DRAFT NEPA EA - Fort Myers (Oct Draft).pdf

United States Coast Guard FDCC Norfolk, VA

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS –

REBUILD STA FORT MYERS BEACH and WATERFRONT

USCG FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT E - DRAFT NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) - SEPTEMBER 2020)

Task order No. 70Z04720FMYERAE00 Project No. 10878169

Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Rebuild of Station Fort Myers Beach and Waterfront

Order Number: 70Z04720FMYERAE00 Contract Number: 70Z05018DAMFWHD02

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Facilities Design & Construction Center Norfolk Virginia

Prepared by:

Wood HDR JV 2475 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 200 Alpharetta, GA 30009-4808

September 2020

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Proposed Rebuild of Station Fort Myers Beach and Waterfront Draft EA – September 2020 ii

CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... vi

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................. 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3.1 USCG Mission ...................................................................................... 1-2

1.3.2 Sector St. Petersburg ............................................................................ 1-3

1.3.3 Station Fort Myers Beach .................................................................... 1-3

1.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES ............................................................................... 1-9

1.5 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 1-10

1.6 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................. 1-11

1.7 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS .............................................. 1-11

1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS ............................... 1-12

1.8.1 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................ 1-12

1.8.2 Endangered Species Act ................................................................... 1-13

1.8.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act ........................................................................................................ 1-14

1.8.4 Marine Mammal Protection Act ...................................................... 1-14

1.8.5 Clean Air Act and Conformity Requirements ............................... 1-15

1.8.6 Wetland and Water Resources Regulatory Requirements .......... 1-16

1.8.7 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program ...... 1-16

1.8.8 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination ...................................... 1-16

1.8.9 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements .............................. 1-17

1.8.10 Invasive Species ................................................................................. 1-18

1.9 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................... 1-18

SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND

ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Alternative 1: Demolition of Landside Facilities and

Construction of a Single Consolidated Multi-Mission Building ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Alternative 2: Demolition and Redevelopment of Landside and In-Water Facilities ........................................................................ 2-4

2.1.3 Alternative 3: Demolition and Redevelopment of Landside and In-Water Facilities including the Realignment of the Multi-Mission Building and Boat Ramp/Launch Dock .............. 2-10

2.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 2-11 iii

2.3 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED

ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 2-13

2.3.1 Permanent Relocation to Another Location .................................. 2-13

2.3.2 Demolition and Reconstruction of the In-Water Facilities .......... 2-13

2.3.3 Construction of Two Floating Finger Piers .................................... 2-14

2.4 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 2-14

2.4.1 Memorandum of Agreement between Coast Guard Atlantic

Area and the National Marine Fisheries Service ........................... 2-14

2.4.2 USCG Operational Guidance Related to Marine Resources ....... 2-14

2.4.3 Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions

(2006) ................................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.4 Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (2011) ........... 2-17

2.4.5 Soil Management Plan ...................................................................... 2-18

2.4.6 Additional Construction Best Management Practices ................. 2-19

SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................ 3-1

3.1 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 3-2

3.1.1 Definition of Resources ....................................................................... 3-2

3.1.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3-5

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 3-7

3.2.1 Definition of Resource ........................................................................ 3-7

3.2.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................. 3-8

3.3 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 3-29

3.3.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-29

3.3.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 3-29

3.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES.......................................................... 3-34

3.4.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-34

3.4.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 3-34

3.5 LAND USE AND RECREATION .......................................................................... 3-41

3.5.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-41

3.5.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 3-41

3.6 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 3-44

3.6.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-44

3.6.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 3-48

3.7 VISUAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 3-55

3.7.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-55

3.7.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 3-55

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................... 4-1

4.1 AIR QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Approach to Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives .............................................. 4-2

4.1.3 Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ......................................... 4-6

4.1.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................... 4-7 iv

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 4-8

4.2.1 Approach to Analysis ......................................................................... 4-8

4.2.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives .............................................. 4-8

4.2.3 Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ....................................... 4-24

