The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBack-Up DocumentsMiami -Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement The United States Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Draft Feasibility Report with Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for the Miami -Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm Risk Feasibility Study was released June 5th, 2020. The study focuses on critical infrastructure and areas of the county that are vulnerable to coastal storms, with a significant portion focused within the City of Miami. The completed report is located at: https://www.sai.usace.army.mil/MiamiDadeBackBayCSRM FeasibilityStudy/. Release of the draft report represents an important milestone in the 3-year study to investigate solutions that reduce damage and risk from flooding that come from storm surges associated with hurricanes and tropical storms. Residents and the City have until July 20, 2020 to comment and provide feedback to the recommended plan. The study began in October 2018. After evaluating numerous alternatives, the report identifies the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) to provide Coastal Storm Risk Management measures for Miami Dade County (MDC) to mitigate at risk from flooding and damage from coastal storms. Comments and input received during the public input period will be used to refine the TSP into the National Economic Development (NED) plan, which is the plan that optimizes net benefits. Approval of the NED plan is scheduled for completion in Oct 2020, which ultimately forms the basis to prepare a Chief of Engineers report by Sept 2021. This document will be transmitted to Congress for authorization through a Water Resources Development Act. The TSP was formulated based on a 1 percent probability of storm surge impact in year 2079, considering tide, storm surge, and sea level rise. While the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) includes components throughout MDC, several Coastal Storm Risk Management (CSRM) measures are within the city of Miami boundaries and will aide in reducing flood risk associated with Hurricanes. Structural CSRM measures are man-made, constructed measures that counteract a flood event in order to reduce the hazard or to influence the course or probability of occurrence of the event. The plan identifies the following measures within the city of Miami. • Miami River Surge Barrier, consisting of sector gate with associated floodwalls, pump station, and riprap, located at the mouth of the Miami River. The surge barrier and floodwalls will have a proposed wall height of 20.9' NAVD. • Little River Surge Barrier, consisting of miter gate with associated flood walls and pump station, located at Biscayne Blvd. • Floodwall starting at the intersection of SE 15th Rd and Brickell Ave that proceeds east to the Biscayne Bay, north along the shoreline to the Miami River Surge Barrier, and along the east side of Biscayne Blvd to NE 13th St. The proposed wall height is 13.4' NAVD south of the Miami River (6' above ground levels) and 15.5' NAVD north of the Miami River (10' above ground levels). The portion of the wall at Biscayne Bay would be constructed approximately 50 ft from the current shoreline with a proposed wall height of 18.2' NAVD. • Floodwall starting at NE 61st St along Biscayne Blvd to NE 78th St, that transitions to East Dixie Highway where it continues to NE 93rd St. The proposed wall height ranges from 10' to 10.9' NAVD (1.5' to 3.5' above ground levels). The surge barrier and floodwalls will have a proposed height of 15.2' NAVD. Nonstructural CSRM measures are permanent or contingent measures applied to a structure and/or its contents that prevent or provide resistance to damage from flooding. Nonstructural measures differ from structural measures in that they focus on reducing the consequences of flooding instead of focusing on reducing the probability of flooding. The nonstructural CSRM measures considered include elevating residential structures and floodproofing non-residential structures. The plan identifies the following measures within the city of Miami. • Elevation of approximately 2,300 privately owned residential structures, involving lifting the lowest floor elevation of residential structures to at least equal to or greater than the one percent annual chance flood defined by FEMA. The entire foundation of the structure will be lifted and placed on a new foundation (i.e., columns, piers, posted or raised foundation walls) so that the lowest habitable finished