nvironmental a for proposed community … · merritt island nwr is located along florida’s...

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED COMMUNITY CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTER FOR MERRITT ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BREVARD AND VOLUSIA COUNTIES, FLORIDA U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia DECEMBER 2019

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND 1

Introduction 1 Purpose and Need for Action 4 Decision Framework 6 Planning Study Area 6 Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility 7 Public Involvement and the Planning Process 11

CHAPTER II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 12

Introduction 12 Refuge History and Purposes 12 Special Designations 15 Ecosystem Context 15 Physical Resources 15 Climate 16 Geology 16 Soils 17 Lakes, Streams, and Wetlands 17 Air Quality 17 Refuge Infrastructure 18 Biological Resources 18 Natural Communities and Plants 19 Wildlife 19 Listed Species 19 Birds 21 Mammals 21 Fish 22 Invertebrates 23 Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 23 Cultural Resources 24 Socioeconomic Environment 25 Demographic Information 25 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 26 Ecotourism 27 Refuge Administration and Management 27 Land Protection and Conservation 27 Visitor Services 28 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance 30

CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 31

Formulation of Alternatives 31 Alternatives Considered, but Discarded 31 Description of Alternatives 32 No Action Alternative (Continue Current Management) 32 Proposed Action (Develop Community Conservation Education Center) 33

CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 37

Table of Contents

Overview 37 Effects Common to All Alternatives 37 Environmental Justice 37 Climate Change 37 Other Management 38 Land Acquisition 38 Cultural Resources 38 Refuge Revenue-Sharing 38 Other Effects 39 Summary of Effects by Alternative 39 No Action Alternative (Continue Current Management) 39 Proposed Action (Develop Community Conservation Education Center) 40 Summary Comparison of Alternatives 42 Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures 46 Cumulative Impacts 46 Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts 46 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity 47

CHAPTER V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 49

Overview 49

APPENDIX A. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 50

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS 51

APPENDIX C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION 55

APPENDIX D. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS 58

Preparers 58 Reviewers 58

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Merritt Island NWR 2 Figure 2. Location of Existing Visitor Center and Facilities at Merritt Island NWR 3 Figure 3. Location of Proposed Community Conservation Education Center 8 Figure 4. Layout of Proposed Community Conservation Education Center Site 9 Figure 5. Location of the Munson-Lee House 10 Figure 6. Federal Agency Boundaries in and around Merritt Island NWR 14 Figure 7. Visitor Facilities of Merritt Island NWR 29 Figure 8. Image of Existing Visitor Center, Merritt Island NWR 33 Figure 9. Concept Design, East and West Elevation for the Proposed Community Conservation Education Center, Merritt Island NWR 35 Figure 10. Concept Design, North and South Elevation for the Proposed Community Conservation Education Center, Merritt Island NWR 35 Figure 11. Proposed Floorplans for the Proposed Community Conservation Education Center, Merritt Island NWR 36 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census population figures and 2060 population estimates for Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida 26 Table 2. Summary comparison of the environmental consequences of implementation of the alternatives 43

1 Environmental Assessment

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Chapter I. Background INTRODUCTION The United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (refuge/NWR) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act to analyze impacts associated with the proposed construction of the Community Conservation Education Center (CCEC), interactive outdoor exhibits, road and parking infrastructure. The proposed CCEC would replace the existing visitor center at Merritt Island NWR. Following a public review and comment period on the EA for this proposal, a final decision will be made by the Service. Merritt Island NWR is located along Florida’s central east coast in Brevard and Volusia counties (Figure 1). The bulk of Merritt Island NWR overlaps the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The EA evaluates the impacts of the proposed CCEC and supporting infrastructure, which would be located near the existing Merritt Island NWR visitor center (Figure 2). The intent of this planning process is to support informed decision-making. The predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each alternative are analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or if the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision. Following public review and comment, the Service will decide whether or not the proposal would have significant impacts. If the Service makes a FONSI, then the Service would move forward with planning and construction of the proposed facility. The Service completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in 2006 (FWS 2006) and a final CCP in 2007 for Merritt Island NWR (FWS 2008a), which included a final Visitor Services Plan (VSP, FWS 2008b). As outlined in the Merritt Island NWR CCP, the refuge’s priority visitor services management issues continue to be related to the growth of the human population, the impacts associated with the growing population, and the associated demand for public use activities. While not contemplated in the early 2000s during the development of the CCP, the proposed CCEC and supporting infrastructure would directly support numerous goals and objectives of the CCP, as listed.

Visitor Services Goal 1: Welcome and Orient Visitors Visitors will feel welcome and find accurate, timely, and appropriate orientation material and information on visitor facilities, programs, and management activities. Visitor Services Goal 5: Environmental Education Provide quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent environmental education opportunities to promote understanding and awareness of the value of the refuge, its natural resources, and the human influences on ecosystems. Visitor Services Goal 6: Interpretation – Interpret Key Resources Visitors of all abilities will enjoy their visits and increase their knowledge, understanding, and support for the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System.


Figure 1. Location of Merritt Island NWR


Figure 2. Location of Existing Visitor Center and Facilities at Merritt Island NWR


Visitor Services Goal 7: Recreation All public use activities will be appropriate and compatible and visitors will support priority public use activities that minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance.

7.a. Ethical Wildlife Viewing - Delivering the Message and Correcting Problems Visitor Services Objective 7.a(1): Over the life of this CCP/EA, the visitor center will provide current information related to appropriate and compatible recreational activities and will help visitors understand that their behavior can reduce wildlife disturbance.

Visitor Services Goal 8: Communicate Key Issues with Offsite Audiences Kennedy Space Center workers and local residents will recognize the refuge and support its purposes.

8.b. Local Residents Visitor Services Objective 8.b(1): Within five years of approval of this CCP/EA, at least 50% of regularly sampled local residents will be able to recognize the location of the refuge and will understand the importance of the refuge to migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and other wildlife.

Visitor Services Goal 10: Build Support of Friends Group The Merritt Island Wildlife Association will be an advocate for the refuge, supporting all refuge goals and objectives and providing financial and in-kind support of refuge programs.

10.c. Merritt Island Wildlife Association Outreach Visitor Services Objective 10.c(1): Over the 15-year life of this CCP/EA, encourage the Merritt Island Wildlife Association to become proactive in assisting the refuge in reaching new visitors and expanding the visitor services program.