4.2.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................. 4-24

4.3 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 4-27

4.3.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-27

4.3.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives ............................................ 4-27

4.3.3 Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ....................................... 4-30

4.3.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................. 4-30

4.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES.......................................................... 4-31

4.4.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-31

4.4.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives ............................................ 4-31

4.4.3 Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ....................................... 4-34

4.4.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................. 4-35

4.5 LAND USE AND RECREATION .......................................................................... 4-37

4.5.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-37

4.5.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives ............................................ 4-37

4.5.3 Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ....................................... 4-40

4.5.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................. 4-40

4.6 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 4-41

4.6.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-41

4.6.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives ............................................ 4-41

4.6.3 Impacts from the No-Action Alternative ....................................... 4-48

4.6.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................. 4-49

4.7 VISUAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 4-51

4.7.1 Approach to Analysis ....................................................................... 4-51

4.7.2 Impacts from the Action Alternatives ............................................ 4-51

4.7.3 Impacts from No-Action Alternative .............................................. 4-54

4.7.4 Special Procedures ............................................................................. 4-54

SECTION 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................. 5-1

5.1 PROJECTS CONSIDERED ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ........................................................... 5-1

SECTION 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................ 6-1

SECTION 7 SPECIAL PROCEDURES .................................................................... 7-1

SECTION 8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 8-1

SECTION 9 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................... 9-1 v

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Intergovernmental Review and Consultation

Appendix B – Biological Resources Surveys, Programmatic Section 7 Consultation, Standard Construction Conditions

Appendix C – Cultural Resources Overview

Appendix D – Soil Sampling Report

Appendix E – Hazardous Materials Survey vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°F degrees Fahrenheit µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter μPa microPascal ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACM asbestos-containing material AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ANT Aids to Navigation AST aboveground storage tank AT/FP Anti-Terrorism / Force Protection BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BFE base flood elevation BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act bgs below ground surface BMAP Basin Management Action Plan BMP Best Management Practice BoLCC Board of Lee County Commissioners CAA Clean Air Act CCRS Climate Change Resiliency Strategy CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGC Coast Guard Cutter CGP Construction Generic Permit CO carbon monoxide COMDTINST Coast Guard Commandant Instruction CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DARM Division of Air Resource Management dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FAC Florida Administrative Code F.S. Florida Statutes FCMP Florida Coastal Management Program FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

vii

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission HAP hazardous air pollutant HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning IPaC Information Planning and Conservation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISC Interagency Security Committee JAXBO U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District

Programmatic Biological Opinion LBP lead-based paint Leq noise equivalent level Lmax maximum noise level MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mg/kg milligram per kilogram MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA Notice of Availability NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NOx nitrogen oxides NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory O3 ozone OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pb lead pCi/L picoCuries per liter PDCs Project Design Criteria PM10 particulate matter equal or less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter equal or less than 2.5 microns in diameter https://floridadep.gov/water/stormwater/content/municipal-separate-storm-sewer-systems-ms4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED)

viii

POL petroleum, oil, and lubricants PPE personal protective equipment ppm parts per million RB-M Response Boat - Medium RB-S Response Boat - Small RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHA Rivers and Harbors Act RMS root mean square ROI Region of Influence SCS Soil Conservation Service SCTL Soil Cleanup Target Levels SEAS Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section SEL sound exposure level SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SOP Standard Operating Procedure SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure SPL sound pressure level SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load tpy tons per year USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank UTB Utility Boat VOC volatile organic compounds WPB Island Class Cutter XRF X-Ray Fluorescence

1-1

SECTION 1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S. Code [USC]); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01; and Coast Guard Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) 5090.1, U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy and Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures (April 2019).

This section specifies the purpose of and need for the proposed demolition and construction of facilities at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Station Fort Myers Beach (Station), located on San Carlos Island in unincorporated Lee County, Florida (County).