floor is above the design water surface elevation. All utilities and mechanical equipment, such as air conditioners and hot water heaters, will also be raised to this elevation. This can be done to structures whether they have a crawl, slab, or basement foundation which would require filling in the basement first and includes 1, 2, and 3-story homes. Multifamily structures such as condominium and apartment buildings are grouped with non- residential (commercial) structures due to the size and nature of the structures that prevents them from being elevated or acquired. Specific addresses and number of residences within Miami were not included in the report. • Dry floodproofing of approximately 3,800 non-residential structures, with an additional 200 for critical infrastructure buildings, up to the maximum height of three feet above the adjacent ground elevation. Non-residential structures include commercial structures, multifamily structures such as condominium and apartment buildings that cannot be elevated or acquired, critical infrastructure, and any other structure that is not a single family home or duplex. Dry floodproofing consists of sealing all areas of a structure up to a maximum of approximately 3 feet above ground level to reduce damage caused by coastal storm surge inundation by making walls, doors, windows and other openings resistant to penetration by water. Walls are coated with sealants, waterproofing compounds, or plastic sheeting. Back -flow from water and sewer lines is prevented by installing mechanisms such as drain plugs, standpipes, grinder pumps, and back-up valves. Openings, such as doors, windows, sewer lines, and vents, may also be closed temporarily with sandbags or removable closures, or permanently sealed. Specific addresses and number of residences within Miami were not included in the report. Critical Infrastructure Measures to decrease the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to flooding damage from storm surge with consideration for SLR over the period of analysis. Critical infrastructure considered include fire stations, medical facilities, police stations, evacuation centers, wastewater and potable water facilities, emergency operation center (EOC) facilities, vulnerable airport facilities, and railway electrical substations. Floodproofing was the recommended method of flood risk reduction provided to critical infrastructure. Alternatives Evaluation Project formulization included consideration of several alternatives and combinations of proposed structural & non-structural measures. The TSP is Alternative 8, which does not include seawall at Edgewater. The Edgewater seawall was evaluated as a separable element and did not demonstrate a positive Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) (greater than one). Analysis determined approximately 150 residences in Edgewater would be eligible for elevation and/or floodproofing as a more cost effective measure that would have a positive BCR. Project Benefits and Costs For Congress to authorize the project, the study must demonstrate that net benefits will exceed project costs over the fifty year authorization period. The project first costs are estimated at $4,586,000,000, which includes planning, engineering, design, and construction, as well as lands, easements, rights of way and relocations (LERRs). It estimates annual operation and maintenance costs of $12,600,000. This results in an annualized average cost over the life of the project of $196,000,000 with a projected annual net benefit of $196,000,000 in avoided damages, with a resulting BCR of 9.4. The federal government would provide for $2,980,700,000 (65%) of the project costs while the local sponsor (Miami -Dade County and partners) would need to commit to providing the remaining $1,605,000,000 (35%) of project costs, which includes $405,000,000 in lands, easements, rights of way and relocations (LERRs). Stormwater Management, Baywalk, and Betterments The Miami -Dade Back Bay CSRM was authorized to investigate solutions that reduce damages and risks from the impacts of coastal storms while considering sea level rise. While the measures identified will reduce risks from coastal storms considering property and life safety/ critical infrastructure, it does not address all needs from the city. It does not address sea level rise impacts occurring outside of coastal storm events (ie, king tides). The plan will not include recreational or aesthetic features, such as expansion of the Baywalk, and does not provide for modifications of the local