Curtis Rogers Report on Ocean Strand

8/6/2019 Curtis Rogers Report on Ocean Strand

1/13

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter provides a general description of the existing environmental conditions onsite basedon available environmental survey data, review of aerial photography, and a site reconnaissance

visit by a Coastal Systems International, Inc., biologist on April 27, 2011. Environmental permitsthat may be required for the Park improvements projects, depending on the desired scope of

work, are noted, along with potential key environmental issues and a general summary of thevarious environmental permitting processes. This information will be used to develop Master

Plan design alternatives that minimize environmental impacts to the greatest practical extent,provide native habitat enhancement where appropriate, and meet federal, state, and local

environmental regulations. Reference in many sections are made to the East Parcel, east ofA1A, and West Parcel, west of A1A, as they have different environmental and permitting

conditions.

Existing Environmental Conditions

Four habitat types, or environmental zones, were categorized onsite for purposes of this report:

1. Beach-Dune2. Upland3. Mangrove Wetland4. Submerged LandsEach habitat presents a unique set of environmental conditions based on its biological

characteristics and implicates certain environmental permitting considerations based on its

associated protections under federal, state, and local regulations.

Beach-Dune Habitat

Existing Conditions: There is a steep, well-formed frontal dune located across most of the East

Parcel (see Vegetation Map for location). The majority of the dune is densely vegetated bymature sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera) and other native salt-tolerant species. Brazilian pepper

(Schinus terebinthifolius) and a number of invasive exotic Australian pine (Casuarina

equisetifolia)trees are located at the west side of the dune.

There is an existing path from A1A that connects to a wood dune walkover leading to the beach

near the center of the property. On the northern half of the property, the west toe of the duneappears to be located close to the landward boundary of the thick stand of native beach-dune

vegetation and the area landward of the dune was previously cleared/impacted.


2/13

indicate a seasonal high water line location that is close to the seaward edge of the dune. Updatedbeach topography is required to confirm current mean and seasonal high water line locations.

The beach provides habitat for nesting and hatchling sea turtles and nesting shorebirds.

Dune Habitat - sea grape canopy dominates, with Australian pines in the background.


3/13

Upland Habitat

Existing Conditions: Upland habitat (see Vegetation Map for location) is the largestenvironmental zone on the property, consisting of a maintained lawn and upland vegetation with

both native and non-native/exotic plants. The types of trees, shrubs and ground cover are typicalof a maintained upland site and are consistent with the vegetation survey by Avirom &

Associates, Inc. dated November 5, 2002. Native vegetation is most dense within the southwestquadrant of the West Parcel. No threatened or endangered animal species were observed during

the April 2011 site reconnaissance visit.

Previously cleared/impacted Upland Habitat with both native and non-native vegetation

Mangrove Wetlands

Existing Conditions: Mangroves span the entire Park shoreline, which is approximately 600 feet

long along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) (see Vegetation Map depicting approximate


4/13

The mangrove fringe is narrower and more dominated by invasive exotic vegetation, such as

Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), on the northern one-third to half of the Park ICWshoreline. A detailed wetland vegetation survey is recommended to identify areas of exotic

vegetation that could be cleared to provide access to the shoreline with no or minimal mangroveimpacts, and to define mangrove wetland impact buffers for planning/design purposes.

West edge of Mangrove Wetlands along Ocean Strand Park shoreline, looking south

Submerged Lands

Existing Conditions: The submerged lands beyond the West Parcels west property boundary(location to be confirmed based on survey, but generally assumed to be the mean high water line;

see Vegetation Map for general location) are held in sovereignty by the State of Florida.

An in water marine resource assessment was conducted by Palm Beach County Environmental


5/13

It is our understanding that a dock structure existed historically onsite, but was demolished aftersustaining significant storm damage. As dock reconstruction was not permitted by the COE and

DEP under an emergency permit and a functional structure does not remain, a new structure -even if built in the historic dock footprint - must comply with current environmental permitting

and proprietary authorization (use of sovereignty submerged lands) criteria.