1.2 BACKGROUND

The Station has been subject to hurricane damage – including significant damage from Hurricane Irma in 2017 – and general deterioration since its initial construction in the late 1970s / early 1980s. The USCG is proposing to demolish the existing facilities at the Station and to construct new purpose-built facilities, necessary to ensure the continued health and safety of personnel and to improve the ability of this Sector St. Petersburg (Sector) unit to accomplish its mission.

Pursuant to NEPA, the USCG has prepared this EA to evaluate the potential effects on the environment from the proposed demolition and construction activities at the Station (Proposed Action). CEQ regulations and COMDTINST

5090.1 require that an EA identify and evaluate all reasonable alternatives, including a “No-Action Alternative” in which the Proposed Action is not undertaken. The information and analysis contained in this EA will serve as the basis for a USCG decision if the Proposed Action would result in a significant impact to the environment, which would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or if no significant impacts would occur and therefore a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate.

1-2

1.3 OVERVIEW

1.3.1 USCG Mission

The USCG is the Nation’s first and oldest maritime agency. The USCG area of responsibility includes more than 95,000 miles of U.S. coastlines, waterways, and harbors; more than 3.36 million square miles of Exclusive Economic Zone and U.S. territorial seas; and international waters or other maritime regions of importance to the U.S. The USCG is a multi-missioned military and maritime service within the Department of Homeland Security.

The USCG’s 11 fundamental missions are ports, waterways, and coastal security;

illegal drug interdiction; aids to navigation; search and rescue; living marine resources; marine safety; defense readiness; migrant interdiction; marine environmental protection; ice operations; and other law enforcement. Examples of these fundamental missions are:

• Protect all U.S. ports, inland waterways, harbors, navigable waters, the Great Lakes, territorial seas, contiguous waters, customs waters, coastal seas, littoral areas, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, oceanic regions of the U.S. national interest, sea lanes to the U.S., U.S. maritime approaches, and high seas surrounding the nation;

• Protect the U.S. Marine Transportation System, which is comprised of the intermodal connections, vessels, vehicles, and system users, as well as all federal maritime navigation systems;

• Maintain maritime border security against illegal drugs, illegal aliens, firearms, and weapons of mass destruction;

• Ensure that U.S. military assets can be rapidly supplied and deployed by keeping USCG units at a high state of readiness, and by keeping marine transportation open for the transit of assets and personnel from other branches of the armed forces;

• Coordinate efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local agencies;

• Respond to calls of distress, whether from commercial or recreational boats or downed aircraft;

• Support programs to ensure that boats are safe for public use and that boats contain appropriate safety equipment;

• Protect against illegal fishing and indiscriminate destruction of living marine resources; and

1-3

• Prevent and respond to oil and hazardous material spills – both accidental and intentional.

1.3.2 Sector St. Petersburg

Sector St. Petersburg, which is organized under the USCG 7th District, is one of USCG’s largest commands encompassing an area of over 400 nautical miles of coastline along the west coast of Florida. The Sector’s five multi-mission small boat stations, six patrol boats, two aids to navigation cutters, and one aid to navigation team have the responsibility for five primary operational missions:

• Search and Rescue;

• Marine Safety;

• Maritime Law Enforcement;

• Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security; and

• Living Marine Resources.

The Sector has six units including one Aids to Navigation Team (ANT) – ANT St.

Petersburg – and five stations – Station Yankeetown, Station Sand Key, Station St. Petersburg, Station Cortez, and Station Fort Myers Beach. In total the Sector is staffed by approximately 825 active duty and reserve military members, 27 civilian personnel, and 1,800 auxiliary personnel. Each year, Sector personnel conduct an average of 2,600 rescue operations assisting with more than 7,000 persons and preserving approximately $39 million in property value.

(USCG 2020).

1.3.3 Station Fort Myers Beach

Station Fort Myers Beach is located at 719 San Carlos Drive on San Carlos Island in unincorporated Lee County. The Station is located at the southwestern tip of the island adjacent to Matanzas Pass, which separates San Carlos Island from Estero Island and the Town of Fort Myers Beach (see Figure 1). Matanzas Pass is heavily trafficked by marine vessels including cargo ships, barges, ferries, cruise ships, and leisure boats. Matanzas Pass Bridge provides connectivity between San Carlos Island and Estero Island.

