D-1_FIND_Long-Range-Term_Dredged_Material_Management_Plan_Update_Jan._2021.pdf

Long-Range Dredged Material Management Plan Update

Intracoastal Waterway Brevard County, Florida

January 2021

For Bidding Purposes Only

Long-Range Dredged Material Management Plan Update Intracoastal Waterway Brevard County, Florida

Final Report

Prepared for

Florida Inland Navigation District by

Taylor Engineering, Inc.

10199 Southside Blvd., Suite 310

Jacksonville, FL 32256

(904) 731-7040

January 2021

C2018-062 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) completed the Long-Range Dredged Material Management Plan for the Intracoastal Waterway in Brevard County, Florida in September 1989. As a result of this initial effort, FIND delineated reach limits, established 50-year material storage requirements, identified and acquired upland dredged material management areas (DMMA), and developed preliminary designs of dredged material management facilities to meet the long-term maintenance needs of the Intracoastal Waterway. This report — making no attempt to recount all the information previously developed in the Brevard County plan — summarizes the key and established foundation of the Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP), updates the 50-year maintenance dredging and storage requirements, provides the current status of the FIND-owned and designated DMMAs, and recommends a long-range dredging and DMMA construction schedule.

The Brevard County project area — comprising six reaches (Reaches I – VI) and 37 cuts (1 – 37) — extends 68.00 miles from south of the Brevard-Volusia County line to the Brevard-Indian River County line at Sebastian Inlet. The selected dredged material placement sites for Brevard County comprise eight constructed or planned upland areas (BV-2C, BV-4B, BV-NASA, BV-11, BV-R, BV-40, BV-52, and BV-24A [formerly BV-24]). Together, the eight dredged material management areas, when fully constructed, will provide sufficient storage capacity to manage the amount of material dredged from Reaches I – VI over a 50-year period.

A review of the historical maintenance dredging record and recent shoaling data provided the 50-year dredging and material storage requirements. This analysis suggests a 1,805,406 cy dredging requirement and 3,881,629 cy storage requirement. Incorporating the potential for 1 ft overdepth in the dredging template the dredging and storage volumes increase to 2,530,195 cy and 5,060,391 cy, respectively.

The distribution of fine-grained sediments within the Indian River is consistent with the sediment transport mechanisms implied by the estuary's confined geometry and minimal tidal communication with the open ocean. The lack of significant tidal currents results in the estuary being dominated by wind driven currents and upland run-off. Soil minerals, primarily aluminosilicates, as well as nutrient enriched municipal and domestic sewage and upland run-off are introduced to the margins of the estuary. Once introduced, they are easily and continuously resuspended by wind and wave action across the broad shallow lagoon shelf until they are deposited in the dredged Waterway channel or other deep areas. Based on the data available, Taylor Engineering anticipates that a significant portion of the material dredged within the Brevard County project area may include fine-grained sediments. These sediments may require additional testing (dewatering and/or sediment chemistry tests) and specialized handling and de-watering procedures, and these procedures often require surplus storage capacity and working room. Therefore, this plan continues to recommend sites that offer ample storage and space.

Review of the design and operational conditions of the eight upland dredged material management areas identified a few considerations for future use (including both maintenance and construction activities) of each site. With three of the recommended sites constructed (i.e., BV-2C, BV- NASA, BV-52), without consideration of DMMA distribution or location, the combined and current design storage capacity (3,510,000 cy) meets the 50-year storage capacity requirement (3,881,629 cy) and meets 70% of the 50-year storage requirement (5,060,391) inclusive of the 1 ft overdepth in the dredge template. Construction of the remaining sites (BV-4B, BV-11, BV-R, BV-40 and BV-24A) will yield an ii additional 2,708,350 cy of capacity and provide appropriately adjacent storage capacity along the full length of Brevard County’s Intracoastal Waterway.

While the immediate dredged material storage needs of the Brevard County DMMP have largely been addressed, several outstanding requirements remain to meet the full potential of the outlined plan.

Recommendations, in order of priority, are outlined as follows.

(1) Construct DMMA BV-11 (commenced in 2020) and DMMA BV-24A (after the property exchange with Brevard County closes in 2021) to address the lack of DMMA in Reach II and Reach VI, respectively.

(2) Construct BV-4B to support cost-effective dredging in the northern portion of Reach II.

(3) Update the 50-year dredging and storage requirements when FIND completes the anticipated

2021 ICWW hydrographic survey, and based on this survey

i. Evaluate the timing for construction of BV-R in Reach IV, which currently has no constructed DMMA facility but exhibits limited need for maintenance dredging based on 2014 survey data.

ii. Re-evaluate BV-40’s required capacity to support future maintenance dredging in the northern portions of Reach V.

(4) Conduct a topographic survey of DMMA BV-2C to get accurate available basin capacity.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background

Project Overview

Established DMMP Features

Report Organization

DMMP DEVELOPMENT

Dredged Material Management Concept

Evaluation Criteria

Site Identification

Public Involvement

50-YEAR MATERIAL STORAGE REQUIREMENT

Historic Channel Maintenance

Recent Shoaling

Projected 50-Year Dredging and Material Storage Requirements

Material Quality

3.4.1 Sediment Physical Characteristics

3.4.2 Sediment Chemistry

DMMA DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

BV-2C

4.1.1 Preliminary Design

4.1.2 Easements and Permits

4.1.3 Final Design and Construction

4.1.4 Summary

DMMA BV-4B

4.2.1 Preliminary Design

4.2.2 Easements and Permits

4.2.3 Final Design and Construction

4.2.4 Summary

DMMA BV-NASA

4.3.1 Preliminary Design

iv

4.3.2 Easements and Permits

4.3.3 Final Design and Construction

4.3.4 Summary

BV-11

4.4.1 Preliminary Design

4.4.2 Easements and Permits

4.4.3 Final Design and Construction

4.4.4 Summary

DMMA BV-R

4.5.1 Preliminary Design

4.5.2 Easements and Permits

4.5.3 Final Design and Construction

4.5.4 Summary

DMMA BV-40

4.6.1 Preliminary Design

4.6.2 Easements and Permits

4.6.3 Final Design and Construction

4.6.4 Summary

DMMA BV-52

4.7.1 Preliminary Design

4.7.2 Easements and Permits

4.7.3 Final Design and Construction

4.7.4 Summary

DMMA BV-24A

4.8.1 Preliminary Design

4.8.2 Easements and Permits

4.8.3 Final Design and Construction

4.8.4 Summary

DMMA OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Pre-Dredging Site Preparation

