HomeMy Public PortalAbout2023-40 Adopting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Facilities Plan for the Zone 1 K8 Central Basin Stormwater Improvement ProjectRE SOLUTION NO. 2023-40
A RE SOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUN CIL OF THE
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, ADOPTING
THE CLEAN W ATER STATE RE VOLVING FUND
FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE ZONE 1 KS CENTRA L BASIN
STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; PROVIDING
FOR IMPLEM ENTATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHERE AS, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program ("CWSRF") provides low-interest loans to local government agencies
to finance the construction of stormwater facilities; and
W HERE AS, the Village of Key Biscayne (the "Village") intends to apply for a CWSRF
design loan in the amount of $3,888,662 to complete the 100% design of the stormwater system
improvements for the Zone 1 K8 Central Basin (the "Project"); and
W HERE AS, the Florida Administrative Code requires that the Village adopt a facility plan
outlining necessary stormwater facility improvements to comply with CWSRF funding
requirements; and
W HERE AS, the Village Council desires to adopt the CWSRF facilities plan, attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Facilities Plan"), for the Project; and
W HERE AS, the Village Council finds that this Resolution is in the best interest and
welfare of the residents of the Village.
NOW, THERE FORE , BE IT RE SOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. That each of the above-stated recitals are hereby adopted,
confirmed, and incorporated herein.
Section 2. Adoption. That the Village Council hereby adopts the Facilities Plan,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A," for the Project.
Page I of2
Section 3. Implementation. That the Village Manager is hereby authorized to take
such action as may be necessary to implement the purpose and provisions of this Resolution.
Section 4. Effective Date. That this Resolution shall be effective immediately upon
adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this _18th_ day of _July __ 2023.
ATTEST:
~~ hcoc,,l---
VILLAGE C L E RK
APPROVED A S TO FO R M AND LEGAL SUFFI CIENCY:
~J~
W EISS SER O T A H ELFM J\N CO LE & BIERM AN, P.L.
VILLAGE A T T O R N E Y
Page 2 of2
Exhibit A
K-8 Basin
Sto rm w ater System Im pro vem ents
for the K-8 Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Pro ject No.: 60690139
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary 3
2. Cost Comparison and Selected Alternative 5
3. Cost and Effectiveness Analysis 8
4. Environmental Effects/Benefits 10
5. Public Participation Process ·-····· 11
6. Financial Feasibility - .. - _ 12
7. Phasing Plan and Schedule - 13
8. Adopted Resolution 14
Appendix A - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 15
Appendix B - Net Present Worth Analysis .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 18
Appendix C - Environmental Assessments 22
Appendix D - Public Meeting Information - 23
Appendix E - Capital Financing Plan 24
Appendix F -Adopted Resolution 26
List of Tables
Figure 1. Key Bisca ne unicipality and Location of K-8 School. 4
Figure 2. ProJeot Locatio M aR 4
Figure 3. A lt rn ative 1: Existing Conditions 5
Figure . Altern ative 3 7
Appendix A - Prelimi ary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Appendix B - Net Bresent Worth Analysis
Appendix C - Environmental Assessments
Appendix D - Public Meeting Information
Appendix E - Capital Financing Plan
Appendix F - Adopted Resolution
Prepa red for: V illage of K ey Biscayne AECOM
Storm w ater S yste m Im pro vem e nts
for the K-8 Scho o l B a sin
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Project No.: 60690139
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Project Description
T he V illa ge of K ey Biscayne (V illa g e) is proposing a storm w ater infrastructure project (P roject) to
provid e flo o d m itig a tion fo r the K-8 School basin; a project locatio n m ap is show n in Figure 1. T he
Proje ct is in te n d ed to alle viate flood ing w ithin the K -8 S choo l and its vicinity. T he pro ject w ill entail
in stalla tio n of new sto rm w ate r conve yance and a storm w ater pum p station, to r w hich the V illage
has acq u ire d a va ca n t lo t. Floo d in g in the project area negatively im pacts surf ace w aters, since it
transport s w aste and debris; fo r this reason, the flooding reduction achieved w ith this project will
significantly im prove w ater quality in the area. Species of concern that have been, com m only encountered
are sea grasses, m ang ro ves, and sm a ll toothed sawfi sh. The flooding r duction also im pro ves vehicular
safety fo r the ge ne ral pub lic. A dditio na lly, the proposed im provem ents consider future cl im ate conditio ns
to provid e a resilie nt system .
T he o bje ctive s of the pro po sed sto rm w ater im pro vem ents re the fo llow ing :
a. Ensu re an ad e q uate flo o d pro tection level of serv ice during the 10 -year, 24-hour storm event
(o r 8 in ches of rainfall w ithin 24 ho urs), w hich considers o flooding over ro ad cro w ns and
po n d in g to dep ths of 0-0.5 fee t w ithin sw ales fo r a m axim um duration of 6-12 hours.
b. P ro vid e ade qu a te w ate r qua lity/tr atrn eitt and effi ciently drain storm w ater runoff during
inte nse stor m eve nts, w hich are fr equently observ ed in the com m unity.
c. A cco m m od a te the incre a se d system c~p~ci ty to address expected S ea Level Rise up to the
yea r 20 60 , ba se d on N O AA 's Jnterm edia~e l'll igh pro jectio n.
1.2
T he Project is intended to m itigate localiz d flooding and enhance public safety around the Key Biscayne
Ele m e ntary (K -8 ) S cho ol area. The existing star- w ater infrastructure is disconnected and has
predo m inantly sm a ll-dia m eter storm w ater pipes, w tiich m ake the runoff conveyance ineffi cient. The
topog raphy w ithin the V illage is ge era lly flat, w ith ground elevations ranging from 1.5 to 8.0 feet, North
A m erican Ver:t ital Da tum of 1988 (N AV O ). Based on Li O A R data, the centerline and edge of pavem ent
(E O P ) elevatio ns of the V ill a · e ro aaw ays vary fro m elevations of 1.50 to over 4 feet, N AV O. A s a point of
reference , ttle highest astror om ·cal tide corded in recent years reached an elevation of 2.3 feet, NAV O.
T he lo w - y'n ele vations of the xisting roadw ay netw ork are significant because of the lim ited gradient
betw een hyd aul"cally distant i ets and the outfall locations, w hich m akes the existing gravity-based
storm w ater co lle ct i'o n system i eff ective and incapable of m eeting the desired level of serv ice in m any
areas. T his issue is eJ<i cerbated and m ade m anifest during periods of intense rainfa ll, seasonal high tides
(king tide s), storm sut.Q 8 , or the anticip ated sea level rise.
T he Pro ject w ill enha nce the treatm e nt of storm w ater discharged to Biscayne Bay, thus im proving w ater
quality. Fo rced pum ping w ill be required to address high tides and anticipated sea level rise.
1.3 Project Location M ap
T he Pro ject lo cation is show n in Figure 2. It covers the proposed storm w ater dra inage im pro vem ents
in the vicinity of the K-8 S cho ol and surro unding areas.
Prepared fo r: V illag e of K e y Biscayne AEC O M
3
Stormw ater System Im pro vem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
,
I
,
I
I
' I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I ,' ,
I
I I '
, ,
' I
I > I ,
\,
\
I , - - - ' , ... t ...
: I,.·~
' '
I
I
I
I
I .. - - :, ---
}
0 ,00 1,000
I I I I I
?_OOOF .. 1
I I
Figure 1. Key Biscayne Municipality and Location of K-8 School
I
I
I
I ,
_r;. ..
•. _/ _·-r
'
I I/ 'f-- /
' I ' ('' :•
.J ,·
I
I . '/ i • I - i .. I ,. I ·, . I ?1
/ / ···;/ /"'/'' ·,·-~.-;-i ~- ·- -i . ·<- " /., , I " ;, I . • • •,,. ;~ •'-I •j'" /~./Ir ••f
...__ / ". /~ / '/' --~-~
7 --. · 1 t . 1 : • 1 • , ', ~(: ' j _j___ : :
" -T - --"1r:- , f ~ ~7 L. i 'I.·~ 1 :' .. , ,
-'> "f ,, . f . ·, I -.
• I, : ·· : · .. W ;,_tw ood O r
/.
. • .A
. , ., \ \ ' \ .i. . • i .
· .. ..__· \4 ,.· '\ ,. :. ". , _ ._ . .J .:.. I '..1 I ', ..,. ~ • - J,.,
Figure 2. Project Location Map
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
4
Sto rm w ater Sy stem Im pro vem ents
for the K -8 S cho o l Ba sin
D raft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Pro ject N o.: 60690139
2. Cost Comparison and Selected
Alternative
2.1 Project Alternative Evaluation and Cost Analysis
A Class 5 Opinion of Pro bable Construction Cost, as classified by the American Association of Cost
Engineering (AA C E), was developed in preparation of the K-8 Basin Storm water Facilities Plan. Based on
the_ level of design, the C lass 5 estim ate is the "least" accurate - with an expected accuracy range of -
50% to +100% at an 80% confidence level. The estim ate carries a 10% design development contingency
to account fo r further design development. The project cost presented is the c· nstruction cost plus the
10% contingency and escalation.
During the planning and schematic design for the project, the following altern ativ s were evaluated:
Alternative 1: Analysis of current conditions (refer to Figtm~ 3)
•
•
This is the no action altern ative .
The cost of continued localized flooding, lncl~ing the a verse impacts to the public and
enviro nm ent, m ake this altern ative unacceptable
,,
• • l ·1 ·
.i .:n~ t
Key1Blscayne
Elementar;v
S~il®I
II•
rr••• C
0 • . """""
Figure 3. Alternative 1: Existing Conditions
Prep ared fo r: V illage of K e y Biscayne A EC O M
5
Stormw ater System Im provem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Alternative 2: This alternative includes the following:
• Reconstruction of the current stormwater management system by replacing small
diameter pipes with a larger diameter conveyance system and by improving the
connectivity of subsurface pipes to improve distributed management of stormwater runoff.
• Restoring and constructing swales and increasing the pipe sizes of the conveyance
system. This alternative improves the response of the stormwater system in the vicinity of
the school by reducing peak flood elevations and duration. However, only slight
improvements of calculated flood depth were shown, with many areas still experiencing
localized flooding.
• This alternative has higher costs than Alternative 1.
• This solution reduces localized flooding without eliminating it.
Alternative 3: This alternative includes the following (refer to Figure 4):
• Rehabilitation and improvement of existing outfall locations.
• Installing the largest diameter pipes possible within the available easements and includes
a pump station of a capacity equal to the sum of maximum discharge rate achievable at
each outfall location, such that proposed flows do not exceed existing outfall velocity, in
proximity to the existing outfalls. The storrnwater pump station will provide forward
pumping and correspondingly improve the response of the stormwater system during
high intensity rainfall events.
• This alternative has the highest costs; however, due to its technical merits (ability to
mitigate flood conditions in the pr9ject area), it is the recommended alternative. This
alternative represents a significant improvement the vicinity of the K-8 School. During a
10-year, 24-hour storm event, roads ln the vicinity of the K-8 School for this alternative
are submerged for significantly less time, as compared to over three (3) days for the
existing conditions.
• Given the current state of available options, this alternative becomes an essential
component of the K-8' Basin project and represents a foundation for the adaptation and
implementation of future improvements and enhancements to the Village's overall
drainage system.
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
6
Stormw ater System Im pro vem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECO M Project No.: 60690139
0 Nodu
- Wolrllnk
-· Plpollnk
~- Rnlln gC urv e
c;J MotJtl 8Hlns
For a detailed breakdown of the O piniop of Probable Co struction Cost fo r each altern ative, please refer
to Appendix A. Based on tt\e results oft e cost-com parison and the impacts that each altern ative has on
the comm unity, Altern ative 3 is the selected alternativ fo r this project.
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
7
Stormwater System Improvements
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
3. Cost and Effectiveness Analysis
3.1 Cost and Effectiveness
The upfront capital cost for Alternatives 2 and 3 clearly indicate that Alternative 2 will cost less to initially
construct; however, an analysis of each project's effectiveness, benefits and future cost needs to be
performed as part of selection process. In order to evaluate and compare the two projects, a net present
value (NPV) analysis of each project has been performed based on the capital costs, operations and
maintenance costs, and replacement at the end of the project life cycle.
For the NPV analysis, the following assumptions were made for both alternatives and are shown in Table
1:
• The project life cycle for both projects is estimated to bEjl thirty (30} years, at which time
replacement will be required.
• The cost for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is estimated to be $8 per linear foot of pipe,
$50,000 per pump station, and $15,000 per unit of water quality structure on aR annual basis. A
5% annual escalation was added for estimating the annual O&lyl cash flow for the life of the
projects.
• The replacement cost for both alternatives was estimated t<;>, be the initial construction cost with a
2.5% escalation applied through the life of the project.
• The loan term is 20 years with a loan interest rate of 5% for both alternatives.
• The discount rate for calculating the NPY rs 5%.
Table 1. Net Present Value Calculation Assumptions
Net Present Value Calculation Assumptions
\
Project Study Term (Years) 30
Loan Term (Years) 20
Discount Rate For Net Presen t Value 5.00%
Loan- Interest Rate 5.00%
Replacement Cost Escalation Rate 2.50%
Operations and Maintenance Escalation Rate 5.00%
Operations and Maintenance Cost Per Linear Foot of Pipe $8.00
Operation and Maintenance Cost Per Pump Station $50,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost Per Water Quality Device $15,000
The calculations of the NPV for each alternative are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The cash flow
analysis used to calculate NPV is included in Appendix B. The cash flow analysis only examined the cost
of the project. Revenue was not included in this analysis. The NPV for Alternative 2 is -$53,270,000 while
the NPV for Alternative 3 is -$109,203,000. Although Alternative 3 has the higher costs, due to its
technical merits (ability to mitigate flood conditions in the project area), it is the recommended alternative.
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
8
Storm w ate r System Im p rovem e nts
for the K-8 S choo l B a sin
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Project No.: 60690139
Table 2. Alternative 2 Net Present Value Calculation Summary
Alternative 2 Net Present Value Calculation Summary
Alternative 2 Total Pipe Length (Feet) 17,954
Alternative 2 Total Number of Pump Stations 0
Alternative 2 Total Number of Water Quality Structures 0
Alternative 2 Construction Cost -$13,221;251
Alternative 2 First Year Annual O&M Cost -$1_44,000
Alternative 2 End of Life Cycle Replacement Cost -$27,733,000 ~
Alternative 2 Net Present Value -$53,270,000
'
Table 3. Alternative 3 Net Present Value Calculation Summary
Alternative 3 Net Present Value Calculat,lon Summary
Alternative 3 Total Pipe Length (Feet) 17,954
Alternative 3 Total Number of Pump Stations 1
2
-$28,451,174
-$22 4,000
-$59,679,000
-$10 9,203,000
(rem ainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepa red fo r: V illa ge of Ke y Biscay ne A EC O M
9
Stormw ater System Im pro vem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
4. Environmental Effects/Benefits
4.1 En v ironm ental Benefits
The project is located in the Village of Key Biscayne, which is densely urbanized with commercial areas,
single-family homes, multi-family development and little green space. Since the project is within an
established community, the project is not anticipated to adversely affect threatened or endangered flora
and/or fauna, surface waters, wetlands, or undisturbed natural areas.
The stormwater pump station is proposed to be located within developed areas utilizing existing outfalls.
The pump station ultimately discharges into Biscayne Bay, which is designated an Outstanding Florida
Water. Species of concern that have been commonly encountered are sea grasses, mangroves, and
small toothed sawf ish. Currently, existing outfalls discharge untreated stormwater runoff into Biscayne
Bay. As part of the proposed improvements, three existing outfalls will be modified to provide adequate
water quality treatment prior to discharge into Biscayne Bay; for thls reason, no negative impacts are
anticipated to existing water bodies within the project area. Additionally, no new outfalls are proposed as
part of the improvements.
However, since the infrastructure is proposed to be constructed next to existing outtaf pipes and
seawalls, it is assumed that there are no species desiqnated' o,y the United States Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as endangered
species, a threatened species, or species of special concern within the areas proposed for construction.
During Final Design Engineering, a qualified Biologist will survey the area to identify if there are any
endangered, threatened or species of special concern- present. Should any endangered, threatened or
species of special concern be identified in the project area, the appropriate action shall be taken in
conjunction with all federal, state, and local [urisdicttonal agencies. Appendix C contains the following
environmental assessments performed for the Prqjett area: Preliminary Marine Benthic Review, Essential
Fish Habitat Assessment, Marine Species Biological Assessment, and Manatee Protection Plan.
The project will not have any significant adverse impacts to human health or environmental impacts on
minority or low-income communities. The, project w!II benefit the general public in multiple ways. The
reduction in flooding improves sanitary con ditions since flooding negatively affects surface waters as
flooding is a transporter of w aste and debrts. The reduction in flooding also improves vehicular safety for
the general public. The new stormwater management system is intended to improve the conveyance and
treatment of storm water, thus improving the surrounding environment.
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
10
Storm w ater S ystem Im provem ents
for the K-8 S cho o l Ba sin
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
5. Public Participation Process
5.1 Public Meeting
A public m eeting w ill be held by the Village of Key Biscayne on a later date. It will be publicly advertised
on the Village's website, and notices will also be m ailed to pro perty owners within the pro ject area.
Appendix D w ill include the public notices and will be included in the Final Stormwater Facilities Plan
subm ittal.
At the public m eeting, a presentation will be given by the Village explaining the pro posed project, the
capital cost, and the long-term financial impact on customers. The public will also be presented the
altern atives that were evaluated. Comments on the pro ject will be requested and located in the Appendix
D, along w ith the m eeting m inutes; this appendix will be included in the Final Stormwater Facilities Plan
subm ittal.
" After the public m eeting, a resolution will be presented to the Village Council for appro val. The appro ved
resolution will be included in the Final Storm water Facilities Plam su bmittal.
Prep ared fo r: V illa ge of K ey B iscayne AEC O M
11
Storm w ater System Improvements
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
6. Financial Feasibility
6.1 C a pital Financing Plan
A Capital Financing Plan, including identification of revenue sources dedicated to repaying the loan, is
included as Appendix E.