stormwater system to improve drainage, although they can be included as `betterments' at 100% local cost. Upcoming Key Milestones Release of the draft report identifying the Tentative Selected Plan(TSP) initiates a mandatory 45-day public comment period which runs through July 20th, 2020. Comments will be used to refine and optimize the TSP into the final plan, referred to as the National Economic Development (NED) plan by Oct 2020. The project will be further refined and optimized, resulting in preparation of a Chief of Engineers report by Sept 2021, which is the authorizing document sent to Congress. Upon authorization by Congress through a Water Resource Development Act, the project would be eligible for federal funding through the budgetary process. As funding is approved, the project would enter the Planning, Engineering, Design (PED) phase to refine design specifications for the project features. Public Comments All public comments must be received by the Corps by July 20, 2020. Comments must be submitted in writing and can be emailed to MDBB-CSRMStudy@usace.army.mil or mailed to the following address: Environmental Analysis Section, Norfolk District 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510 The County has also established a web page mapping portal for providing comments that will also be provided to the Corps at: http://arcq.is/fm0Xe WELCOME 1.2.1 MIAMI-DADE BACK BAY COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT DRAFT INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Virtual Public Meeting June 2020 For audio please call: 877-336-1829 Access Code: 9556794 Security Code: 1234 OR 888-363-4749 Access Code: 5073286 Security Code: 1234 MIAMI-DADE BACK BAY COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT DRAFT INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT REPORT RELEASE PUBLIC MEETING Norfolk District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers June 2020 U.L&RMW US Army Corps of Engineers MI A M I-[ ►D https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/MiamiDadeBackBayCSRMFeasibilityStudy/ OUTLINE • Opening Remarks • Overview: Authority, Scope, Problem/Opportunities, Objectives/Constraints • Tentatively Selected Plan • Compliance and Considerations • Schedule • How to Provide Comments • Related USACE Studies Ilkuestion and Answer 3 l.2.1 STUDY BACKGROUND • Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115-123 authorizes the government to conduct the Study at full Federal expense, • • 3 years and $3 Million to complete study, The Miami -Dade Back Bay CSRM will investigate solutions that will reduce damages and risks from impacts of coastal storms while considering sea level rise. The study will not address federally owned land (e.g. Everglades National Park), but will focus primarily on the urban and coastal areas of the county, A draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared. The study will conclude in the Fall of 2021 with Final versions of the documents. 4 4 717 CountyBou'ds Flood Hazard F'hoad Hazard Type O.24bAnnual Grande Flood Fezdrd Nee oi+Arnirnal HaZerd Atop 4t I,illtletmrminpd ROW Hazorti 1%Annual Chance Fload Hazard — Urban_Developmenl_Bcurrdary 5 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OVERVIEW ■ The National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate how their actions affect the human and natural environment. ■ In accordance with NEPA, compliance with other federal laws and statutes is also documented and addressed (i.e., Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone Management Act). ■ This document has been prepared as a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on a 10% (conceptual) design level; future NEPA documentation will be prepared for site specific project as designs advance. USACE COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT (CSRM) STUDY AUTHORITY Authorized ■ Measures that reduce risks from coastal storms considering property and life safety/ critical infrastructure. ■ Inclusion of increases in storm surge over time due to sea level rise. ■ Pump stations associated with structural barriers such as floodwalls or surge barriers. ■ Natural features where there is a benefit to reducing storm surge impacts. ■ 10% (conceptual) design development. Not Authorized ■ Direct inclusion of Federal property ■ Sea level rise impacts not occurring during a coastal storm event. ■ Improvements to reduce rainfall/ stormwater flooding. ■ Natural features with no direct reduction in coastal storm risks. ■ Recreational or aesthetic features. ■ Construction or Operation and Maintenance. 