July 22, Dear Mr. Garis:

Transcription

1 Gregory W. Garis Environmental Specialist III Department of Environmental Protection Beaches, Inlets, and Ports 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3544 Tallahassee, Florida (850) Response to RAI #1 File Number: JC, Broward County Applicant Name: Broward County Project Name: Port Everglades Inlet Sand Bypassing Project Dear Mr. Garis: This letter is our response to the Department s Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated August 8, Included are responses to specific comments included in the RAI and supporting attachments. The attachments include: (1) the engineering report dated December 2014 supporting the sand trap design that is included in the application; (2) a report dated July 2014 which summarizes the results of detailed hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling of the proposed project configuration; (3) a report dated November 2014 which summarizes the results of a detailed numerical analysis of anticipated turbidity and sedimentation conditions during construction, 4) a revised Benthic Habitat Mapping and Characterization report dated June 2015 (replaces Draft dated June 2014 that was submitted with original application); and a Benthic Resource Impact Summary report dated June 2015; 5) Draft UMAM, Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; 6) Draft Coral Relocation Plan; 7) Biological Assessment; 8) Environmental Assessment; (9) updated permit drawings; (10) an updated project description; (11) requested geotechnical data; and (12) Year 1 coral relocation report dated November Items 4 and 12 are also provided as Electronic Attachments 2 through 4 of the EA. It is noted that two revisions have been made to the project plan based upon the RAI comments, continued evaluation of project implementation conditions and continued coordination with Broward County. These revisions are, 1) The location and configuration of interior rip-rap groin has been revised to move that structure northward, farther away from the inlet channel and to be in an alignment more consistent with adjacent existing structures (see Attachment 5, project description addendum and Attachment 24, updated permit drawings), and 2) The County is requesting that sand placement be allowed to occur during the summer months should an event, such as a hurricane, tropical storm, or other summer coastal storm event, occur which could cause unacceptable sand transport to the Port Everglades channel that could be an impediment to navigation interests. The potential adverse effects of

2 Mr. Gregory Garis 2 of 26 project construction during nesting season are presented in the Biological Assessment (Attachments BA-1 and BA-2). Specific details regarding the need and resource management activities that are anticipated for the possibility that sand placement may be required during sea turtle nesting season during the construction and/or future sand bypass operations are presented in the Biological Assessment (BA) (Attachments BA-1 and BA-2). Item No. 5. Describe in general terms the proposed activity including any phasing. Issue: Please describe in greater detail the intended function, benefit, and effects of the proposed spur located on the west side of the existing north jetty notch. Response: Please see the Attachment 5 to this letter. Issue: Please Note: Attachment 5 of the application states in part, The County requests that the project permits authorize the initial construction activities and required bypass events for a period of 15-years following completion of the initial project. The Department upon issuance of the proposed project would issue a 15 year permit that premises the initial construction event and two (2) subsequent maintenance events, or for a permit life of 15 years, whichever is greater. Response: Acknowledged. Issue: Please Also Note: The Department recognizes that the County requests the option to place any beach compatible material which may be recovered from construction of the sand trap north of the north jetty, or south of Port Everglades Inlet, within the expired Broward County Segment III permit template. Additionally, the permit application is for continued maintenance dredging of the sand trap and bypassing of material south of the Inlet within the expired Broward County Segment III template. The Department requires that prior to placement of material south of Port Everglades Inlet within the Segment III template the unpermitted impacts resulting from the prior Segment III nourishment event be resolved with the Department. Response: Efforts to resolve issues related to the Segment III project are ongoing between Broward County and the Department. Item No 16. The information in this item is only required if you are applying for a sovereignty submerged lands easement or lease. A list of the names and addresses of owners of all riparian property within 1,000 feet (and within a 500 ft radius) of the proposed sovereignty submerged lands easement or lease site from the latest county tax roll. If the property is under cooperative or condominium ownership, the name and mailing address of the cooperative or condominium association will be adequate. This would not apply to off-shore leases or easements that are not