1-4

Figure 1. Station Fort Myers Beach – Regional Location

1-5

There are 43 active duty, 31 reservists, and 29 duty watch standers at the Station.

The two primary missions of the Station are: 1) Search and Rescue Operations;

and 2) Coastal Waterway Security and Fisheries. The Station also is supported by USCG Auxiliary Division 9, Flotilla 91. The USCG Auxiliary serves as the uniformed volunteer component of the USCG and assists with safety patrols on local waterways, search and rescue, boating safety instruction, public vessel safety checks, distribution of boating safety literature, and additional activities related to recreational boating safety.

1.3.3.1 Existing Facilities

Existing in-water facilities at the Station include the Island Class Cutter (WPB) Pier and Visiting Ship Pier – timber piers that form a pentagon shape at the southern end of the Station – and a floating dock that serves as the Utility Boat (UTB) Pier. The UTB Pier is an approximately 100-foot-long timber pier that provides berthing locations for 41-foot UTBs. Two concrete docks form the existing Travel Lift;

however, as described in further detail below, the Travel Lift is no longer functional and all associated equipment has been removed. The northernmost concrete dock supports a floating dock, which is referred to as the Travel Lift Pier and is used as berthing space for two Response Boats – Small (RB-S). There is also a small whip antenna pier located at the northern end of the Station.

The Island Class Cutter (WPB) Pier and Visiting Ship Pier are ccomponents of a large pentagon-shaped pier complex originally constructed using concrete piles, timber fender piles, and timber decking. The WPB Pier provides berthing space for CGC Marlin, which is berthed at the Station approximately 50 percent of the year.

The Travel Lift is no longer functional and all associated equipment has been removed. The northernmost concrete dock (pictured above to the right) provides berthing space for two RB-S.

1-6

The Station has two primary buildings – a two-story, approximately 10,000-square-foot Multi-Mission Building (Building 1) and a one-story Cutter Support Building (Building 6) – as well as various smaller storage and support facilities (see Table 2-1 and Figure 2). The Multi-Mission Building is primarily used as a training and operations facility and includes offices, training facilities, and sleeping quarters. A paved surface parking lot is located within the central area of the Station and provides approximately 25 parking spaces as well as recreational facilities including a basketball court. These landside facilities are protected by a bulkhead (i.e., seawall) that runs in a north-south direction along Matanzas Pass. The bulkhead is approximately 415 feet long and has uneven heights, with a reduced height at the fuel tanks near the UTB Pier. Riprap and ballast rock are present along the southwest bulkhead near these fuel tanks. The landside property boundaries are protected by a perimeter chainlink and barbed wire security fence.

Table 2-1. Existing Buildings at Station Fort Myers Beach

Building Building Name Building Square Footage

Year of Construction

Building 1 Multi-Mission Building 12,000 1977 Building 2 Boat Storage/Wash Down Area 925 After 1994 Building 3 Recreation Pavilion 525 After 1994

Building 4* Hazardous Materials Storage Building 220 After 1994

The approximately 415-foot-long bulkhead runs in a north-south direction along Matanzas Pass.

This bulkhead provides flood protection for the Station.

The Multi-Mission Building is the primary landside facility at the Station. This two-story building provides maintenance space, administrative space, and sleeping quarters.

1-7

Building Building Name Building Square Footage

Year of Construction

Building 5* Marine Operating Fuel Storage 225 1977 Building 6 Cutter Support Building 400 1987 Note: *Building 4 and Building 5 were significantly damaged during Hurricane Irma and replaced with prefabricated storage sheds.

1.3.3.2 Existing Vessels

The Station currently accommodates five vessels occupying permanent berthing space: two Response Boats – Small (RB-S), two Response Boats – Medium (RB-M), and one WPB, Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Marlin (WPB 87-304).