Refuge Administration Goal 1: Refuge Management Provide sufficient staff, volunteers, facilities, and equipment to implement a comprehensive refuge management program to protect and manage the natural and cultural values of the refuge’s east central Florida coastal barrier island system.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The point of the EA is to evaluate the proposed CCEC, while also meeting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the purposes of Merritt Island NWR, the vision and goals identified in the CCP, other mandates, and special designations of the refuge and/or affecting the refuge. The purpose of evaluating the proposed CCEC is to ensure that only appropriate and compatible uses occur on Merritt Island NWR, that impacts of the proposal are minimized, and that the proposal does not detract from or materially interfere with the purposes of Merritt Island NWR, while also ensuring that Merritt Island NWR continues to: serve as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds; protect a variety of habitats to support native diversity; sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds; conserve rare, threatened, endangered, and other imperiled species; control and eliminate exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; sustain the lagoonal fishery; provide opportunities for safe enjoyment of appropriate and compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation; promote awareness and appreciation of natural resources; promote support for refuge management activities; coordinate with a wide variety of governmental and non-governmental partners; protect and preserve archaeological and


historical resources; protect outstanding natural, scenic, and ecologic values; and provide for appropriate and compatible scientific research. This EA addresses the mechanical, structural, visitor capacity, and fiscal issues of the existing 1985 visitor center building, while continuing to provide a high quality, wildlife-oriented visitor experience. A comprehensive condition assessment of the existing 5,300 square foot visitor center was conducted in April 2013. That inspection revealed approximately $750,000 in maintenance needs for the existing visitor center, including the following deficiencies:

● Separation of 30 feet of wall from the roof, ● Water rot in window seals, ● Possible asbestos in the mechanical room, ● Water intrusion and continued leaking through the roof, ● Exposed and failing insulation on the underside of the building, ● Rodent issues throughout building, ● Lack of ground fault circuit interrupter protection, and ● Lack of required electrical egress with battery backup for egress doors.

Additionally, the current septic system is unable to accommodate the existing level of use by staff and visitors. Waste water seeps from the leach field resulting in frequent closure of restrooms. The building’s water well requires extensive filtration due to high levels of salt and minerals and is not potable. The poor water quality results in high maintenance costs to the filtration system and the need to replace sinks and plumbing fixtures frequently. Additionally, the well is unable to meet water-use demands. Due to these issues and the desire to provide a community hub, the Service needed to evaluate alternatives to address these problems. Visitation to the visitor center has increased from 51,000 visitors in 2003 to 80,000 visitors in 2018. Annual visitation to Merritt Island NWR tripled from less than 500,000 to 1.64 million from 2003 to 2018. Available public space within the current visitor center limits the refuge’s ability to meet the demands for environmental education and nature-based programs. Refuge exhibits are located within cramped spaces which adversely impact the ability of visitors to fully understand the exhibits and consequently, understand the natural resources of the refuge and available recreational opportunities. During peak winter visitation levels (500 to 800 visitors/day), the small restroom facilities are inadequate to accommodate the needs of visitors, staff, and volunteers. Limited administration space creates a cramped work environment with lack of adequate work sites for staff, interns, volunteers and the Merritt Island Wildlife Association’s (MIWA’s) nature store operations and storage. The Munson-Lee house is located within the approved acquisition boundary of the Merritt Island NWR in Volusia County on 5.67 acres; it was purchased from a willing seller in 2010. The house was built in 1920, with additions constructed in 1995. An April 2013 comprehensive condition assessment indicated the building was in irreparable condition. Repairs that were needed included:

● Repair of the hole in the roof; ● Replacement of the roof; ● Repair of the mold on the walls and ceiling; ● Replacement of the moldy carpet; ● Replacement of the foundation;


● Installation of non-existent insulation in the house; ● Replacement of existing single pane windows; ● Replacement of the 30-year old heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; ● Creation of a 300-foot driveway; and ● Assessment and connection of disconnected water well and septic system.

Because of the extent of the damage and the needed repairs, demolition was recommended at that time. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) limited the increase in federal real property square footage starting in 2013 by establishing the Freeze the Footprint policy. To meet the requirements of OMB and the Department of the Interior, the Service would demolish the existing 5,300 square foot visitor center and a Service-owned residence (2,800 square feet; Munson-Lee house) to meet the square footage needs of the proposed CCEC (for a no net gain of square footage on the refuge). DECISION FRAMEWORK Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will: (1) select an alternative that best serves the purpose and need outlined above, the purposes of Merritt Island NWR, and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and (2) determine if the selected alternative is a major federal action significantly negatively affecting the quality of the environment, thus requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. If no significant impacts are found, the final document would include a FONSI, which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This determination would be based on an evaluation of the Service and National Wildlife Refuge System mission, the purposes for which the refuge was established, and other legal mandates. PLANNING STUDY AREA Merritt Island NWR is located in Brevard and Volusia counties on Central Florida’s east coast. The proposed construction site is south of Playalinda Beach Road (old State Road 402) and west of the refuge’s headquarters area (Figure 1). The project site for the proposed CCEC is approximately 7.7 acres and includes the existing Visitor Information Center and support roads, parking lot, sewer and water systems, and boardwalk. The proposed CCEC would be located adjacent to the existing overflow parking area (figures 3 and 4). The final location of the proposed CCEC could be shifted within the project site based on results from subsurface geotechnical surveys and/or to minimize potential wetland impacts. The planning study area includes the 7.7-acre area surrounding the proposed CCEC site and 5.67-acre site of the Munson-Lee house (Figure 5).


AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY The Service developed the EA in compliance with all applicable laws, polices, and regulations, notably the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, including Part 601 (National Wildlife Refuge System), Part 602 (Refuge Planning), Part 603 (Refuge System Uses), and Part 605 (Wildlife-dependent Recreation). The actions described within the EA also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Service achieved compliance with this Act through the involvement of the public and the development of the EA, with a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Further, the proposal was designed to meet other requirements, including the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Architecture Barriers Act.