Southwest Intracoastal Waterway Shoreline along Ocean Strand Park, looking north


6/13

Summary of Permitting Procedure by Agency

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jurisdictional Authority: Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and/or in/over-water constructionwould require a Department of the Army Permit. The COE has jurisdiction over any work in

navigable waters pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The COE wouldreview the proposed Project upon receipt of a Joint ERP Application either directly or from the

State agency processing the West Parcel ERP.

General Summary of Permitting Process: After permit application submittal and review, theCOE would issue a Public Notice (PN) to solicit comments from the general public and federal

commenting agencies and would initiate formal consultation with the FWS for the manatee (forin-water work) and/or with the NMFS for Johnsons seagrass (if it may potentially be impacted

by the Project and standard construction guidelines cannot be met). The comment period for thePN is generally limited to thirty (30) days; however, significant comments received after this

timeframe are typically addressed, provided a decision has not already been made on theproposed project.

A critical part of negotiations with the COE would be agreeing on a site plan that has avoided

and minimized impacts to submerged aquatic resources, coastal wetlands, and manatees to themaximum extent practical. The COE would evaluate the direct and indirect effects of the Project

on the emergent and submerged aquatic resources in the area and would consider the potentialadverse impacts of the Project to the manatee.

The federal review can be complicated if a federally listed endangered or threatened species is

involved. Required consultations may include:

NOAA Fisheries for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Impacts: The COE PN would initiate

consultation with the NOAA NFMS-HCD, as required pursuant to the EFH provisions of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 for any project elementsthat propose impacts to mangrove wetlands, mud, shell, sand and/or rock bottom utilized byvarious life stages of the penaeid shrimp complex, red drum, reef fish, stone crab, spiny lobster,

migratory/pelagic fish, and snapper/grouper complex. The NMFS would provide comments tothe COE PN within thirty (30) days indicating any concerns and EFH Conservation

Recommendations (CR) they may have for the proposed project. If the Project proposes


7/13

implementing best management practices (BMPs) including turbidity curtains, and compensation- restoration, creation, or enhancement of habitat to offset any permitted loss.

NOAA NMFS for Johnsons Seagrass Impacts: If the Project is designed to comply with the

Dock Construction Guidelines in Florida for Minor Structures Constructed in or overSubmerged Aquatic Vegetation, Marsh or Mangrove Habitat and Key for Construction

Conditions for Docks or Other Minor Structures Constructed in or Over Johnson's Seagrass(Halophila johnsonii) (NMFS/COE), no formal consultation with NMFS PRD is required. If the

project does not meet these guidelines, but no impacts to Johnsons seagrass are proposed,informal consultation with NMFS-PRD will be initiated. If the Project does not meet these

guidelines and impacts to Johnsons seagrass is proposed, the COE would initiate formalconsultation with the NFMS-PRD, as required pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act. The NMFS would provide comments to the COE PN within thirty (30) days indicating anyconcerns they may have relative to impacts to Johnsons seagrass and/or its critical habitat. If it

is determined that the proposed project would not jeopardize the continued existence of thespecies, the FWS would issue a project specific Biological Opinion recommending Reasonable

and Prudent Alternatives to ensure no jeopardy. NMFSPRD staff will providerecommendations to the COE relative to mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

Processing Time: COE permit processing time greatly depends on the necessary time required

by the applicant to demonstrate suitable avoidance and minimization of marine and water qualityimpacts. Other factors influencing COE review include objections and comments received during

the PN period, lengthy endangered species consultation, and the workload of COE staff. COEresponse time is not limited by regulatory time clocks and is therefore difficult to predict.

In/over-water facilities with minor impacts to mangrove wetlands and/or marine resources, suchas a boardwalk or kayak/canoe ramp, may result in a permitting process of 1 to 1.5 years. More

significant overwater facilities, such as a dock that impacts mangroves and/or seagrasses, willlikely result in a permitting process of over 2 years. Significant impacts may not be authorized,

even with a costly mitigation proposal.

DEP/SFWMD

Jurisdictional Authority: Pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., an ERP is required for

activities that affect the water resources of the state of Florida. Chapters 18-21 and 40E-41 of theFlorida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) outline the evaluation criteria by which ERPs areevaluated.