• The RB-S is a defender class boat measuring approximately 29 feet in length and which primarily supports search and rescue operations and security and law enforcement activities. The RB-S requires a minimum of 2 crew members to operate and has a maximum capacity of 10 people.

• The RB-M is a 45-foot utility boat, which serves primarily as a search and rescue asset but also supports missions of recreational boating safety, marine environmental protection, coastal security, and enforcement of laws and treaties.

• CGC Marlin (WPB 87-304) is an 87-foot WPB, which provides USCG with support of maritime homeland security, migrant and drug interdiction, defense operations, and search and rescue missions. CGC Marlin is berthed at the Station for approximately 50 percent of the year.

1-8

Figure 2. Station Fort Myers Beach – Existing Facilities

1-9

1.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES

Diversified Yacht Services, Inc. is located along San Carlos Drive, immediately to the east of the Station.

Diversified Yacht Services, Inc.

maintains, repairs, and upgrades luxury yachts and vessels of all sizes from its 60,000-square-foot service center. In addition to its service center, Diversified Yacht Services, Inc.

also maintains a 150-ton travel lift, full-service fuel dock, marina, and store. The Ostego Bay Foundation Marine Science Center, Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve, and a variety of commercial retail and restaurant uses are located farther to the east, beyond Matanzas Pass Bridge.

Residential development is located along San Carlos Drive to the north of the Station. Each of these residences includes an approximately 100-foot-long floating dock, many of which also include covered boat slip canopies. Smaller mobile home developments are located to the northeast of the Station, immediately adjacent to the north of Diversified Yacht Services, Inc.

The Matanzas Harbor is located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the Station within Matanzas Pass. The Town of Fort Myers Beach operates and maintains the Matanzas Harbor and can accommodate vessels up to 48 feet in length with 70 mooring balls available for public rental. Upland services for the harbor are provided by the privately owned and operated Matanzas Inn. Additional amenities

Matanzas Harbor provides two mooring fields, including the west mooring field (pictured above) and the east mooring field.

Diversified Yacht Services, Inc. is located immediately adjacent to the east of the Station and includes a 60,000-square-foot service center as well as a 150-ton travel lift, full-service fuel dock, marina, and store.

1-10 are available in the harbor’s vicinity including trash disposal, food services, and restrooms.

1.5 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Station has been subject to three major hurricane events including Hurricane Charley (2004), Hurricane Wilma (2005), and Hurricane Irma (2017). Hurricane Charley developed from a tropical wave and was ranked as a Category 4 hurricane with winds reaching 150 miles per hour off the coast of Florida.

Hurricane Charley triggered an 8-foot storm surge across the region resulting in substantial damage to property totaling over $14.6 billion in the Florida peninsular region. Hurricane Wilma began as a tropical disturbance in October 2005 off the coast of Jamaica and reached Category 3 hurricane levels once it reached southwestern Florida. As Hurricane Wilma moved over Florida at a rapid rate lasting approximately 4.5 hours, damage from flooding and high winds was greatly limited to infrastructure, causing major electrical outages and long-term damage. Hurricane Irma caused substantial damage across the coastal regions of Florida, resulting in storm surges of 3 to 5 feet off the southwestern peninsular region of Florida. Hurricane Irma resulted in over $50 billion in infrastructure damage and is the fifth costliest recorded hurricane to impact mainland US.

A combination of tidal inundations, storm surge impacts, and flooding effects from these recent hurricanes and general deterioration since its initial

The Hazardous Materials Storage Building (Building 4) and the Marine Operating Fuel Storage Building (Building 5) were severely damaged by Hurricane Irma. As a result these buildings were demolished and replaced with prefabricated sheds (pictured above).