3 Mr. Gregory Garis 3 of 26 located within 1,000 feet of the shoreline. Issue: Please notify all property owners of the intent to gain a public easement whom are located within a 500 ft. radius of the proposed easement boundary. Response: The property owners list in Attachment 16 of the original application have been notified as required. Return receipts from the certified mailing have been provided to the Department under separate cover. Item No. 17. A legal property description and acreage of any sovereign submerged land that would be encompassed by the requested lease or easement, plus two (2) prints of a survey prepared, signed and sealed by a person properly licensed by the Florida State Board of Land Surveyors. Issue: The Department confirms that a Public Easement will be required for the rock rubble barrier, the jetty extension/widening footprint and the interior rubble mound groin. A public easement will also likely be required for long-term use of the sand trap area, rather than a Letter of Consent, because the sand trap area can be considered similar to a borrow area, which requires an easement for periods of use longer than five (5) years. At this time, please submit three 8.5 by 11 paper copies of a signed/sealed legal description and surveyor s sketch of the structures and sand trap identified above. Other details required for the easement sketches are outlined in the DEP Operations and Procedure Manual (SLER 0960), which can be forwarded at your request. Response: The required three copies of the signed and sealed legal descriptions and sketches have been mailed to the Department under separate cover. Item No. 23. Complete sets of construction plans and specification for the proposed activity, certified by an engineer duly registered pursuant to Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. The plans shall clearly distinguish between existing and proposed structures and grades, and shall include the following: a. Plan view of the proposed activity depicting the mean high water line (MHWL), any easement boundary and the erosion control line (if applicable) within the area of influence of the proposed activity. Identify the boundaries of significant geographical features (e.g., channels, shoals) and natural communities (e.g., submerged grass beds, hardbottom or mangroves) within the area of influence of the activity. Include a north arrow and a scale bar on each drawing. Issue: The Department acknowledges the request for the plan view documents required in 23a to be submitted at a later time. The Department reserves the right to request additional information regarding these documents and their contents as part of the

4 Mr. Gregory Garis 4 of 26 completeness review for the proposed project. Response: As acknowledged by the Department, the construction plans and specifications will be provided at a later time when they are available. It is understood that the Department may have additional comments on the project following submittal of these documents. b. A sufficient number of cross-section views of the proposed activity depicting the slopes, the MHWL, any easement boundary and the erosion control line (if applicable) within the area of influence of the proposed activity. Identify the boundaries of significant geographical features and natural communities in the area of influence of the proposed activity. Elevations indicated on the cross-sections shall be referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Issue: The Department acknowledges the request for the cross section view documents required in 23b to be submitted at a later time. The Department reserves the right to request additional information regarding these documents and their contents as part of the completeness review for the proposed project. Response: As acknowledged by the Department, the construction plans and specifications will be provided at a later time when they are available. It is understood that the Department may have additional comments on the project following submittal of these documents. Item No. 24. Permit Drawings. This issue was not included with RAI#1. Rather, this request was made via from Mr. Robert Brantly, P.E. via subsequent to receipt of RAI#1. Issue: Provide an annotated section view of the Rock Rubble Barrier and general specifications of the preliminary (not for construction) structural design. Include the maximum elevation of the crest of the structure referenced to NAVD. Response: Attachment 24 includes revised permit drawings. Sheet 7 of the drawings details the preliminary structural design of the rock rubble barrier. Additional details and sections are provided in Figures 24-a through 24-d, below.

5 Mr. Gregory Garis 5 of 26 Figure 24-a: Locations of sectional views through the proposed rubble barrier.

6 Mr. Gregory Garis 6 of 26 Figure 24-b: Section A-A through proposed rubble barrier. Figure 24-c: Section B-B through proposed rubble barrier.

7 Mr. Gregory Garis 7 of 26 Figure 24-d: Section view C-C through proposed rubble barrier. Item No. 27. Permit applications for excavation or fill activities shall include the following detailed information concerning the material to be excavated and the existing or native material at the beach fill site: b. Core boring logs of all cores taken throughout the area to be excavated and surrounding area. Logs should extend at least two feet below the proposed bottom elevation. The depth of each visible horizon in the log should be reported relative to NAVD (88) and the material in each stratum classified according to grain size. Issue: Thank you for submitting the core boring logs collected in coordination with this project. However, the core boring logs received were or poor digital quality and many were very difficult to read. Please provide, if possible, more legible copies of the core boring logs for review. Response: The 2001 and 2003 boring logs submitted with the original JCP Application are admittedly difficult to read. The logs submitted with the original JCP Application were received (via fax) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in this format and are unfortunately the best quality available. e. Representative physical samples and particle size, color and carbonate content of the existing or native material at the beach fill site. Issue: The Department agrees that the submission of physical samples are not necessary