5.1.1 Earthwork

5.1.2 Migratory Bird Protection

v

5.1.3 Gopher Tortoise Protection

5.1.4 Groundwater Monitoring

Operational Considerations During Dredging

5.2.1 Pipeline Placement

5.2.2 Inlet Operation

5.2.3 Weir Operation

5.2.4 Effluent Monitoring

5.2.5 Dike Inspection Requirements

5.2.6 Groundwater Monitoring

5.2.7 Migratory Bird Protection

5.2.8 Gopher Tortoise Protection

Post-Dredging Site Management

5.3.1 Dewatering Operations

5.3.2 Grading the Deposition Material

5.3.3 Material Rehandling/Reuse

5.3.4 Maintenance of Vegetative Cover

5.3.5 Additional Environmental Considerations

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Recommendations

REFERENCES

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites, Reaches I-II

Figure 1.2 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites, Reaches II-III

Figure 1.3 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites, Reach III-IV

Figure 1.4 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites, Reaches IV-VI

Figure 1.5 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites, Reach VI

Figure 3.1 Recent Shoals, Reaches I-II

Figure 3.2 Recent Shoals, Reaches II-III

Figure 3.3 Recent Shoals, Reaches III-IV

Figure 3.4 Recent Shoals, Reaches IV-VI

Figure 3.5 Recent Shoals, Reach VI

Figure 3.6 Geotechnical Boring Locations, Reach I-II

Figure 3.7 Geotechnical Boring Locations, Reach II

Figure 3.8 Geotechnical Boring Locations, Reach II-III

Figure 3.9 Geotechnical Boring Locations, Reach IV-V

Figure 3.10 Geotechnical Boring Locations, Reach V-VI

Figure 3.11 Geotechnical Boring Locations, Reach VI

Figure 4.1 BV-2C Plan View

Figure 4.2 BV-2C Section View

Figure 4.3 DMMA BV-4B Plan View

Figure 4.4 DMMA BV-4B Section View

Figure 4.5 DMMA BV-NASA Plan View

Figure 4.6 DMMA BV-NASA Section View

Figure 4.7 BV-11 Plan View

Figure 4.8 BV-11 Section View

Figure 4.9 DMMA BV-R Plan View

Figure 4.10 DMMA BV-R Plan View

Figure 4.11 DMMA BV-R Section View

Figure 4.12 DMMA BV-40 Plan View

Figure 4.13 DMMA BV-40 Section View

Figure 4.14 DMMA BV-52 Plan View

Figure 4.15 DMMA BV-52 Section View vii

Figure 4.16 DMMA BV-24A Plan View

Figure 4.17 DMMA BV-24A Section View

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites

Table 3.1 Historic Maintenance Dredging, 1960-2002

Table 3.2 Summary of Recent Shoals

Table 3.3 Projected 50-Year Dredging and Material Storage Requirements

Table 3.4 Updated and Previously Reported 50-Year Material Storage Requirements

Table 3.5 Sediment Sampling Locations and Physical Characteristics

Table 4.1 DMMA BV-2C Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.2 DMMA BV-4B Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.3 DMMA BV-NASA Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.4 DMMA BV-11 Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.5 DMMA BV-R Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.6 DMMA BV-40 Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.7 DMMA BV-52 Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 4.8 DMMA BV-24A Site Data Summary Sheet

Table 6.1 DMMA Summary

INTRODUCTION

Since its formation in 1927, the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) has served as the local sponsor for the 377-mile-long federal Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW), and a portion of the Okeechobee Waterway (OWW) channels.

Collectively known as the “Waterway”, the federal channels along Florida’s east coast extend from the Florida-Georgia state line south to Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County. The Waterway comprises two authorized project depths: (1) 12 ft below mean lower low water (MLLW) from the state line to the Ft.

Pierce Harbor Project (FPHP) and (2) 10 ft below MLLW from the FPHP southward to the Miami Harbor Project (MHP) in Biscayne Bay. An additional 75-ft wide segment of the Waterway authorized and constructed to 7 ft below MLLW from the MHP to Cross Bank, Florida Bay is also considered part of the ICWW1. The ±26 mile Florida section of the AIWW comprises that portion of the federal navigation project that extends northward from the Jacksonville Harbor Project (JHP) at the St. Johns River to the state line, while the ±351 mile IWW extends southward from the JHP to the MHP. An additional ±31 miles — for a combined total of 408 miles — extends to the southerly Miami-Dade County line.

The OWW channels comprise of two routes. The first segment comprises the eastern 23.13 miles of the 25.82-mile Cross-Lake Channel (also known as Route I) that extends through the lake's south-central portion from Port Mayaca southwestward to Clewiston in Hendry County. Consistent with the legislatively established geographic limits of the FIND's taxing district, the present project area includes only the 23.13-miles of Route I from the Port Mayaca Lock to the Palm Beach/Hendry County line. The second segment comprises the eastern 35.20-miles of the 37.39-mile Rim Canal. The Rim Canal (also known as Route 2) diverges from Route I 1,074± ft southwest of its eastern terminus near the Port Mayaca Lock. It then extends southeasterly to the lakeshore, then southerly and westerly 37.39-miles as it follows the lake's southeastern, southern, and southwestern shorelines to intersect again with Route 1 at the entrance to the Industrial Canal at Clewiston. Similar to the situation described for Route 1, the present project area includes only the 35.20-miles of Route 2 from its intersection with Route 1 near Port Mayaca to the Palm Beach/Hendry County line.

