0901 U.S. Ft)
NAD 83



Latitude (North)

Longitude (West)

Easting

Northing

NW









NE









SW










-------
SE









During transit to and from the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS, the disposal vessel shall remain
within the navigation channel until east of the buoy G"3". Dredged material shall not be leaked
or spilled from vessels while west of the G"3" buoy. Leakage or spillage of material east of the
sea buoy is limited to 1.5' of draft loss (average between forward and aft sensors) during transit
to the ODMDS. Transit to the ODMDS begins as soon as dredged material loading into the
disposal vessel is completed and the vessel begins moving to the ODMDS.

3.3.4 Logs

The Contractor shall keep a log for each load placed in the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS.
The log entry for each load shall include:

g.	Load Number

h.	Disposal Vessel or Scow Name

i.	Estimated volume of Load

j. Description of Material Disposed
k. Source of Dredged Material

1. Date, Time and Location (coordinates) at Start of Initiation and Completion of
Disposal Event

At the completion of dredging and at any time upon request, the log(s) shall be submitted in
paper and electronic formats to the Contracting Officer for forwarding to the appropriate
agencies.

3.3.5 Overflow, Spills and Leaks

Water and dredged materials shall not be permitted to overflow or spill out of barges, hopper
dredges, or dump scows while filling or during transport to the disposal site(s) while within the
Federal channel (west of Sea Buoy G"3"). Loss of dredged material during transit east of the sea


-------
buoy (G"3") is limited to 1.5' (average of forward and aft sensors.) Failure to repair leaks or
change the method of operation which is resulting in overflow or spillage will result in
suspension of dredging operations and require prompt repair or change of operation to prevent
overflow or spillage as a prerequisite to the resumption of dredging.

3.3.6 Electronic Tracking System (ETS) for Ocean Disposal Vessels

The Corps shall use Dredge Quality Management (DQM) to monitor dredging and dredge
material disposal. The contractor shall use an Electronic Tracking System (ETS) to navigate to
and from the harbor to the ODMDS. This ETS shall be established, operated and maintained by
the contractor to continuously track in real-time the horizontal location and draft condition of the
disposal vessel (hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow) for the entire dredging cycle, including
dredging area and disposal area. The ETS shall be capable of displaying and recording in real-
time the disposal vessel's draft and location per the DQM specifications. If the electronic
positioning system fails or navigation problems are detected, all disposal operations shall cease
until the failure or navigation problems are corrected. The contractor shall certify the accuracy
of the electronic positioning system proposed for use during disposal operations. The
certification shall be accomplished by providing current certification documentation from the
National DQM Program for scow and hopper dredge instrumentation systems. The National
DQM certification is valid for one year from the date of certification

[USE LANGUAGE BELOW FOR NON DQM PROJECTS]

The Contractor shall furnish an ETS for surveillance of the movement and disposition of dredged
material during dredging and ocean disposal. This ETS shall be established, operated and
maintained by the Contractor to continuously track in real-time the horizontal location and draft
condition of the disposal vessel (hopper dredge or disposal barge or scow) for the entire dredging
cycle, including dredging area and disposal area. The ETS shall be capable of displaying and
recording in real-time the disposal vessel's draft and location.


-------
3.3.6.1 ETS Standards

The Contractor shall provide automated (computer) system and components to perform in
accordance with COE EM 1110-1-2909. A copy of the EM can be downloaded from the
following web site: http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs'eng-manuals/em.htm. Horizontal
location shall have an accuracy equal to or better than a standard DGPS

system, equal to or better than plus/minus 10 feet (horizontal repeatability). Vertical (draft) data
shall have an accuracy of plus/minus 0.5 foot. Horizontal location and vertical data shall be
collected in sets and each data set shall be referenced in real-time to date and local time (to
nearest minute), and shall be referenced to the same state plane

coordinate system used for the survey(s) shown in the contract plans. The ETS shall be
calibrated, as required, in the presence of the Contracting Officer at the work location before
disposal operations have started, and at 30-day intervals while work is in progress. The
Contracting Officer shall have access to the ETS in order to observe its operation. Disposal
operations will not commence until the ETS to be used by the Contractor is certified by the
Contracting Officer to be operational and within acceptable accuracy. It is the Contractor's
responsibility to select a system that will operate properly at the work location. The complete
system shall be subject to the Contracting Officer's approval.