8 Mr. Gregory Garis 8 of 26 for the purposes of this project, and that the geotechnical data submitted for the placement sites north of the north jetty and south of the south jetty are sufficient. Response: Acknowledged. f. A sediment QA/QC plan that will ensure that the sediment to be used for beach restoration or nourishment will meet the standards set forth in paragraph 62B (2)(j), F.A.C. Issue: The Department acknowledges that a sediment QA/QC plan will be submitted that will ensure that the sediment being placed on the beach will meet the standard in paragraph 62B (2)(j), F.A.C. Staff encourages you to submit a draft of this plan to the Department as soon as possible so that we may provide constructive feedback with minimal delay to the project. Please provide a sediment QA/QC plan required in Rule 62B (1)(k)(4).(b)., F.A.C. Response: A draft Sediment QA/QC Plan is included with Attachment 27f. We have attempted to revise the Department s template QA/QC language and make it applicable to the conditions that are expected for the sand bypass project construction and operation. We believe, however, that additional coordination with the Department will be required to ensure that the QA/QC plan is structured appropriately for the sand bypass project rather than a typical beach nourishment project with an offshore borrow area. Item No. 28. Using an established natural community classification system, describe each natural community within the area of influence of the proposed activity and include: d. Sampling locations, date of sampling or measurements and methods used for sampling. Issue: In addition to the construction of a sediment trap, the application requests a Joint Coastal Permit for the bypassing of sand from the sediment trap to John U. Lloyd State Park. The Department requests a biological survey for nearshore hardbottom adjacent (and downdrift) to the fill template be provided. Although the survey is not requested for the completeness of the application, a requirement of the survey prior to construction of fill will be required as a Specific Condition of the Permit. For the completion of the Permit Application, the Department requests a Biological Monitoring Plan for the area of fill in John U. Lloyd Park and at least 1 km downdrift. Department staff are available to provide the assistance in the development of the monitoring plans. The application will be pending incomplete until the Department approves the Biological Monitoring Plan. Response: A draft Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is included as Attachment 37b. Please see item 33d for more information.

9 Mr. Gregory Garis 9 of 26 The 2013 Port Everglades Inlet Maintenance Project placed approximately 95,000 to 116,000 cy of sand along a 2,800-foot-long stretch of the JUL Beach State Park shoreline; this fill volume represents about 20% of the volume of the 2005/06 Segment III project. Nearshore hardbottom edge mapping and sediment depth monitoring data from the Year 1 post-construction survey of the 2013 maintenance dredging project did not detect any impacts to the location of exposed hardbottom along the nearshore edge (Figure 28-1) or sediment accumulation along permanent transects from cross-shore sediment movement from the beach fill (Table 28-1 and Figure 28-2). Based on the significantly lower volume proposed for placement during initial sand trap construction, approximately 10 to 15% of the Segment III fill and the results of the Year 1 postconstruction monitoring of the 2013 Port Everglades Inlet maintenance dredging project, biological monitoring is not proposed during/after construction if beach fill is placed at JUL during sand trap construction. The Year-2 post-construction monitoring for the 2013 project will be completed in the Summer of 2015 by Broward County. The results of this report will include analysis of the nearshore hardbottom downdrift of the fill template. In light of the results of the Year-1 monitoring indicating no negative effects of the 2013 project on adjacent nearshore hardbottom, we request that the Department consider the Year-2 monitoring report as the requested biological survey. The report and data from the Year-2 monitoring will be forwarded to the Department once it is complete and available.

10 Mr. Gregory Garis 10 of 26 Figure Nearshore hardbottom edge mapping and locations of permanent transects for the 2013 Port Everglades Inlet Maintenance Dredging Project. (Source: Broward County ECPRD).

11 Mr. Gregory Garis 11 of 26 Table Mean sediment depths (cm) at the permanent transects shown in Figure 28-1 for the 2013 Port Everglades Inlet Maintenance Dredging Project, pre-construction through Year 1 postconstruction. Transect (0 150m) Nearshore (0 50m) Midshore (51 100m) Offshore ( m) Pre Imm Post Year 1 Post Pre Imm Post Year 1 Post Pre Imm Post Year 1 Post Pre Imm Post Year 1 Post BT ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.29 ST ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.24 BT ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.07 ST ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.14 BT ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.27 ST ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.20 BT ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.11 ST ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.43 BT ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.07 ST ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.11 BT ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.11 ST ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 0.16 Figure Average sediment depth along the permanent sediment and benthic monitoring transects for the 2013 Port Everglades Inlet Maintenance Dredging Project, preconstruction through Year 1 post-construction. Item No. 31. A current Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, when the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission has determined that the proposed project will result in a take of marine turtles, which could not be authorized without an incidental take determination under federal law. Issue: Submittal of a Biological Opinion (BO) is not required for the completeness review of the application; however, a BO will need to be secured prior to construction of the project, and thus must be obtained prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed. The Applicant states that a project specific BO will be required from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Please provide Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and the Department with the results of this consultation.