6 U.S.ABMY SCOPING & PLANNING STRATEGY Execute Feasibility Agreement with non - Federal Sponsor: 9 Oct 2018 • Initiate Scoping • Invite Agencies to Participate • Examine Existing and Future Without Project Conditions • Identify Problems, Opportunities, Objectives and Constraints SMART Feasibility Study Process: Miami -Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management S ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION & ANALYSIS Alternatives Milestone: 9 Jan 2019 • Receive Stakeholder Input on Potential Measures Develop Screening Criteria Formulate Initial Array Concurrent review Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) Milestone: Jan 2020 Alternative Evaluation and Comparison: • Environmental Considerations Parametric Costs and Determine Preliminary Benefits (Future With Project Conditions) Final Array of Alternatives Detailed Benefit -to -Cost Ratio Stakeholder Input Determine the TSP Develop Draft Report v CHIEF'S REPORT District Engineer transmits final report package April 2021 Agency Decision Milestone (ADM): Oct 2020 • Release Draft Report (Integrated Environmental Impact Statement) and Respond to Comments • Initiate Multiple Levels of Quality Review • Finalize Environmental Mitigation Plans Develop Final Report Draft Report Release: 5 June 2020 7 Sept 2021 • Release Final Report • Complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Conclusions 8 COORDINATION STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP AND PLANNING CHARETTE ■ Held on 8-9 November 2018 with over 70 attendees ■ Representation from federal and state agencies, universities, Attendees included: USEPA, City of Miami, SFWMD, South Florida Regional Planning Council, U of M, FIU, Miami -Dade County (MDC) DER, MDC Office of EM, Florida DEP PUBLIC MEETINGS ■ NEPA Scoping meeting held on December 2018 ■ Public meeting held September 2019 WORKSHOP ■ Held on March 21-22, 2019 in Miami, Florida with the non -Federal sponsor to refine focus areas I■ Interagency meetings held roughly bimonthly ■ Weekly update calls with the non -Federal Sponsor ■ Bi-Weekly update calls with the Jacksonville District to discuss Miami -Dade Back Bay CSRM, Miami -Dade CSRM, and Miami Harbor study PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITES, OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS • The geographic location, low elevation, and high population of Miami -Dade County make it vulnerable to storm surge from hurricanes and tropical storms. • Increasing high tides and king tides resulting from sea level rise result in recurrent flooding to roads and properties. • Increasing groundwater elevations from sea level rise result in flood risks to inland areas. • Increasing flooding from rain events due to the higher groundwater elevations and higher tailwater elevations from sea level rise threaten properties and infrastructure. OPPORTUNITIES • Reduce risk of loss of life due to high flooding events or infrastructure failure. • Reduce coastal storm - related economic damages and improve economic resiliency of the local economy and communities, particularly low-income communities. • Increase resiliency and structural integrity of critical infrastructure • Reduce transportation and evacuation route impacts during high flooding events. • Utilize available natural areas and open spaces for improving wave attenuation, water retention, and/or water storage. • Increase the resiliency of Miami -Dade County to function effectively before, during, and after coastal storm events by decreasing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to flooding damages from SLR and storm surge. • Reduce economic damages to structures in communities vulnerable to severe flooding damages from SLR and storm surge. • Incorporate natural and nature based features to reduce flood damages and complement the recommended nonstructural and structural measures. 