{remainder' of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared for : Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
12
Storm w ater S ystem Im p rove m e nts
for the K-8 S choo l B a sin
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
7. Phasing Plan and Schedule
7.1 Pro je c t P h a sin g
Considering the magnitude of the proposed improvements, a detailed phasing approach will be proposed
in coordination with stakeholders. It is important that the project is constructed in a way that relief is
provided to the areas where more flooding is currently taking place and, therefore, more people are being
affected. Since the construction improvements are within a localized area of the Village, AECOM
recommends concurrent implementation of the stormwater improvements.
7.2 Pro je c t Sc h ed u le
The following table shows the planned milestones for the Project:
Tab le 4. P roje ct Schedule
Task Date
Commence Final Desi
Advertise Protect for Bids
Issue General Contractor Notice to Proceed
2027
{remain,der of this page intentionally blank}
Prep ared fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscay ne AEC O M
13
Stormw ater System Im pro vements
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
8. Adopted Resolution
8.1 Storm w ater Facilities Plan Resolution
The adoption of the resolution at a Village of Key Biscayne Council meeting will occur at a later date.
A copy of the adopting resolution authorizing implementation of the planning recommendations by the
Village will be included as Appendix F in the Final Stormwater Facilities Plan submittal.
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
14
Storm w ate r S ystem Im pro vem ents
fo r the K-8 Scho o l Ba sin
Dra ft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Appendix A - Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost
Pre p ared fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne A EC O M
15
Storm water System Im pro vements
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
EN G INEER'S PR ELI M INA RY OPINION OF PROBABLE CO NSTRUCTION COST• Altern ative 2
NO . IT EM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENDED
AMOUNT
1 M O BILI ZATIO N EA 1 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
2 TRAF FIC CO NTR O L JO B 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
3 CLEAR ING AN D GR U BBING ACR 4.4 $ 1,806 $ 7,946
4 M AN HO LE DEM OLI TIO N EA 53 $ 2,794 $ 148,065
5 CO N CR ETE CUR B DEM O LI TION LF 22,804 $ 8 $ 182,576
6 AS PH AL T DEM O LI TIO N SY 48,344 $ 18 $ 84 8,692
7 EXISTING STO RM DRAI NAGE DEM O LI TION LF 16,289 $ 44 $ 711,373
8 C U RB INLET EA 27 $ 8,552 $ 230,903
9 36" RC P STO R M DRA INAGE PIPE LF 12,600 $ 173 $ 2,177 ,363
10 48" R C P STO R M DRAI NAGE PIPE LF 1,864 $ ..... 385 $ 717,634
11 60" RC P STO RM DR AI NAGE PIPE LF 986 $ 536 $ 528,321
12 72 " RC P STO R M D RAI NAGE PIPE LF 857 $ 763 i 653,4 65
13 36" STEEL OU TLET PIPING LF 1,647 $ 549 $ 904,651
14 36" STEEL OU TLET PIPING VAL VES EA 3 $ 51,555 $ 154.665
15 72 " X 72 " M AN H O LE STR UCTURE EA 1.1 $ 9.611 $ 105,72 6
16 72 " X 84" MAN HO LE STR UCTURE EA .. 4 $ 10,189 $ 40,756
17 72 " X 96" M AN H O LE STR UCTURE .,,-~ EA ' 2' $ 11,833 $ 23,665 r
18 84" X 84" M AN H O LE STR UCTURE \\ EA 3 $ 11,083 $ 33,250
19 84" X 96 " MAN H O LE STR UCTURE \ EA 1 $ 11,541 $ 11,541
20 96 " X 96 " M AN H O LE STRUCTURE IEA 5 $ 13,481 $ 67,407
21 C LAS S 2 AGGREGATE BAS E (8") ""-, SY 48,34 4 $ 14 $ 671,552
22 GEOTEXTILE FAB R IC ;" \ \ SY 300 $ 3 $ 894
23 RIP RAP ,/' ) ' 10N 600 $ 128 $ 76,938
24 C UR B /r ,
LF 22,804 $ 28 $ 639,496
25 SID EW AL K & DRIVEW AY TUR NO U'f.S 7 --., SF 94,477 $ 8 $ 743,089
26 AS PH AL T PAV6M EN J 2" TO N 5,372 $ 156 $ 838,17 0
27 rAVEM EN T M /\R KIN O S, SIG NS, & ACCESSO RIES LS 1 $ 93,813 $ 93,813
28 LAN D SC AP E PLAN TING AN D MYDRO SEEDI NG LS 1 $ 157,368 $ 157,368
l SUB-TO TAL $ 12,019,319
"c 10% CONTINGENCY $ 1,201,932 ' .. I _; TOTAL $ 13221251
'1 ~., ~ ;-
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
16
Storm w ater S ystem Im p ro ve m e nts
for the K -8 S cho ol Ba sin
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST· Alternative 3
UNIT COST EXTENDED NO. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION EA 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL JOB 1 $250,000 $250,000
3 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACR 4.4 $1,806 $7,946
4 MANHOLE DEMOLITION EA 53 $2,794 $148,065
5 CONCRETE CURB DEMOLITION LF 22804 $8 $182,576
6 ASPHALT DEMOLITION SY 48344 ......... $18 $848,692
7 SIDEWALK DEMOLITION SY 5068 ",, $67 $338,979
8 EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE DEMOLITION LF 16289 $44 $711,373
EA .. ' 9 LIGHT POLE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 10 ~ $285 $2,852
10 DEWATERING, EROSION CONTROL & ENVIRONMENTAL JOB , .. $2 750,000 $V50,000
11 CURB INLET EA 1'27 ~.552 $230,903
12 36" RCP STORM DRAINAGE PIPE LF 12600 $1?3 $2,177,363
LF ~ 13 48" RCP STORM DRAINAGE PIPE Ir 1864 ·~ $385 $717,634
14 60" RCP STORM DRAINAGE PIPE lF 986 $536 $528,321
15 72" RCP STORM DRAINAGE PIPE LF ·, 857 $763 $653,465
16 36" STEEL OUTLET PIPING LF 1647 $549 $904,651
17 36" STEEL OUTLET PIPING VALVES !--- .., EA 3, $51,555 $154,665
18 72" X 72' MANHOLE STRUCTURE \\" EA ' $9 611 $105,726 H
19 72" X 84" MANHOLE STRUCTURE \1 EA ...... .,,_4 $10,189 $40,756
20 72" X 96" MANHOLE STRUCTURE EA,, 2 $11,833 $23,665
21 84" X 84" MANHOLE STRUCTURE ,. /EA 3 $11,083 $33,250
84' X 96" MANHOLE STRUCTURE
~
EA $11,541 22 1 $11,541
23 96" X 96" MANHOLE STRUCTlJ_!R{ I , "-EA 5 $13,481 $67,407
24 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE B'A.Sli: (ll"t SY 48344 $14 $671,552
25 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ·~/r SY 300 $3 $894
26 RIP RAP "- ( TON 600 $128 $76,938 -
27 CURB ...... ,...._ ·,, LF 22804 $28 $639,496
28 PUMP $Jl'ATION "- '\ EA 1 $10,253,554 $10,253,554
29 < SIDEWALK & DRIVEWAY TURNOl!l!f~ '¥ SF 94478 $8 $743,089
30 ASPHAt. T PAVEMENT 2" TON 5372 $156 $838,170
31 PAVEMEN'I' MARKINGS, SIGNS, & ~CCESSORIES LS 1 $93,813 $93,813
32 LANDSCAPE Pl,MJiJ:ING AND HYOROSEEDING LS 1 $157,368 $157,368
'\. f .,
-- SUB-TOTAL $ 25,864,704
10% CONTINGENCY $ 2,586,470
IUiAL $ 28 451174
Prep ared for: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne A EC O M
17
Storm w ater System Im provem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Appendix B - Net Present Worth
Analysis
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
18
Sto rm w ate r S ystem Im p rove m e nts
for the K -8 S cho ol Ba sin
D raft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Pro ject N o.: 60690139
Net Present Value Calculation Assumptions
Project Study Term (Years) 30
Loan Term (Years) 20
Discount Rate For Net Present Value 5.00%
Loan Interest Rate 5.00%
Replacement Cost Escalation Rate 2.50%
Operations and Maintenance Escalation Rate 5.00%
Operations and Maintenance Cost Per Linear Foot of Pipe $8.00
Operations and Maintenance Cost Per Pump Station $50,000.00 .
Operations and Maintenance Cost Per Water Quality Device ' ,r $15,000.00/ ..
Alternative 2 Net Present Value Calculation Summary
Alternative 3 Total Pipe Length (Feet) 17,954
Alternative 3 Total Number of Pump Stations
Alternative 3 Total Number of Water Quality Structures
Alternative 3 Construction Cost
0
p
Alternative 3 First Year Annual O&M Cost -$144,000
Alternative 3 End of Life Cycle Replacement Cost -$27, 733,000
Alternative 3 Net Present Value -$'53,270,000
Alternative 3 Constructibn Cost
Alternative 3 First Year Annu~I G&M Cost
17,954
1
2
-$28,451,174
-$224,000
-$59,679,000
-$109,203,000
Prepared for: V illa g e of K e y Biscayne AEC O M
19
Storm water System Im pro vem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Alternative 2
Operation and
Maintenance
Vear Capital Cost Cost Restoration Cost
1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 -$1,060,907.39 -$144,000.00 $0.00
3 -$1,060,907.39 -$158, 760.00 $0.00
4 -$1,060,907.39 -$166,698.00 $0.00
5 -$1,060,907.39 -$175,032.90 $0.00 ,I'•
6 -$1,060,907.39 -$183, 784.55 $0.00 .
7 -$1,060,907.39 -$192,973. 77 $0.00
8 -$1,060,907.39 -$202,622.46 $0.00 .,
9 -$1,060,907 .39 -$212,753.58 $0.00 .,
10 -$1,060,907.39 -$223,391.26 $0:00
11 -$1,060,907 .39 -$234,560.83 $0.00
12 -$1,060,907.39 -$246,288.87 ·' $0.00
13 -$1,060,907.39 -$258,603.31 $0.00_
14 -$1,060,907.39 -$271,533.48 $0;,00
15 -$1,060,907.39 -$285,llQ.15 $0.00
16 -$1,060,907.39 -$299,365.66 $0.00
17 -$1,060,907.39 -$314,33'~.94 , ....__ $0.00
-$1,060,907.39 -$330,050.64 - $0.00. 18 .,
19 -$1,060,907.39 -$346,553.17 ,, $0:00 ·-
20 -$1,060,907.39 -$363,880.83 $0.00
21 -$1,060,907.39 :$382,074.87 $0.00
22 $0.00 -$401,178.61 ' ~ $0.00
23 $0.00 ·- -$421,2.37.54 •. $0.00
24 $0.00 -$442,299.42 $0.00
25 ~ so.eo '\.. ~- -$464,414.39 $0.00
Lb .. / / - $0.00 -$487,635.11 $0.00
27 // $0.00 -$512,016.87 $0.00
28 $0.00 -$537,617.71 $0.00
29 ' $0.00 -$564,498.60 $0.00
30 $0.00 / -$592,723.53 -$27,733,000.00
. $0._00 - -$622,359. 70 $0.00 31
Total= -$21,218,147.72 -$10,038,353. 74 -$27, 733,000.00
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
20
Sto rm w ater S ystem Im pro vem e nts
for the K-8 S cho o l Ba sin
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Project No.: 60690139
Alternative 3
Operation and
Maintenance
Year Capital Cost Cost Restoration Cost
1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 -$2,282,995.81 -$224,000.00 $0.00
3 -$2,282,995.81 -$246,960.00 $0.00
4 -$2,282,995.81 -$259,308.00 $0.00
5 -$2,282,995.81 -$272,273.40 $0.00
6 -$2,282,995.81 -$285,887.07 $0.00
7 -$2,282,995.81 -$300,181.42 $0.00 ..
8 -$2,282,995.81 -$315,190.49 $0.00 ~
'
9 -$2,282,995.81 -$330,950.02 so.oo"
10 -$2,282,995.81 -$347,497.52 $~00
11 -$2,282,995.81 -$364,872.40 · $0.00
12 -$2,282,995.81 -$383,116.02
,,,,
$0.00
13 -$2,282,995.81 -$402,271.82
,.
$0.00 •,
14 -$2,282,995.81 -$422,385.41 \.. ' •. $0-00
15 -$2,282,995.81 -$443,5_04.68 $0~00
16 -$2,282,995.81 -$465,679.91--... $Q.OO,
17 -$2,282,995.81 -$488~~6i91 " .,, ...... $0.00 :, ,
18 -$2,282,995.81 -$513,4r12¼0 ,I ~ --..."$0.00 ~
19 -$2,282,995.81 -$539,082.71 ,.~ ,
$0·.00
20 -$2,282,995.81 -~. ·-$;;66,036:~4 $0.00
21 -$2,282,995.8l ,$984,338.69 \ $0.00
22 $0.00 ... .-ss'24,055.62 I\ $0.00
23 $0.00~ '._ -$655;158.40....,,.,, $0.00
24 $0.00 " , r -$688~021.32 .... $0.00
25 $0.00,. ' -$722,422.39 $0.00
26 $0.0Q ... ...... ,-$758,543.51 $0.00
27 / $0.00 ' -'$;796,470.68 $0.00
28
,
$0.00 •\ :$836,294.22 $0.00 ~~-
29 \,,__ $0.00 I -$878,108.93 $0.00
30 \,,.$0.00 ' / -$922,014.37 -$59,679,000.00
31 . $'0.0Q y -$968,115.09 $0.00
Total= -$45,659~916.21 -$15,615,216.93 ; -$59,679,000.00
Prepared fo r: V illa ge of Ke y Biscayne A EC O M
21
Stormw ater System Im pro vem ents
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Appendix C - Environmental
Assessments
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
22
A p pend ix C
Environm e ntal A sse ssm e nts
D ra ft Storm w ater Faci lities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Appendix C - Environmental Assessments
Table of Contents
1
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
Preliminary Marine Benthic Review 5
1.1 Introduction 5
1.2 R esults 6
Outfall 1 - South (VKB O utfall #12) 6
Outfall 2 - East (VKB Outfall #15) 6
Outfall 3 - North (VKB Outfall #14) , 6
1.3 Sum m ary 7
1.4 Photo Log 8
2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment.. 13
2.1.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4
2.4 .1
2.4 .2
2.4 .3
2.4 .4
2.4.5
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.5.5
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
2.7.6
2.1 Action Area , 13
EFH C onsultation H istory , , 13
Pro posed Action , : 13
EFH, M anaged Fisheries, and Fishery M anagement Plans 13
Background .' 13
Essential Fish Habitat , 15
EFH Habitat Types within the Proposed Action Area 21
Estuarine Intertidal Scrub-Shrub W etland 21
M arine and Estuarine W ater Colum n ~abit@_t 21
Soft Bottom (M ud, Sand, Clay) " 22
Seagrasses , 23
Coral R eefs and Live/H ardbottom 23
Federally M anaged Specfes 24
Spiny Lobster _. , 24
Reef Fish 24
Sharks ,, 25
C oastal M igratory P'~lagics .. ,,,. 25
Shrim p , , , 25
Habita t Area s o f Particular Concern 26
Assessm ent of Potential Im pacts., 26
-Cor struction M ethods 26
Wa ter Quality, Sedim ent Resuspension and Turbidity 27
Bent ic H abitat 28
Corals· , 28
Underw ater N•oise 28
Displacem ent 29
2.8 Pro posed M itigation M easures 30
2.9 The Effects of the Action: Sum mary and Conclusions 31
3 Marine Species Biological Assessment 32
3.1 Introduction 32
3.2 Pro tected Species and Habitats 32
3.2.1 Introduction 32
3.2.2 Assessm ent M ethodology 32
3.3 Species O ccurrence and Effect Determinations 33
3.3.1 State and Federally Listed/Pro tected W ildlife Species 34
3.3.1.1 Federally Li sted Species 34
3.3.2 C ritical H abitats 39
Prep ared fo r: V illag e of K e y Biscayne A EC O M
1
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
3.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts 39
3.4.1 Mammals 39
3.4.2 Reptiles 40
3.4.3 Birds 41
3.4.4 Construction Methods 43
3.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures 43
3.6 The Effects of the Action: Summary and Conclusions 44
4 Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) 45
4.1 Introduction 45
4.2 Manatee Protection Measures , 45
Fig u re s
Figure 1, Existing Outfall Locations , "'•· .. ·· .. ···· 5
Figure 2, Search Pattern Used to Observe Resources at the Existing Outfall l.ocatlons. 6
T ab le s
Table 1, FMP Species with EFH and HAPC that may be within the Vicinfty of the Proposed Action 15
Table 2, Potential Effects of the Proposed Activities on FMP Species 29
Table 3, Listed/Protected Wildlife Species, Designation, and Potel'ltia) (or Occurrence 33
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
2
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Storm water Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Acronyms and Abbreviations
MCEI
AECOM
BA
BMP
BBAP
CFR
cfs
CWA
dB
DRER
DERM
DO
EEZ
EFH
EOP
ER
ERP
ESA
FDEP
FOOT
FFE
FMC
FMP
FR
FFWC
FPL
fps
ft2
GOM
HAPC
JAXBO
JPA
mg/L
MHW
mm
MOT
MSA
American Association Cost Engineers International
AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Biological Assessment
Best Management Practice
Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic feet per second
Clean Water Act
decibel
Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources
DRER Division of Environmental Resource Management
dissolved oxygen
Exclusive Economic Zone
Essential Fish Habitat
Edge of Pavement
ecoregion
Environmental Resource Permit
Endangered Species Act
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of Transportation
Finished Floor Elevation
Fishery Mana ernent eouncfl
Fishery Management Plan
Federal Register
Florida Fish an Wildlife Conservation Commission
Florida Power a~d Light
feet per second
squa re feet
Gulf of M e xico
Habitat Area of Particular Concern
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District Programmatic Biological Opinion
Joint Powers Agreement
milligrams per liter
mean high water
millimeters
Maintenance of Traffic
Magnuson-Stevens Act
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECO M
3
Appendix C
E11viru11111ll11lal Ass!lSS111!l11ls
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 606!l013!l
msl
NAVO
NEPA
NGVD
NMFS
NOAA
NPDES
NTU
ppt
PRO
PTS
PWD
SAV
SEL
SFWMD
SLR
TSS
TTS
U.S.