1-11 construction in the late 1970s / early 1980s has resulted in substantial damage to the existing landside facilities at the Station. For example, the existing storage buildings were demolished and replaced with prefabricated sheds as they were no longer unusable following Hurricane Irma. Additionally, the Travel Lift is no longer operational and all associated equipment has been removed. Many of the timber piles supporting the in-water facilities at the Station have damage from marine borers (i.e., mollusks and crustaceans that attack a variety of timber in marine and brackish environments). While the existing piers at the Station remain functional, this damage to the timber piles may limit their future loading capacity.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to enable Sector St. Petersburg to accomplish its mission.

1.6 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The need for the Proposed Action is to address recent hurricane damage as well as general deterioration from long-term operations, environmental stressors (e.g., storm surge, currents, marine borers, etc.) in order to restore functionality of existing facilities at the Station. The USCG needs to address and rectify these conditions to ensure the continued health and safety of personnel and improve the ability to of Sector St. Petersburg to accomplish its mission.

1.7 AGENCY AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

On [Date], letters were distributed by the USCG to interested agencies and stakeholders to notify of availability of the Draft EA and to solicit review and comment on the document. The USCG has notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) South Florida Ecological Services Office, the Florida Department of State’s Division of Historical Resources State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southeast Regional Office regarding the Proposed Action (see Appendix A). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) utilizes the Florida State Clearinghouse to route applications for Federal activities, such as EAs, to the appropriate state, regional, and local reviewers for them to provide comments and

1-12 recommendations to the Florida State Clearinghouse based on their statutory authorities.

The review and comment request letters provided a 30-day period during which comments could be submitted by these relevant stakeholders. Further, a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EA was published in the News-Press on [Date] and distributed to surrounding property owners within a 500-foot-radius of the Station, which announced the availability of the document for public and agency review together with a timeline and instructions for submitting comment and input (see Appendix A).

1.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS

This EA has been prepared in accordance with Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and COMDTINST 5090.1, and in compliance with requirements of NEPA and CEQ Regulations dated 28 November 1978 (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). NEPA and other regulatory requirements related to the environmental impact assessment process are described below.

1.8.1 National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider potential environmental consequences of their actions. The intent of the act is to protect, restore, or enhance the environment through well-informed federal decisions. The CEQ was established under NEPA for the purpose of implementing and overseeing federal policies as they relate to this process. In 1978, the CEQ issued Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). These regulations specify that an EA be prepared to:

• Briefly provide sufficient analysis and evidence for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI;

• Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary; and

• Facilitate preparation of an EIS if one is necessary.

Further, to comply with other relevant environmental requirements (e.g., Endangered Species Act [ESA], National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA], 1-13

Clean Water Act [CWA], etc.) in addition to NEPA, and to assess potential environmental impacts, the decision-making process for the Proposed Action involves a thorough examination of all environmental issues pertinent to the federal action.

1.8.2 Endangered Species Act

The ESA (16 USC §§1531–1544, as amended) established measures for the protection of plant and wildlife species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and for the conservation of habitats that are critical to the continued existence of those species. Activities such as the proposed demolition and construction of pile-supported structures and boat ramps are included in NMFS’s Programmatic Biological Opinion for in-water activities subject to jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jacksonville District under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) and Section 404 of the CWA throughout Florida, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands (NMFS 2017; see Appendix B). If it is ultimately determined by USACE that the Proposed Action is eligible for consideration under NMFS’s Programmatic Biological Opinion, USACE permit conditions necessary to avoid or limit adverse effects on federally listed species or federally designated critical habitat would be added to authorizations issued to the USCG.1 In addition, the proposed demolition and construction of in-water facilities would be required to comply with the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (2006) as directed by NMFS.

The Station is located within federally designated critical habitat for the federally threatened Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) as well as a Florida State Manatee Protection Zone. As described in Section 3.2, Biological Resources) manatees are unlikely to use the site except in transit to adjacent seagrass habitat within Estero Bay; however, since the site is located within federally designated critical habitat for the Florida manatee, all demolition and construction activities within the waterway would be required to comply with the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (2011) as directed by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and USFWS.

1 Project-specific consultation with NMFS may be required depending upon the ultimate design and/or required construction methods.