9 CONSTRAINTS • Avoid creating or exacerbating flooding within the project area, to other local municipalities, and to local military installations. • Avoid flooding solutions for the study area that would induce increased flooding issues in locations outside of the study area. • Avoid impacts to environmental and cultural/historic resources in the study area and nearby (e.g. Everglades National Park, Biscayne Bay National Park). • Cannot exacerbate saltwater intrusion which will negatively impact fresh water for drinking and agriculture. U.S.ABMY SELECTION OF FOCUS AREAS ❑ Focus areas were selected based on (1) the Social Vulnerability Index and (2) expected flooding damage ❑ Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses U.S. census data to determine social vulnerability by census tract. Each tract was ranked on 15 factors grouped into four themes which include: ❑ Socioeconomic status ❑ Household composition / disability ❑ Race / ethnicity / language / minority status ❑ Housing/transportation ❑ Flooding damage was estimated using the HAZUS model using FEMA's 1% (100-year) annual chance flood with 4' of SLR. ❑ 4000' x 4000' grids made to narrow down damage areas ❑ Flooding damage was multiplied by SVI to obtain a composite risk map which showed seven socially vulnerable economic damage centers 10 CDC Social Vulnerability Index 0.50 0.51 - a.e.0 D.81 - a.70 r1 71 - {I no o81 -a.ao o . a.55 fir, -1 4 -- Cowers for ir4I a d I'r@Ydpllo: •"y IIYS I r• 37SIB Vul7a+'a4l'ay' IMas r !Karol 0odo Clop l' - upli 14111 U.S.ABMY MANAGEMENT MEASURES • Structural Measures — screened based on seven focus areas identified, preliminary real estate and engineering concerns, and non -Federal sponsor input. • Nonstructural Areas — areas narrowed down to seven focus areas based on preliminary flood damage analysis and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). • Critical Infrastructure —Asset Categories were determined through scoping meetings and in -line with Miami -Dade County's Rapid Action Plan which consists of vulnerable critical infrastructure. Natural and Nature Based Features (NNBF) — Identified through coordination with local stakeholders. Designed to work in conjunction with non-structural and structural measures. { Vulnerability Composite F 'r - Low VLlrerabiliiy Medium Vulnerabitly tale High Vulnerability Miami [}ado Caunfy - Vulnerability CBrnpasIte Lill o ;:.:-.kigi ur,s. Devebarenl Scatrj ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 ALTERNATIVE NAME 12 DESCRIPTION No Action No Action Critical Infrastructure Only Miami River Basin + Alternative 2 Nonstructural + Alternative 2 Inland Storm Surge Reduction (Structural) + Alternative 2 Alternative 2 + 3 + 4 Analyzing critical infrastructure throughout all of Miami -Dade County on priority asset categories. This includes wet and dry floodproofing structures. Surge barrier at Miami River (with associated floodwalls and pump stations) + Floodwall at Edgewater + Nonstructural outside of surge barrier. Acquiring, elevating, and wet and dry floodproofing of structures in seven socially vulnerable, economic damage centers defined by Hazus and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index which include Miami River, Little River, Arch Creek River, Aventura, North Beach, South Beach, and Cutler Bay areas. Surge barriers (with associated floodwalls and pump stations) at the most socially vulnerable, economic damage centers which include Miami River, Little River, and Biscayne Canal. Miami River Basin + Nonstructural + Critical Infrastructure 7 8 Alternative 2 + 4 + 5 Alternative 2 + 4 + 5 + EW NS -EWFW Nonstructural + Structural + Critical Infrastructure Nonstructural + Structural + Critical Infrastructure + Nonstructural at Edgewater - (without) Floodwall at Edgewater MEASURES CONSIDERED: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Critical infrastructure analyzed throughout the entire county. Critical asset categories to include in study: • Fire Stations • Medical Facilities • Significant hospital / emergency facilities • Police Stations / 311 centers • Shelters / evacuation centers • Wastewater and potable water facilities • Treatment plants, pump stations • EOC Facilities • Vulnerable airport facilities from the Rapid Action Plan (RAP) • Railway electrical substations • Erosion at Rickenbacker Causeway and Venetian Way Critical Infrastructure Emergency Operations Center Command Centers Evacuation Centers Fire Stations (County) Fire Stations (Municipal) Hospitals Police Stations (County) Police Stations (Municipal) Pump Stations Treatment Plants Count 13 81 71 30 40 8 58 458 9 13 6 Treatment Pliant [] Hospital County' & Municipal Fire Station *aunty' & MuniopaI Police Staticir O Fmergeri[y cper.utipn4 Center Urban Develuprnerii Boundary ocaunty Boundary .r,Ii:l . aiLi5'a1:DT rue M be Kredrs dr_..xp ;frer!tL "LI Ix ihx: pu—p , . n: Yd ENIO-011p11 G=5_ch thr : a.:rc r7 ispt.ri r "Jic -ap U.S.ABMY =CQJrty B.xridar•{ Natural Nature Based Feature Mangrove Resta ation County Features Unbar, r evelopmert Boundary Nonstructural FocusAreas Arch Creek Avenlairr Cutler Bay Lite River Miami Raver Norl• Brach South beach MEASURES CONSIDERED: NONSTRUCTURAL 