3.3.6.2 ETS Data Requirements and Submissions

a. The ETS for each disposal vessel shall be in operation for all dredging and disposal
activities and shall record the full round trip for each loading and disposal cycle. (NOTE:
A dredging and disposal cycle constitutes the time from commencement of dredging to
complete discharge of the material.) The Contracting Officer shall be notified
immediately in the event of ETS failure and all dredging operations for the vessel shall
cease until the ETS is fully operational. Any delays resulting from ETS failure shall be at
the Contractor's expense.


-------
b. Data shall be collected, during the dredging and disposal cycle, every 500 feet (at least)
during travel to the disposal area, and every minute or every 200 feet, whichever is
smaller, while approaching within 1,000 feet and within the disposal area.

c.	Plot Reporting (2 types):

a.	Tracking Plot - For each disposal event, data collected while the disposal vessel is
in the vicinity of the disposal area shall be plotted in chart form, in 200-foot intervals, to
show the track and draft of the disposal vessel approaching and traversing the disposal
area. The plot shall identify the exact position at which the dump commenced.

b.	Scatter Plot - Following completion of all disposal events, a single and separate
plot will be prepared to show the exact disposal locations of all dumps. Every plotted
location shall coincide with the beginning of the respective dump. Each dump shall be
labeled with the corresponding Trip Number and shall be at a small but readable scale.

c.	Summary Table - A spreadsheet which contains all of the information in the
log(s) above shall be prepared and shall correspond to the exact dump locations
represented on the Scatter Plot.

d.	ETS data and log data required by Section 3.3.4 shall be provided to EPA Region 4 on a
weekly or more frequent basis. Data shall be submitted to EPA Region 4 as an
extensible Markup Language (XML) document via Internet e-mail to
DisposalData.R4@epa.gov. XML data file format specifications are available from EPA
Region 4. All digital ETS data shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer within 24
hours of collection. The digital plot files should be in an easily readable format such as
Adobe Acrobat PDF file, Microstation DGN file, JPEG, BMP, TIFF, or similar. The hard
copy of the ETS data and tracking plots shall be both maintained onboard the vessel and
submitted to the Contracting Officer on a weekly basis.


-------
[FOR DQM PROJECTS]

See: http://dqm.usace.army.mil/Specifications/lndex.aspx

For scows, the monitoring profile, TDS profile or Ullage profile shall be used.

3.3.6.3 Misplaced Materials

Materials deposited outside of the disposal zone specified in 3.3.3 will be classified as misplaced
material and will result in a suspension of dredging operations. Redredging of such materials
will be required as a prerequisite to the resumption of dredging unless the Contracting Officer, at
his discretion, determines that redredging of such material is not practical. If redredging of such
material is not required then the quantity of such misplaced material shall be deducted from the
Contractor's pay quantity. If the quantity for each misplaced load to be deducted cannot initially
be agreed to by both the Contractor and Contracting Officer, then an average hopper/scow load
quantity for the entire contract will be used in the determination. Misplaced loads may also be
subject to penalty under the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Materials
deposited above the maximum indicated elevation or outside of the disposal area template shown
will require the redredging or removal of such materials at the Contractor's expense. In addition,
the Contractor must notify the Contracting Officer and the Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4's Oceans Estuary and Marine Management Section (61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA
30303) within 24 hours of a misplaced dump or any other violation of the Site Management and
Monitoring Plan for the Port Everglades Harbor ODMDS. Corrective actions must be
implemented by the next dump and the Contracting Officer must be informed of actions taken.


-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE EXPANSION OF THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE (ODMDS)

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA


-------
APPENDIX B.

PERTINENT COMMUNICATIONS (placeholder)


-------
APPENDIX C

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE EXPANSION OF THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR
OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE (ODMDS)

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA


-------