USACE
USC
U.S.C.
USCG
USEPA
USFWS
Village
ZOI
mean seal level
North American Vertical Datum
National Environmental Policy Act
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
parts per thousand
Protected Resources Division
Permanent Threshold Shift
Public Works Department
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Sound Exposure Level
South Florida Water Management District
Sea Level Rise
total suspended solids
Temporary Threshold Shift
United States
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Code
U.S. Congress
United States Coast Guard
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Village of Key Biscayne
Zone of Influence
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
4
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Pro ject No.: 60690139
1 Preliminary Marine Benthic Review
1.1 Introduction
On March 20, 2023, qualified biologists from AECOM performed a preliminary marine benthic review of the
three (3) proposed outfall locations within the Hurricane Harbor basin on the western side of the Village.
This preliminary review was performed to identify potential resources within the immediate area of the
proposed outfalls associated with the K-8 Basin project. A formal Benthic Resource Survey would need to
be performed between June 1 and September 30, in accordance with the Guidance on Surveys for Potential
Impacts to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation as defined by the FDEP.
The preliminary marine benthic review was performed by two snorkeling biologists. The biologists entered
the Hurricane Harbor from a boat and began the survey at the existing outfall loc tions (see Figure 1). At
each site, a 25-foot by 25-foot area was surveyed with the proposed outfall loc tion as the center point of
one edge of the survey area. For Outfalls 1 and 3, it was not possible to start the survey against the
shore/seawall due to the presence of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle); the survey was initiated as
close to the mangroves as safely possible. The survey proceeded fro the proposed outfall location along
the shoreline for 12.5 feet in each direction from the center, then f::le diver turned wate ard, traveled 5
feet, and then returned to the center line (see Figure 2) with the survey extending to a dist . ce of 25 feet
from shore at the proposed outfall locations. Observed resources and approximate locations were recorded
and representative photos were taken. Visibility was limiled to less than t,.alf a foot due to the suspended
sediments in the water column caused by ongoing winds. ~es Its oft e preliminary benthic investigation
are detailed below.
300 Feef
I
liseayne
Bay
Legend
/J Existing Outfall
Figure 1, Existing Outfall Locations
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
5
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Figure 2, Search Pattern Used to Observe Resources at the Existing Outfall Locations
1.2 Results
1.2.1 Outfall 1 - South (VKB Outfall #12)
Outfall 1 is in an area dominated by mature red mangroves. The survey area waterward of the mangroves
was comprised of predominantly a silt size sediment substrate-with no resources apparent within the survey
area, which ranged in depth from approximately 5 feet at the mangrove fr,inge to a depth of greater than 10
feet at the outer limits of the survey area. Approximately five hard corals (Siderastrea spp.) were found to
exist within the survey area and were situated on boulders located approximately 10 feet north and 15 feet
waterward of the proposed outfall location and beneath an existing dock structure. These hard corals were
small in size measured at less than 10 centlrnet [$. Oysters and rnacroalqae we observed binding to the
mangrove prop roots and the existing dock pilings,
Seagrasses were not found to exist within the survey rea footprint. It is suspected that the mangrove
canopy cast a significant shadow over the survey reas, which is not conducive to the growth of seagrass.
Additional roving by the biologist identifiea seagrass to be present north and waterward of the survey area
with low density patches of paddle grass (Rlalophila decipiens) and turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) at
less than 1 %. Green algae ( alimeda SP,.) were observed outside the survey footprint.
1.2.2 O utfall.2 - ·East (VKB Ou· all #15)
Outfall 2 is on an existipg seawall that contains a mosaic of vegetative species dominated by landscaped
palm trees. The dep th of water along the seawall was observed to be approximately 4 feet sloping
significantly waterw ard o a depth of approximately 10 feet over a predominantly bare silt substrate. Hard
corals were observed along the seawall and bound to the rocks and piping observed at the base of the
seawall. The hard corals observed were limited to Siderastrea spp. with smaller size classes and some
corals up to 10 centimeters in di meter. More than eight hard corals were observed. Minimal amounts of
macroalgae were observed alon the seawall and rock rubble. No other resources were identified in the
area.
Four West Indian manatees were observed loafing adjacent to the site.
1.2.3 Outfall 3 - North (VKB Outfall #14)
Similar to the results stated above for Outfall 1, Outfall 3 is in a location currently dominated by mature red
mangroves. At the base of the mangroves and along the seawall to the west, large boulders were observed
on the substrate. The depth from the water's surface to the top of the boulders was approximately 2 feet.
The depth to the substrate adjacent to the boulders was approximately 5 feet and sloped significantly
waterward to a depth of greater than 10 feet over a predominantly bare silt substrate. Macroalgae and hard
corals (Siderastrea spp.) were observed bound to the seawall and boulders.
Six hard corals were observed and measured to be less than 10 centimeters in diameter. Macroalgae of
various species were observed bound to the mangrove prop roots and in small patches random situated
on the substrate of the survey area. No other resources were identified in the area.
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
6
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
1.3 Summary
Based on the preliminary marine benthic review conducted in March 2023, seagrasses are not present
within a 10-foot radius of any of the proposed outfall sites. Hard coral (Siderastrea sps.) of small size classes
were observed at each of the three proposed outfall locations. The substrate consists of unconsolidated
sediments of silt size grains. Potential modifications to Outfalls 1 and 3 would require impacts to the existing
mangroves if the seawalls are reconstructed. Lastly, manatees were observed in close proximity to the site.
No other protect flora or fauna were observed.
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
7
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
1.4 Photo Log
Site Location: Outfall 1, Hurricane Harbor, Key Biscayne
Photo No.: 1
D<1te: 20 Mar 2023
Direction Photo
was taken:
I\JE E SE S
en 90 1,0 iso isu ;.,10
• I • I • I • I • I O I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I O I • I • I
Description:
View of the existing
red mangroves and
dock structures at
Outfall 1.
Photo No.: 2
Date: 20 Mar 2023
Direction Photo was
taken:
East
Description:
View of the existing red
mangroves at Outfall 1.
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
8
A p pe nd ix C
Enviro n m e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Faci lities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Site Location: Outfall 1, Hurricane Harbor, Key Biscayne
Pho to No.: 3
Date: 20 Mar 2023
D irection Photo w as
taken:
North
D escription:
View of boulders under
the existing dock at
Outfall 1 with several
hard corals
(Siderastrea spp.).
Prepa red fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne A EC O M
9
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Site Location: Outfall 2, Hurricane Harbor, Key Biscayne
Photo No.: 5
Date: 20 Mar 2023
Direction Photo was
taken:
East
Description:
View of hard corals
( Siderastrea spp.)
observed on the
existing seawall.
Site Location: Outfall 3, Hurri ne Harbor, Key Biscayne
Photo No.: 6
Date: 20 Mar 2023
W NW J N NE
'J70 Jllfl '<'.{fl • fl '1() fifl
I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I • I
Direction Photo was
taken:
North
Description:
View of the existin~ red
mangroves at Outfall 3.
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
10
A p pend ix C
Environ m e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Dra ft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Project No.: 60690139
Site Location: Outfall 3, Hurricane Harbor, Key Biscayne
Photo No.: 7
Date: 20 Mar 2023
Direction Photo was
taken:
Northeast
Description:
View of the existing red
mangroves at Outfall 3.
Photo No.: 8
Date: 20 Mar 2023
Direction Photo was
taken:
North
Descriptio
View of hard-corals
(Siderastrea sp-t
observed on the
existing boulders.
Prep a re d fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscay ne AEC O M
11
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Site Location: Outfall 3, Hurricane Harbor, Key Biscayne
Photo No.: 9
Date: 20 Mar 2023
Direction Photo was
taken:
South
Description:
Green macroalgae and
unconsolidated
sediments seen
waterward of Outfall 3
at~ 7-feet depth.
iremainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
12
A ppend ix C
Enviro nm e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Faci lities Plan
AEC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
The purpose of this section is to present the findings of an Essential Fish Habitat ("EFH") Assessment for
the Pro posed Action, as required by the M agnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976, as am ended thro ugh the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act ("MSA"]). The
objective of this EFH Assessment is to evaluate whether the Proposed Action may affect EFH designated
by the National M arine Fisheries Serv ice ("NMFS"), also known as National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adm inistration ("NO AA ") Fisheries, the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council ("SAFMC") for the
project area or Zone of Influence ("ZO I"), and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ("HAPC"). The ZOI for
the pro posed pro ject is located within both EFH habitat and HAPCs.
This EFH Assessment includes a description of the Pro posed Action; an analysis Qf direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects on EFH for federally m anaged fish species and their prey; the potential effects of the
Pro posed Action; pro posed m itigation m easures to m inimize expected pro ject effects if applicable; and a
sum m ary of potential im pacts.
2.1 Action Area
The action area incl udes three existing outfalls in an area within the illage of Key Biscayne, Florida, known
as Hurricane Harbor, centered at 25.6908°, -80.1736°. Hurricane Harbor i~ an area on the western side of
Key Biscayne w hich encompasses appro ximately 3.8 acres of surface waters. W ater depths range fro m 3-
15 feet w ithin the basin. The Hurricane Harbor is of irregular shape with a mouth to the harbor measured
at appro xim ately 150-fo ot in width and leading to a basin wi<;ltli of climensions 425-foot east to west and
235-fo ot north to south. The area is surro unded by single family homes with a shoreline that consists of
vertical seaw alls, concrete bags, or earthen edges sloped toward tlie basin. An aerial map showing the
appro xim ate locations of the existing structures is pro ided as Figure 1 iA the previous section.
2.1.1 EFH Consultation H1~
AECO M , on behalf of the Village, p0m pleted a Biologica.,l Assessment ("BA"); refer to Section 10, Marine
Species Biological Assessment ,of this B DR.
2.2 Proposed
The proposed action will lfll p ement stormwater drain ge impro vements surrounding the K-8 School and
street im provements within the iom ity of the school and along W est M cI ntyre Drive and West Enid Drive.
Drainage features incluoe pipes, a pro posed pump station and generator with ra ised electrical panels to be
installed at Harbor Drive Park between W est M cI ntyre Drive and W est Enid Drive and force mains to three
existing outfaU . If the existing outfalls were to be rehabilitated, m anatee exclusion gra tes and dissipater
structures i (he fo rm of rip rap r bble WO!Jlc! need to be installed on a ten-foot by ten-foot area of the benthic
substrat b ow each of the oµ all locations. If additional easements along the shoreline are obtained by
the Village, the existing outfalls would require the construction of a vertical seawall at each of the locations
to support the new outfall pipes. Habitat supporting m ature m angroves were identified at each of these
locations during a prelim inary i estigation within the area. The m angro ves m ay be required to be impacted
to support the proposed project. The drainage features will serve the immediate area as well as areas
adjacent to the site for future needs. Proposed street improvements will be designed to the Village's level
of serv ice requirements.
2.3 EFH, Managed Fisheries, and Fishery Management Plans
2.3.1 Background
M arine fisheries in the United States ("U.S.") are m anaged within a framework of overlapping federal, state,
interstate, and tribal authorities. NOAA Fisheries and its eight regional Fishery Management Councils
("FMC ") are responsible fo r the m anagement and protection of fisheries and habitat essential for the survival
of m anaged species. In the southeastern U.S., the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, acting thro ugh NOAA
Fisheries and in coordination with the SAFMC, has been delegated this authority under the pro visions of
the M SA (Public Law 104-208).
Prepared fo r: V illa g e of K e y Biscayne A EC O M
13
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
The SAFMC is responsible for the management of fish stocks and areas of EFH within the federal 200-mile
limit of the Atlantic Ocean coastline from North Carolina through Florida. The MSA, as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, sets forth several mandates for NOAA Fisheries and the SAFMC to
identify and protect important marine and fish habitat, and to delineate EFH for managed species within the
Exclusive Economic Zone ("EEZ"), including highly migratory species (e.g., billfish, sharks, and tuna) that
make extended migrations beyond the EEZ. The U.S. Congress ("U.S.C.") defined EFH as "those waters
and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" [16 U.S.C. 1802
(1 O)]. The EFH definition is further interpreted as follows (Federal Register [FR] 62, 244, December 19,
1997):
• Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that
are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate,
• Substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated
biological communities,
• Habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species contribution to a healthy
ecosystem, and
• Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity covers a species' full life cycle.
Section 303(a)(7) of the amended MSA directs NOAA Fisheries and the SAFMC, under the authority of the
Secretary of Commerce, to describe and identify EFH within each Fishery Management Plan ("FMP");
minimize to the extent practicable, the adverse effects of fishing on EF.H; and identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. The SAFMC has since designated EFH for many
species under its jurisdiction and has identified ways to minimize adverse impacts to EFH in the FMPs
provided within the Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region (SAFMC, October 1998). Additionally,
the SAFMC has designated several Habitat Areas of P.articular Concern (HAPCs; subsets of EFH), which
include areas that hold an especially important ecological function, are sensitive to human-induced
environmental degradation, are particularly vulnerable to development activities, or are particularly rare.
Section 305(b )(2) of the MSA "requires federal action agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on all
actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect
EFH." An adverse effect is defined as "any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH," which
includes physical, chemical, or biological effects (NMFS, 2004 ). Effects may manifest in several ways, either
directly or indirectly, and on any spatial scale, including areas beyond EFH. For example, changes in water
quality, benthic communities, or prey availability may constitute adverse effects on EFH. An impact that
reduces the quality or quantity of EFH is an adverse effect. Effects are evaluated on a spatial scale from
site-specific to habitat-wide, and on a temporal scale that includes the cumulative effects of multiple actions
on EFH.
The EFH Guidelines (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 600.05-600.930) outline the process for federal
agencies, NOAA Fisheries, and the FMC to satisfy the EFH consultation requirement under Section
305(b)(2)-(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As part of the EFH consultation process, the guidelines require
federal action agencies to prepare a written EFH Assessment describing the effects of that action on EFH
(50 CFR 600.920'(e)(1)). An EFH Assessment is a critical review of a proposed project and its potential
impacts to EFH. As set forth in the rules, EFH Assessments need to include: (1) a description of the
proposed action; (2) an analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action on EFH, the
managed species, and associated species by life history stage; (3) the federal agency's views regarding
the effects of the action on EFH; and (4) proposed mitigation, if applicable. The level of detail in an EFH
Assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the potential adverse effects
of the action.
EFH Assessments are needed for efficient and effective consultations between a federal action agency and
NOAA Fisheries. Under the MSA, federal agencies are required to consult with the NOAA Fisheries Service
when their proposed activities may have an adverse effect on EFH. The MSA defines an adverse effect as
"any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH." Adverse effects may include direct or indirect
physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic
organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce
the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from project activities occurring within
EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual or
synergistic consequences of actions.
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
14
A pp end ix C
Enviro nm ental A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Faci lities Plan
A EC O M Project N o.: 60690139
This assessment of EFH for the Village of Key Biscayne Improvements Project is being provided in
conformance with the 1996 Amendments to the MSA. Section 2.0 discusses the proposed action. Section
3.0 (EFH, Managed Fisheries, and Fishery Management Plans) of this assessment provide a general
description of the EFH and HAPCs found within the project area as well as a description of the SAFMC
managed species that may potentially utilize EFH within the project evaluation area. Section 4.0
(Assessment of Potential Impacts) evaluates avoidance and minimization measures to eliminate and/or
reduce EFH impacts resulting from the proposed project. Section 5.0 (Mitigation) and Section 6.0 (The
Effects of the Action), provide our conclusions and proposed mitigation measures.
2.3.2 Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 amendments to the MSA set forth a mandate for NOAA Fisheries, regionai'FMC, and other federal
agencies to identify and protect EFH of economically important marine and estuarine fisheries. To achieve
this goal, suitable fisheries habitat needs to be maintained. A provision of the MSA requires FMC to identify
and protect EFH for every species managed by an FMP (USC 1853(a)(7)). In .general, EFH is designated
based on two components: the life-stage of the species and the habitat !YPe required'durinq that life-stage.
Using this approach, the SAFMC identifies categories of EFH ba ed on the biological requirements of a
managed species during each life-stage (eggs, larvae, post-larvae, early juveniles, late juveniles, adults,
and spawning adults). Eggs are the fertilized product of individuals tfl:at have spawned, individuals
depending completely on their yolk-sac for nutrition in this unhatched phase. Larvae are individuals that
have hatched and can generally capture prey. Juveniles are individuals that are not sexually mature but
have fully formed organ systems, like those of adults. Adults are se ually mature individuals that are not
necessarily in spawning condition, while spawning adults are those individuals capable of producing
offspring.
The SAFMC manages commercial and recreation I fisheries resources-in federal waters under the following
eight FMPs: Coastal Migratory Pelagic-- (mackerel and cobia); Dolphin and Wahoo; Sargassum; Golden
Crab; Shrimp; Snapper Grouper; Coral and Live Bottom Habitat; and Spiny Lobster. It should be noted that
highly migratory species (sharks, billfish, a~d tuna) are directly managed by the Atlantic Highly Migratory
Species Division of NOAA Fisheries under he incidental harassment authorization consolidated FMP, which
includes the Atlantic waters and fisher:ie~..,
Given the geographical location of the Proposed Action, the SAFMC has designated EFH for various
species/management groups and associated species at various life-stages that may be found in the area.
Table 1 P.FOVides a list of the derally manaqed species with designated EFH and HAPC that use or may
use the project area at any titne, given their geographical distribution, life-history, and physiological
tolerances (NQAA, 2023).