The FIND includes Florida’s 12 east coast counties. As the projects’ local sponsor, the FIND provides the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with sites suitable for placing material dredged from the federally authorized navigation channels.

Background

Before the increased environmental awareness of the 1970s and the recognition by various federal and state regulatory agencies of the value of estuarine wetlands, a short-term economic approach guided management of dredged material. Engineering/operational and cost considerations determined the design and execution of channel maintenance projects. To this end, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund granted to the FIND perpetual easements — typically named and identified by a maintenance spoil area and number designation — for significant acreage along the Waterway. A majority of these easements, located almost entirely within the sovereign waters of the state, included open water areas as well as expanses of pristine salt marsh in the more northern counties and mangrove wetlands in the more southern counties. Additionally, many landowners with holdings adjoining the

1 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945 authorized an expansion of this southern segment that would have widened the channel from 75 ft to 90 ft from Miami to Cross Bank and extended the 90-ft wide channel to Key West, FL; however, construction funds were never received, and the channel remains unconstructed.

Waterway sought to improve the development potential of wetlands by granting disposal easements and allowing the unconfined placement of maintenance material. This approach, combined with the desire of dredging contractors to maximize operational efficiency, resulted in open-water and wetland placement of channel construction and maintenance material. These activities resulted in a loss of wetlands and the proliferation of numerous small spoil mounds and islands lining the Waterway.

Because of society’s increased environmental awareness and scientific knowledge, the unconfined placement of dredged material within wetland areas no longer represents a responsible approach to the long-term and continued maintenance of the Waterway. Present-day legislation and regulatory constraints have also rendered this approach unrealistic. Dredging and dredged material management must comply with state and federal legislation dealing with water quality, wetland filling, habitat protection, and threatened and endangered species. In addition, county and municipal governments typically address dredge-and-fill issues in local comprehensive planning documents within state-established guidelines. The long-range limitations on dredged material management imposed by these constraints have become more apparent as existing dredged material sites reach capacity and as the identification and permitting of new dredged material management sites become increasingly difficult. Moreover, the intensive development pressure currently experienced throughout coastal Florida has made the acquisition and construction of additional dredged material management sites an increasingly expensive proposition.

To secure its ability to maintain the Waterway within the existing framework of engineering/operational and added environmental and socioeconomic/cultural considerations, the FIND initiated preparation of a long-range dredged material management plan (DMMP). Beginning in 1986, the two-phased plan implemented, on a county-by-county basis, planning and site acquisition activities to accommodate all maintenance material dredged from the Waterway for the next 50 years. Phase I focused on the development of basic plan concepts, the definition of long-term dredging requirements, and the identification of suitable management alternatives which satisfy, to the extent practicable, the identified considerations. Phase I resulted in the identification of a bank of primary and secondary sites potentially suitable for long-term dredged material management. Phase II focused on obtaining and documenting detailed site-specific information required for the preparation and submission of permit applications for the primary sites identified in Phase I. In addition, Phase II addressed site acquisition, design of site facilities, and the construction and continuing operation and maintenance of these sites as permanent dredged material management facilities.

Project Overview

In general accordance with the USACE Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 guidance document, the FIND completed the Long-Range Dredged Material Management Plan for the Intracoastal Waterway in Brevard County, Florida in September 1989. The development of the original Brevard County Phase I report consisted of five primary components:

(1) Establishment of the 50-year material storage requirement based on historic maintenance dredging volumes and subsequent examination surveys

(2) Evaluation of existing easements and/or disposal areas within the project area to determine remaining or potential storage capacity

(3) Development of a management concept or strategy appropriate to specific engineering/operational, environmental, and socioeconomic/cultural considerations

(4) Identification of additional candidate sites consistent with the management concept

(5) Evaluation of all candidate sites based on a standard set of criteria that reflects specific engineering/operational, environmental, and socioeconomic/cultural considerations

With the completion of the Phase I report(s), the FIND moved into Phase II of the DMMP, which included three primary components:

(1) Collection of public record information (e.g., land use, zoning restrictions, taxes and assessed values, easements, and property ownership) to assist in the further development (and final site selection and acquisition) of the primary and secondary sites

(2) Collection of site-specific information for primary sites (and secondary sites if the primary sites were deemed unfit)

a. Boundary survey

b. Topographic survey

c. Subsurface and soils survey

d. Environmental resource survey

(3) Preliminary design and analysis of dredged material management facilities

Because of the preceding efforts, the FIND developed four site-specific reports (i.e., Environmental Site Documentation, Management Plan, Engineering Narrative, and Cost Report) for each primary site. Combined, these collective Phase I and II documents, authored between 1989 and 2015, compose the original DMMP for Brevard County. This document updates the DMMP, succinctly incorporating recently collected data with previously published information, to guide immediate and future dredged material planning efforts in Brevard County. Executed in close cooperation with the FIND and the USACE Jacksonville District, this document will

(1) Summarize the key and established foundation of the DMMP;

(2) Establish, define, and update the 50-year maintenance dredging and storage requirements;

(3) Provide the current status and evaluate the remaining or potential storage capacities of the

FIND-owned and designated dredged material management areas (DMMAs); and

(4) Recommend a long-range dredging and DMMA construction schedule.

This report makes no attempt to recount all the information previously developed for Brevard County during the original DMMP’s two-phased implementation. Rather, the report summarizes relevant portions of this information and presents additional information developed to support the update of the long-range DMMP for Brevard County.