1-14

1.8.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC §§1801 et seq., as amended) established: 1) a fishery conservation zone between the territorial seas of the U.S. and 200 nautical miles offshore; 2) an exclusive U.S.

fishery management authority over fish within the fishery conservation zone (excluding highly migratory species); 3) regulations for foreign fishing within the fishery conservation zone through international fishery agreements, permits, and import prohibitions; and 4) national standards for fishery conservation and management and eight regional fishery management councils to apply national standards established in fishery management plans.

Congress enacted the 1996 amendments to the act, known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) (Public Law 104-297), to address the substantially reduced fish stocks that declined as a result of direct and indirect habitat loss. The SFA requires that agencies consult with NMFS concerning federal actions that may adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).

1.8.4 Marine Mammal Protection Act

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits the taking of marine mammals. The term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.

In addition to being listed as federally threatened under the ESA, the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is also protected under the MMPA. Both the ESA and the MMPA prohibit the incidental take of Florida manatees while conducting otherwise lawful activities, except as specifically authorized. For species other than manatees, dugongs, sea otters, polar bears, and walruses and as long as specific requirements are met, the USFWS can authorize incidental take under the ESA when that take is reasonably likely to occur as a result of a federal action. The MMPA requires a separate and concurrent authorization to allow for the incidental take of these animals. On 14 November 2002, the USFWS published a proposed rule to authorize the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees resulting from government activities that permit watercraft access facilities in Florida. In the proposed rule, the USFWS examined http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag1.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag1.html http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils.htm http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ297.104.pdf http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Assessment/FCMA/Essential-Fish-Habitat.aspx

1-15 the issue of take of Florida manatees to determine whether the incidental, unintentional take of manatees could be authorized. After considering various analytical methods and relevant information generated during the public comment period, the USFWS concluded that questions regarding standards and assumptions, new information, and methods precluded them from a finding that would authorize incidental take. As such, the USFWS withdrew its proposed rule in May 2003 (USFWS 2019).

Activities which lead to the incidental take of manatees are not authorized under the MMPA and, therefore, cannot be authorized under the ESA. Such activities must be modified to the extent that take is no longer reasonably certain to occur.

Projects involving in-water construction activities must be designed to incorporate incidental take avoidance and minimization measures including Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Activities (2011).

1.8.5 Clean Air Act and Conformity Requirements

The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC §§7401–7671, as amended) provided the authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish nationwide air quality standards to protect public health and welfare. Federal standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), were developed for six criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The CAA also requires that each state prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintaining and improving air quality and eliminating violations of the NAAQS. Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, federal agencies are required to determine whether their undertakings are in conformance with the applicable SIP and demonstrate that their actions will not cause or contribute to a new violation of the NAAQS; increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation; or delay timely attainment of any standard, emission reduction, or milestone contained in the SIP. The USEPA has set forth regulations in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, which require the proponent of a federal action to perform an analysis to determine if implementation of the action would conform to the SIP.

1-16

1.8.6 Wetland and Water Resources Regulatory Requirements

The CWA (33 USC §§1251 et seq.) regulates pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S., which include tidal waters along with certain non-tidal waters and wetlands adjacent to those waters. Section 404 of the CWA and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands regulate development activities in or near streams or wetlands. Section 404 requires a permit from USACE for dredging and/or filling in waters of the U.S., including certain wetlands. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood damage; minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Federal agencies are directed to consider the proximity of their actions to or within floodplains.

1.8.7 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program regulates point source discharges from three potential sources:

municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4), construction activities and industrial activities. Coverage under the Construction Generic Permit (CGP) is required for discharges from construction activities that:

• Disturb at least 1 or more acres of land or disturb less than 1 acre of land but are part of a common plan of development or sale; and

• Discharge stormwater to surface waters of the state or to surface waters of the state through an MS4.

The NPDES stormwater program regulates discharges that are associated with "large" and "small" construction activities. Construction activities at the Station would be “small” given the area of the Station, just over 1 acre.