Table 1, FMP Species with EFH and HAPC that may be within the Vicinity of the Proposed Action
' /
Life-Stage
Common name Scientific name
(Eggs, Larvae, Juvenile, and
Adult)
Spiny Lobster
Spiny lobster Panulirus argus All
Slipper lobster Scyllarides nodifer All
Prep ared fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne A EC O M
15
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Life-Stage
Common name Scientific name
(Eggs, Larvae, Juvenile, and
Adult)
Reef Fish
Almaco jack Serio/a rivoliana All
Anchor tilefish Caulolatilus intermedius / .. All
/
Atlantic Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber All
.,,"
Banded rudderfish Serio/a zonata All
Bank Sea Bass Centropristis ocyurus ;··· All
Bar Jack Caranx ruber .',,,; All
Black grouper Mycteroperca e_onaci '. All
Black Sea Bass Centropristis striata All
'\ 7
Blackfin snapper Lutjanus buccanelia All
Blackline tilefish - Caulolatilus cyanops All
./. ., ', -
Blue runner Caranx crysos All
Blueline tilefish ...... Caulo/atilus microps All
~
Bluestriped grunt Haemulon sciurus All
Coney grouper Cephalopholis fulva All
' Cottonwick grunt Haemulon me/anurum All
-
Crevallejack Caranx All
Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus All
Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu All
Dolphin/Dorado/Mahi Coryphaena hippurus All
Dwarf sand perch Diplectrum bivittatum All
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
16
!""#$%&' (
)$*&+,$-#$./0 !11#11-#$.1
2+/3. 4.,+-5/.#+ 6/7&0&. 80/$
!)(9: 8+,;#7. <,=> ?@?A@BCA
Life-Stage
Common name Scientific name
(Eggs, Larvae, Juvenile, and
Adult)
6+#$7D E+F$. Haemulon flavolineatum !00
G/E E+,F"#+H(D/+7,/0 I#00J Mycteroperca microlepis !00
G,0%#$ .&0#3&1D Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps / K !00
HL
G,0&/.D E+,F"#+ Epinephelus itajara M !00
G+/11 ",+EJ Calamus arctifrons !00
N O G+/J 1$/""#+ Lutjanus griseus ,, .I',_ !00
G+/J .+&EE#+3&1D Balistes capriscus PQ= // !00
G+/J1IJ E+,F"#+ Cephalopholis C[Llentata MR !00 .... MRS G+#/.#+ /-I#+;/7T Serio/a du._merilt ....... !00 - \ :r ,·
U,E3&1D Lachnolaimus ma~imus !00
\
V,0.D#/% ",+EJ .I Ca[amus bajonaci,o !00
W$,II#% ",+EJ PM Calamus nogo·sus !00 N ,,
X/$# 1$/""#+ N Lutjanus synagris !00 = ,, M M
X#11#+ /-I#+;/7T Serio/a fasciata !00 . Y
X,$E1"&$# ",+EJ Stenotomus caprinus !00
:/D,E/$J 1$/""#+ / Lutjanus mahogoni !00
·,./
:/+I0#% E+,F"#+ Epinephelus inermis !00
:/+E/.# E+F$. Haemulon album !00
:&1.J E+,F"#+ Epinephelus mystacinus !00
:F..,$ 1$/""#+ Lutjanus analis !00
</11/F E+,F"#+ Epinephelus striatus !00
8+#"/+#% 3,+> Z&00/E# ,3 W#J [&17/J$# !)(9:
17
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Life-Stage
Common name Scientific name
(Eggs, Larvae, Juvenile, and
Adult)
Ocean triggerfish Canthidermis sufflamen All
Porkfish Anisotremus virginicus All
Puddingwife Halichoeres radiatus .,r ,· All
(
Queen snapper Etelis oculatus 1 All
Queen triggerfish Balistes vetula All
Red grouper Epinephelus morio ,,,, All
('_ :r·
Red hind grouper Epinephe/us guttatus All
Red porgy Stenotomus chrysops .... All
' Red snapper Luljanus campechanus All
Rock Hind grouper Epinephelus acf.scensionis All
'
Rock sea bass ~ Centropristis philad~lphica All
<-
Sailors choice grunt Haemulon parra All
Sand tilefish Ma/acanthus plumieri All - ,
Sand perch Diplectrum formosum All
Saucereye porgy Calamus All
Scamp ·~ Mycteroperca phenax All
Schoolmaster Luijenus apodus All
Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus All
Silk snapper Luijenus vivanus All
Smallmouth grunt Haemulon chrysargyreum All
Snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus All
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
18
A ppe nd ix C
En viro nm e ntal A sse ssm e n ts
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Life-Stage
Common name Scientific name
(Eggs, Larvae, Juvenile, and
Adult)
Spanish grunt Haemu/on macrostomum All
Speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi All
Tiger grouper Mycteroperca tigris All ;
Tomatate grunt Haemulon aurolineatum A~ All
v· '
Vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens . A ll ,
Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus
,./'
All ~) A
Whitebone porgy Calamus leucosteus ~- All
White grunt Haemu/oh plL!f!1ierii ... , All
Wenchman Pristipomoid~~aquilonaris .... 'V All ,.
Yellowedge grouper E:pinephelus flavofi!Jlbatus All
.. \
/
Yellowfin grouper ;· Mycteroperca veQeFJ_osa All .
;/
Yellow jack '· CcJrangoides ba,thoomaei All
Yellowmouth griuper MY..._cteroperca interstitialis All .. ,, ,
Yellowtail ~napper ' Ocyurus chrysurus All
l
Coastal Migratory Pelagics
,
Cobia "' / Ling, Rachycentron canadum All
V
King Mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla All
Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus All
Golden crab
Golden crab Chaceon fenneri All
Jonah crab Cancer borea/is All
Prepared for: V illag e of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
19
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessments
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Life-Stage
Common name Scientific name
(Eggs, Larvae, Juvenile, and
Adult)
Red crab Chaceon quinquedens All
Sargassum
Sargassum Sargassum All r
·'
Sharks 1 ~-- '
/
Blacknose shark Carcharhinus acronotus Juvenile, Adult
Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus Larvae, Juvenile, Adult •'
Bonnethead shark Sphyrna tiburo ... , Larvae, Juvenile, Adult
Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas Juvenile, Adult
'
Great hammerhead shark Sphyrna mokarran, All
Lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris Larvae
Nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum Juvenile, Adult
Smooth hammerhead shark / Sphyrna /ewini Juvenile, Adult
Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna Larvae
~
Tiger shark 1:, Galeocerdo lewini Larvae, Juvenile, Adult
Shrimp
Brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus All . ~ . ..
Pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum All
White shrimp Penaeus setiferus All
Rock shrimp Sicyonia brevirostris All
Royal Red shrimp Pleoticus robustus All
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
20
A ppen dix C
Environm e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Project No.: 60690139
NO AA Fisheries also designates specific habitat for m anaged species that m ay influence SAFMC food
webs and connectivity should they be negatively impacted by anthro pogenic activities, such as coastal
development. NO AA Fisheries divides EFH into estuaries, nearshore , and offshore. In addition, the
agency separa tes EFH into estuarine and m arine components because they each support specific life
stages. The estuarine com ponent is defined as "all estuarine waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell,
ro ck and associ ated biological communities), including the sub-tidal vegetation (grasses and algae) and
adjacent inter-tidal vegetation (marshes and m angro ves)." The marine component is defined as "all
m arine w aters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, ro ck, hard bottom, and associated biological
com m unities) fro m the shoreline to the seaward limit of the EEZ."
The M S A , through the EFH provision, protects substrate needed for federally managed fisheries. In this
context, "substra te" includes the associated benthic communities that m ake tl:lesfa areas suitable fish
habitat. W ater colum n habitat (estuarine and marine) is defined in terms of preferred levels in the
physiochemical fa ctors fo r m arine species, such as tempera ture, salinity, density, nutrients, and light
availability. M ost m arine species rely on certain habitat during a specific Ii e-stage o for their entire life cycle
(eggs-adult stage). Designated EFH for the managed fisheries is often based on the seasonal and year
ro und occurrence of species, which is generally linked to their life~sta·ge. In estuarie , the EFH of each
species is based on their relative abundance (common, abundant, ~ighly abundant). In offs: ore areas, EFH
consists of those areas depicted as "adult areas," "spawnin~ areas," and "nursery areas."
The pro ject area contains fo ur types of habitats that are e s ntial for fi~h species managed in the South
Atlantic region: Estuarine Intertidal Scrub-Shrub W etland, M arine and Estuarine W ater Column Habitat,
Seagrass Habitats and Coral Reefs Live/Hardbottom. This following section pro vides a general description
of these habitat types and potential use by SA MC-managed species .
2.4 EFH Habitat Types within the Proposed Action Area
2.4.1 Estuarine Intertidal Scrub-Shrub Wetland
Estuarine intertidal scrub-s ru m angrove) wetlands generally have high rates of primary production and
are w idely recognized for pr13 iding a vari~ y of beneficiat biological and physical functions. This habitat is
know n to pro vide important rsery, feeding, ar:1a~refl±9 e habitat for both recreationally and commercially
im portant fisheries and their prey res urces (SAFMG, f 998a). It also plays an important part in the estuarine
fo od w eb by pro v.iding Ii> rticulate organic detritus to the water column, pro viding ro okery habitat for a variety
of bird species, and contributing to sedi ent stabilization for shoreline protection. Mangro ves are known to
provide nurs ry habitat fo r ariety of s ecies, such as spiny lobster, pink shrimp, mullet, tarpon, snook,
and m angrove snapper (Lewis et al., 1985).
M angro ves located along the se wall directly abuts Biscayne Bay within the project area and receives tidal
flow via a direct co nnection duping extreme high tide events. The m angroves within the pro ject area are
considered m angrove fringe fo rests. M angrove fringe forests typically occur along sheltered shorelines with
exposure to open water of lagoons and bays. The mangrove areas are isolated and do not demonstrate
hydrologic connectivity to the surrounded upland area features.
2.4.2 Marine and Estuarine Water Column Habitat
M arine and estuarine water colum n habitat traditionally comprises four salinity categories: oligohaline (< 8
ppt), mesohaline (8 -18 ppt), polyhaline waters (18 - 30 ppt), and some euhaline water (>30 ppt) aro und
inlets.
Saline enviro nm ents have m oving boundaries but are generally maintained by sea water transported
thro ugh inlets by tide and wind mixing with fresh water supplied by land runoff. Particulate materials settle
fr om these m ixing waters and accumulate as bottom sediments. Coarser-grained sediments, saline waters,
P rep a red for: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
21
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
and migrating organisms are introduced from the ocean, while finer grained sediments, nutrients, organic
matter, and fresh water are input from rivers and tidal creeks. The sea water component stabilizes the
system, with its abundant supply of inorganic chemicals and its relatively conservative temperatures. Closer
to the sea, rapid changes in the environmental variables generally occurs, such as water temperature; water
temperature is moderate compared to shallow upstream waters. Without periodic additions of sea water,
seasonal thermal extremes would reduce the biological capacity of the water column, including reducing
the recruitment of marine fauna from the ocean. While nearby wetlands contain some assimilative capacity
abating nutrient enrichment, freshwater inflow and tidal flushing are important for circulation and removal
of nutrients and wastes from the estuary (SAFMC, 1998a).
The water column is the lifeblood of aquatic ecosystems. In many ways, it is the medium through which all
other aquatic habitats are connected. As such, the water column provides a basic ecological role and
function for organisms within it. The water column also provides other functions, both by itself and through
benthic-pelagic coupling. Benthic-pelagic coupling refers to the processes that- affect the connectivity
between the benthic zone and pelagic zone through the exchange of and sediments, energy and nutrients
within the water column and play a critical function to food web nutrient cycles.
The potential productivity of fish and invertebrates in a system is determined by the assirnilatien of energy
and nutrients by green plants and other life at the base of the food chain. The potential productivity of a
habitat can indicate its relative value in supporting fish populations. Although productivity in the water
column is derived mostly from phytoplankton, it can also come from bacterial decomposition of plants
(detritus), floating plants, and macroalgae (SAFMC, 1998a).
In general, water column habitat exists wherever there is estuarine, nearshore, or offshore habitat. NOAA
Fisheries describes the water column for EFH by water depth. Water col · mn habitat is loosely defined as
'the water mass between the surface and the b ttom" of marine and estuarine waters. Estuarine water
column habitat supports numerous species dependi g on their specific requirements, which can change
throughout their life cycle. Typically, lhert:J i:; c1 11\ixi1,1y of seawater and fresh water within estuarine
environments, and the influx of nutrients ftom both sources results in high productivity (SAFMC, 2004 ).
Most marine-spawning species use the water column during their egg and larvae life-stages; the estuarine
water column transports eQgS and larvae since tliey are unable to swim. This habitat provides nursery,
foraging, and refuge for many ecologically and commercially important shellfish and finfish. Differences in
the chemical and physical properties of the water affect the biological components of the water column,
including fish distribution. Water column properties that may affect fishery resources include temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen ("DQ"), total suspended solids ("TSS"), nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and
chlorophyll a (SAFMC, 1998a),. Other environmental factors also affect the distribution of aquatic organisms,
such as depth, pH, water velocity and movement, and water clarity. Salinity levels (18-30 parts per
thousand [ppt]) re wide ranging and depend on the geographical distance to marine waters, water flow,
and tides. Saline e. vironments have moving boundaries but are generally maintained by sea water
transported through inlets by tide and wind mixing with fresh water supplied by land runoff. The water
column has both horizontal and vertical components that cause seasonal variations in salinity,
phytoplankton, oxygen content, and nutrients conditions ( SAFMC, 1998a ).
2.4.3 Soft Bottom (Mud, Sand, Clay)
Soft bottom habitats include sediments composed of loose rock, gravel, cobble, pebble, sand, clay, mud,
silt, and shell fragments. Soft bottom sediments range in size from gravel (larger than 2.0 millimeters [mm])
to sand (0.05 to 2.0 mm), silt (0.002 to 0.05 mm), and clay (less than 0.002 mm).
Surface sediments may affect shrimp and [ish distributions directly in terms or feeding and burrowing
activities or indirectly through food availability, water column turbidity, and related factors. Quartz sand
predominates the nearshore environment, to a depth of 10 m to 20 m, from the Everglades northward along
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
22
A pp end ix C
En viron m ental A ssessm e nts
Draft Stor m w ater Faci lities Plan
A EC O M Project No.: 60690139
the coast of Florida (GMFMC. 2004). Sediment quality is influenced by physical, chemical, and biological
components; its deposit location; the properties of seawater; contaminants; and other factors. Because
these factors interact to some degree, sediments tend to be dynamic and are not easily generalized. Benthic
fauna and infauna often rework sediments in the process of feeding and burrowing. In this way, marine
organisms can influence the structure, texture, and composition of sediments, including the horizontal and
vertical distribution of substances in the sediment (Boudreau, 1998). Soft bottom habitat is sometimes
associated with loose shell fragments; this habitat type can be inhabited by various infauna (e.g., worms
and crustaceans) and epifauna (e.g., sea pens), which act as ecosystem engineers and modify these
habitats by the presence of their physical structure or burrowing in the substrate (GMFMC, 2004).
2.4.4 Seagrasses
Seagrass habitats throughout the tropics directly benefit multiple fishery resources by providing important
nursery and forage habitat for many valuable commercial and recreational fishes .. Seagrass is part of a
habitat complex that includes mangrove and hardbottom, which is historically abundant throughout
Biscayne Bay. Seagrasses support a diverse community of fish and'lnvertebrates within he Biscayne Bay
Aquatic Preserve ("BBAP") area and provide critical water quality maintenance functions, including
stabilizing sediments, diminishing wave action, and producing and exporting detritus materia s, which is a
key component to several estuarine and marine ecosystems. Several species of seagrass are found within
Biscayne Bay: paddle grass (Halophila decipiens), shoal gr ss, turtle grass (Thal/assia testudinum),
manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), star grass (Halophila engelmannii) and Johnson's seagrass
(Halophila johnsonii). This region of BBAP was previously desi n ted as critical habitat for Johnson's
seagrass however the NMFS issued a final rule to remove Johnson's seagrass from the Federal List of
Threatened and Endangered Species effective on Ma y 16, 2022. These actions also remove the critical
habitat designation since it no longer qualifies for ltsting under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). In the
South Atlantic region, all seagrasses are found on unconselldated-sediments in a wide range of physical
settings and different stages of rneadowdeveloprnent ~ading to a variety of cover patterns from patchy to
continuous. Seagrass patches form and m1~rate across the sea bottom, and in high current environments,
movement is considerable am! beds tend o remain 1n a continuously patchy state (SAFMC A14 2016). In
contrast, contiguous perennfal beds will tend to form in low energy embayments and protected areas.
The SAFMC identifies seagrass habitat as EFH HAPC for several species managed under the Snapper
Grouper FMP, sucf as adult white gc_unt (Haemulon plumien); juvenile and adult gray snapper (Lutjanus
griseus) and 'laJle snapper (L.utjanus synagris); juvenile mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis), schoolmaster
(Lutjanus,apodus), dog snapper (Lutjanusjocu); and goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara).
The seaqras .composition withij the proposed action area will be formally evaluated during the 2023
seagrass season and obse.rvations will be presented in a benthic resource report. A preliminary
presence/absence evaluation conducted on March 20, 2023 identified that seagrass are located beyond
the anticipated project boundaries and complete avoidance is feasible during construction.
2.4.5 Coral Reefs and Li ve/Hardbottom
The coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitats located off the southeast coast of Florida are the primary
natural reef builders in the region (SAFMC 2017). These habitats provide shoreline stabilization that
protects nearby beaches and are utilized by over 500 species of fishes, invertebrates, and plants.
Live/Hardbottom habitats are often centrally located between mid-shelf reefs to the east and estuarine
habitats within inlets to the west.
As such, they serve as settlement habitats for larvae or as intermediate nursery habitats for juveniles
migrating in/out of coastal inlets. Nearshore reefs abate wave and current energy and are vital in the
protection against coastal erosion.
P rep a red fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
23
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
The SAFMC has designated coral, coral reefs, and live/hardbottom habitat as a HAPC for species within
the Coral FMP and the Spiny Lobster FMP. The project action area does not contain reef, however isolated
hardbottom substrate may be present. The live/hardbottom habitat provides habitat for corals and possibly
spiny lobster. A preliminary benthic resource evaluation was conducted on March 20, 2023 and did not
identify the presence of coral. A formal survey will be conducted in June 2023 to further identify if coral
resources are within the project footprint. Impact avoidance to corals will be implemented prior to
construction commencement and will be further addressed during the environmental permitting process.