Established DMMP Features

As summarized above and detailed in the previously developed Phase I and II reports, the Brevard County DMMP recommended the establishment of multiple permanent dredged material management areas to receive, dewater, and temporarily store materials dredged from an adjacent segment (i.e., reach) of the Waterway. Previously defined reach delineation reflects the detailed review and consideration of historical shoaling patterns, sediment quality, projected material transfer and storage requirements, area demographics, and site availability. Each reach comprises several straight-line segments (i.e., cuts). A change in orientation (i.e., direction) of the Waterway provides the end of one cut and the beginning of the next.

Thus, the Brevard County project area — comprising six reaches (Reaches I – VI) and 37 cuts (1 –

37) — extends 68.00 miles from south of the Brevard-Volusia County line to the Brevard-Indian River County line at Sebastian Inlet. The selected dredged material placement sites for Brevard County comprise eight upland (BV-2C, BV-4B, BV-NASA, BV-11, BV-R, BV-40, BV-52 and BV-24A) placement areas. These include three previously designated primary sites from the Phase I evaluation (BV-11, BV-R, and BV-24A) and two (BV-2C and BV-4B) from an addendum to the plan (Taylor and McFetridge, 1989 and Taylor McFetridge, 1991). This re-study of the Long-Range Dredged Material Management Plan for Reaches I and II of the Intracoastal evaluated four of the alternative sites from the 1989 DMMP that were designated as the primary dredged material management facilities; the concluding recommendation resulted in sites BV-2C and BV-4B. Over the ensuing years, BV-NASA replaced BV-5 from the original plan, and BV-40 and BV-52 replaced the originally designated sites due to environmental and site development constraints.

Together, the eight DMMAs when fully constructed, should provide ample storage capacity and appropriate proximity along the intracoastal waterway to manage the amount of material dredged from Reaches I – VI over a 50-year period.

Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1-Figure 1.5 present the reach delineation and accompanying dredged material management sites. Description of the channel geometry, specifically the detailed longitudinal stationing information included with the more recent dredging plans, establishes a system for cross-referencing a particular location along the Waterway to cut, end station, and channel mileage. As revised in Brownell et al. (2016) and a channel stationing adjustment in 2017, the Florida segment of the AIWW begins about 2,000 ft south of the Florida/Georgia state line (at Cut 2, Station 0+00 of the federal Fernandina Harbor Project (FHP)). The AIWW segment ends at the centerline of the JHP in the St. Johns River. After a 0.11mile gap within the JHP, the ICWW segment begins at the south side of the JHP. Due to resolution of inconsistencies between the older plan documents (stemming from modifications in the channel geometry over the project lifetime) and the 2016-17 revisions, the channel mileages applied in this updated report vary from those in the original DMMP.

Table 1.1 Reach Limits and Designated Dredged Material Management Sites

Reach Cut End Station (ft)

Length

(mi) ICWW Mileage Dredged Material

Management Site

I

Br ev ar d/

Vo lu sia C ou nt y lin e to th e

Vi ci ni ty o f

M im m s

CUT BV-1 38+13.70 0.722 127.87

BV-2C

CUT BV-2 32+25.43 0.611 128.48

CUT BV-3 2+64.45 0.05 128.53

CUT BV-4 100+84.67 1.91 130.44

CUT BV-5 197+30.71 3.737 134.18

CUT BV-6 37+74.33 0.715 134.89

II

Vi ci ni ty o f M im m s t o

N

AS

A Pa rk w ay

CUT BV-7 60+04.13 1.137 136.03

BV-4B & BV-NASA

CUT BV-8 99+90.88 1.892 137.92

CUT BV-9 69+43.54 1.315 139.24

CUT BV-10 41+11.14 0.779 140.02

CUT BV-11 55+67.70 1.054 141.07

CUT BV-12 181+11.40 3.43 144.50

Reach Cut End Station (ft)

Length

(mi) ICWW Mileage Dredged Material

Management Site

CUT BV-13 34+08.45 0.646 145.15

CUT BV-14 88+79.77 1.682 146.83

III

N

AS

A Pa rk w to

S.

R.

B rid ge

CUT BV-15 123+25.68 2.334 149.16

BV-11

CUT BV-16 81+04.47 1.535 150.70

CUT BV-17 221+27.95 4.191 154.89

CUT BV-18 83+14.52 1.575 156.46

CUT BV-19 75+00 1.42 157.89

IV

S.

R.

B rid ge so ut hw ar d to

P in ed a

Ca us ew

CUT BV-19 130+70.13 2.15 158.94

BV-R

CUT BV-20 110+28.87 2.089 161.03

CUT BV-21 51+91.26 0.983 162.01

CUT BV-22 150+60.05 2.852 164.86

CUT BV-23 174+33.05 3.302 168.17

CUT BV-24 44+00 0.83 169.00

V

Pi ne da

Ca us ew to

Tu rk ey C re ek

CUT BV-24 190+00.03 2.77 171.76

BV-40 & BV-52 CUT BV-25 131+33.00 2.487 174.25

CUT BV-26 392+55.34 7.435 181.69

VI

Tu rk ey C re ek so ut hw ar d to

B re va rd

/I nd ia n

Ri ve r C ou nt y lin e ne ar

S eb as tia n In le t CUT BV-27 191+51.57 3.627 185.31

BV-24A

CUT BV-28 117+27.32 2.221 187.53

CUT BV-29 54+64.52 1.035 188.57

CUT BV-30 64+95.11 1.23 189.80

CUT BV-31 29+06.29 0.55 190.35

CUT BV-32 33+21.33 0.629 190.98

CUT BV-33 38+59.67 0.731 191.71

CUT BV-34 25+34.67 0.48 192.19

CUT BV-35 47+64.99 0.902 193.09

CUT BV-36 71+99.54 1.364 194.46

CUT BV-37 36+72.48 0.696 195.15

REACH I

ICWW MILE 127.15

TO MILE 134.89

REACH II

ICWW MILE 134.89

TO MILE 146.83

CUT V-46

CUT BV-1

CUT BV-2

CUT BV-3

CUT BV-4

CUT BV-5

CUT BV-6

CUT BV-7

CUT BV-8

CUT BV-9

CUT BV-10

MATCHLINE A

BREVARD CO.