1.8.8 Coastal Zone Consistency Determination

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC §§1451 et seq.), creates a federal-state partnership to ensure the protection of coastal resources. The https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/Construction_Generic_Permit_0.pdf https://floridadep.gov/water/stormwater/content/municipal-separate-storm-sewer-systems-ms4

1-17

CZMA requires every federal action or federally funded action, which has the potential to affect any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone, to be carried out in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the applicable state Coastal Management Program. The geography of Florida and the requirements of the CZMA dictate that the entire State of Florida be designated as a Coastal Zone and be subject to the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The FCMP consists of a network of 24 Florida Statutes (i.e., enforceable policies codified as F.S. Chapter 380, Part II) administered by FDEP, which is designated as the lead agency for the FCMP pursuant to the CZMA.

Consistency is based on effects rather than geographic boundaries; consequently, there are no categorical exclusions from the consistency requirement. Any federal action or federally funded action that would have an effect on a state's coastal zone is subject to a consistency review, unless specifically exempted by federal law. Effects are determined by assessing reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect effects on any coastal use or resource. The CZMA requires federal agencies carrying out activities subject to the act to provide a “consistency determination” to the relevant state agency. The federal regulations implementing the act then require the state agency to inform the federal agency of its agreement or disagreement with the federal agency’s consistency determination.

1.8.9 Cultural Resources Regulatory Requirements

The NHPA (54 USC §§300101 et seq.) established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Cultural resources can include archaeological remains, architectural structures, and traditional cultural properties, such as ancestral settlements, historic trails, and places where significant historic events occurred. The NHPA requires federal agencies to consider potential impacts to cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP; designated a National Historic Landmark; or valued by modern Native Americans for maintaining their traditional culture. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate SHPO if their undertaking might affect such resources.

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800) provides an

1-18 explicit set of procedures necessary for federal agencies to meet their obligations under the NHPA, which includes inventorying of resources and consultation with SHPO.

1.8.10 Invasive Species

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, was issued in 1999 and calls upon federal agencies to take steps to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species and to support efforts to eradicate and control those invasive species that are established. The order defines an "invasive species" as a species: 1) that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration; and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Nonnative species become invasive in a new environment when the natural predators, diseases, or other biological mechanisms that kept the species in check within its former habitat are missing in its new environment. Lacking this biological balance, the invading species effectively changes the biodiversity of a locale leading to both environmental upset and economic loss.

Issued in 2016, Executive Order 13751, Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species, amended Executive Order 13112 and directs actions to continue coordinated federal prevention and control efforts related to invasive species.

The order maintains the National Invasive Species Council (Council) and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee; expands the membership of the Council;

clarifies the operations of the Council; incorporates considerations of human and environmental health, climate change, technological innovation, and other emerging priorities into federal efforts to address invasive species; and strengthens coordinated, cost-efficient federal action.

1.9 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This EA considers the Proposed Action and evaluates potential environmental impacts to those environmental resources that would likely be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action. In this case, this EA evaluates the following environmental resources:

• Air Quality;

1-19

• Biological Resources;

• Geology and Soils;

• Hazardous Materials and Wastes;

• Land Use and Recreation;

• Visual Resources; and

• Water Resources.

The impact analysis for these resources in Section 4, Environmental Consequences relies on supporting technical studies including:

• Benthic Survey (June 2020) (Appendix B);

• Threatened and Endangered Species Survey (April 2020) (Appendix B);

• Wetland Determination (May 2020) (Appendix B);

• Cultural Resources Overview (May 2020) (Appendix C);

• Soil Sampling Report (May 2020) (Appendix D); and

• Hazardous Materials Report (May 2020) (Appendix E).

Implementation of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA is not anticipated to result in any impacts to the environmental resources described below. Pursuant to NEPA, environmental resource areas that are anticipated to experience either no environmental impacts or negligible environmental impacts under implementation of the Proposed Action are not examined in detail. A brief description of each of these environmental resources is provided below:

• Airborne Noise. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in temporary…