14 i r 1r2ir Seven socially vulnerable economic damage centers ■ Arch Creek, Aventura, Cutler Bay, Little River, Miami River, North Beach, and South Beach Nonstructural measures includes: • Elevating structures, wet and/or dry floodproofing of structures, acquiring structures and relocating structures and utilities EXAMPLE NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES 00, elevation 15 Photo Credit: Flood Control Americ '313 • i floodproofing MEASURES CONSIDERED: STRUCTURAL ■ Surge barriers at Biscayne Canal, Little River, and Miami River including associated pump stations and floodwalls • Floodwall at Edgewater, examined, but not included in the Tentatively Selected Plan. The proposed top of wall elevation varies from 1 to 13 feet above ground depending on location and is greater in height where the wall is in the water. Optimization will occur for different storm frequencies prior to the final report. Biscayne Canal Storm Surge Barrier • Little Rivet Storm Surge Barrier SW .i. 5L^ae F.nt:i Int Structural Measures (Storm Surge earHers, PumpStatiors& Flondwalls) - hcca rie C,aral Edpudater - LiLJe Ricer +i Miami Riuc--Optic 1 - .Storm Bute BaTrr - Pump 5ratla. Risk Management Areas dgoutator _ide Wrer *Estimate's aural measures have been initially on derived 2079 IPA annual eiceeda.nce. probability' pstillinarer elevation- el from the FEMA South Honda Storm Surge S '41:t (inrlur5PS . 5tnrm surge and 115AWE high curve sea level rise) and will be fimped during. the Preeonstr'u. ion, En.peew-wig, and Resign l4rase of the prefect when more detailed surveys arid data are available_ 1 ^^�yy��...�.. 3 4 Mlles I l 1 1 I 16 EXAMPLE FLOODWALLS AND DESIGN 2E'- ]-• .EE'E" TI L. 1111E111= III 17 I111I -.._ ____ 7TOH T r l+ E & TNNG EJLlHE 18 l.2.1 EXAMPLE SURGE BARRIER DESIGN EXAMPLE SURGE BARRIERS sector gate l.2.1 Mlarai•Dadc County: Potential Locations for Natural Nature Based Features (NNBF) Guam- cayCommand), MEASURES CONSIDERED: NATURAL AND NATURE -BASED FEATURES 20 Natural and Nature -Based features (NNBFs) considered for this study included mangrove and other native vegetation plantings, coral reefs, living shorelines, submerged aquatic vegetation, and marsh island creation/enhancements. ■ The NNBF selected for this study is the planting of native vegetation including mangroves at the Cutler Bay Site ■ Vegetation such as mangroves serve to dissipate storm surge and provide a natural form of coastal protection TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN (ALTERNATIVE 8) • Surge barriers at Biscayne Canal, Little River, and Miami River all of which include associated pump stations and floodwalls • Nonstructural mitigation at seven socially vulnerable economic damage centers • Outside structural measures at Arch Creek, Little River, and Miami River/Edgewater. • Aventura, Cutler Bay (not shown on map), North Beach, and South Beach • Natural and Nature -Based Features are being considered at the Cutler Bay site • Critical infrastructure mitigation on priority asset categories throughout all of Miami -Dade County (not shown on map) 21 Total Project First Cost : $4,586,000,000 Benefit -to -Cost Ratio (BCR): 9.4 Annual Net benefits: $1,640,000,000 3.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7,6 10 Rules r l r i u l Coral Sprint Structural Measures (Storm Surge Barriers, Purnp Stations & Floodwalls)* - 3iva•;ne.Canal - J7,1c RItr r - Miami Riv - OF/'inn 1 Refined Nonstructural Focus Areas Arch CrrAk tiuunkura Cutler Bay JCtll' Ri. i r Miami Ri e- Norh L^ach South Beach >=dg6 A'.ter Risk Management Areas 31 .yhu Cdnoi Little River r.1inrrMI River *Estimates of locations and Footprints of the structural measures have been initially determined based on the LPEACE derived 2079 1'Yc anneal exceedence probability Stillwater elevation level from the FEW. South Florida Storrs Surge Study ,knsJurJes tlde, storm surge and USACE high curve sea level Ilse} and will be finalized during the Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design Phase of the project when more detailed sar.eys and data are available. . REAL ESTATE CONSIDERATIONS 22 1.2.1 ■ Real Estate actions for structural measures ■ Permanent and temporary easements, fee acquisition and relocations will be needed to support construction of structural measures. ■ Real Estate actions for non-structural measure ■ Elevations: approximately 2,300 properties ■ Floodproofing commercial and critical infrastructure: approximately 3,800 properties Expectation is that the real estate impacts will continue to be refined as the project is optimized. 