INDIAN RIVER CO.

DMMA BV-2C

DMMA BV-4B

MIMS

TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC.

10199 SOUTHSIDE BLVD

SUITE 310

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32256

PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS: THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT IN FINAL FORM, BUT ARE BEING TRANSMITTED FOR AGENCY REVIEW.

REGISTRY # 4815

A

N T

O

F

L E

W E

L L I N

G

X

S

Y S

P

R O

J E

C T

S C

B

R E

V A

R D

D

M M

P F

I G

U R

E S

C

F

B

R E

V A

R D

C

U T

S D

W G

P

M

BREVARD COUNTY,

FLORIDA

0 8,000' 16,000'

SCALE: 1" = 8,000'

N

AERIAL: GOOGLE EARTH, 2018

FIGURE 1.1

REACH LIMITS AND DESIGNATED DREDGED MATERIAL

MANAGEMENT SITES

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHEET

DATE

PROJECT

DRAWN BY

C2018-062

AF

JULY 2020

REACH II

ICWW MILE 134.89

TO MILE 146.83

REACH III

ICWW MILE 146.83

TO MILE 157.89

CUT BV-11

CUT BV-12

CUT BV-13

CUT BV-14

CUT BV-15

CUT BV-16

CUT BV-17

MATCHLINE A

MATCHLINE B

DMMA BV-11

DMMA BV-NASA

NASA PARKWAY

TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC.

10199 SOUTHSIDE BLVD

SUITE 310

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32256

PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS: THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT IN FINAL FORM, BUT ARE BEING TRANSMITTED FOR AGENCY REVIEW.

T

E

W E

L L I N

G

X

S

Y S

P

R O

J E

C T

S C

B

R E

V A

R D

D

M M

P F

I G

U R

E S

C

F

B

R E

V A

T

S D

P

M

BREVARD COUNTY,

FLORIDA

0 8,000' 16,000'

SCALE: 1" = 8,000'

N

AERIAL: GOOGLE EARTH, 2018

FIGURE 1.2

REACH LIMITS AND DESIGNATED DREDGED MATERIAL

MANAGEMENT SITES

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHEET

DATE

PROJECT

DRAWN BY

C2018-062

AF

JULY 2020

REACH III

ICWW MILE 146.83

TO MILE 157.89

REACH IV

ICWW MILE 157.89

TO MILE 169.00

CUT BV-18

CUT BV-19

CUT BV-20

CUT BV-21

CUT BV-22

CUT BV-23

MATCHLINE B

MATCHLINE C

DMMA BV-R

SR 520

TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC.

10199 SOUTHSIDE BLVD

SUITE 310

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32256

PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS: THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT IN FINAL FORM, BUT ARE BEING TRANSMITTED FOR AGENCY REVIEW.

T

E

W E

L L I N

G

X

S

Y S

P

R O

J E

C T

S C

B

R E

V A

R D

D

M M

P F

I G

U R

E S

C

F

B

R E

V A

T

S D

P

M

BREVARD COUNTY,

FLORIDA

0 8,000' 16,000'

SCALE: 1" = 8,000'

N

AERIAL: GOOGLE EARTH, 2018

FIGURE 1.3

REACH LIMITS AND DESIGNATED DREDGED MATERIAL

MANAGEMENT SITES

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHEET

DATE

PROJECT

DRAWN BY

C2018-062

AF

JULY 2020

REACH IV

ICWW MILE 157.89

TO MILE 169.00

REACH V

ICWW MILE 169.00

TO MILE 181.69

REACH VI

ICWW MILE 181.69

TO MILE 195.15

CUT BV-24

CUT BV-25

CUT BV-26

MATCHLINE C

MATCHLINE D

DMMA BV-40

DMMA BV-52

PINEDA CAUSEWAY

TURKEY CREEK

TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC.

10199 SOUTHSIDE BLVD

SUITE 310

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32256

PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS: THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT IN FINAL FORM, BUT ARE BEING TRANSMITTED FOR AGENCY REVIEW.

T

E

W E

L L I N

G

X

S

Y S

P

R O

J E

C T

S C

B

R E

V A

R D

D

M M

P F

I G

U R

E S

C

F

B

R E

V A

T

S D

P

M

BREVARD COUNTY,

FLORIDA

0 8,000' 16,000'

SCALE: 1" = 8,000'

N

AERIAL: GOOGLE EARTH, 2018

FIGURE 1.4

REACH LIMITS AND DESIGNATED DREDGED MATERIAL

MANAGEMENT SITES

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHEET

DATE

PROJECT

DRAWN BY

C2018-062

AF

JULY 2020

REACH VI

ICWW MILE 181.69

TO MILE 195.15

CUT BV-27

CUT BV-28

CUT BV-29

CUT BV-30

CUT BV-31

CUT BV-32

CUT BV-33

CUT BV-34

CUT BV-35

CUT BV-36

CUT BV-37

CUT IR-1

MATCHLINE D

B

R

E

V

A

I

N

D

I

I

V

E

DMMA BV-24A

S

E

B

A

S

T

I

L

E

T

TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC.

10199 SOUTHSIDE BLVD

SUITE 310

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32256

PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS: THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT IN FINAL FORM, BUT ARE BEING TRANSMITTED FOR AGENCY REVIEW.