12 Mr. Gregory Garis 12 of 26 Response: Formal consultation with both the USFWS and NMFS has been requested by the USACE. Item No. 33. Analysis of the expected effect of the proposed activity on the coastal system including but not limited to: a. Analysis of the expected physical effect of the proposed activity on the existing coastal conditions and natural shore and inlet processes. The analysis should include a quantitative description of the existing coastal system, the performance objectives of the proposed activity, the design parameters and assumptions, relevant computations, validation of the results and the data used in the analysis. Issue: Please provide information on expected average annual infilling rates of beach compatible material to the proposed sand trap as it is currently designed. Response: An updated engineering report for the project is included with Attachment 33e1 (Olsen, 2014), which includes discussion of predicted with-project sediment transport rates and updated sediment budgets for with- and without-project conditions. Also included with this submittal is the details the MIKE21 hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling for the proposed project configuration (Attachment 33a). Issue: The following issue was not included with RAI#1. Rather, this request was made via from Mr. Robert Brantly, P.E. via subsequent to receipt of RAI#1: Provide an analysis of the expected physical effect of the Interior Rubble Mound Groin on existing coastal conditions and inlet processes. Please include an assessment of the probability of formation of a scour hole adjacent to the groin, its size and location, and any potential impact to adjacent armoring. Response: It is noted that the configuration of the interior rubble mound groin has been modified from that depicted in the original permit application (Attachment 24, Sheet 10). The purpose of this modification is to locate the structure farther away from the navigation channel and make its location and alignment more consistent with the bulkheads to the immediate west. The principal purpose of the structure is to stabilize the small beach located within the existing jetty notch for with sand bypass project conditions. Under existing conditions, the small beach is maintained through a somewhat regular supply of sand that is transported over, trough, and around the existing north jetty from the Atlantic Ocean beach to the north of the inlet. Following completion of the sand bypass project, it is expected that this supply of sand to the small beach will be reduced.

13 Mr. Gregory Garis 13 of 26 Scour can occur where a hard structure, located on a sandy seabed, is exposed to waves and currents. It is expected that the potential for any scouring to occur at the smaller interior groin will be less for the revised configuration compared to the configuration included in the original application. The revised structure configuration will not project significantly southward of the alignment of the bulkhead alignment to the west. As such, it will not interact as much with the tidal current field within the inlet channel thereby reducing the potential for scour. In the event a scour hole, or feature, were to develop near the proposed interior groin, it is likely that it would be located near the eastern end of the structure. Given that there are no noticeable scour holes seaward of other existing structures in this area, including the north jetty to the east and vertical bulkheads to the west, it is expected that the development of a problematic scour hole around this structure is low. Further, the sloped, rubble mound construction of the groin inherently reduces wave reflection which reduces the potential for scour hole development. Also reducing the severity of scour is the fact that the groin is located outside of the main flow field within the channel, where current velocities are not as swift (ACRE, ). Additionally, the structure is not predicted to interfere with the incident wave field (Attachment 5). Most importantly, the proposed groin is designed to be founded utilizing multiple rock-filled marine mattresses manufactured by Tensar Corporation which are specifically designed to withstand scour conditions. Aside from complex numerical models, however, there are no generally accepted techniques for reliably estimating maximum scour depth or planform extent of waveinduced scour at sloping structures (Burcharth and Hughes, ). However, multiple previous installations of these mattresses by Olsen Associates as foundations for rubble mound structures has shown them to be excellent at resisting the potentially destabilizing effects of toe scour. For example, six rubble-mound T-head groins were constructed at Fort Clinch State Park in 2000 using the Tensar marine mattresses as a foundation. Similar in concept to that which is proposed at Port Everglades, the Fort Clinch structures are also located adjacent to a navigation channel and are regularly exposed to tidal currents, waves and ship wake. Environmental conditions are more severe at the Fort Clinch site. For example, significantly deep channel depths lie immediately alongside the heads of the rock groins, and the Fort Clinch site is exposed to peak tidal currents between 2 and 3 ft/sec -- more than three times as swift as those measured at Port Everglades (Olsen, and ACRE, 2002). Since their installation in 2000, there have been no instances of problematic scour at the Fort Clinch groins. Our experience with similar structures throughout the Southeast additionally gives no 1 ACRE (2002). Observation of Tidal Currents at Port Everglades, Florida. Prepared for Olsen Associates, Inc. By Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. 766 Falmouth Road, Building A, Unit 1C. Mashpee, Massachusetts. December Burcharth, H.F. and Hughes, S.A Fundamentals of Design. Coastal Engineering Manual, Part VI. Chapter VI-5-6, Engineer Manual , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 3 Olsen (2004). Cumberland Shoals Dredging Feasibility Study. Report prepared by Olsen Associates, Inc. Jacksonville, FL. April 2004.