Figure 3. Location of Proposed Community Conservation Education Center


Figure 4. Layout of Proposed Community Conservation Education Center Site


Figure 5. Location of the Munson-Lee House


The overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which Merritt Island NWR was established. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with the refuge’s mission and purposes. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act requirements, public involvement is an important factor in the development of the EA for the proposed CCEC at Merritt Island NWR. The Service initiated public scoping with a flyer that was emailed and mailed to the refuge mailing list (over 500 recipients) and posted at the refuge’s website, Facebook page, and existing visitor center. Information was posted, mailed, and emailed on March 10 and 13, 2017 with scoping comments due to Merritt Island NWR by April 14, 2017. The MIWA provided a copy of the flyer to its membership, which included over 700 recipients, via email and mail. The North Brevard Business Directory and the Titusville Area Chamber of Commerce posted meeting notices and information on their websites. A news article appeared on March 18, 2017 in the Daytona Beach News-Journal in advance of the March 23, 2017 Open House. The Open House was conducted at the existing Merritt Island NWR visitor center with 40 attendees. Comments submitted during the scoping period supported the development of the proposed CCEC, focusing on specific elements to be included in the exhibits, adding public WiFi access, and ensuring that the porch and amphitheater areas would be sufficient to also support the needs of festivals. A 30-day public review and comment period on the EA provides the public the opportunity to comment on the detailed proposal. Notice of availability of the EA was provided in the local newspaper, Florida Today, posted on the Merritt Island NWR website (www.fws.gov/merrittisland) and Facebook page, posted at the Merritt Island NWR visitor center, mailed and emailed out to an updated version of the refuge’s mailing list (including individuals, organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies who previously expressed interest in management of Merritt Island NWR), emailed and mailed to members of MIWA, mailed and emailed out to current Merritt Island NWR Special Use Permit holders, emailed to each NWR Friends Group in Florida, mailed to refuge volunteers and volunteer groups, and sent to the Florida State Clearinghouse. Over 2,500 individuals, organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies were sent email or mail notice of the proposed action. The Service will review all comments submitted in making a final decision and will respond to the substantive comments in an appendix included with the final decision.

http://www.fws.gov/merrittisland


Chapter II. Affected Environment INTRODUCTION Merritt Island NWR was fully described in the 2008 CCP (FWS 2008a) and the 2006 EA (FWS 2006) for the draft CCP. This EA focuses on the planning study area for the proposed CCEC. This section provides an overview of the refuge’s history and purposes, special designations, ecosystem context, physical and biological resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic environment, and administration and management. REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES By 1962, NASA had purchased most of the northern portion of the barrier island known as Merritt Island in order to launch rockets into space. Located adjacent to the U.S. Air Force’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the new site was named John F. Kennedy Space Center. Sufficient lands to serve as safety and security buffer zones in order to launch the heavy lift booster rockets for manned space exploration were acquired through fee title purchases, condemnation, and negotiation with the State of Florida for state lands and waters. On August 28, 1963, the Fish and Wildlife Service entered into a cooperative agreement with NASA to establish the Merritt Island NWR, where space operations have priority. In this initial interagency agreement, NASA transferred management authority to the refuge for only a portion of KSC’s lands and waters. This agreement authority was expanded in the 1960s and by 1972 it included all non-operational areas of the space center. The most recent agreement between NASA and the Service was signed by both parties in July 2012. This agreement reflects the the coordination procedures that have occurred over time. Today, approximately 7,500 acres are actively used to support space mission operations, leaving approximately 95% of KSC’s 141,829-acre land area largely as it was when acquired and relatively undisturbed from its natural condition. On April 2, 1975, Congress established the Canaveral National Seashore. This act transferred management responsibility of Playalinda Beach and approximately 1,000 acres north of the Gomez Grant Line to the National Park Service. At the same time approximately 34,345 acres in and around Mosquito Lagoon were designated as a joint management area between Park Service and the Service. Natural resource management of much of the joint jurisdiction area remained under refuge management, while the National Park Service assumed management of all cultural resources in this overlap area. Generally, the Seashore manages those areas in the refuge/Seashore overlap east of the beach or sand road and the refuge manages the remainder of that overlap. Due to its nature as an overlay of KSC and its unique location and resources, the refuge has two traditional purposes, as well as an additional purpose stemming from legislation that created a unit of the National Park Service. Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits served by the lands and waters of the refuge, the Service administratively designated Merritt Island NWR in 1963 under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, outlining a primary purpose of these lands and waters:

"...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds."

16 USC §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)


Further reading of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act also recognizes benefits to other species, including those designated threatened or endangered:

“...to conserve and protect migratory birds...and other species of wildlife that are listed...as endangered species or threatened species and to restore or develop adequate wildlife habitat.”

16 USC §715i (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) The refuge’s primary purpose applies to all lands and waters managed by the refuge, regardless of when they were added to the refuge (Figure 1). Since the refuge has management agreements with NASA and the State of Florida, lands and waters under those management agreements are also subject to the conditions of those agreements. In 1995, the refuge and its partners began purchasing additional lands and waters in the northwest corner of the refuge, the Turnbull Creek area:

“(1) to protect, enhance, restore, and manage an appropriate distribution and diversity of wetland ecosystems and other habitats for migratory birds and other fish and wildlife in North America; (2) to maintain current or improved distributions of migratory bird populations; and (3) to sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the international obligations contained in the migratory bird treaties and conventions and other agreements with Canada, Mexico, and other countries.”

16 USC §4401(2)(b) (North American Wetlands Conservation Act) This secondary purpose applies only to those lands and waters of the Turnbull Creek area of the refuge, whether owned by the Service or managed under some sort of agreement as part of the refuge. However, the primary purpose also applies to the lands and waters of the Turnbull Creek area. Again, since the refuge has management agreements with the State of Florida for lands and waters in the Turnbull Creek area, those lands and waters are also subject to the conditions of those agreements. Congruent to the discussion of the traditional purposes of the refuge is the congressional enabling legislation in 1975 that established Canaveral National Seashore as a unit of the National Park Service. Congress established a national seashore partially on new lands and waters and partially as an overlay of NASA’s KSC on lands and waters that were already being managed as part of Merritt Island NWR. In the legislation, Congress outlined that the majority of the overlay portion of the Seashore would be managed as a refuge. The overlay area encompasses approximately 34,345 acres and includes southern Mosquito Lagoon. Figure 6 outlines the complex land ownership and management picture for this area. The Seashore was established “...to preserve and protect the outstanding natural, scenic, scientific, ecologic, and historic values...and to provide for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the same...the Secretary shall retain such lands in their natural and primitive condition, shall prohibit vehicular traffic on the beach except for administrative purposes, and shall develop only those facilities which he deems essential for public health and safety” [16 USC §459(j)]. This language applies much as a Wilderness designation might apply, making this a secondary purpose for the 34,345 acres in the overlap area.