T

E

W E

L L I N

G

X

S

Y S

P

R O

J E

C T

S C

B

R E

V A

R D

D

M M

P F

I G

U R

E S

C

F

B

R E

V A

T

S D

P

M

BREVARD COUNTY,

FLORIDA

0 8,000' 16,000'

SCALE: 1" = 8,000'

N

AERIAL: GOOGLE EARTH, 2018

FIGURE 1.5

REACH LIMITS AND DESIGNATED DREDGED MATERIAL

MANAGEMENT SITES

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHEET

DATE

PROJECT

DRAWN BY

C2018-062

AF

JULY 2020

Report Organization

The methods reported herein closely follow the methods of the original Phase I and subsequent Phase II DMMP reports. The organization of this report generally reflects those methods. Chapter 2.0, DMMP Development, summarizes the primary components of the original DMMP development including the selected dredged material management concept(s) and summarizes the evaluation criteria for selection of the upland DMMA sites. Chapter 3.0, 50-Year Material Storage Requirement, provides a revised projection of the 50-year material management requirements based on an update of the historic channel maintenance records and evaluation of the most recent bathymetric surveys and channel sediment data; this chapter also discusses the implications of the revised projections. Chapter 4.0, DMMA Design and Construction, addresses the overall dredged material management strategy for Brevard County along with the current status, design, operation, management, and prior and future environmental mitigation for any actual and expected environmental impacts, of the selected dredged material placement areas. Chapter 5.0, DMMA Operational Considerations, provides a summary of the three phases (pre-, during-, and post-dredging) of DMMA operations. Finally, Chapter 6.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, summarizes the updated findings.

DMMP DEVELOPMENT

The underlying foundation for the reach delineation and ultimate dredged material placement site selection — summarized herein and extensively detailed in the original DMMP reports — included selection of a dredged material management concept(s) and identification, evaluation, and eventual selection of eight upland (BV-2C, BV-4B, BV-NASA, BV-11, BV-R, BV-40, BV-52 and BV-24A) placement areas for the management of dredged material from the Waterway. The following paragraphs summarize the development of the Brevard County DMMP.

Dredged Material Management Concept

The central issue guiding the development of a management concept — i.e., a guiding set of principles that reflects the attitudes and considerations of the project’s local sponsor — for the Waterway in Brevard County was the selection of the most appropriate material management strategy. Based on previous experience and DMMP reports, four basic alternatives are available for consideration: (1) ocean disposal, (2) open water placement, (3) beach placement, and (4) centralized upland storage. The following paragraphs discuss each of these alternatives with respect to its applicability to Brevard County management requirements.

(1) Ocean Disposal. While considered a favorable management strategy typically reserved for large volume dredging projects (e.g., entrance channels, inlets, deepening projects), ocean disposal requires the transport of dredged material from the dredging site to an authorized offshore disposal area. For the Brevard County project area, this condition would result in a very inefficient and costly operation for the following reasons. The dredge (hydraulic or mechanical) must first load the material into a hopper barge capable of transiting the relatively shallow depths of the Waterway. Within Brevard County, the channel’s -12 ft MLLW controlling depth would place severe limits on the barge’s draft and therefore on its capacity.

Once a barge is filled to its (draft-limited) capacity, the barge must then transit to an appropriate point at which to transfer the material to a deep-draft seagoing barge for transport to an authorized offshore placement site. A review of offshore disposal areas currently authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to receive dredged material did not identify any reasonably close (i.e., less than 10 miles) approved offshore placement sites. Given the depth-limited restrictions on barges in the waterway and lack of a close EPA-approved Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), the ocean disposal management strategy was not considered a viable option.

(2) Open Water Placement. This particular method, as noted in Chapter 1.0, was perhaps the most widely used approach before the growth of today’s environmental regulatory programs that address wetland and benthic habitat protection. Today, under the rubric of beneficial reuse of wetland or habitat creation, open water placement has found favor in areas (coastal Louisiana, Chesapeake Bay, etc.) that have experienced severe losses of similar wetland habitats. However, in Florida, open water placement as a dredged material management strategy has generally not gained regulatory support. Discussions with representatives of the relevant regulatory agencies have repeatedly confirmed that they consider open water placement within Florida’s estuaries to carry unacceptable environmental impacts in terms of the destruction or degradation of shallow-water or benthic habitat. There has been some recent and limited success with the use of dredged material for environmentally beneficial island creations (i.e., use of Palm Beach County maintenance dredged material for Snook Islands Natural Area and the Tarpon Cove Restoration Projects). The 46-acre Tarpon Cove project was designed to fill in a deep dredge hole to restore and enhance critical shallow estuarine subtidal vegetation (seagrass) habitat through the covering of muck. The overall project required approximately 418,600 cy of sand; the FIND IWW Palm Beach Maintenance Dredging project provided 20% of that amount However, open water placement or island creation also remains inconsistent with a basic principle of the FIND’s dredged material management program: to provide permanent infrastructure of material management facilities that can support the long-term maintenance of the Waterway without relying on changeable regulatory attitudes. Even if the initial placement operation would receive the necessary permits, the creation or expansion of open water placement represents an unfavorable and short-term dredged material management strategy for Brevard County.

(3) Beach Placement. The State of Florida and the USACE (via its Regional Sediment Management program) encourage placement of beach-quality dredged material on the beach as a beneficial use of dredged material. The FIND also includes this approach as an essential part of the dredged material management for channel reaches which, based on the historic data, are likely to contain beach-quality sediments. These conditions are most typically encountered in the immediate area of tidal inlets where Waterway shoals are formed primarily by sand driven through the inlet by waves and tides. Feasibility of beach disposal is influenced by other considerations such as material quality (Section 3.4), regulatory requirements, cooperation of beachfront property owners, the need for additional material on the beach, and seasonal operational restrictions due to sea turtle nesting.

(4) Centralized Upland Storage. Centralized upland storage relies on the use of diked containment areas with appropriate outlet flow control structures. The dredged material is pumped in a sediment-slurry into one end of the containment basin opposite the outlet structure. Sediment settles in the basin while the clarified residual water returns to the Waterway via the basin outlet structure and return pipeline. Upland storage sites offer a number of significant advantages over other available methods: (1) they provide an efficient means of dredged material management without the excessive costs of transportation and material re-handling involved with the use of ocean disposal; (2) given identification of suitable sites, they avoid most natural resources impact which often limit the potential of open water disposal alternatives; (3) they are conducive to reconfiguration and reconditioning for subsequent disposal events; and (4) unlike beach disposal, they do not demand particular physical characteristics of dredged material.