14 Mr. Gregory Garis 14 of 26 indication that a properly constructed spur groin at Port Everglades would be susceptible to foundational failure via scour. b. Analysis of the compatibility of the fill material with respect to the native sediment at the placement site. The analysis should include all relevant computations, the overfill ratios, and superimposed graphs of the cumulative grain-size distribution and the frequency distribution of the fill material over the data for the existing or native sediment at the placement site. Provide computations of borrow area volume and composite fill material characteristics (mean grain size and sorting, percent carbonate content) in an electronic spreadsheet. Issue: Thank you for your submission of the geotechnical data in response to application item 27. Please submit composite values and calculations (electronic spreadsheet) for potentially beach compatible material to be excavated. In addition to mean grain size, please provide Munsell colors, carbonate content, percent silt (retained on the #230 sieve), fine gravel percent (retained on the #4 sieve) and relevant moment statistics. Response: An excel file containing composite values, calculations and method of moment statistics has been uploaded to the Department s ftp server along with this response (see Data Attachment 33b - Geotechnical Worksheets). Attachment 27a of the original JCP Application provides all available color data of sand samples collected within the chronically shoal area north of the navigation channel predominantly comprised of beach-compatible sand, as follows: The 2003 core boring logs depicted the sand within the dredge limits as being primarily light brown/gray in color (see Appendix 2). Although the boring logs did not reference Munsell color standards, engineers from Olsen Associates, Inc. visually inspected the archived samples in order to verify the color description given in the USACE logs. Based on that inspection, the dredged sediments are expected to fall into the 10YR hue range (light grey to tan) based on Munsell color standards. Several samples were retained for documentation purposes, and a photograph displaying a sample from each of the three cores is given as Figure D. The 2011 shoal sample was identified as having a Munsell color of 2.5Y 6/3 (light yellowish brown). It is noted that material contained in the shoal prior to 2003 had been accumulating for almost 35 years. Prior to the 2003 sampling, the area where the shoal was located had not been dredged since Although most of the material that was sampled in 2003 had likely deposited during the latter part of the 35 year period, the rate of accumulation was lower than that expected for the sand bypass project which could have allowed finer materials to collect ad some of the sediments to darken over time. Given that the principal source of material that will be transported to the

15 Mr. Gregory Garis 15 of 26 sand trap will be the beach to the immediate north, it is not unreasonable to expect that further sediments conditions within the sand trap will be very similar to those which exist along the Ft. Lauderdale beaches. Sediment samples collected during the 2005/06 beach renourishment project indicate that the material excavated from the shoal area varied in color between 10YR 5/1 and 10YR 7/3. Half of the ten total samples collected were 10YR 6/1, four were brighter than this value, and one sample was logged as 5/1. The table below summarizes the color and carbonate measurements from 2005/06 shoal area samples which were placed onto the beach at JUL. Summary of 2005/06 color and carbonate values from the chronically shoal borrow area immediately adjacent to the Port Everglades Entrance channel. 2005/06 Shore Protection Project Samples Channel Borrow Area Load ID Munsell Value/Chroma (10YR) % Carbonate 423 5/ / / / / / / / / / d. Analysis of how water quality and natural communities would be affected by the proposed project. Provide graphic representation (depiction) of the area of direct and secondary influence of the proposed activity and delineate the natural communities within that area. All required surveys shall be representative of conditions existing at the time of submittal. Surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) shall be conducted in the field during the growing season for a given climatic region such that they capture the full areal extent and biomass of the SAV community. Species composition and spatial distribution shall also be addressed by the survey. Estimate the affected acreage of each impacted community. Issue: You have provided a fill placement area within John U. Lloyd State Park utilizing the previously permitted Segment III construction template. Please provide an analysis of the estimated equilibrated toe of fill (ETOF) assuming the fill template is filled to capacity every two to four years, which is our understanding of the activity as described and requested in the application for permit. Response: Attachment 24 contains revised drawings of the fill area along JUL that

16 Mr. Gregory Garis 16 of 26 depict the location of the proposed ETOF. The proposed ETOF was mistakenly not shown on the drawings originally submitted with this application. The proposed ETOF is identical to that estimated for 2005 beach renourishment project (FDEP Permit No JC). The 2005 ETOF is used the applicant s plan to conduct future sand placement activities with the 2005 construction template and the exceptional performance of the 2005 beach fill and ETOF relative to expectations. As discussion previously with the Department and as shown in Attachment 33d1, the 2005 post-project nearshore edge, as represented by a 2006 nearshore edge survey, was very closely matched with the ETOF. The idea of operating within the 2005 construction template and ETOF was tested in 2013 when approximately 116,000 cy of sand were placed along the JUL shoreline during a USACE port maintenance dredging event. The Year 1 post-construction sedimentation monitoring conducted by Broward County in Summer 2014 did not document sediment accumulation seaward of the ETOF at the 12 permanent monitoring transects (See Figure 28-1). More details regarding the proposed ETOF are discussed in Section (Page 114) of the Environmental Assessment (EA). An excerpt from this section of the EA is presented here The 2005/06 Broward County Segment III equilibrium toe of fill (ETOF) at JUL Beach State Park represents the seaward limit of expected influence of sand bypass activities. Since mitigation was constructed for impacts to nearshore hardbottom resulting from the 2005/06 Segment III project, and future sand bypassing activities plan will be confined to the footprint of the 2005/06 project, no additional mitigation is warranted for the sand bypass project. Biological monitoring is not proposed at the beach fill placement site during/after construction if fill is placed at JUL during initial trap construction based on the minimal fill amount. The amount of fill to be placed during initial trap construction would be approximately 10% of the fill volume placed during the 2005/06 project. The 2013 Port Everglades Inlet Maintenance Dredging Project placed approximately 95,000 to 116,000 cy of sand along the JUL project area shoreline. Nearshore hardbottom edge mapping and sediment depth monitoring data from the Year 1 post-construction survey of the 2013 maintenance dredging project did not show any impacts to hardbottom exposure or cross-shore sediment movement from the 2013 beach fill at JUL. The Year 1 post-construction monitoring results of the 2013 Port Everglades Inlet Maintenance Dredging Project provide the Department with reasonable assurance of no significant adverse impacts to nearshore hardbottom seaward of the ETOF based on a fill volume of approximately 95,000 to 116,000 cy of sand. Based on these results, the County is proposing a post-construction monitoring program