Figure 6. Federal Agency Boundaries in and around Merritt Island NWR


SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS The refuge holds several special designations. The State of Florida has designated numerous national parks, a national memorial, national wildlife refuges, state parks and recreation areas, state preserves and reserves, and other waters as Outstanding Florida Waters for their exceptional ecological values and water quality. Merritt Island NWR was designated an Outstanding Florida Water in 1979. In 1997, the refuge was designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as Essential Fish Habitat to conserve and enhance the habitats necessary for fish to carry out their life cycles. In 1994, Brevard County designated the refuge an Honorary Historic Landmark. Managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Great Florida Birding Trail is a collection of sites throughout Florida which serve as excellent bird watching sites and/or bird education opportunities. Due to the refuge’s importance to resident and migratory birds, the refuge was designated in 2000 as one of three gateways to the eastern section of the Great Florida Birding Trail, which generally extends from the Florida-Georgia border in Nassau County to south of Fort Pierce and from the Atlantic Ocean to west of Ocala. In 2001, the American Bird Conservancy recognized 500 sites worldwide as Globally Important Bird Areas, including 183 national wildlife refuges, such as Merritt Island NWR. The refuge is listed as a Marine Protected Area. The Marine Protected Area national system is a collaboration between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior to conserve and manage natural heritage (biological communities, habitats, ecosystems and processes), cultural heritage (reflects maritime history and traditional cultural connections to the sea) and sustainable production (renewable living resources and their habitats and the social, cultural and economic service they provide). Twenty-six miles of the 133-mile Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway are located on Merritt Island NWR. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT The refuge is located within the Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative. The Peninsular Florida area is unique and complex, connecting subtropical and temperate climate zones and featuring a mosaic of more than 40 habitat types. This biologically diverse region encompasses hundreds of miles of beach and dune habitats, the St. Johns River watershed, xeric scrub uplands of the Lake Wales Ridge, the freshwater marshes of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee, vast sawgrass and cypress wetlands of the Everglades, extensive coastal mangroves and salt marsh, expanses of seagrass beds, and the unique pine rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks of the Florida Keys. Offshore, it includes the only living coral reef ecosystem in the continental United States. This region is home to approximately 700 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles; over 1,000 species of freshwater and marine fish; over 4,000 species of plants; and about 50,000 species of invertebrates. More than 100 of these species are federally listed as endangered or threatened, and the State of Florida considers nearly 1,000 of them as Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Public interest in species conservation is intense regarding species such as the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and several species of sea turtles. The primary conservation challenges include habitat destruction and conversion, invasive species, and management of fire and natural hydrological processes. However, the most critical challenge is time. Florida faces intense pressure from development and Peninsular Florida is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise, saltwater intrusion, and aquifer depletion. An area the size of Vermont may be developed in Florida over the next 50 years and millions of human residents may be displaced by the impacts of climate change and sea level rise by the turn of


the century. The effectiveness of the Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative will have far reaching implications. PHYSICAL RESOURCES CLIMATE Generally, the climate at the refuge can be described as subtropical with short, mild winters and hot, humid summers, with no appreciable spring or fall seasons. Summer weather patterns typically begin in April and prevail through November. Summer temperatures, measured in Fahrenheit degrees (°F), range from the low 70s to low 90s during the afternoon. Winter weather typically starts in December and lasts through March. Average temperatures during the winter range from lows in the 50s to highs near 75 degrees. Temperature extremes range from a low of 19°F to a high of 100oF (Patrick Air Force Base 2009). The average annual precipitation for the refuge, as recorded at the Shuttle Landing Facility, is 49 inches (Patrick Air Force Base 2009). The refuge averages 83 thunderstorm days per year. The National Weather Service (2005) data estimate that over 22,000 lightning strikes occur in Brevard County each year. Research on KSC shows that within cloud and cloud to ground discharges average 2.4 per minute per storm, with a rate of 30.6 discharges per minute recorded during a storm on July 14, 1980 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1984). Tropical depressions, storms, and hurricanes can impact refuge activities and infrastructure. Large amounts of rainfall can accompany tropical cyclones. In addition, wind and wave action can result in major damage to important refuge habitats. Several refuge buildings, facilities, and habitats have suffered damage. A substantial amount of staff time has been spent in preparing for hurricanes and storm events and addressing hurricane damage both on Merritt Island NWR and other refuges in Florida. GEOLOGY

Florida has a complex geologic history with repeated periods of deposition when the Florida Plateau was submerged, and erosion during periods of lower sea level when the land was exposed (Randazzo 1997). The Avon Park limestone formation is the oldest deposit known to exist under Brevard County. This was deposited in the early Eocene in an open ocean. A period of lower sea levels, with resultant erosion followed. In the late Eocene, seas rose once again and the limestones of the Ocala group formation were deposited. Following another sea level falling and rising, the Hawthorne formation of calcareous clay, phosphatic limestone, phosphorite and radiolarian clay was laid down in the late Miocene. Overlying the Hawthorne formation are unconsolidated deposits of fine sand, shells, clay and calcareous of the late Miocene or Pliocene ages. The surface strata of Merritt Island are primarily unconsolidated white to brown quartz sand containing beds of coquina of Pleistocene and Recent ages (Schmalzer et al. 2002, Schmalzer and Hinkle 1990). Fluctuating sea levels with the alternating glacial interglacial cycles have shaped the formation of the barrier islands. Merritt Island is an older landscape whose formation may have begun as much as 240,000 years ago, although most of the surface sediments are not that old. Cape Canaveral probably dates from <7,000 years before present, as does the barrier strip separating Mosquito Lagoon from the Atlantic Ocean.