The use of a limited number of centralized upland storage sites has additional economic, operational, and environmental advantages over the use of a greater number of smaller sites: (1) fewer, larger sites reduce the total acreage required and thereby reduce the total cost of site acquisition; (2) developing and constructing fewer, larger sites is more cost-effective than developing and constructing a number of small sites; (3) the use of centralized sites allows for improved site security and requires the allocation of fewer operating personnel; (4) the use of fewer, larger sites reduces the total impact to upland habitat and allows for improved effluent and stormwater control, as well more efficient and comprehensive monitoring procedures; and (5) in all, over the project life cycle, these sites reduce the total maintenance cost. Thus, the selected dredged material concept for the Brevard DMMP is centralized upland storage.

Evaluation Criteria

With the management concept in-hand, the final site evaluation and selection process for the overall site bank employed a standard set of criteria. Developed as part of the original 1989 Phase I report, these criteria remain consistent with the dredged material management strategy designated most appropriate for future Brevard County requirements. Taylor Engineering evaluated each centralized upland storage candidate site based on its ability to satisfy criteria in three broad areas:

(1) Engineering/operational. Engineering/operational considerations account for the mechanics behind the construction of an upland DMMA and maintenance dredging of the Waterway.

Selection of the optimal site will have a long-term and compounding economic impact on the construction, operation, and maintenance of a particular site. Specific considerations within this broad-based criterion include ability of the site to meet the required storage capacity, provide adequate and appropriate dike material for site construction, minimize pumping distances during dredging, and offer available pipeline and upland access.

(2) Environmental. By minimizing adverse impacts to sensitive habitats, the environmental site evaluation criteria guided the selection of sites that carried minimal environmental permitting constraints. Reflecting the FIND's established principle of restricting the placement and storage of dredged material to upland areas, the resulting criteria fell under two categories:

(1) criteria for the avoidance of wetland areas to the greatest extent possible, and (2) criteria for minimizing unavoidable impacts to sensitive upland habitats. Other environmental considerations included maximization of buffer area (to limit viewscape impacts and lessen sound intrusion for adjacent properties), identification/protection of potential archeological sites, and protection of groundwater.

(3) Socioeconomic/Cultural. The third major category of site evaluation criteria considers the socioeconomic issues of on-site or adjacent land use, current comprehensive plan and zoning designations, local governmental jurisdictions, and site ownership. Typically, the initial site selection process seeks areas of suitable existing on-site land use with areas of minimal development receiving preference. Given their reduced environmental value, areas previously disturbed by clearing, excavation, timber harvesting, or drainage also received preference. To the maximum extent possible, a buffer zone was considered to reduce potential conflicts by separating the site's active storage from adjacent residential or commercial development.

Site Identification

Given the established dredged material management strategy of centralized upland storage for each of Brevard County’s six reaches, the FIND evaluated sites throughout the county to identify those potentially useful as permanent dredged material management and storage facilities for the Waterway.

For the 1989 Phase I report, the site identification process began with an office review of LABINS (Land Boundary Information System, FDEP Bureau of Survey and Mapping) visible/infrared aerial photography supplemented with aerial photography and other information from the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s office. Other resource materials included U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps, Brevard County Comprehensive Plan future land use and zoning maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland inventory maps, and U.S. Soil Conservation Service (USCS) maps.

Through this review, Taylor Engineering identified potentially suitable sites for development as DMMAs.

Consistent with the FIND’s established program standards, the selection of the identified sites reflects each site’s potential to satisfy a range of engineering/operational, environmental, and socioeconomic/cultural criteria.

Through the general process outlined above, the 1989 Phase I report originally identified the primary and secondary sites to serve the projected future Waterway dredged material management requirements in Brevard County. The 1991 technical addendum to the Phase I DMMP addressed the suitability of four alternative dredged material disposal sites to serve the maintenance requirements of the two northernmost channel reaches (Reaches I and II). Moving forward, the remainder of this report discusses only those sites selected for ultimate centralized upland storage.

Public Involvement

Lastly, the implementation of the DMMP, by design, included a three-tiered involvement of outside reviewers and interested members of the public who commented on the long-range DMMP during development. These three sources of input consisted of: (1) a technical advisory committee comprising representatives from the FIND staff, the USACE Jacksonville District, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (now the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)) and the Florida Department of Natural Resources (now within the FDEP), and the Florida Department of Community Affairs; (2) the FIND Board of Commissioners; and (3) the general public. The constructive and valuable input received from each of the above-described sources contributed greatly to the successful completion of the original long-range DMMP for Brevard County.

50-YEAR MATERIAL STORAGE REQUIREMENT

The first step in reestablishing, defining, and updating the 50-year maintenance dredging and material storage requirement required updating and reassessing the projected future dredging and material storage requirements of the project area. These projected requirements determine the volume of dredged material that each established placement area must accommodate. The projected dredging and dredged material storage requirements, in turn, reflect two quantities:

(1) the estimated volume of material removed from the Waterway channel in all maintenance dredging operations since construction of the channel to its present project depth, and

(2) the estimated volume of shoaling presently within the authorized channel based on recent surveys of the project area.

The latter quantity represents the volume of shoaling since the last maintenance operation or, in non-maintained areas, the volume of shoaling since the channel’s original construction to its present dimensions. By accounting for channel maintenance operations performed within the project area since the original 1989 study as well as more accurate and comprehensive survey data unavailable at the time of the original study, this reassessment provides a more accurate, updated projection for the volume of dredged material that each DMMA must accommodate. The following sections provide a breakdown of both the historical maintenance and recent shoaling volumes, a summary of the resulting projection of the 50-year dredging and material storage requirements, and a review of the material quality (physical and sediment chemistry characteristics) of previously collected geotechnical borings.