17 Mr. Gregory Garis 17 of 26 for sand bypass events that is dependent upon fill volume triggers to initiate surveys. If more than 50 percent of the documented capacity within the JUL construction template will be placed during a maintenance fill event, in situ diver mapping of the nearshore hardbottom edge and sedimentation monitoring and digital video transects will be performed along the 12 permanent transects for the 2013 inlet maintenance dredging project shown in Figure Surveys will be conducted pre-construction and for two years post-construction during similar seasonal windows. Benthic community data analysis will be conducted if significant increases in sediment depth or extent are detected seaward of the ETOF. If no significant adverse effects are detected in the monitoring data after two cycles of maintenance fill placement and post-construction monitoring, monitoring shall be discontinued. Issue: If the combination of sand bypassing volume and frequency under the influence of alongshore spreading is of such a magnitude that a smaller maximum fill template could accommodate the volume of periodic sand bypassing, then please consider amending your application and provide the estimated ETOF for the smaller proposed fill template. Using the estimated ETOF, please provide the estimated impacts to nearshore hardbottom with respect to both the 2011 hardbottom edge and the sustained impacts to hardbottom from construction of the Segment III project. Response: Comparison of the 2005 construction template and beach conditions 3 to 6 years following completion of the 2005 project is used to estimate probable capacity within the 2005 template at the time of a future sand bypass events. The comparative profile dates were selected as they represent conditions whereby the fill has equilibrated and partially eroded. This comparison represents the potential sand capacity with the 2005 construction template for a future beach condition. From this comparison, it is estimated that between 175,000 and 227,000 cy of sand capacity within the JUL construction template could be available between sand bypass events (see Figure 33a, below). This volume is consistent with the upper range of the anticipated sand volume for a given sand bypass event.

18 Mr. Gregory Garis 18 of ,000 South Jetty R-86 R-87 R-88 R-89 R-90 R-91 R ,000 Volume Required to Fill 2005 Construction Template as of April 2011 (6-yrs Post-Construction) Cumulative Fill Volume (cy) 200, , , , ,000 75,000 50,000 Volume Required to Fill 2005 Construction Template as of June 2008 (3-yrs Post-Construction) 25, ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 Distance South of South Jetty (feet) Figure 33a: Cumulative volume required to fill the 2005 construction template as of June 2008 and April 2011, 3 and 6-years post-beach nourishment project construction, respectively. Reducing the size of the allowable fill template from that indicated in the permit application could adversely affect the schedule of bypass events and the amount of material that could be placed at any given time. Changes in the bypassing schedule due to limitations on fill volume placement could have an unacceptable effect to the overall economic efficiency of the sand bypass project. It is our opinion that the construction template as drawn for the 2005 project is (a) suitable to meet the predicted needs of the bypassing project, and (b) will not expand ETOF impacts beyond those of the 2005 Segment III project, impacts that have already been mitigated (see Attachment 33d1). Issue: Please provide proposed mixing zones at both the dredge and beach placement locations. Furthermore, provide assurance that the proposed mixing zone at the beach placement site, located within Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) will adhere to the requirements of Chapter (1)(a), F.S. Response: The OFWs at JUL Beach State Park are located landward of the MHWL and include exclusively Whiskey Creek. The OFW is not located in the Atlantic Ocean sand where all will be placed. We are requesting a 150-meter mixing zone during fill placement south of Port Everglades. Issue: The proposed redesign of the sand bypassing project does change the impact areas