2.5 Federally Managed Species
NOAA Fisheries authority to manage EFH is directly connected to species covered under FMPs in the
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. EFH sections of FMPs
include detailed life-history and habitat information used to describe and identity EFH for each FMP's
federally managed species. The FMPs and Amendments managed by the SA~MC describe EFH for
species under the agency's jurisdiction. NOAA Fisheries manages EFl',I on the basis It can support the life
stages of managed species, not the actual presence of those Iife-stages or species. NOAA Fisheries also
has the authority to separately protect, conserve, and manage various protected species under the ESA.
Of the 80 fish and macroinvertebrate species that are federally managed, two (2) species of spiny lobster
and Snapper-Grouper fish species have designated EFH, indicated they are known to occur, or may
potentially occur, permanently or seasonally within the Biscayne Bay area in close proximity to the Key
Biscayne Hurricane Harbor. As such, the planned outfall construction activities could potentially impact
EFH. These species are considered likely to utilize EFH within the project area based upon their known
geographical distribution, life history information, ar.ie physiological toterances (SAFMC 1998a; SAFMC
1998b).
2.5.1 Spiny Lobster
EFH for the spiny lobster in the Gulf of M exico ("G O M"') are waler depths between 5 and 10 rathoms from
Tarpon Springs, Florida to Naples, Florida, and out t@ depths of 15 fathoms from Cape Sable, Florida, to
the boundary between the areas covered by the SAF.MC and the Gulf of Mexico FMC ("GMFMC"). In
general, the spiny lobster is fow,nd in offshore coral reefs and seagrasses however, the South Florida Reef
Tract appears to be the most-impottartt habitat for this species (GMFMC, 2004). Areas of high relief on the
continental shelf provide habitat and include coral reefs, artificial reefs, rocky hard bottom substrates,
ledges and caves, sloPi.,ng soft bottom areas, and limestone outcroppings provide the ideal habitat
conditions. Reproductive females mlqrate-to deeper waters (15-30 m) to release eggs. Larvae are water
column associated and occur throughout the south Florida coastline in offshore waters. Juvenile spiny
lobsters are known to use submerged aquatic vegetation, reefs, and hard bottom habitats (NMFS, 2016).
2.5.2 Reef ~ish
Reef fish EFH in the SAFMP includes all estuaries. The Reef Fish FMP includes various species of snapper,
grouper, and sea bass, which are commonly found in the warm, temperate waters of Biscayne Bay. Some
of these species may also occur in the eastern Atlantic, and a few have representative populations within
the eastern Pacific. Adults are known to use offshore coral reef, limestone, hard bottom, and artificial reef
habitats, while juveniles occupy shallow, inshore areas associated with seagrass beds, mangroves, and
inshore reefs (GM FMC, 1981 ). While most reef fish species occur within deeper offshore waters as adults,
some use nearshore estuarine habitats during juvenile life-stages.
Based on the presence of estuarine habitats, juvenile reef fish species may be found within the Proposed
Action Area, including gray snapper, lane snapper, black yruuper, and gag grouper. Of these species, the
gray snapper and lane snapper are known to occupy nearshore estuarine habitats, such as mangroves,
soft bottom, and sand/shell substrate, throughout their entire life cycle. The remaining species use
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
24
A p pe nd ix C
En viro nm e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Stor m w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
nearshore estuarine habitats during juvenile life-stages only; adults migrate offshore to deeper hard bottom
and reef habitats (GMFMC and NMFS, 2016).
2.5.3 Sharks
Within the project area, EFH is present for ten species of sharks including blacknose, blacktip, bonnethead,
bull, great & smooth hammerhead, tiger, spinner, nurse, and lemon sharks. These species of small and
large coastal sharks use inshore and coastal habitats within the coast of Florida as nursery and foraging
grounds. For instance, blacktip shark EFH for neonates and young of the year includes coastal areas,
including estuaries and is one of the most productive blacktip shark nurseries. Blacktip shark neonate EFH
is associated with water temperatures ranging from 20.8 to 32.2°C, salinities ranging from 22.4 to 36.4 ppt,
water depth ranging from 3 to 25 feet, and DO ranging from 4.32 to 7.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in silt,
sand, mud, and seagrass habitats.
The blacknose shark is found at various water depths up to 45 m, benneihead shar is found at various
water depths up to 80 m, lemon shark is found at various water depths.up to 91 m, and the bull, tiger, nurse,
and blacktip shark are found at many water depths (Grace and Henwood, 1997). The largef coastal sharks
include tiger, blacktip, bull, nurse, and lemon; smaller coastal sharks include blacknose, and bonnethead.
Although each species has its own spatial and temporal patterns of habitat, general trends are observed
among them and include utilization of inshore and estuaries as· primary nd/or secondary habitat; pupping
activity primarily occurs in late spring and early summer, and newborn and juvenile sharks inhabit these
primary nurseries throughout summer and into fall; these species migrate south, or offshore, when water
temperatures begin to decline; and annual mi.· ratory cycles in which juveniles and adults move back and
forth each year are seen in large and small coastal sharks (:Hueter & Tyminski, 2007).
2.5.4 Coastal Migratory Pelagics
The Coastal Migratory Pelaqics Management Unit co prises three fish species: king mackerel, Atlantic
Spanish mackerel, and cobia. The king mackerel, tH~ largest of the three species, occurs throughout the
Gulf of Mexico and the Cari bean Sea and along the w stern Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Maine to
Brazil. Adults are water celu , o associated and are found over reefs and in coastal waters, although they
rarely enter estuaries. Spawning occurs over the outer continental shelf, and larvae are typically found over
the middle and outer continental shelves (GMFMC and NMFS, 2016). Juveniles occupy inshore areas
outward to the middle continental shelf (GMFMC, 1983). Atlantic Spanish mackerel occur throughout the
coastal zone of the western Atlantic, frail;! southern New England to the Florida Keys, and in the GOM, ' where tt,ey are centered off the Florida coast. Adults reside in coastal waters over the inner continental
shelf and· .fTil c1Y enter estuaries il[l pursuit of baitfish and larvae occur over the inner continental shelf.
Juveniles prefer estuarine habitats and nearshore waters; late juveniles can also occupy offshore waters to
a depth of 50 m. Cobia are fol:fnd in coastal and offshore waters from bays and inlets to the continental
shelf. This species is primarily associated with the water column but also use hard bottom habitat in
nearshore and offshore waters to a depth of 70 m. Spawning occurs offshore; however, larvae can occupy
estuarine, nearshore, and offshore waters while the juvenile cobia occupy in nearshore and offshore waters.
2.5.5 Shrimp
Five federally managed shrimp species are included in the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. Of these,
three are known to occur, or may potentially occur within the project area at some stage in their life history,
including the pink shrimp, white shrimp, rock shrimp, royal red shrimp, and brown shrimp.
Each of these five species has a similar range along the Atlantic coast. Pink shrimp occur from the
Chesapeake Bay to the Florida Keys. White shrimp range from Fire Island, New York, to the St. Lucie Inlet
Pre pa red for: V illa ge of Key Biscayne AEC O M
25
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
in Florida. Brown shrimp occur from Martha's Vineyard south to the Florida Keys. Within the ICW and BBAP,
pink shrimp and brown shrimp have been identified as the most common species.
All penaeid shrimp have a life cycle that requires both inshore (post larvae and subadults) and offshore
(adults and larvae) marine and estuarine habitats. Offshore, adult pink shrimp are most abundant near hard
sand and calcareous substrates in waters of 11 to 37 meters (36-121 feet) in depth. They are also common
in shallower estuaries and marine waters surrounding the Florida Keys. White shrimp are generally found
on soft, muddy bottoms within waters less than 27 meters (89 feet) in depth. Adult brown shrimp appear to
prefer a similar substrate and are most abundant in waters less than 55 meters (180 feet) in depth. All
species spawn offshore, and spawning times varies slightly over space and time.
Post larval penaeid shrimp migrate to inshore habitats such as Biscayne Bay, whi~h is considered nursery
areas for post larval shrimp because they offer abundant food, suitable substrate, and shelter from
predators. All species are omnivorous bottom feeders and are mostly active at niglilt. As shrimp increase in
size, they begin migrating toward high salinity oceanic waters either in ·the fall or the following spring
(overw intering stock).
According to the SAFMC, EFH for shrimp includes inshore nursery area~, offshore marine habitats used
for spawning and growth to maturity, and all interconnectinq water bodies. The SAFMC has further
designated the following areas as HAPC for penaeid shrimp: 1) all coastal inlets, 2) all state-designated
nursery habitats of particular importance to shrimp, and 3) state-iden;tified overwintering areas. Within the
proposed project action area, EFH for penaeid shrimps include Ur e fringing mangroves, and the water
column. Based upon their typical life cycle, shrimp found within the project area are likely to be post larvae,
juveniles, or overw intering stock.
2.6 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
As defined by the MSA, HAPC are subsets of EFH t~at include areas that hold a particularly important
ecological function, and are sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation, particularly vulnerable
to development activities, or particularly rare. The SAPMC designated HAPC broadly to include both
general habitat types (i.e., seagrass beds) and specitie eographic areas (i.e., Biscayne Bay) of ecological
importance. HAPCs typically include high value intertidal and estuarine habitats, offshore areas of high
habitat value or vertical relief, and habitats used for migration, spawning, and rearing of fish and shellfish.
Within the proposed project action area, three habitats are federally classified as HAPC by the SAFMC
(1998a) for fishes within the Coral reef.and. Hardbottom, Snapper-Grouper Complex and the Spiny lobster.
The project area is located within Biscayne Bay, which is a geographically defined HAPC.
2. 7 Assessment of Potential Impacts
Construction-related aetivltiesh ave the potential to impact managed species and/or EFH. Potential effects
to fish and fish habitat directly related to the construction activities include water quality impairment,
alteration of bottom habitat, elevated underwater sound, and displacement. Various potential impacts
considered negligible or non-existent are not analyzed in this EFH, such as permanent changes to
bathymetry.
2. 7 .1 Construction Methods
Construction is anticipated to primarily occur from upland areas. Equipment staged on landside would
augment barge and support construction when needed. The need for an in-water barge will be assessed
during the final dceiqn phase and is currently not anticipated to be warranted. Construction activities will be
mitigated through use of Best Management Practices ("BMPs") throughout renovation construction
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
26
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Dra ft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
activities. M eans and m ethods w ill be determ ined by the aw arded contractor prior to construction
com m encem ent.
2.7.2 Water Quality, Sediment Resuspension and Turbidity
C o nstructio n activities m ay tem pora rily low er surf ace water quality from sedim ent being resuspended
during pile installation activities. Pile installation m ay briefly cause sedim ent resuspension and turbidity,
increasing total suspended solids (T S S ) w ithin the project area, which could low er dissolved oxygen (DO )
levels. TS S are part icles that are larger than 2 m icrons. C onstruction-related activities m ay reduce water
qua lity in the fo rm of elevated turbidity plum es that could potentially last from a few m inutes to several hours
de pending on various factors, such as sedim ent type and water hydrology. Elevated turbidity can
so m e tim e s adverse ly im pact m arine species by low ering D O and other related w ater quality issues;
how ever, potentia l im pacts vary w idely depending on duration, concentration, sedim ent type, specific
species, and life-stage (W ilber and C larke, 2001 ). For instance, TS S can aove_rsely im pact (e.g., elevated
TS S can adverse ly im pact (e.g., bury ) benthic com m unities w hen concentrations excee d 390 m g/L (USEPA,
19 86 ). N O AA Fisheries (2020) reported pile driving activities 'i1,1 the Hudson ~i er caused TSS
conce ntratio ns to tem porarily increase betw een 5.0 and 10.0 rn g/L above background levels within
appro xim ately 300 feet (91.4 m ) of the pile being driven. Despite. this m odest increase, turbidity levels were
expe cted to return to norm al w ithin a few hours. In N ew Bedfo rd, M assachusetts, Battelle (2015) fo und
turbid ity readings in the active w ork zone ranged fro m near backqreund levels to appro xim ately 70
N e p he lom etric T urbidity U nits ("N T U s") during a hydraulic drectging operation. Turbidity readings w ere
hig hest w ithin 10 0 feet of dredging operations and decreased w itti increased distance from the source.
D redging ope ra tio ns increase turbidity m ore than ile driving operations, such as the Pro posed Action,
since pile driving im pacts usually have a sm aller fo otpr.int.
Turbid ity and D O are inversely related. Thus, the D10 may decrease tem porarily w hen bottom sedim ents
are re suspended by the Proposed A ctio but should return to am bient levels short ly after construction
because pile driving activities are lim ited. In general, changes in turbidity and DO are expected to be
m inim al beca use this w ill occur during low tide; how ever, levels could be elevated during construction and
pile driving activities. Bas ed on w ater hydro logy (tidal r nge) within the project area, the potential sedim ent
plum e caused by constru -tio activities w oul.d likelys-ettle out of the water colum n w ithin a day or sooner
aft er op eratio ns are com pleted. esu spended sedim ents are anticipated to disperse and dilute rapidly due
to tidal m ixing. Elevated turbidity is- anticipated to return to am bient conditions w ithin 24 hours of the
cessation of sedim e nt disturb ing activities. A lso, the use of BM P s and adherence to perm it conditions will
reduce po tentia l im pacts.
A n increas,e in, turbidity and associated low er D O have the potential to have direct effects on fish behavior,
such as avoida nee. H ow ever, est uarine fish are subject to periodic short-term pulses of high suspended
sed im e nt, given the estuarine tid al enviro nm ent. M ost fish can tolerate som e increases in turbidity, which
so m etim es occurs· aft er. rain events. In fa ct, sensitive fish can tolerate turbidity aro und 580.0 m g/L, with a
typica l value of 1,0 00 .. 0 m g/L fo r durations of one to tw o days (B urton, 1993; W ilber and C larke, 2001 ).
The refo re, physical im pairm ent and injury to EF H species from increased turbidity associated with
constructio n and dem olition activities are not anticipated. Turbidity would tem porarily decrease water clarity,
w hich m ay alter fish fo raging behavior and success (B reitburg, 1988); how ever, turbidity is predicted to
return to pre-construction levels w ithin 24 hours fo llow ing disturbance. A n increase in turbidity and low er
D O levels are anticipated to be short-term and localized.
F e rt ilizatio n success of individual pelagic spaw ners and surv ivorship of individual pelagic larv ae within the
project area m ay be aff ected by turbidity; how ever, fish spaw ning occurs over broad are as and the
co nstructio n fo otprint is sm all. Therefo re, population-level adverse im pacts to pelagic spaw ners are not
anticip ated . Pe lagic species and life-stages are expected to continue using unaffected portions of the water
colu m n during and aft er construction. Pelagic larv al and egg life-stages would carry thro ugh the active
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
27
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
project area on prevailing currents and tides, resulting in limited exposure to construction-disturbed areas,
with no impact anticipated. Despite these potential consequences associated with project activities, most
fish are mobile and will likely temporarily avoid the project area and relocate to a similar habitat within the
general area, which should minimize potential impacts.
The project activities will not alter the salinity, tidal height, or water temperature, or permanently impact DO.
Also, project activities will not impact other water column properties such as temperature, salinity, nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus), and chlorophyll a. Therefore, no permanent impacts to water column habitat due to
increased turbidity are anticipated within or adjacent to the project area.
2.7.3 Benthic Habitat
A preliminary benthic survey was conducted March 20, 2023. The benthic survey report is included as
Section 7, Preliminary Marine Benthic Review. While direct impacts to the benthic habitat from in-water
construction are not anticipated at this time, if dredge and/or fill are warranted to prevent outfall scour,
impacts will be minor. Direct impacts to the benthic community resulting from the placement of riprap at the
outfall face would likely occur during construction. However, once the project is complete, the unaffected
benthic community adjacent to the project area would be distullbed.
Indirect impacts on benthic habitat and organisms during constructiorr are likely to result from turbidity and
resuspended sediments caused by the floating turbidity barrier installatlon and excavation. Suspension
feeders (i.e., bivalves) and surface deposit feeders (i.e., polychaetes) would be the most susceptible to
burial. Re-colonization of the substrate within the buried areas would occur via larval recruitment and
movement of benthic organisms from the surrounding area (U.S. ~avy, 2019). Soft bottom benthic
communities are very resilient to habitat disturbance from anthropogenic activities (Diaz et al., 2004; Brooks
et al., 2006). Therefore, indirect impacts from tu iaity and resuspended sediments may temporarily, but
not permanently, affect benthic habitat.
2.7.4 Corals
No corals were observed during the survey area, Prior J0 construction commencement the zone of direct
impact and secondary area will be re-evaluated for ttie presence of corals. The secondary area footprint
will cover the maximum extent o address temporary impacts that may potentially result from localized
elevated turbidity.
2.7.5 Underwater Noise
Construction activities are anticiP,ated to occur from upland areas. If the need for an in-water barge is
deterrninedto be required, the installation of riprap below the outfalls will not result in a sound exposure
level (SEL) that would impact estuarine fish. The project does not propose the utilization of an impact
hammer nor is it anticipated that construction-related noise will permeate aquatic (underwater) and
terrestrial (in-air) environments.
Underwater noise can cause a variety of impacts and injuries to marine fauna depending on sound level,
duration, and other factors (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Also, sensitivity to underwater sound differs among
fish, and impacts can vary depending on body size; smaller fish are more vulnerable (Caltrans, 2009).
Underwater sound can cause a variety of direct impacts, such as barotrauma injury, and indirect impacts
(hemorrhage, embolism, visceral damage, and stress); barotrauma injury is the physical damage to an
organ from quick changes in the ambient pressure (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Swim bladders are the
most common organ damaged because most fish have swim bladders that are filled with gas and thus a
rapid change in pressure (pressure wave) from a blast can directly damage it (e.g., tear, rupture, and over
inflate), forcing it to burst outward (Hastings and Popper, 2005).