Historic Channel Maintenance

The volume of historic maintenance dredging was derived from an analysis of the USACE Jacksonville District archival records — specifically, analysis of all engineering plans and supporting documents for channel maintenance performed in the Brevard County segment of the Waterway since the USACE deepened the channel to its authorized project depth of 12 ft below Mean Low Water (MLW)2 between 1952-1958 for the Brevard County ICWW segment of the Waterway. To achieve accuracy, consistency, and completeness, the original 1989 report review included all available sources of dredging information held by USACE Jacksonville District. Relevant sources included the annual Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) reports, previous USACE summaries of maintenance dredging within the project area, and interviews with USACE personnel. For this update, we obtained and reviewed USACE documents generated since completion of the 1989 report. The primary sources of information, however, remained USACE archival maintenance plan documents and examination surveys.

The archival records express the estimated volume of material dredged in previous channel maintenance operations in two forms. The first estimate — the pre-dredging estimate, or the design volume of required dredging — reflects the comparison of the results of a detailed pre-dredging examination survey of the authorized channel to the project design depth. The plan for the dredging operation and the bids of the dredging contractors reflect this estimate. The second estimate represents the pay volume (i.e., the volume of material removed and for which the contractor receives payment).

This second estimate derives from comparison of detailed pre- and post-dredging examination surveys.

Therefore, the pay volume closely corresponds to the actual volume of material removed from the channel and accounts for allowable overdepth dredging. Because of past contracting and recording

2The current design depth is defined as 12 ft below MLLW. Prior to 2008, the USACE referenced the design depth to MLW.

procedures, pay volumes do not always link dredging quantities to specific dredging locations. In those maintenance operations for which the pay volume was unavailable, multiplying the design volume by a correction factor provides an estimate of the pay volume. Derived from all dredging records evaluated thus far in the FIND’s long-range program (and consistent with all other Waterway DMMP efforts), the correction factor of 1.19 represents the ratio of pay volume to design volume in those channel maintenance operations for which both quantities are known.

The updated analysis of historic dredging records (Table 3.1) established that FIND and the USACE performed seven separate channel maintenance operations with a total pay volume of 1,627,869 cy for ICWW Reaches I – III between 1960 and 2002. Consistent maintenance operations in these reaches of the ICWW occurred on average every 2–3 years between 1960 and 1967. An 11-year gap in channel maintenance followed until the next dredging event in 1978, followed by a prolonged gap of 24 years until the dredging event in 2002. No dredging occurred between 2002 and 2020. However, the lack of maintenance dredging recently or during the gaps in historical record does not necessarily indicate the absence of shoaling; needed dredging may have been curtailed due to various factors including environmental regulation, contracting procedures, lack of funding and equipment, and lack of useable material management sites. There are no historical dredging records in reaches IV, V and VI since the 12 ft channel depth was established.

Table 3.1 Historic Maintenance Dredging, 1960-2002

Reach ICWW Mileage Cut/Station Length

(ft) Year Design Volume (cy)

Pay Volume (cy)1 From To From To

I

133.47 134.29 BV-5/160+00 BV-6/5+80 4,330

67,000 58,717

130.54 131.55 BV-5/5+00 BV-5/58+50 5,386 70,000 92,282

129.14 -- BV-4/32+00 -- -- 1966 1,950 2,161

130.24 130.58 BV-4/90+00 BV-5/7+00 1,795 1967 25,100 30,012

128.70 134.31 BV-4/9+00 BV-6/7+00 29,621 1978 275,000 305,556

127.15 134.89 BV-1/0+00 BV-7/0+00 113,467 2002 900,000 744,388

Reach I Total 1,339,050 1,233,116

II

142.25 146.32 BV-12/62+00 BV-14/62+00 15,365 1978 91,000 101,111

134.89 138.74 BV-7/0+00 BV-9/43+00 20,275 2002 300,000 250,662

Reach II Total 391,000 351,773

III 153.94 -- BV-17/171+00 -- -- 1963 38,700 42,980

Reach III Total 38,700 42,980

IV

No Historical Maintenance Dredging Records

Reach IV Total -- --

V No Historical Maintenance Dredging Records

Reach V Total -- --

VI

No Historical Maintenance Dredging Records

Reach VI Total -- -- Reach I – VI Total 1,768,750 1,627,869

1Numbers in bold italic are based on the relationship: Pay Volume = 1.19 x Design Volume

Recent Shoaling

As discussed in the introductory paragraph of Section 3.0, the volume of recent shoaling represents the second component that determines the projected future dredging and dredged material storage requirements for the Brevard County segment of the ICWW. The FIND completed the most recent comprehensive hydrographic survey of the Waterway in 2014. From the 2014 surveys Taylor Engineering identified shoal locations and calculated the shoal volumes listed in Table 3.2. Shoal volumes calculated from the surveys correspond to the design volume (i.e., the amount of material requiring removal to re-achieve project design depth). The application of the correction factor (i.e., 1.19) as described in the previous section then derived the corresponding pay volume to account for typical allowable overdepth dredging.

Table 3.2 Summary of Recent Shoals

Reach ICWW Mileage Cut/Station Length

(ft) Year Design Volume (cy)

Pay Volume (cy)1 From To From To

I

127.15 127.22 CUT BV-1/0+00 CUT BV-1/3+73 373 2014 220 262

127.82 127.97 CUT BV-1/35+28 CUT BV-2/5+24 810 2014 182 217

128.36 128.63 CUT BV-2/25+85 CUT BV-4/5+05 1,410 2014 7,694 9,156

129.13 129.20 CUT BV-4/31+47 CUT BV-4/35+31 384 2014 92 109

129.95 134.89 CUT BV-4/75+02 CUT BV-6/37+74 26,087 2014 74,553…