19 Mr. Gregory Garis 19 of 26 in the comparison to the previous design. DEP staff recognizes that a new survey of hardbottom communities was conducted in Please, provide updated analysis of impacts and estimates of impact areas (direct and potential secondary impacts). The application will remain incomplete until new estimates of impacts are provided. Note: If a mixing zone is proposed, provide a narrative description and graphic representation of the mixing zone. Identify any areas within the proposed mixing zone that contain significant submerged resources. Explain why the size of the proposed mixing zone is the minimum necessary to meet water quality standards and provide justification for that size. Response: Please see the Benthic Resource Impact Summary Report included with Attachment 33e4 and the Environmental Assessment (EA), included with Attachment 33e3, for discussion of project-related impacts. Construction of the sand bypass project will require a mixing zone as detailed in the aforementioned updated EA. The presently proposed mixing zone extends 500 meters east, 300 meters north, 150 meters south, and 1,050 meters west of the sediment trap project area. Please note that this requested mixing zone differs from that included with the original JCP Application. The current version of the proposed mixing zone is based upon numerical dredge plume fate modeling results for the proposed project configuration and construction methods (DHI, 2014) which were completed following submittal of the permit application. The size of the presently proposed mixing zone was derived via application of numerical modeling results from a dredge plume fate study completed by DHI (2014), which is attached with this response (see Attachment 33e2). The purpose of the modeling exercise was to utilize the previously calibrated MIKE hydrodynamic and sediment transport model (see Attachment 33a) to simulate the dispersion of sediments during construction. A similar analysis was completed in 2008 which relied upon assumptions consistent with mechanical excavation of the entire project as proposed in the 2008 JCP Application. The 2014 analysis updates the 2012 dredge plume fate investigation. The 2014 study considers (1) the current sand trap configuration and (2) sediment loading characteristics associated with hydraulic dredging and scow loading. Hydraulic dredging and scow loading can contribute to turbidity and sedimentation levels that are higher than those associated with mechanical dredging. For the purposes of evaluating project effects to water quality, model results are structured to track the suspended sediment concentration (SSC) in units of milligrams of sediment per liter (mg/l) throughout the simulation. An example of model output is given in Figure 33-a. The figure depicts location and extent of the area where the SSC exceeds 72 mg/l at some point during the simulation. The simulation period represents the entire dredging period for both the sand trap and the spoil shoal area.

20 Mr. Gregory Garis 20 of 26 A SSC of 72.5 mg/l was selected to represent 29 NTUs. This relationship is based upon a review of the available literature, case studies, and engineering reports where the relationship between SSC and NTU units has been studied (see References, below). In short, establishing a relationship between SSC and NTU is difficult and may factors such as light, water and sediment conditions and affect the results. From the most studies believed to be the most reliable and applicable to Broward County, ratios of NTU to SSC ranged between about 1.0 and 4.0. For the Port Everglades study, the mean value of 2.5 was selected as the ratio between NTU and SSC. That is, a turbidity violation of the 29 NTU above background standard would correspond with an SSC value of about 72.5 mg/l. The size of the requested mixing zone has been minimized in order to be generally consistent with the area where expected suspended sediment concentrations may exceed 29 NTUs during the course of the work. Figure 33-b plots the proposed mixing zone relative to the predicted 29 NTU area. This figure is also included in the EA (Attachment 33e3). As previously stated, the proposed mixing zone extends 500 meters east, 300 meters north, 150 meters south, and 1,050 meters west of the project area. Figure 33-a: Extent of predicted maximum suspended sediment concentration exceeding 72.5 mg/l (~29 NTU) during all hydraulic and mechanical dredging and barge loading activities for the Sand Bypassing Project at Port Everglades.

21 Figure 33-b: Proposed mixing zone for the Port Everglades Sand bypass Project (blue line). Adapted from CEG, 2015, the updated EA, which is included with this submittal. Mr. Gregory Garis ` 21 of 26

22 Mr. Gregory Garis 22 of 26 e. Reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts pursuant to Rules 62B (19)(b), F.A.C. Issue: Please also note that Attachment 33 of the Application references multiple items to be provided to the Department for the review of the proposed project. The Department reserves the right to request additional information regarding these documents and their contents as part of the completeness review for the proposed project. This information is consistent with Rule 62B (3), F.A.C. Response: In accordance with the original JCP Application, the following reports are included with Attachment 33e, herein: Attachment 33e1: Olsen (2014). Port Everglades Inlet Sand Bypass Projects and Trap Redesign and Updated Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis. Report prepared for Broward County, Florida. Prepared by Olsen Associates, Inc. Jacksonville, FL. December Attachment 33e2: DHI (2014). Port Everglades, FL Additional Simulations of Turbidity and Sediment Deposition for an Additional Candidate Bypassing Layout Revised Draft Final Report. DHI Water & Environment, Inc. 380 Stevens Avenue, Suite 205. Solana Beach, CA November Attachment 33e3: CEG (2015). Environmental Assessment Port Everglades Inlet Sand Bypass Project Broward County, Fl. JCP Application No JC. USACE FILE NO. SAJ (SP-LCK). Prepared for Olsen Associates Inc Herschel St. Jacksonville, FL Prepared by Coastal Eco- Group, Inc. 665 SE 10th St. Suite 104 Deerfield Beach, FL May The Environmental Assessment (EA) (CEG, 2015) contains a Cumulative Effects Assessment. This assessment considers the avoidance and minimization analyses and measures, and project impact assessment. Attachment 33e4: NSUOC (2015). Broward County Port Everglades Proposed Sand Bypass Project: Benthic Resource Impact Summary Draft Final Report. Prepared by Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center. Prepared for Broward County Environmental Planning And Community Resilience Division. June Attachment 33e5: NSUOC (2015). Broward County Port Everglades Sand Bypass Project: Benthic Habitat Mapping and Characterization Update Draft Report. Prepared for Broward County Environmental Planning And Community Resilience Division. June 2015