SOILS Merritt Island is a relatively young landscape and one formed from coastal plain deposits. The primary source of parent material for refuge soils is sands of mixed terrestrial and biogenic origin. The terrestrial material originated from southern rivers carrying sediments eroded from highly weathered Coastal Plain and Piedmont soils; these sediments are quartzose with low feldspar content (Milliman 1972). These sediments moved south through longshore transport and may have been reworked repeatedly. The biogenic carbonate fraction of the sand is primarily of mollusk or barnacle origin with lesser contributions of coralline algae and lithoclasts; some may be reworked from offshore deposits of coquina and oolitic limestone (Milliman 1972). The eastern section of Merritt Island inland to about Kennedy Parkway North has marked ridge-swale topography, presumably retained from its formation as a barrier island. The proposed construction site includes three soil types: Amclote Sand, Depressional, Copeland-Bradenton-Wabasso Complex, and Wabasso Sand (Stantec 2016). LAKES, STREAMS, AND WETLANDS The surface waters in and surrounding Merritt Island NWR are shallow estuarine lagoons and include portions of the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), the Banana River, Mosquito Lagoon, and Banana Creek. All surface waters within Merritt Island NWR are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters under Florida Statutes for waters within national wildlife refuges. NASA, the Service, and Brevard County maintain water quality monitoring stations at surface water sites within and around KSC. The data collected are used for long-term trend analysis to support land use planning and resource management. Surface water quality at KSC is generally good, with the best water quality being found adjacent to undeveloped areas of the IRL, such as Mosquito Lagoon, and the northernmost portions of the IRL and Banana River. Within the 7.7-acre proposed project site there are several small, freshwater wetlands totaling 1.59 acres. 0.29 acres of wetland were unintentionally created by previous construction (roadways, parking lots, and structures) which caused ponding of an adjacent wetland allowing water to inundate upland habitat. The project site is adjacent to several open-water excavated areas where material was removed to construct local roads prior to refuge establishment. AIR QUALITY Air quality at the refuge and KSC is regulated under the Federal Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §50 [National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)], 40 CFR §51 (Implementation Plans), 40 CFR §§61 and 63 [National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)], and 40 CFR §70 (Operating Permits). Air quality for this area is also regulated under Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-200 et seq. The State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards are not significantly different from NAAQS. FAC 62-210 establishes general requirements for stationary sources of air pollutant emissions and provides criteria for determining the need to obtain an air construction or operation permit. FAC 62-213 implements Federal Rule Title 40 CFR §70, providing a comprehensive operation permit system for permitting major sources of air pollution (Title V sources). KSC has a Title V permit because emissions are above major source thresholds. The ambient air quality at the refuge and KSC is predominantly influenced by daily operations such as vehicle traffic, utilities fuel combustion, and standard refurbishment and maintenance


operations. Other operations occurring infrequently throughout the year, including launches and prescribed fires, also play a role in the quality of air as episodic events. Air quality has historically been influenced to some extent by two off-site regional oil-fired power plants located within an 18.5-kilometer (10-mile) radius of KSC. Both plants are now utilizing natural gas. The Florida Power and Light Cape Canaveral Clean Energy Center is an advanced combined-cycle, natural gas technology capable; it is 98% efficient, provides about 1250 megawatts of power, uses approximately 33% less fuel per megawatt of power generated, and improves the rate of carbon dioxide emissions at the plant by 50% (Florida Power and Light 2010). The Orlando Utilities Commission Indian River Plant is utilized only when needed to meet high demand. Ambient air quality is monitored by the Permanent Air Monitoring System (PAMS) station located north of the KSC Industrial Area. The PAMS station continuously monitors concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone, as well as meteorological data. The refuge is located within an area classified as attainment with respect to the NAAQS established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Florida Department of Environmental Protection for all criteria pollutants (NASA 2010). Total inhalable 10-micron particulates (PM-10) were monitored historically (1983 – 1989, 1992 – 1999) at the PAMS station and two other sites on KSC; during those times, there was only one exceedance in PM-10; this occurred during the ground clearing for the Space Station Processing Facility (Dreese 2006). REFUGE INFRASTRUCTURE Approximately 2,100 acres of the refuge are non-vegetative developed areas, including KSC facilities and infrastructure. Over 700 facilities and 211 miles of roads are operated by KSC in or around the refuge. There are 16 structures operated and used by the Service. These structures are located on or near Playalinda Beach Road [old State Road (SR) 402] in Titusville, FL. The refuge maintains approximately nine miles of hiking trails near the vicinity of the visitor center and refuge headquarters. One railroad crosses the refuge north of Playalinda Beach Road (old SR 402), turning south at the east shore of the Island. The proposed CCEC would be located near the refuge’s existing visitor center, boardwalk, roadways, and parking areas, approximately ½ mile from the refuge’s headquarters, maintenance facilities, and fire support buildings. Onsite wells and septic tanks serve the current visitor center. NASA maintains telephone, fax, electric and computer communication lines to refuge facilities. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological resources include vegetation, wildlife, and the habitats in which they live. The area is encompassed within the Indian River Lagoon watershed, considered to be the most diverse estuarine system in North America. The refuge is bordered on the west by the Indian River Lagoon, on the southeast by the Banana River, and on the north by the Mosquito Lagoon. Further to the west of Merritt Island NWR lies the St. Johns River Basin ecosystem, one of the largest freshwater marsh systems in the state. The refuge’s proximity to the coast encourages an abundance of migratory birds. All of these factors combined contribute to the exceptional species diversity found on the refuge (Breininger et al. 1994). NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND PLANTS


Scrub and pine flatwoods are the dominant plant communities on the refuge (Provancha et al. 1986). Long, narrow freshwater marshes are interspersed among the bands of uplands. Forests occur on higher areas among marshes and lower areas among scrub and pine flatwoods (Breininger et al. 1994). Vegetation and land cover types include estuary, non-forested saltwater, non-forested freshwater, forests, upland scrub, beach and dune, and citrus groves. A preliminary report (Stantec 2016) described dominant vegetation, habitats and land uses within the proposed CCEC construction area. A portion of the project site is characterized by palmetto prairie, dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). A few live oaks (Quercus virginiana) occur in the subcanopy and canopy of the proposed construction site. Other shrubs occurring included saltbush (Baccharis glomeruliflora), winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), as well as invasive, exotic Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia). There are two vegetated non-forested wetlands immediately adjacent to the live oak habitat referenced above. These wetlands were impacted by construction of roads and storm water retention causing a transition from upland to wetland habitat. Ground cover and shrub strata are dominated by royal fern (Osmunda regalis), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), elderberry (Sambucus nigra canadensis), and swamp fern (Telmatoblechnum serrulatum). The site of the Munson-Lee home site consists of large live oaks with an understory of saw palmetto. Non-native plant species include ornamental palms and bamboo. Invasive air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) covers much of the area, including trees and some structures. A site visit in January 2010 noted a considerable amount of orange and tangerine trees near the house, with the north, south, and west of the home site consisting primarily of live oak, long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris) and saw palmetto, with the far eastern portion of the property transitioning to saltmarsh. WILDLIFE Merritt Island NWR supports a high diversity of fish and wildlife species. The estuarine waters of the refuge support a wide variety of resident and migratory birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The estuary also provides important habitat to marine mammals, including Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and West Indian manatees, as well as marine reptiles. Upland and freshwater wetland areas provide additional habitats to support a variety of species. The Service manages refuge resources and coordinates with neighboring land managers and agencies to conserve biological diversity. The refuge also serves as an important site for the recovery of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. The number of state or federally listed threatened or endangered species that regularly occur on the refuge totals 57. Of these, 16 animal species are federally listed as candidate, threatened or endangered. An additional 10 animal species are state listed as threatened. (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2018.) LISTED SPECIES Fifteen federally listed animal species have been documented on Merritt Island NWR. Five of these are only incidentally present and do not make important contributions to the area's biota: hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata; endangered), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii; endangered), Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii; threatened), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii; threatened) and piping plover (Charadrius melodus; threatened). Management for other species also benefits these species. The