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
28
A ppend ix C
Enviro nm e nta l A sse ssm e nts
Dra ft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
High intensity impulsive sounds can cause tissue damage, and behavioral changes. Underwater sound
threshold limits for fish are limited; therefore, federal agencies often agree on different decibel (dB) values.
Construction activity for the proposed action does not indicate the SEL generated from the placement of rip
rap or barge spudding will exceed the thresholds that would impact fish. Thus, it is anticipated the
underwater sound generated from minor activities will not adversely impact marine fish (juvenile and adult
life-stages) because it is anticipated they will temporarily move away from any potential underwater sound.
As indicated previously, construction will follow the project design criteria presented in JAXBO. Construction
activities will be limited to daylight hours and noise abatement measures will be used. Therefore, the
construction will be conducted in adherence to JAXBO; and noise impacts will -be temporary. Adverse
underwater noise impacts to managed species are not expected.
2. 7 .6 Displacement
Underwater sound will likely cause behavioral changes to marine fish, -Which can v.ary from impaired startle
response, freeze response, and increased swimming speed for avoidance. Construction-related activities
may temporarily cause marine fish to move away or avoid the area and could have short term effects on
the ecological dynamics within the existing habitat. However, th se potential changes would lil<ely be short
term and would not create long-term or permanent effects following project completion. Mos of the aquatic
organisms are highly mobile and will move away or avoid the. impacted' area during periods of elevated
underwater sound.
Potential indirect effects from in-water constructio disturbances are predominantly related to short-term
predator-prey relationships, with altered fish beh vlor potentially occurrinq within the action area during the
project activities. Benthic foraging species woul likely be displaced 'from the project area, but it is
anticipated they would find suitable foraging habita in adJ cent areas. It is anticipated that fish displaced
temporarily from the area due to construction activiti s will return to this habitat post construction (-30
days).
Overall, the proposed actio may have .so e potential-impacts on marine resources; however, anticipated
impacts are likely to minima and ,1:>ropgsed construction activities are likely to be temporary. Marine
resources are anticipated to recover quickly based on the impact. Proposed mitigation measures are also
expected to reduce poteqtial impacts. Potential effects of project activities on FMP species are presented
in Table 2. '
Table 2, Potential Effec.ts of the Proposed Activities on FMP Species •,
,, Project J\ctivity Impact Assessment
....
Placement of Riprap Water Column Underwater Noise
Scour protection at Displacement from Water Column
Outfall face Displacement from Benthic Foraging Habitat
General Construction Displacement
Prepared fo r: V illa g e of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
29
A ppend ix C
Enviro nm ental A ssessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Pro ject No.: 60690139
2.8 Proposed Mitigation Measures
Development of construction activities was designed to minimize and avoid impacts to EFH and managed
species, to the fullest extent possible. State and federal requirements for use of BMPs will be implemented.
Those BMPs are as follows:
• Corals will be rescued/relocated from direct impact area prior to commencement of construction
activities.
• The limits of construction will be identified with a turbidity barrier. The turbidity barrier will move with
the construction barge. The protection measures will be clearly stated in the construction
specifications, and workers will be instructed to avoid conducting activities and disturbing areas
beyond construction limits.
• Tools, equipment, barricades, signs, surplus materials, demolition debris, and rubbish will be
removed from the project work limits upon project completion.
• Equipment on the project will be maintained in a clean and well-functioning state to avoid or
minimize contamination from automotive fluids. Equipment will be checked daily.
• Material will be stored, used, and disposed of in an appropriate manner.
• A hazardous spill plan will be prepared i:i_(ior to construction.
• BMPs for drainage and sediment control will be implementes to prevent or reduce nonpoint source
pollution and minimize soil loss and sedime tation in drainage-areas. BMPs will include all or some
of the following actions, dependirig on site-specific requirements and the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 401 and 404 and Natlonal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements:
o Regular site inspections w ill occur during- construction to confirm that BMP measures are
properly installed and are functioning e"ffectively.
n Use temporary. secondary containment equipment during construction, where practicable, so
that accidental releases of hazardous material are prevented or limited in scope.
o Use portable catch basins, containment berms, and other similar equipment for refueling
equipment where feasible.
o Keep spill kits on-site to provide easily accessible cleanup materials should a spill occur.
o Handle hazardous materials/waste used or generated during proposed activities according to
applicable laws and regulations.
Personnel involved in project activities will receive training on sensitive biological resources that may be
encountered in the action area. Personnel will be reminded that harassment, handling, or removal of wildlife
and/or other sensitive resources from the action area is prohibited by law. Personnel will be instructed that
in the event a special status species is identified within an immediate work area, work will cease until
appropriate personnel are notified and further instructions are provided.
Pre p ared for: V illage of K ey Biscayne AECOM
30
A p pe nd ix C
Enviro n m e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject N o.: 60690139
2.9 The Effects of the Action: Summary and Conclusions
The potential for adverse impacts to fish with EFH designated in the action area is likely to differ from
species to species, depending upon life history, habitat use (demersal vs. pelagic), and distribution and
abundance. However, it is anticipated that short-term impacts to older life-stages of fish (both pelagic and
demersal) will be limited to temporary displacement. It is anticipated this displacement will not be significant
because pelagic larvae and eggs will continue be carried through the project area with prevailing tides,
currents, and wave action should spawning occur during project construction. Potential impacts could be
more severe to marine resources with demersal eggs/larvae. Juvenile and adult stages would likely leave
the construction areas and move to nearby unaffected habitat during construction given the minimal
increase in turbidity, sedimentation, and underwater sound. Impacts to these life-stages would consist of a
temporary displacement and a temporary loss of a very small portion of food/foragi g area. Although SAV
were found in the action area, they are not anticipated to be within the direct impact areas and will be re
evaluated during the 2023 seagrass season as well as prior to construction,
Overall, the Village of Key Biscayne anticipates the Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect EFH. The proposed action may cause minimal and ternporary-jrrip acts, but activifes associated with
the project would not have lasting direct or indirect effects upon tMe status or sustainability of the fisheries
or their habitat.
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
31
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
3 Marine Species Biological Assessment
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this document is to present the findings of a Biological Assessment ("BA") for the Proposed
Action. This BA includes a description of the Proposed Action; an analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects for federally managed marine species; the potential effects of the Proposed Action; proposed
mitigation measures to minimize expected project effects if applicable; and a summary of potential impacts.
3.2 Protected Species and Habitats
3.2.1 Introduction
The project study area was evaluated for potential occurrences of fe?eralty listed and state listed marine
animal species in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"); and Chapters 5 -40 and 68A-27,
F.A.C. It is important to note that all federally listed species are also considered state listed species.
Federally listed species fall under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. However, species only listed at the state
level are not considered federally listed and fall under the jurisdiction of the FFWC. The project study area
was also evaluated for the occurrence of federally-designated. Critical Habitat as defined by Congress in 50
C.F.R. 17. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that federatly .. Cifesignated Critical Habitat for the West
Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) ts present within the limits of the project.
The species referenced above, along with addltiona] state and/or federal- listed wildlife species that may
be affected by the project, are detailed in the followtr;ig sections.
3.2.2 Assessment Methodolog¥'
In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended, and Chapter 68 of the F.A.C, the project
study area was evaluated for the potential occurrence of federal and state listed protected plant and animal
species. Literature reviews, agency <;tatabase searches and coordination, and a habitat field review
(performed on March 20, 2023) were conducted to identify protected species that might occur within the
study area. Literature revie_ws and dat.abases searches included the following:
• ESRI aerial photoqraphs (2022)
• USl="-WS Environmental Conservation Online System, Miami-Dade County (2023)
• USP:W&Critical Habitat Portal (2023)
• FFWC Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2023)
• USFWS IPaC Resource List (2023)
• FFWC Waterbird Colony Locator Database (2023)
• Miami-Dade County GIS data (2023)
Aerial photographs from the ESRI were interpreted to determine habitat types occurring within Hurricane
Harbor and the potential presence of any listed marine species. The USFWS lists are specific to Miami
Dade County, but they are not site specific to the project study area. This list includes categorizations of
species as endangered (E), threatened (T), and candidate (C). The FWC list covers the entire state of
Florida and includes categorizations of species as federally-designated endangered (FE), federally
designated threatened (FT), state threatened (ST), and species of special concern (SSC).
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
32
A ppe nd ix C
Enviro n m e ntal A sse ssm e n ts
D raft Storm w ater Faci lities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
3.3 Species Occurrence and Effect Determinations
Table 3 lists the state and federally listed wildlife species that occur in Miami-Dade County based on the
databases and documents previously referenced. Each species listed in the table below was assigned a
potential for occurrence within the project study area based on data reviews, field observations, presence
and quality of suitable habitat, and the species' known ranges. Each species was assigned a none, low,
moderate, or high likelihood for occurrence within the project study area based on the following:
• None - The project is outside of the species' known range or the project is within the species' range;
however, no suitable habitat for or previous documentation of this species occurs within or adjacent to
the project study area, and it was not observed during the field reviews.
• Low - The project is within the species' range, and minimal or marginal quality habitat exists within or
adjacent to the project study area; however, there are no documented occurrences of the species in
the vicinity of the project, and it was not observed during the field reviews.
• Moderate - The project is within the species' range and suitable habitat exists within or adjacent to the
project study area; however, there are no documented occurrences of the species, and it was not
observed during the field reviews.
• High - The project is within the species' range, suitable abitat exist within or adjacent to the project
buffer, there is at least one documented occurrence of the speci es within the project study area, and/or
the species was observed during the field reviews.
T bl 3 L" d/P d W "ldrt S D dR . If 0 a e J 1ste rotecte I re pe&.les, ... esiqnation, an otentla or ccurrence - .._
Common Name Scientific Name Feder~\ State.::1· Occurrence Effect
Status S,tatµs,. ~otential Determination
Mammals , I .. - -
Trichechus ... May Affect, Not West Indian \ Manatee'" ma etus T FT High Likely to Adversely
latirastris ' Affect
Reptiles [ , L \
American Alligator ·--·
Alligator mississio'iiien$i~ T -~ FT Low No effect .
American Crocoaytus" T FT Low No effect Crocodile .,.... acutus-.. ,._
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mvdas ·, T FT Low No effect
Hawks~~I Sea Eretmochelys • E FE Low No effect Tt,Jrta. imbricat/3
Leatherback Sea Dermo h~/ys E FE Low No effect Turtle ·. coriacEta
Loggerhead Sea ~ · --~ Caretta T FT Low No effect Turtle b
Fishes ~
-~ Acipenser
Gulf Sturgeon oxyrinchus T FT Low No effect (=oxyrhynchus)
desotoi
Smalltooth May Affect, Not
Sawfsh Pristis pectinate E FE Low Likely to Adversely
Affect
Birds
Audubon's Puffinus BCC Low No effect Shearwater lherminieri
Black Seater Melanitta niare BCC Low No effect
Prep ared fo r: V illag e of K ey B iscayne A EC O M
33
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
I
State Occurrence Effect
Status Status Potential Determination
Brown Pelican Pelecanus BCC Low No effect occidentalis
Common [ider Somateria sec Low No effect mollissima
Common Loon Gavia immer BCC Low No effect
Great Puffinus gravis BCC Low No effect Shearwater
Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius BCC Low No effect oomerinus
Razorbill Alea torda BCC Low No effect
Red-breasted Mergus serrator BCC Low No effect Merganser
Larus ..
Ring-billed Gull delawarensis BCC Low No effect
Roseate Tern Stema dougal/ii BCC ·h Low No effect
Thalasseus . ...
Royal Tern maximus BCC Low No effect
·,
Onychoprion ./
Sooty Tern fuscatus BCC Low No effect
White-winged Melanitta fusca BCC " Low No effect Scoter
Wilson's Storm- Oceanites BCC Low No effect oetrel oceanicus
Federal Status: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Camlidat~. Nl! = \::Jot Listed
State Status: FE= Federally-designated Endangered, FT= Federally-desigr.iated threatened, NL= Not Listed, ST= State threatened.
BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern
1 The West Indian manatee, including the Florida manatee subspecies, is fed"eral)y protested by the M arine Mam m al Pro tection Act.
3.3.1 State and Federally Listed/Protected Wildlife Species
3.3.1.1 Federally Listed Species
Mammals
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris): The West Indian manatee a fully aquatic
herbivorous mammal. These gentle, aquatic mammals move slowly through the water a:; they feed on
plants, and often are unable to move out of the way of fast-moving boats, whose propellers can wound or
even kill them.
They are typically found in coastal or estuarine waters, bays, rivers, and lakes, but may be found in inland
canals during winter months as they search for warmer waters (USFWS 2016d). Manatees are grazers and
require sheltered c_oves for feeding, resting, and calving. Manatees spend about 5 hours a day feeding
primarily on submerged aquatic vegetation, such as seagrasses. Although manatees appear to tolerate
marine and hypersaline conditions, they are most frequently found in fresh or brackish waters. Changes in
water flow and salinity patterns, submerged vegetation, and the overall quality of the foraging habitat in
Biscayne Bay and elsewhere are, along with water temperature, important influences on the distribution
and abundance of manatees in the area (USFWS 2016d). Increases in salinity are generally considered to
result in less favorable conditions for manatees, although manatees move freely through a wide range of
salinities. Manatees are frequently reported drinking freshwater from natural sources as well as hoses,
sewage outfalls, and culverts in marine and estuarine areas. The potential for manatees exists within
Hurricane Harbor, which are tidally connected to the waters of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
34
A ppend ix C
Environ m e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Reptiles
American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis): The American alligator is federally listed as threatened
due to similarity of appearance to the American crocodile. The American alligator is a large, semi-aquatic,
armored reptile that is related to crocodiles. Their body alone ranges from 6 - 14 feet long. Almost black in
color, it has prominent eyes and nostrils with coarse scales over the entire body. It has a large, long head
with visible upper teeth along the edge of the jaws. Its front feet have 5 toes, while rear feet have 4 toes
that are webbed.
American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus): The American crocodile is federally listed as threatened due
to human activities and coastal development. A large lizard-shaped reptile, the crocosile closely resembles
the alligator. Hatchlings are about 23 centimeters in length; adults may grow to 4.5 meters or larger. Florida
crocodiles may be distinguished from alligators by their more slender build a d their difference in snout
shape. The crocodile's snout tapers forward from the eyes while the alligator's snout is untapered and
rounded at the end. When the mouth is closed, the fourth tooth in the lower jaw is exposed in the crocodile
but concealed in the alligator. American crocodiles inhabit brackish or saltwater, and can be found in ponds,
coves, canals, and creeks in mangrove swamps in southern Florida. The project area within Hurricane
Harbor contains very little suitable habitat for this species; no nests have been documented within one mile
of the project study area and none were observed during the field reviews The project area is also highly
urbanized and far from known crocodile habitat making it unlikely tha the project will affect crocodile nesting
areas. However, the project area is within the American crocodile consultation area. Therefore, this species
was assigned a 'low' probability of occurrence within the project stud area.
Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas): The green sea is federally listed threatened and is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The green seas
turtle grows to a maximum size of about 4 feet and a weight of 440 pounds. It has a heart-shaped shell,
small head, single-clawed flippers, and its color varies' The nesting season is approximately June to
September (USFWS 2016g). The green sea turtle is dependent upon three basic habitat types: high-energy
beaches for nesting; open se abitats as juveniles, and enthic feeding grounds (i.e., seagrass meadows)
as adults. In the southeastern US, qreen sea turtle forage in shallow coastal and estuarine waters with an
abundance of macroalgae or seagrass. Green sea turtles have strong nesting site fidelity and often make
long distance migrations between feeding grounds and nesting beaches. Threats to this species include
loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of
hatchlings by b achfront lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation
of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; and incidental take from commercial
fishing operations (USFWS 201 g). No suitable nesting habitat exists within the project limits. Sea turtle
protection measures have been established by NOAA Fisheries for construction projects.
Hawksbi/1 Sea Turt)e (Eretm chelys imbricata): The hawksbill sea turtle is federally listed as endangered
and is in danger of extinctlon throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The green sea turtle is a
small to medium-sized animal with an elongated oval shell, a relatively small head, a distinctive hawk-like
beak, and flippers with two claws. General coloration is brown with numerous splashes of yellow, orange,
or reddish-brown on the shell. Nesting typically occurs between April and November and may occur on
almost any undisturbed deep-sand beach in the tropics (USFWS 2016h). In contrast to all other sea turtle
species, hawksbills nest in low densities on scattered small beaches. Hawksbills inhabit coastal reefs, bays,
rocky areas, estuaries, and lagoons and are generally found at depths of 70 feet or less. They typically
forage on coral reefs, although hawksbills may also occupy other hard-bottom communities and
occasionally mangrove-fringed bays (USFWS 2016h). Threats to this species include loss or degradation
of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront
lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat;
marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; and incidental take from commercial fishing operations. No
Prep ared for: V illag e of K e y Biscayne AEC O M
35
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
suitable nesting habitat exists within the project limits. Sea turtle protection measures have been
established by NOAA Fisheries for construction projects.
Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Leatherback sea turtles are federally listed as
endangered and are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Leatherback
sea turtles are the largest, deepest diving, most migratory, and widest ranging of all sea turtles. Adults reach
four to eight feet long and 500 to 2,000 pounds in weight. Nesting occurs from February to July with sites
located from Georgia to the US Virgin Islands. Of all the sea turtles, the leatherback spends the most time
in the open ocean, entering coastal waters only when nesting and/or feeding. Adult females require sandy
beaches for nesting backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so the crawl to dry sand is not too far.
The preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough seas (NOAA Fisheries 2007a).
Threats to this species include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development;
disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest predation by native and non-native
predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; and watercraft strikes. No suitable
nesting habitat exists within the project limits. Sea turtle protection measures have been established by
NOAA Fisheries for construction projects.
Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta): Loggerhead sea turtles are federally listed as threatened and
are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Loggerhead sea turtles are characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. Their shell and flippers
are a reddish-brown color. Loggerhead sea turtles typically occur over the continental shelf and in bays,
lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers (NMFS and USFWS 2008).