23 Mr. Gregory Garis 23 of 26 Attachment 4 to the EA: NSUOC (2014). Broward County Port Everglades Sand Bypass Project: Rock Boring Site Coral Relocation and Survey 1-Year Post- Transplantation Report. Prepared for Broward County Environmental Planning And Community Resilience Division. June 2015 Item No. 35. Describe any methods proposed to protect threatened or endangered species. Issue: Page 4 of attachment 35 references the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as being able to proceed with fill. Please explain how the Corps relates to construction of this project. Response: Reference to the Corps was a typographical error and relic of previous channel maintenance projects which bypassed sand onto the beaches at JUL wherein they acted as the Contractor. The reference to the Corps cited in the RAI should be corrected to Contractor. Bypassing events will be completed by the Permittee (Broward County) and not the Corps of Engineers. Issue: Because the majority of the proposed project is expected to be constructed during sea turtle nesting season; project staging, nighttime storage of equipment and project lighting will be of particular concern. Please include the Department on any consultations with National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Response: The Department will be included on any consultations with NMFS or USFWS. Item No. 37. A narrative description of any proposed mitigation plans, pursuant to Rule , F.A.C., including purpose, a comparison between the functions of the impact site to the mitigation site, maintenance, monitoring, estimated cost, construction sequence and techniques. For proposed artificial reefs, indicate the water depth, depth of sand overlying bedrock, proposed relief and materials (type, size and shape). Issue: DEP staff confirms that the previously proposed (May 2008) mitigation activities are conceptually acceptable for the redesigned project. Please, provide a Mitigation Plan, which would include: a) minimization of impacts by transplantation of scleractinian corals and octocorals from the area of direct impact; b) estimates of the amount of each mitigation activity; c) identification of an appropriate site for a new limestone-boulder coral nursery; and d) a Monitoring Plan to evaluate mitigation success. Also, please provide a Biological Monitoring Plan for the construction area to evaluate potential additional direct and secondary impacts during the construction, and post-construction effects on adjacent hardbottom communities. The application will remain incomplete until a Mitigation and Monitoring Plans are provided.

24 Mr. Gregory Garis 24 of 26 Response: Prior to initial project construction of the sand trap, scleractinian corals and octocorals (synonymous with gorgonians) will be relocated from the direct impact area. Corals greater than 10 cm (3.9 in) in diameter and octocorals greater than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in height will be relocated. Colonies of the federally-listed species, Acropora cervicornis, located within 300 m from the direct impact area, will also be relocated prior to project construction to avoid potential adverse effects from elevated turbidity during project construction. Colonies will be relocated to nearshore hardbottom (Colonized Pavement habitat) to the north of the sand trap project area, outside of the influence of project activities; these nearshore hardbottom areas are known to support Acroporid corals. A Draft Coral Relocation Plan is provided in Attachment 37a. The Environmental Assessment (EA) submitted with Attachment 33e3 includes a summary of the mitigation plan and maps of the proposed nearshore and offshore coral nursery locations. A Draft UMAM and Mitigation Plan are provided in Attachment 37b. Item No. 39. A fee, as set forth in Rule 62B , F.A.C. A spreadsheet is available on the Department s web page to aid in calculating the correct application fee. In order to calculate the fee, please provide the following: the acreage of proposed filling seaward of the MHWL; the acreage of proposed dredging; the cubic yardage of fill to be placed on the beach (above and below the MHWL); the cubic yardage of material to be dredged from an inlet and then placed either in an upland or offshore disposal site; the length of rigid coastal structures (groins, breakwaters, jetties, seawalls and revetments); and the number of inlet-related structures (new channels, sand traps and bypassing plants). Issue: The Department acknowledges that the County requests to have the application fee waived because a similar project located at Port Everglades Inlet was applied for in June of 2008, and was eventually withdrawn in May of However, Rule 62B (1), F.A.C. requires the Department to collect a fee for the application of a Joint Coastal Permit. Because certain information requested in this document may have an influence on the final fee for the proposed project, a fee will be calculated upon receipt of such requested information and provided to the Applicant for review. Response: Acknowledged. Additional Item. Please publish the enclosed Notice of Application. Pursuant to Section , F.S. and Rule , F.A.C., you (the applicant) are required to publish at your own expense the enclosed Notice of Application. This notice shall be published one time only within 14 days, in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected. For the purpose of this rule, "publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected" means publication in a newspaper meeting the requirements of Sections and , F.S., in the county where the activity is to take place. The applicant shall provide proof