American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis; threatened by similarity of appearance) was once on the brink of extinction, but recovery efforts enabled populations throughout its range to rebound strongly. They are plentiful on the refuge and can sometimes become a nuisance. However, because the alligator is similar in appearance to another listed species, the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus; threatened), it remains on the federally protected list. The 11 remaining listed species are actively managed on the refuge. Three of these are sea turtles: loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta; threatened), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas; threatened), and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea; endangered). Two are snakes: eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi; threatened) and Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia clarkii taeniata; threatened). And three are birds: wood stork (threatened) rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa; threatened) and Florida scrub-jay (threatened). Finally, two are mammals: southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris; threatened) and the West Indian manatee (threatened). The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act and is listed by the state as threatened. There are no federally listed plants known to occur on the refuge. However, 31 plant species are listed by the state as threatened or endangered as outlined in 5B-40.0055, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). An additional six plant species are listed by the state as commercially exploited by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The proposed CCEC site could provide low quality habitat for very limited numbers of federally listed species, most of which simply move through the site, including Florida scrub-jay, wood stork, bald eagle (no longer listed, but protected by Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act), gopher tortoise, and eastern indigo snake. The site proposed for the new facility is not known to support key nesting, foraging, or resting needs for any state or federally listed species. The site of the Munson-Lee house could provide low quality habitat for very limited numbers of federally listed species, most of which simply move through the area around the site, including, wood stork, bald eagle, gopher tortoise, and eastern indigo snake. The site of the Munson-Lee house is not known to support key nesting, foraging, or resting needs for any state or federally listed species. HERPETOFAUNA Fifty species of reptiles and 19 species of amphibians have been documented as occurring on Merritt Island NWR (Seigel et al. 2002). Six of these species are federally protected as threatened or endangered, including three species of sea turtles that nest along the coastline during the summer months. Three additional species are also listed by the state: the gopher tortoise is listed as threatened and the Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) and gopher frog (Lithobates capito) are listed as Species of Special Concern. The Florida gopher frog and Florida pine snake are uncommon on the refuge and little is known about their numbers or distribution. Conversely, the gopher tortoise is common, wide-spread, and well-studied on the refuge. The gopher tortoise inhabits uplands where it excavates burrows for shelter from weather, climate, predators, and fire. Many other vertebrate and invertebrate species also use tortoise burrows, and, for this reason, the tortoise is considered a keystone species. Terrestrial herpetological species have been studied on the refuge since the 1970s. Long-term monitoring has provided considerable existing data on the biodiversity of these species on the refuge (Seigel and Pike 2003), which will be invaluable to detect long-term changes in the refuge’s herpetofauna. Reptiles and amphibians are key components of refuge ecosystems.


The biomass of reptiles and amphibians may exceed that of all other vertebrates in aquatic and terrestrial systems (Seigel and Seigel 2000). The ecological distribution of reptiles and amphibians on Merritt Island NWR is a function of available habitat, which mostly reflects wetland, freshwater communities. However, several species are specific to and use terrestrial habitats and certainly are linked to the coastal ridge and swale topography on the refuge. Exotic species of herpetofauna are becoming potential threats to the refuge. Presently on the refuge, the brown anole (Anolis sagrei) may be displacing native species (Campbell 2000, Campbell and Echternacht 2002). The Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionalis), which consumes smaller species, has been positively identified on the refuge. The proposed construction site provides some habitat for several herpetological species. Gopher tortoise scat has been found within the site and tortoises are regularly seen within ¼ mile. Freshwater turtles and American alligators utilize adjacent borrow pits and ditches. Seasonally inundated wetlands provide breeding habitat for various amphibian species. Although use of the Munson-Lee site by herpetological species has not been studied, expected species would be limited to common species associated with human habitation. BIRDS Avian species are a highly important refuge resource. To date, over 300 bird species (both resident and transient) have been identified utilizing the refuge for nesting, roosting, feeding, or loafing. This includes six bird species which are federally listed as threatened or endangered (i.e., Audubon’s crested caracara, red knot, Florida scrub-jay, piping plover, roseate tern, and wood stork), 42 species federally listed as Birds of Conservation Concern, nine species listed as state threatened. Of the six species federally listed as threatened or endangered, three species regularly depend on the habitat provided by the refuge: rufa red knot, Florida scrub-jay, and wood stork. Additionally, black rails (Laterallus jamaicencis) are proposed for listing and are managed as a threatened species on the refuge. In addition to serving as important habitat for threatened and endangered species, the refuge supports a wide variety of other resident and migratory bird species. Waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds (i.e., song birds or passerines) all depend on the diverse habitats offered by the refuge. There are over 100 species that reside in the area during the winter. The remaining species regularly use refuge lands and waters for brief periods of time, usually during migration. The refuge is within the Atlantic flyway, a major migratory bird corridor that extends from the Arctic coast of Greenland to the mainland of South America. The wading bird population on the refuge is very large; it is estimated that between 5,000 and 15,000 birds are present at any given time, depending on the season (Stolen et al. 2012, Smith and Breininger 1995). The site proposed for the proposed facility is utilized by wading bird species (including wood storks), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and numerous neotropical migratory birds. The site does provide nesting, foraging, or resting needs to some of these species. Species expected to be using the Munson-Lee site would be limited to common species associated with human habitation. MAMMALS The mammalian fauna of the refuge is characteristic of the central Florida coastal barrier ecosystem. Thirty mammal species are known to occur on the refuge, including two marine mammals (West Indian manatee and Atlantic bottlenose dolphin) which frequent lagoon and