Since there is an upland component to the proposed Project, it is likely that an ERP for work on

this site would be reviewed by the SFWMD. The SFWMD would review the application for


8/13

As the East Parcel project is east of the CCCL, requiring a DEP CCCL Permit, the DEP wouldtypically review the ERP application associated with the same site. However, it must be

confirmed that the State will not want to tie the East Parcel permitting to the West Parcel.

General Summary of Permitting Process: The permitting process would involve pre-application meetings with ERP program staff in West Palm Beach and joint submittal of the ERP

application to both the SFWMD and the COE for West Parcel work that also requires a COEpermit. SFWMD permitting would likely entail a series of Request for Additional Information

(RAI) correspondence between the permit applicant and agency staff in order to provide allinformation required for SFWMD to approve or deny the Project application. Upon submittal of

Project materials to the SFWMD, agency staff must issue an RAI letter within 30 days advisingthe applicant that either additional information is required or the project file is complete. As part

of the application process SFWMD would consult with the Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission (FWC) Imperiled Species Management Section, to evaluate direct and

indirect impacts to manatees and their habitat (seagrass beds). SFWMD will also coordinatesovereign submerged lands authorization.

If an ERP is required for the East Parcel, there may be minor stormwater permitting design

challenges given narrow site constraints. Lighting review for protection of marine turtles willlikely be the most challenging aspect of East Parcel ERP processing.

Use of Sovereignty Submerged Lands: All work on/over sovereign submerged lands requires

authorization in the form of a Consent of Use, Easement, or Lease, depending on the scope ofwork pursuant to Ch. 18-21, F.A.C., depending on the scope. All proposed activities must meet

Ch. 18-21, F.A.C., management criteria, including resource and riparian rights protections.

Water Quality Certification & Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency: Issuance of theERP typically constitutes water quality certification and consistency with the Florida Coastal

Zone Management Plan, both required prior to issuance of the COE permit.

Permit Processing Time: ERP processing for an upland project without mangrove impacts orother major issues typically takes 6 to 9 months. A scope of work that includes mangrove

impacts could result in ERP processing time of 1 year or more, depending on the level of impact,

negotiation process, and available mitigation that can be accepted by all agencies. For minorstructures, depending on design and the relative ability to avoid/minimize seagrass impacts anddesign appropriate mitigation for unavoidable impacts, permit processing may take 2 years or

more. Significant impacts may not be authorized. Lengthy negotiations over impact avoidance,minimization and mitigation may significantly extend the permitting timeframe.


9/13

The above-referenced environmental permits are subject to public comments and formal legalproceedings to challenge agency authorizations. Third party objections can substantially increase

the timeframes and costs associated with the permitting process. Open and effectivecommunication with stakeholders is recommended in an effort to maximize stakeholder

satisfaction, minimize concerns and minimize/mitigate project risk.


10/13

Ocean Strand ParkB O C A R A T O N F L O R I D A

Campus +CommunityStrategies LLC

TOPOGRAPHY


11/13



SOD AND SCATTERED

PALM TREES

MANGROVES AND

SEA GRAPE

HAMMOCK (TREES, PALMS AND UNDERSTORY DOMINATED

BY BRAZILIAN PEPPER)

BUFFER (TREES, PALMS

AND BRAZILIAN PEPPER)

SEA GRAPE WITH DUNE

GRASSES AT EDGE OF BEACH

TREES (UNDERSTORY

DOMINATED BY BRAZILIAN

PEPPER)

AUSTRALIAN PINE WITH

BRAZILIAN PEPPER

VEGETATION

SOD AND SCATTEREDPALM TREES

MANGROVES AND SEA GRAPE

HAMMOCK (TREES, PALMS AND UNDERSTORYDOMINATED BY BRAZILIAN PEPPER)

BUFFER (TREES, PALMSAND BRAZILIAN PEPPER)

SEA GRAPE WITH DUNEGRASSESAT EDGE OF BEACH

TREES (UNDERSTORY DOMINATEDBY BRAZILIAN PEPPER)

AUSTRALIAN PINE WITH

BRAZILIAN PEPPER

PALM TREES


12/13



NATURAL FEATURES


13/13



MAN-MADE FEATURES

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pamela-alford
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Curtis Rogers Report on Ocean Strand

Documents