Nesting primarily occurs from about May to August on barrier islands adjacent to continental landmasses
in warm-temperate and sub-tropical waters (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Nest sites are typically located on
high-energy, open sandy beaches above the mean high tide and seaward of well-developed dunes (NMFS
and USFWS 2008). Threats to this species include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal
development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive nest
predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris;
watercraft strikes; disease; and incidental take from commercial trawling, long line, and gill net fisheries.
These sea turtles nest on the beaches at Cape Sable, out no suitable nesting habitat exists within the
project limits. Sea turtle protection measures have been established by NOAA Fisheries for construction
projects.
Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desoto,): Gulf sturgeon are federally listed as
threatened and are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Gulf sturgeon are large fish that can exceed a length of eight feet (2.4 meters), a weight
of over 300 pounds (137 kilograms) and possess strength to leap nine feet (2.7 meters) into the air.
Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis, pectinate): Smalltooth sawfish are federally listed as endangered. The
smalltooth sawfish Is a cartilaginous fish that belongs to the Subclass Elasmobranchii, which also includes
all sharks and rays. This dorsally tannish-brown fish can reach a total length of up to 18 feet (5.5 meters)
including the saw (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). The species' common and scientific names are derived
from its long, flattened, toothed rostrum (nose or beak structure) that extends outward from its flattened
head. The rostrum resembles a saw because it has 24-32 unpaired saw teeth on each side. Rostral teeth
that are lost will not grow back; however, chipped teeth will continue to grow as long as the base is intact
(Slaughter and Springer 1968). The mouth teeth are small and flat like other rays. The smalltooth sawfish
is considered a type of ray, in part because the gill slits are located on the bottom of the body and the
pectoral fins are attached to the head.
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
36
A ppe nd ix C
Enviro n m ental A sse ssm e nts
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Birds
Audubon's Shearw ater (Puffinus lherminierit: Audubon shearwater are listed as Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC). Audubon shearw ater are small black-and-white shearwater with relatively long tail and
somewhat rounded wings. Usually flies low to the water with fluttering wingbeats, but in strong winds it can
fly with high wheeling arcs. Undertail coverts are typically dark, but this can be very difficult to see in the
field. Compare with Manx Shearw ater, which is larger with longer, more pointed wings, light undertail
coverts, and a darker face. Found over warm tropical waters, especially around floating mats of Sargassum
weed. Often seen singly or in pairs but can gather in loose flocks, sometimes loafing with other shearwater
species.
Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra): Black seater are not listed as a BCC. Black seater are plump diving duck,
typically seen in flocks in coastal areas. Males are completely black with right orange knob on the bill.
Females are brown overall with pale cheek and contrasting dark cap. Note potbellied shape and rounded
head in flight. Typically coastal but migrates over land especially in the Northeast U.S .. Often gathers in tight
flocks. Dives frequently, feeding on aquatic invertebrates. Breeds on ponds in Arctic tundra.
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis): Brown pelican are not listed as a BCC. Brown pelican are not
listed as a BCC. Large and conspicuous, gray-brown bird of sa twater habitats. Strictly coastal; rarely seen
on inland lakes. Very long bill with pouch for scooping up fish. Forages mainly by diving on fish from above.
Frequently cues into fishing activity looking for handouts. Often flies in long lines close to water's surface.
Brown pelican forage by diving from the air, from as nigh as 60' above water, plunging into water headfirst
and coming to surface with fish in bill. Tilts bill do n to drain water out of peuch, then tosses head back to
swallow. Will scavenge at times and will become tame, approaching isherrnen for handouts.
Common Eider (Somateria mollissima)~ Common elder are not listed as a BCC. Common elder are big,
lethargic, heavy-bodied duck of northern c astlines. Often seen floating offshore in flocks of up to several
thousand birds. Sociable in breeding season also, and often nests in colonies. Eider down, famous for its
insulating qualities, is used in large amo nts in the nest lining of these ducks, helping to keep the eggs
warm in frigid northern climates. In some places, such as Iceland, the down is harvested commercially at
coastal 'eider farms,' where the wil birds are encouraged to nest in sheltered nooks built for them.
Common Loon (Gavia immer): Common loon are not listed as a BCC. Common loon are long-bodied,
low-slung diver. Many people consider the loon a symbol of wilderness; its rich yodeling and moaning calls,
heard by day or night, are characteristic sounds of early summer in the north woods. In winter, silent and
more subtly marked, Common L ons inhabit coastal waters and large southern lakes. In such places they
are solitary while feeding but msiy gather in loose flocks at night.
Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis): Great shearw ater are not listed as a BCC. Great shearwater with a
crisp dark cap. Long, narrow wings are held quite straight when flying; wingbeats are stiff. Also look for
messy brown patch on belly and dark markings on underw ings. Notably larger and proportionally longer
winged than Manx Shearw ater, and wingbeats are not as snappy. Also compare with Cory's Shearwater,
but note all-black bill, dark cap, and slightly quicker wingbeats and straighter wings on Great Shearwater.
Primarily an Atlantic species, breeding mainly on remote Tristan Island group in the Southern Hemisphere.
Spends the nonbreeding season (May to November) in cool water in the North Atlantic, where it can gather
in large flocks, often mixed with other shearwater species. Occasionally seen from land but prefers to stay
offshore.
Prep ared fo r: V illage of K ey Biscay ne AEC O M
37
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus): Pomarine jaeger are not listed as a BCC. Pomarine jaeger
are bulky gull-like seabird; the largest and most barrel chested of the three jaegers. Breeds on Arctic tundra
and spends the rest of the year at sea. Breeding adults are unique with elonqated spoon-shaped central
tail feathers. Also note blackish-brown upperparts, messy black cap that extends below the bill, and
extensive white flash on upper and underside of outer wing. Rare dark morph adult is entirely blackish
brown but still has white wing flashes. Immature birds are variable, but in general, they are barred with
brown above and have bold black-and-white bars on the underwing and undertail coverts. Difficult to
separate from other jaegers, especially Parasitic. At all ages, note powerful direct flight and broad wings.
Typically shows white shafts on six to eight outer wing feathers (more than other jaegers) and more obvious
white flash on underwing. Bill is also thicker than other jaegers. All jaegers chase other birds and steal their
food.
Razorbill (Alea torda): Razorbill are not listed as a BCC. Razorbill are black-and-white seabird with a
thick and blunt bill. Breeds in colonies on rocky islands; winters on the ocean. Black above and white below
with thin white line in front of eye. In winter, white throat wraps up behind eye, but pattern is less crisp than
on Common Murre. Similar to other murres but note different bill shape and longer tail that is sometimes
held up. Found singly or in flocks. Sometimes seen from shore in large numbers following the passage of
a winter storm. Frequently dives underwater searching for fish.
Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator): Red-breasted merganser are not listed as a BCC. Red
breasted merganser are long-bodied duck with a thin bill and shaggy crest. Breeding males have a dark
green head, brown breast, and gray sides. Females and immature males have a brown head and gray
body. Bill is dull red. Separated from Common Merganser by thinner bill, shaggier crest, and slimmer shape
overall. Dives to catch fish on large bodies of water, including freshwater lakes and coastal regions. Favors
saltwater more than Common Merganser.
Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis): Ring-billed gull are not listed as a BCC. Ring-billed gull are fairly
small gull, common and widespread throughout most of North America. Breeding adults are white-headed
with a bold black ring around the bill; nonbreedinq adults have smudgy brown markings on the head. Note
pale eye and yellow legs. Immatures are mottled brownish overall; note pink bill with black tip. Found along
lakes, rivers, ponds, and beaches. Mqre common inland than most other gull species, and quite fond of
parking lots and urban areas. Often in flocks. Most similar to Short-billed Gull, but larger and larger-billed.
Immatures of the two species are especially difficult to differentiate, but Ring-billed is usually more coarsely
mottled.
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallil): Roseate tern are not listed as a BCC. Roseate tern are graceful pale
tern with extremely long forked tail. Named for faint rosy wash on belly. Bill color varies geographically; Old
World birds arrive on breeding grounds with a black bill that turns to red, while New World birds arrive with
a red bill that turns darker. Similar to Common Tern, but notably whiter wings.
With practice, look for shallow, choppier wingbeats to distinguish from other tern species. Widespread
across the globe but local, breeding in scattered colonies, often on offshore islands. Can be found mixed
in flocks with other terns on beaches, mudflats, or estuaries. Listen for harsh two-parted call "chivick."
Royal Tern (Thalasseus maximus): Royal tern are not listed as a BCC. Royal tern are large tern, found
strictly in coastal areas. Feeds in open ocean and saltwater bays, where ii flies high above the water looking
for small fish. Rests on beaches, often in groups with other species. Separated from many terns by large
size; only slightly smaller than Caspian. Look for the thinner orange bill (usually not deep red) and shaggier
crest compared with Caspian. Also, forehead whiter than Caspian Tern in the non breeding season; this can
show as early as midsummer.
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
38
A ppe ndix C
En viro n m ental A ssessm e n ts
Draft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
AEC O M Project No.: 60690139
Sooty Tern (Onychoprion fuscatus): Sooty tern are not listed as a BCC. Sooty tern is a tropical seabird
is distinctive am ong tern s with its jet-black back, black cap, and neat white forehead. Immature birds are
entire ly dark blackish with white spots on wings and a white undertail. Most similar to Bridled Tern , but
darker black back, dark undersides of flight feathers, and narrower white edges on tail. Sooty Tern is found
in w arm tro pical waters worldwide. It breeds in colonies on sandy islands, but otherw ise usually stays far
offshore, and is rarely seen near land except when blown off course by a hurricane.
White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca): W hite-winged scoter are not listed as a BCC. White-winged
scoter are a large scoter with distinctive white patch on wing. Dark chocolate-bro wn overall; males are
darker than females and have small white mark under eye, dark knob on the bill, and pink bill tip. Females
have two ro unded white patches on face. At a distance, separated from Surf scoter by more sloping head
shape and white in the wing. W inters on coastal waters and large freshwater lakes. Occasionally found on
large inland lakes during migration. Dives frequently, feeding on mollusks and crustaceans.
Wilson's Storm-petrel (Oceanites oceanicus): W ilson's storm -petrel re not listed as a BCC. Wilson's
storm-petrel are small and fluttery. Dark blackish-bro wn overa ll wifM even-width whit& rump patch and
conspicuous pale wing panels. Long legs extend past the tail in flight; difficult to spot unless close.
Frequently hovers and patters feet on surface of water whe feeding. M ost often seen in small, loose
groups; sometim es feeds or rests on the water in a dense ,f ock. Eats plankton fro m the surface of the water.
Vexed taxonomy m ight include several cryptic species. Bree in Antarctica and islands in the southern
oceans. R anges across all oceans when not breeding, m ainly from M ay to October, typically staying
offshore but sometim es seen from land. M ost common in North Atlantic.
3.3.2 Critical Habitats
C ritical Habitat is a specific, federally-desiqnated, g . ographje area tlia'l-is essential for the conservation of
a threatened or endangered species th t m ay require SI) cial m anagement and pro tection. Critical Habitat
m ay include an area that is not cu r.eRtly occupied h>y ttie species, but that will be needed for its recovery.
An area is designated as Critical Habita a er the U , FW S publishes a pro posed federal regulation in the
Federal Register and then receives public comments on the pro posal. The final boundaries of the Critical
Habitat areas are also published in the Fede raf Registe).
Federally-designateEI Critical apita t for the W est Indian m anatee exists within Biscayne Bay and Hurricane
Harbor. Although the construction ac ivities associated with retro fitting existing outfalls will result in minor
im pacts to the overall Critical Habitat area within the project study area, these impacts will not inhibit
m anatee m ovement or water/air quality. Tc erefo re, no destruction of adverse m odification will occur to these
w aterw ays (1.e. Critical Habita ) as a result of this project.
3.4 Assessment of Potential Impacts
C onstruction-related activities have the potential to impact marine species and/or their habitat. Potential
effects directly related to the construction activities include water quality impairment, altera tion of bottom
habitat, elevated underw ater sound, and displacement.
3.4.1 Mammals
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris): In-water work is anticipated to occur as a result
of this pro ject. Num ero us manatees were observed in Hurricane Harbor during a March 20, 2023 field
review and as a result this species was assigned a 'high' pro bability of occurrence within the project study
area. In addition, federally-designated Critical Habitat exists within the pro ject limits for the W est Indian
m anatee. The pro posed outfall retrofitting activities will result in m inor impacts to the overall Critical Habitat
are a w ithin the project corridor, however, these impacts will not inhibit m anatee movement. Therefore, the
project w ill not result in destruction of adverse m odification to Critical Habitat for the W est Indian Manatee.
P rep ared fo r: V illa g e of K e y Biscayne AEC O M
39
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Minor impacts to West Indian manatee potential foraging is anticipated to occur during in-water work.
However, in-water work will not inhibit manatee movement between foraging areas. In addition, the
installation of culverts will result in the alteration of canal substrate within the area of the culvert, which may
result in minor impacts to overall potential foraging area. To increase the protection of this species during
construction, the Village will adhere to the most current version of the Standard Manatee Conditions for In
Water Work (Appendix A.6). Therefore, the Village has determined that the proposed project, regardless
of the Build Alternative, "M;:iy AffP.r.t, Nat UkAly tn Adversely Affect" the West Indian Manatee.
3.4.2 Reptiles
American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus): Although there is a very low probability of occurrence for the
American Crocodile, construction activities could affect the American crocodile's avior, causing them to
avoid the areas of proposed construction. Such impacts would be minimal and laealized to the construction
area, temporary (lasting only for the duration of construction) and are !'lot exµ,ected to jeopardize the
continued existence of the American crocodile.
No net loss of functions and values to wetlands and other surfa e wa(ers that may provide suitable habitat
for this species will occur. Unavoidable impacts to the existing stormwater features are anti ipated to be
compensated through construction of the new stormwater system. The pr.oject area is highly urbanized and
far enough north from known crocodile habitat that it is urilikefy to affe t crocodile nesting areas. Therefore,
the proposed project will have no effect on the American crocodile.
The contractor will be advised of state and local la regarding the tiarassment of crocodiles prior to the
commencement of and during construction activifes. B st Manag r:nent Practices (BMPs) would be
implemented in accordance with the latest edition of ~pecifications in order to satisfy any permit
requirements and minimize potential impacts fro c nstru tion ctivit1es.
Green Sea Turtle (C helonia mydas): GrP.An sea ti- rtles might temporarily utilize habitat within the project
area; however, no suitable nestiAg habit t e ists with, t · e project limits. Because the project location lacks
suitable nesting habitat, th r 1s a relative! low potenti'al or this project to impact the green sea turtle. Also,
sea turtle protection measures established by NG · isheries would be employed during all in-water
construction activities to ensure that , o adverse impacts to this species would occur. As a result of these
precaution measures, is not anticipated to adversely affect this species. Therefore, the Action Alternatives
may affect, but ts ne liltely to adversely affect the green sea turtle.
Hawksb II Sea Turtle (Eretmoct,elys iinbricata): No suitable nesting habitat for the hawksbill turtle exists
within the project areas. Since tne project location lacks suitable nesting habitat, there is a relatively low
potential for this project to impact the hawksbill sea turtle.Also, sea turtle protection measures established
by NOAA Fisherie would be employed during all in-water construction activities to ensure that no adverse
impacts to this species would occur. As a result of these precaution measures, is not anticipated to
adversely affect this species. Therefore, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
hawksbill sea turtle.
Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Leatherbacks may temporarily forage in the open water
areas in the vicinity of the proposed projects; however, no suitable nesting habitat exists within the project
areas. Since the project areas lack suitable nesting habitat, there is a relatively low potential for these
alternatives to impact the leatherback sea turtle. Also, sea turtle protection measures established by NOAA
Fisheries would be employed during all in-water construction activities to ensure that no adverse impacts
to this species would occur. Federally designated critical habitat (nearshore reproductive) has been
designated within for the loggerhead sea turtle. However, the critical habitat is not located within the project
area and the project is anticipated to have no effect on federally designated critical habitat for the
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
40
A ppe nd ix C
Environm e ntal A ssessm e nts
D ra ft Storm w ater Faci lities Plan
A EC O M Project No.: 60690139
loggerhead sea turtle. As a result of these precaution measures, the project may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect this species.
Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta): Loggerhead turtle nest sites are typically located on high
energy, open sandy beaches above the mean high tide and seaward of well-developed dunes; no suitable
nesting habitat exists within the project areas. Since the project location lacks the preferred habitat, there
is a relatively low potential for the proposed project to impact the loggerhead turtle. Also, sea turtle
protection measures established by NOAA Fisheries would be employed during all in-water construction
activities to ensure that no adverse impacts to this species would occur. As a result of these precaution
measures, is not anticipated to adversely affect this species. Therefore, the projec may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect the loggerhead sea turtle.
Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) aesototv: Gui stur eon protection measures
have been established by NOAA Fisheries for construction projects. Jher fore, tlie
have no effect on the Gulf sturgeon.
Audubon's Shearw a e (Puffinus lherminien): This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)
throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. However, the proposed project will have no
effect on the Audubon's shearwater.
Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants
attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the black scooter.
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the brown pelican.
P rep a red fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
41
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECO M Pro ject No.: 60690139
Common Eider (Somateria mollissima): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore. the proposed project will have no effect on the common
eider.
Common Loon (Gavia immer): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants
attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the common loon.
Great Shearw ater (Puffinus gravis): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the great
shearw ater.
Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this
area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potenti'al susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the
pomarine jaeger.
Razorbill (Alea torda): This is not a Bird of Conservation Cancer (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development
or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the razorbill.
Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this
area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the red
breasted merganser.
Ring-billed Gull (Larus de/awarensis): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the ring-billed
gull.
Roseate Tern (Stema dougallii): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the roseate tern.
Royal Tern (Thalasseus maxirtws): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the royal tern.
Sooty Tern (Onychoprion fuscatus): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the sooty tern.
White-winged Seater (Melanitta fusca): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the white-winged
seater.
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
42
A p pen dix C
Enviro n m e ntal A sse ssm e nts
Draft Stor m w ater Faci lities Plan
AEC O M Project No.: 60690139
Wilson's Storm-petrel (O ceanites oceanicus): This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this
area but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on the
Wilson's storm-petrel.