23 RESOURCES AREAS EVALUATED WITH NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Air quality Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Materials and Wastes OURC AREA Cultural Resources Geology, Physiography, and Topography Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitat Plankton Community Noise and Vibration Utilities Water Quality Floodplain Wetlands and Mangroves Bathymetry, Hydrology, and Tidal Processes Potential impacts to resource areas listed above range from adverse to beneficial, temporary to permanent, and negligible or minor to moderate. For impacts to specific resources, please refer to Chapter 8 of the draft report. RESOURCES AREAS EVALUATED WITH POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 24 RESOURCE AREA Fish and Fishery Resources Benthic Resources Special Status Species Socioeconomics Transportation Recreational Resources Aesthetic and Visual Resources Navigation Safety Land Use #ii Potential significant impacts to resource areas listed above range from adverse to beneficial and are considered major. For impacts to specific resources, please refer to Chapter 8 of the draft report. 25 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATIONS ❑ Proposed structural measures have the potential to result in adverse effects to federally protected threatened and endangered species. Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service is anticipated. Interagency coordination is ongoing. Federally protected species evaluated: Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, boulder star coral, Elkhorn coral, lobed star coral, mountainous star coral, pillar coral, rough cactus coral, staghorn coral, West Indian manatee including critical habitat, Florida bonneted bat, American crocodile, green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, and Johnson's seagrass including critical habitat, piping plover, and red knot ❑ The final design and siting of project features would not occur until later project phases. Resource surveys, including benthic surveys and a wetlands jurisdictional determination, would be conducted during later project phases. ❑ Future NEPA documentation would be prepared for site -specific projects as designs advance and more detailed resource data becomes available. FEASIBILITY STUDY MILESTONE SCHEDULE Signing of Feasibility Cost Share Agreement Alternatives Milestone In Progress Review Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone Release of Draft Study for Concurrent Reviews Agency Decision Milestone Submit Final Report Package/Policy and Legal Compliance Review Team Signed Chief's Report 09 Oct 2018 (A) 09 Jan 2019 (A) 07 May 2019 (A) 17 Jan 2020 (A) 5 June 2020 (A) 15 Oct 2020 (S) 23 April 2021 (S) 24 Sep 2021 (S) 26 l.2.1 U.S.ARMY 27 1.2.1 PUBLIC COMMENT OPTIONS • Deadline: 20 July 2020 • Email: MDBB-CSRMStudy@usace.army.mil • Public Web -Page Web Mapper Tool: http://arcg. is/fm0Xe • Written Comments: Environmental Analysis Section, Norfolk District 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510 • For any accessibility issues that prevent written comments, please call (757) 201-7728. • Project Documents are Located: https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/MiamiDadeBackBayCSRM FeasibilityStudy/ 28 RELATED USACE STUDIES Miami -Dade County CSRM Study https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Shore-Protection/Dade-County/ Monroe County CSRM Study https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/FloridaKeysCSRMFeasibilityStudy/ South Atlantic Coastal Study https://www.sad.usace.army.mil/SACS THIS CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION U.S.ARMY To ask a question, please scroll towards the lower middle section of your screen. Click on the chat feature. A box on the right side of the screen should appear. Please identify yourself, and organization (if applicable) when typing your question. Responses will be provided verbally. There may be a several minute delay in receiving a response. If your question is not answered today due to a high volume of questions received, please contact us by telephone during the Public Virtual Office Hours (Question and Answer session only) provided below: Public Virtual Office Hours June 10, 2020 from 1-2 pm June 18, 2020 from 5-6 pm Dial -in information for the teleconference line is the same as the virtual meeting information and can also be found at the project website link provided below: https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/MiamiDadeBackBayCSRMFeasibilityStudy/ 29