3.4.4 Construction Methods
Construction is expected to commence in 2024, and in-water work will require four to six months.
Construction would primarily occur from barge-mounted equipment. Equipment staged on landside would
augment barge and support construction when needed.
3.5 Proposed Mitigation Measures
Development of construction activities will be designed to minimize and avoid i acts to critical habitat and
managed species, to the fullest extent possible. State and federal requirements for use of BMPs will be
implemented. Those BMPs are as follows:
• The limits of construction will be identified with a turbidity barrier. The turbidity barrier will move with
the construction barge. The protection measures will be clearly stated in the construction
specifications, and workers will be instructed to. avoid conducting 'activities and disturbing areas
beyond construction limits.
• BMPs for pile removal and placement will be followed to re• uce large sediment disturbance and
avoid returning sediment to waterways.
o For removal: piling will be remov d slowly to minimize -t\,lrbidity in the water column and
sediment disturbance; "wake-up" pr cess will be used Nibrating the piling to break the skin
friction bond between, iling and sediment to avoid pulling out a large block of sediment
and possibly breakinq off the piling in the process); and work will be confined within a
floating turbidity barrier.
o For piling placement: hyd aullc jetting devices will not be used; nylon cushion blocks will
be used to reduce underwater noise.
• The construction contracto will use a soft start for pile driving to give fish and other mobile marine
fauna an oppor\mity; to vacate the area before underwater sound levels reached their peak.
• ,Oi r sweeps of each basin wm be conducted prior to installing turbidity curtains or construction
activities to confirm the basins are cleared of mobile protected species and other fauna.
• Tools, equipment, barricades, signs, surplus materials, demolition debris, and rubbish will be
removed fro·, ,the project work limits upon project completion.
• Equipment on the project will be maintained in a clean and well-functioning state to avoid or
minimize contamination from automotive fluids. Equipment will be checked daily.
• Material will be stored, used, and disposed of in an appropriate manner.
• A hazardous spill plan will be prepared prior to construction.
• BMPs for drainage and sediment control will be implemented to prevent or reduce nonpoint source
pollution and minimize soil loss and sedimentation in drainage areas. BMPs will include all or some
of the following actions, depending on site-specific requirements and the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 401 and 404 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements:
Prepa red fo r: V illag e of K e y Biscayne AEC O M
43
Appendix C
Environm ental Assessm ents
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
o Regular site inspections will occur during construction to confirm that BMP measures are
properly installed and are funct ioning effectively.
o Use temporary secondary containment equipment during construction, where practicable, so
that accidental releases of hazardous material are prevented or limited in scope.
o Use portable catch basins, containment berms, and other similar equipment for refueling
equipment where feasible.
o Keep spill kits on-site to pro vide easily accessible cleanup materials should a spill occur.
o Handle hazardous m aterials/waste used or generated during proposed activities according to
applicable laws and regulations.
Personnel involved in project activities will receive training on sensitive bi le>gical resources that may be
encountered in the action area. Personnel will be reminded that hara ssment, handling, or removal of wildlife
and/or other sensitive resources from the action area is pro hibited by l~w. Personnel· will be instructed that
in the event a special status species is identified within an immediate work area, work will cease until
appropriate personnel are notified and further instructions are provided.
3.6 The Effects of the Action: Summary and Conclusions
The potential for adverse impacts to m arine species designated iA the action area is likely to differ from
species to species, depending upon life history, habitat, and ciistri!Sution and abundance. However, it is
anticipated that short-term impacts will be limited to tempora ry displacement.
{remainder of this page intentionally blank}
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
44
A pp end ix C
Enviro n m e ntal A sse ssm e nts
D raft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject N o.: 60690139
4 M an atee P rotection Plan (M P P)
4.1 Introduction
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) was listed as an endangered species by
the USFW S on June 2, 1970. This species habitat range is rivers, estuaries, and coastal areas of
subtropical and tropical areas. The W est Indian manatee is an herbivore that migrates to warmer
waters during the colder months. In Florida, most migrate south during the winter and congregate
mainly in estuaries and canals. They prefer brackish over marine environments. The present
distribution of the West Indian manatee includes the coasts and rivers of Florid·a1 the Greater Antilles,
eastern Mexico and Central America and northern and eastern South America. A critical habitat was
established for the West Indian manatee in 1976. It includes Biscayne B8¥, and all adjoining and
connected lakes, rivers, canals, and waterways from the southern tip0fKey Biscayne (USFWS, 1999).
The Key Biscayne drainage improvement project has a small p@rtlon of workspace located within an
area designated as critical habitat for the West Indian manatee, which is listed as a endangered
species by both Federal and State regulatory agencies. Th Issue of incidental take pf . ndangered
manatees as a result of watercraft-related activities occunri,rrg within pe ninsular Florida is of continuing
concern. Therefore, the contractor shall take measures to protect manatees prior to and during
construction activities. These measures are discussed belQ\/\t.
4.2 Manatee Protection Measures
All construction pers~nnel as~ociated witt, the projifct ~ctiviti.es shall be instructed in the
appearance, habits, biology, migratory patterns, preservatlon.. and presence of manatees and
manatee speed zones in the project area a d t ~ need to avoid collisions with, and injury to,
manatees.
All construction personne shall be a vised th t there are civil and criminal penalties for harming,
harassing, or killing manatees w loh are prate ted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 , the Endangerecf.Species Act of 1973, and tpe Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1978. The
permittee and contractor will be held jointly resl>onsible for any manatee harmed, harassed, or
killed as a result of the construction activities.
The Florida Manatee Sanctua -Act states: It shall be unlawful for any person at any time, by any
means, or in any man~r inten 1 nally or negligently to annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any
menete«; capture or coffe tor attempt to capture or collect any manatee; pursue, hurt, wound, or
kilf any_ manatee; or possess literally or constructively, any manatee or any part of any manatee.
Any person violating the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first
degree.
Additional pena{ties of fines up to $20,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, are provided for
under the Feqetal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 19-72.
3. At least one trained personnel shall be designated as a marine mammal observer for all in-water
work and shall be present on-site during all construction or staging activities to maintain a constant
surveillance for manatees, assure the cessation of activities that may endanger manatees, and
assure that uninhibited passage for the animal is provided. The designated marine mammal
observer must have experience in marine mammal observation, be equipped with polarized
sunglasses and binoculars during daylight hours, and an immediate means of contacting the
mechanical operator(s). Movement of work barges and associated vessels, or any in-water work,
shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible after sundown.
1.
2.
4. Prior to commencement of construction, a temporary 3' X 4' placard reading, "Caution: Manatee
Zone" will be posted in a location prominently visible to water related construction crews. In
addition, each vessel involved in the construction shall display in a prominent location, visible to
the operator a temporary 8 ½" X 11" placard reading, "Caution: Manatee Zone/Slow Speed in
Prepared fo r: V illa ge of K ey Biscayne A EC O M
45
Appendix C
Enviro nm ental Assessm ents
Dra ft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECO M Project No.: 60690139
Construction Area". Awareness signs that have already been approved for this use by the FWC
will be used (see MyFWC.com). In the absence of a vessel the placard will be located prominently
adjacent to the issued construction permit. A ny colli sion with and/or injury to a m anatee(s)
shall be report ed im m ediately to the Florida Marine Patrol at 1-800-DIAL-FMP. The Florida
Fish and W ildlife Conserv ation Com m ission (FW C) Hotline shall also be contacted at 1-
888-404-FW C C . The U.S. Fish and W ildlife Serv ice (USFW S) should also be contacted in
Vero B each (1-561-562-3909) fo r south Florida.
5. Turbidity curtains, if required, shall be made of a material in which manatees cannot become
entangled. Turbidity curtains must be properly secured and shall be inspected and monitored to
avoid manatee entrapment prior to and after each day's construction activities. Curtains shall not
block manatee entry or exit from essential habitat and shall not prevent manatees from traveling
north and south in the basin during construction activities. If a manatee becomes entangled in a
turbidity curtain the FW C will be notified immediately at 1- 888-404-FWCC.
6. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "no wake/idle" speeds at all
times while in the construction area and in any areas while in water where the draft of the vessel
provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep
water whenever possible. ·
7. If manatee(s) are seen within 100 yards of the active construction operation or vessel movement,
all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure protection of the manatee. These
precautions shall include the operation of all moving equipment no closer than 50 feet of a
manatee. Operation of any equipment closer than 50 feet to a manatee shall necessitate
immediate shutdown of that equipment.
Manatees will not be herded away or harassed into leaving. Construction activities will not
resume until the manatee(s) has departed the project area of its own volition.
8. The Contractor shall maintain a log detailin9, sightings, collisions, or injuries to manatees should
they occur during the contract period. Manatee sighting information shall include the number of
manatees seen per sighting, time of day observed, indicate if work was stopped due to manatee
proximity, and when in-water work resumed once manatees left the area. Copies of the logs shall
be provided monthly to the FW C. Following project completion, a report summarizing incidents
and sightings shall be submitted to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 620
South Meridian St[eet, OES-BPS, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 or will be submitted to the
FWC, Imperiled Species Management (ISM ) Se.ction at: lmperiledSpecies@myfw c.com.
9. Contractors will implement the precautions stipulated in these manatee construction
requirements. If manatees are sighted, every effort will be made to protect the animal, and work
will cease if necessary.
10 . The Standard Manatee Conditions for In-W ater Work (revision 2005) will be followed for all in
water activity.
11. Any collision with or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately to the FFWC Hotline at 1-888-
404-FWCC. Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the FWS in Vero Beach (1-772 -562-
3909).
Prepared fo r: Village of Key Biscayne AECO M
46
Storm w ater S yste m Im p ro vem e nts
for the K -8 Scho ol Ba sin
D raft Storm w ater Facilities Plan
A EC O M Pro ject N o.: 60690139
Appendix D - Public Meeting
Information
Pre pa red fo r: V illa g e of K ey Biscayne AEC O M
23
Storm water System Im pro vements
for the K-8 School Basin
Draft Stormwater Facilities Plan
AECOM Project No.: 60690139
Appendix E - Capital Financing Plan
Prepared for: Village of Key Biscayne AECOM
24
C A P I T A L F I N A N C I N G P L A N
Village of Key Biscayne
(Project Sponsor)
Steven C. Williamson, Village Manager
(Authorized Representative and Title)
Key Biscayne, FL, 33149
(City, State, and Zip Code)
Colleen Blank, Capital Program and Grant Manager, 305-365-8948
(Capital Financing Plan Contact, Title and Telephone Number)
88 W McIntyre Rd
(Mailing Address)
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
(City, State, and Zip Code)
The Department needs to know about the financial c'a,pabilities of potential State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan
applicants. Therefore, a financial capability demonstration (and certification) is required well before the
evaluation of the actual loan application.
The sources of revenues being dedicated to repayment of.th, SRF loan are Stormwater Assessment Fee
(Note: Projects pledging utility operating revenues should attach a copy of the existing/proposed rate ordinance)
Estimate of Proposed SRF Loan Debt Service
Capital Cost*
Loan Service Fee (2% of capital cost)
Subtotal
Capitalized Interest**
Total Cost to be Amortized
Interest Rate***
Annual Debt Service
Annual Debt Service Including Coverage Factor****
$28,801,500
$576,030
$29,377,530
$525,858
$30,309,566
1.79%
$1,808,226
$2,079,460
* Capital Cost= Allowance+ Construction Cost (including a 10% contingency)+ Technical Services after Bid
Opening.
** Estimated Capitalized Interest= Subtotal times Interest Rate times construction time in years divided by two.
***20 GO Bond Rate times Affordability Index divided by 200.
* * * * Coverage Factor is generally 15%. However, it may be higher if other than utility operating revenues are
pledged.
1 of 5 Revised: 03/24/16
S C H E D U L E O F P RI O R A N D P A RI T Y L I E N S
List annual debt service beginning two years before the anticipated loan agreement date and continuing at least fifteen fiscal years. Use additional pages as
necessary.
IDENTIFY EACH OBLIGATION
#2Clean Water State Revolving
#1 Stormwater Utlltty Refunding Planning Loan SW131600 #3
Coverage % 100 Coverage % 115 Coverage%
Insured (Yes/No) No Insured (Yes/No) No Insured (Yes/No)
#4 #5 #6
Coverage% Coverage% Coverage%
Insured (Yes/No) Insured (Yes/No) Insured Yes/No)
Total Non-SRF Total SRF
Fiscal Annual Debt Service ( Princigal + Interest) Debi Service Debt Service
Year w/coverage w/covcragc
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6
2021 $475,263 $475,263
2022 $475,160 / $475,160
2023 $475,055 $475,055
2024
;_
$474,948 $50,341 $474,948 $57,892 ....
2025 $474,837 $100,682 $474,837 $115,784
2026 $474,725 $100,682 ~ $474,725 $115,784
2027 $474,609 $100,682 \ \" ·-- $474,609 $115,784
2028 $474,492 $100,682 ' -~ $474,492 $115,784
2029 $474,371 $100,682 ~ \ $474,371 $115,784 --~
2030 $474,247 $100,682 $474,247 $115,784
2031 $474,121 $100,682 $474,121 $115,784 ,.
2032 $100,682 - ~ $115,784
2033 $100.682 L
( $115,784
2034 $50,341
... ',,·,,
$57,892
2035 ~
2036 \
2037 /
.
,._
~· ----------
2 of5 Revised: 03/24/16
SCHEDULE OF ACTUAL REVENUES AND DEBT COVERAGE
FOR PLEDGED REVENUE
(Provide information for the two fiscal years preceding the anticipated date of the SRF loan agreement)
FYj 202tl F Yj 2022I
(a) Operating Revenues (Identify)
Stormwater Utility Fees $1,822,405 $1,971,519
(b) Interest Income $10,335
( c) Other Incomes or Revenues
(Identify)
(d) Total Revenues $1,822,405 $1,981,854
(e) Operating Expenses ( excluding
interest on debt, depreciation,
and other non-cash items) $706,503 $768,605
(f) Net Revenues (f = d - e) 1,115,902 $1,213,249
(g) Debt Service (including
coverage) Excluding SRF Loans $475,263 $475,610
(h) Debt Service (including
coverage) for Outstanding RF
Loans
(i) Net Revenues After De}Jt
Service (i = f - g - h} $640,642 $737,639
Source: Village of Key Biscayne FY2 l and FY22 ACFR
Notes:
3 of5 Revised: 03/24/16
S C H E D U L E O F P R O J E C T E D RE V E N U E S A N D D E B T C O V E RA G E
l<'UR PLEU(;JW KEVl!:NUE
(Begin with the fiscal year preceding first anticipated semiannual loan payment)
FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029
(a) Operating Revenues
(Identify)
Stormwater Fee $2,536,907 $2,917,443 $3,355,059 $3,858,318 $4,437,066
(b) Interest lncome
(c) Other Incomes or
Revenues (Identify)
(d) Total Revenues $2,536,907 $2,917,443 $3,355,059 $3,858,318 $4,437,066
(e) Operating Expenses 1
$[,424,820 $1,667,564 $1,721,591 $[,777,439 $1,835,172
(f) Net Revenues
(f=d-e) $1,112,087 $1,249,879 $1,633,468 $2,080,879 $2,601,894
(g) Existing Debt Service on
Non-SRF Projects (including
coverage) $474,837 $474,725 $474,609. $474,492 $474,37 l
(h) Existing SRF Loan Debt
Service (including coverage) NIA 57,892 115,784 l lS,784 l [5,784
(i) Total F.xi"ting Oeht Service
(i = g + h) $474,837 $532,617 $590,393 $590,276 $590,155
(j) Projected Debt Service on
Non-SRF Future Projects
(including coverage) NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
(k) Projected SRF Loan Debt
Service (including coverage) $502,571 $502,571 $2,079,460 $2,079,460
(I) Total Debt Service (Existing
and Projected)
(l = i + j + k) $474,837 $1,035,188 $1,092,964 $3,365,260 $3,365,139
(m) Net Revenues After Debt
Service (m = f- l) $637,250 $214,691 $540,504 ($1,091,428 ($570,292)
Source:
Notes: (i.e. rate increases, explanations, etc.)
1. For existing and proposed facilities, excluding interest on debt, depreciation, and other non-cash items.
Forecasted revenues are based on a planned 15% annual growth from rate increases from 2024-2031.
Operating expenses pre-construction increase 3% annually from estimated 2023. An additional new
infrastructure operating expense of $200,000 begins in FY26 and increases by 5% annually. Line (g)
reduces the available revenue for this SRF loan by the annual debt service obligations for the Village's
2016 Storm water Revenue Bond which falls off in 2031.
The planned rate increases for the stormwatcr fund year over year arc as follows: 2024 (15%), 2025
(15%), 2026 (15%), 2027(15%), 2028 (15%), 2029 (15%), 2030 (15%), 2031(15%).
4 of5 Revised: 03124/16
While in some years the Stormwatere Fund's annual expenses exceed the revenues, the fund balance never
drops below $1.1 M
Assuming Design and Planning Loan repayment begins FY26 once both design and planning are complete
and construction loan repayment begins in FY28 once construction is complete.
5 of5 Revised: 03/24/16
C E R T IFIC A T IO N
I, ______ B_e_n..,_ja_m_in_N_u_ss_b_a_u_m , certify that I have review ed the inform ation
Chief Financial Offi cer (please print)
included in the preceding capital financing plan worksheets, and to the best of m y knowledge, this
info rm ation accura tely reflects the financial capability
of
The Village of Key Biscayn e
I fu rther certify that
Project Sponsor
___ T_h_e_V_i_ll~ag~e_of_K_e~y_B_i_sc_a~y_n_e __ has the financial capability to ensure
Project Sponsor
adequate constru ction, opera tion, and m aintenance of the system, in cluding this SR F project.
Signature Date
6 of5 Revised: 03/24/16
S to rm w ater S ystem Im p ro ve m e nts
for the K-8 Scho ol Ba sin
D raft Sto rm w a ter Facilitie s Pla n
A E C O M Pro je ct N o .: 60 690 13 9
Appendix F -Adopted Resolution
P rep ared fo r: V illa g e of K ey Biscay ne A E C O M
25