offshore waters. Typical terrestrial species include the opossum (Didelphis virginiana), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans). Due to the regional loss of large carnivores such as the Florida panther and red wolf, the coyote and bobcat now hold the position of top mammalian predators on the refuge. Several bat species inhabit the refuge, which occasionally use man-made structures as roosts and need to be excluded from those structures. The refuge provides important habitat to two federally listed species, the West Indian manatee (federally listed as threatened), and the southeastern beach mouse (federally listed as threatened). Refuge waters serve primarily as a safe harbor and seagrass feeding site for an average of 300 West Indian manatees year-round and may host a peak population of over 600 individuals during months with warm water temperatures. Over a third of Florida’s manatee population is found in the Indian River Lagoon system (FWC FWRI Manatee Synoptic Surveys 2011). The federally threatened southeastern beach mouse is a subspecies of the old field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) that inhabits the sand dunes and adjoining scrub along the Atlantic coastline. Extensive coastal development has resulted in the loss of coastal dunes and fragmentation of nearly all beach mouse habitats in Florida. The refuge provides habitat and protection to one of the last remaining core populations of this species. The site proposed for the new facility is known to be occasionally utilized by bobcats, raccoons, opossums, rats and mice. However, the site is not known to provide key nesting, foraging, or resting needs to these species. Species expected to be using the Munson-Lee site would be limited to common species associated with human habitation. FISH Over 140 freshwater and saltwater fish species are known to utilize refuge estuarine areas, impoundments, and freshwater wetlands. Of the fish species known to occur in refuge waters, none is currently federally or state listed. Fish species within the refuge are important not only to commercial and recreational interests, but also to the ecology of the area. The refuge protects important fish habitats, such as fish spawning and fish settlement sites, ensuring healthy, sustainable fish populations. The open water estuary habitat of the Indian River Lagoon is one of the most renowned sport fishing sites in the world. This system is essential to several interjurisdictional and economically important fish species, including snook (Centropomus spp.), tarpon (Megalops atlanticus), redfish (Sciaenops ocellatus) black drum (Pogonias cromis), spotted sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosus), and striped mullet (Mugil cephalis). Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate; endangered) have recently been observed near the refuge, but would not be affected by the proposed project. The site of the proposed CCEC includes small areas of low quality wetlands which may provide habitat for small fish on a seasonal basis. The adjacent large borrow pits provide habitat for a variety of freshwater fish. The Munson-Lee site is an upland site with no wetlands or permanent water bodies, and consequently devoid of fish.


INVERTEBRATES A wide variety of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial invertebrates are found within the refuge’s boundary. While some research has been conducted regarding benthic macro-invertebrates inhabiting the open estuary and select impoundments, no systematic survey has been performed for freshwater or terrestrial invertebrates of the refuge. Studies of terrestrial invertebrates have been limited to research aimed at controlling salt marsh mosquitoes (Ochlerotatus taeniorhynchus and Ochlerotatus sollicitans). Little is known about any invertebrates using the site proposed for the proposed CCEC or the Munson-Lee site. No listed invertebrate species are known or expected to occur on the refuge. Neither site is anticipated to serve key habitat needs for invertebrates. EXOTIC, INVASIVE, AND NUISANCE SPECIES The occurrence and spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance plant and animal species have been identified by Service staff and intergovernmental partners as one of the priority management issues facing Merritt Island NWR. Further, nuisance native animal species are also known to have negative impacts on threatened and endangered species and on human safety. Although numerous exotic, invasive, and nuisance species occur on the refuge, 25 have been prioritized by the refuge staff. Invasive species can have negative impacts to natural plant diversity and to wildlife habitat. Invasive species can also have negative economic and public health and safety impacts. Although a lot of exotic plant control activities have been conducted on the refuge, no comprehensive survey of exotic plants has been conducted on the refuge. The refuge currently receives funding for invasive plant control from the USFWS Invasive Species Strike Team and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Upland Invasive Plant Management Program. There are three non-native plant communities on the refuge, including citrus groves (Citrus spp.), Brazilian pepper, and Australian pine (Casaurina equisetifolia). Before the federal acquisition of lands which were to become the refuge, citrus groves were common. Over the years, all of these groves were abandoned, and allowed to go fallow. These fallow groves no longer contain citrus trees, but instead are now rank with invasive exotics. Many disturbed areas, including abandoned home sites and agricultural areas, unmaintained dikes, and abandoned NASA installations, have been invaded by Brazilian pepper and other exotics. These stands are dense, almost impenetrable thickets. There is little in the way of ground vegetation in Brazilian pepper dominated areas. Australian pine was historically planted around the citrus groves and home sites as wind breaks. Today these dense stands of Australian pine have little, if any, understory. The ground cover is almost exclusively needles and other debris from the Australian pine trees. Invasive animals can also cause negative natural resource impacts through direct mortality to native wildlife and by competition with native wildlife for food resources. Two invasive mammal species are known to occur on the refuge: feral hogs and feral house cats. Hogs are an invasive species which are present in large numbers in all upland and marsh habitats. Hogs cause extensive habitat damage and the Service suspects that they also negatively impact wildlife by direct mortality and through competition for food. Hogs are also a safety hazard due to impacts with vehicles. They cause economic damage through vehicle collisions and through destruction of landscaped areas and road shoulders by rooting. Estimates of the hog population on the refuge have varied from 5,000 to 12,000. Current control efforts include trapping by permittees and shooting by refuge staff, removing approximately 2,500 hogs from the refuge


each year. The number of feral house cats occurring on the refuge is small and is usually associated with refuge and NASA facilities. It is assumed that all feral house cats occurring on the refuge are released by the public, and some are subsequently fed by the public. Raccoons are the primary nuisance, native wildlife species on the refuge. Raccoons are predators on the nests of sea turtles. The refuge operates a program to control raccoon numbers on the refuge’s nesting beach to reduce the level of depredation on sea turtle nests. Other native nuisance wildlife species include birds, alligators, and other species which impact Space Program operations at KSC. Refuge staff respond to KSC calls regarding nuisance wildlife and deal with the animal using the least intrusive method available. The infestation of invasive plants and feral hogs is extensive on the refuge and without control efforts the level of infestation is anticipated to continue to increase resulting in even greater impacts to refuge habitats and wildlife populations. The site proposed for the new facility is known to be used by feral hogs. Brazilian pepper trees are found within the project site. Cuban tree frogs and brown anoles are also common. Occasionally, feral house cats have illegally been released near the existing visitor center. The extent of invasive and nuisance plants and animals is unknown for the Munson-Lee site; the site is likely to have species associated with human habitation. CULTURAL RESOURCES The body of federal historic preservation laws has grown dramatically since the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Several themes recur in these laws, their promulgating regulations, and more recent Executive Orders. They include:

1) each agency is to systematically inventory the historic properties on their holdings and to scientifically assess each property’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places;

2) federal agencies are to consider the impacts to cultural resources during the agencies’ management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts;

3) the protection of cultural resources from looting and vandalism are to be accomplished through a mix of informed management, law enforcement efforts, and public education; and

4) the increasing role of consultation with groups, such as Native American Tribes, in addressing how a project or management activity may impact specific archaeological sites and landscapes deemed important to those groups.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as are other federal agencies, is legally mandated to inventory, assess, and protect cultural resources located on those lands that the agency owns, manages, or controls. The Service’s cultural resource policy is delineated in 614 FW 1-5 and 126 FW 1-3. In the FWS’s Southeast Region, the cultural resource review and compliance process is initiated by contacting the Regional Historic Preservation Officer/Regional Archaeologist (RHPO/RA). The RHPO/RA will determine whether the proposed undertaking has the potential to impact cultural resources, identify the “area of potential effect,” determine the appropriate level of scientific investigation necessary to ensure legal compliance, and initiates consultation with the pertinent State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and federally recognized Native American Tribes.


Of the 100 known archaeological sites of the refuge, five are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and 23 sites are considered eligible for listing (Deming et al. 2001). Archaeologists say Merritt Island was occupied by seven distinct Native American cultures dating back 6,000 years, including early hunter-gatherer groups, which left behind numerous cultural sites. As of 1998, 116 temporal/cultural components were identified on the known 100 archaeological sites, with 78% being prehistoric (including artifact scatters, shell middens, middens, burial mounds, lithic scatters, and single artifact occurrences) and 22% being historic, including 15 refuse deposits, six cemeteries, a fort, canal, saltworks, homestead/grove, and sugar mill ruins (Deming et al. 2001). In addition, a variety of NASA facilities at KSC are historically significant, since they represent America’s first ventures into space and America’s first spaceport. Ten of these historic facilities are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Deming et al. 2001). No known cultural resources exist on site of the proposed CCEC or on the site of the Munson-Lee house (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017a and 2017b). SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT The refuge’s 2006 EA for the draft CCP (FWS 2006) outlined socioeconomic conditions and history on pages 45-50, which are incorporated herein by reference. This EA will focus on changes since that time. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION By 2016, Florida’s population had surpassed 20 million (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2016). The projected population of the State of Florida is expected to increase to over 24 million by 2040 [Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) 2017]. Table 1 compares the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census population figures and the 2060 population estimates for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida, showing continuing growth for all listed (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2001; U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012; Zwick and Carr 2006, BEBR 2017). All are expected to continue to grow. Demographic data from the 2010 Census show that compared to the State of Florida, the City of Titusville, Brevard County, and Volusia County have higher percentages of the population over the age of 62, have higher median ages, have higher percentages of the population identified as white, have fewer percentages of the population identified as black or African American, and have fewer percentages of the population also identified as Hispanic or Latino (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012; see Appendix C for tabular data).


Table 1. Comparison of 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census population figures and 2060 population estimates for Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida

2000 Population*

2010 Population+

2020 Population Estimate°

2040 Population Estimate°

2060 Population Estimate^

City of Titusville 40,670 43,761 Not Available Not Available Not Available Brevard County 476,230 543,376 572,500 597,700 1,009,108 Volusia County 443,343 494,593 519,300 544,500 943,513 State of Florida 15,982,378 18,801,310 20,838,000 24,177,300 35,814,574

* U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2001 + U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012 ^ Zwick and Carr 2006 ° BEBR 2017 Employment, income, and poverty level data from the 2010 Census for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida show that Brevard County has the lowest percentage of people living below the proverty level and highest per capita median household incomes compared to the City of Titusville, Volusia County, and the State of Florida. (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012; see Appendix C for tabular data). Occupation categories from the 2010 Census for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida show that the top three occupation categories accounting for at least 78% of all occupation for all four areas as: (1) management, business, science, and arts occupations; (2) sales and office occupations; and (3) service occupations (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012; see Appendix C for tabular data). Industry data from the 2010 Census for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida show that the top two industry categories accounting for at least a third of all industry for all four areas as: (1) educational services, and health care and social assistance and (2) retail trade (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012; see Appendix C for tabular data). NATIONAL SURVEY OF FISHING, HUNTING, AND WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION The data for Florida showed that wildlife viewing has emerged as an important economic value to the State of Florida, generating an estimated $3.1 billion in Florida. Wildlife watchers in Florida over a five-year period (2006-2011) had increased by 78,000, while sportsmen only increased by 64,000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). The 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation shows that 103 million Americans,16 years and older, participated in wildlife-related recreation. The total national expenditures by hunters, anglers, and other wildlife recreationists in 2016 was $156.9 billion. In 2016, over 39.6 million people hunted and/or fished, spending over $81 billion. In 2016, 86 million people participated in wildlife watching, spending $75.9 billion (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 2018) (See the Visitor Services section under Refuge Administration and Management for more information regarding visitor use of Merritt Island NWR, which was 1.6 million in fiscal year 2018.)


ECOTOURISM In 2018, the State of Florida hosted over 126 million visitors (Visit Florida 2019). Tourism is an important part of Florida’s economy, contributing $111.7 billion in revenue in 2016, and employing over 1.4 million Floridians, making tourism the top industry in the state (Visit Florida 2019). In 2011, state residents and nonresidents spent $9 billion on wildlife recreation in Florida; of that total, trip-related expenditures were $4.8 billion and equipment purchases totaled $2.7 billion. The remaining $1.5 billion was spent on licenses, contributions, land ownership and leasing, and other items (U.S Fish & Wildlife Service 2012). According to a University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences compilation of county data, in 2010 for Brevard County, nature-based recreation accounted for 192 part-time jobs and 335 full-time jobs with $13.83 million in direct outputs, $29.58 million in total output impacts, $9.16 million in direct value added, and $19.45 million in total value added to the Brevard County economy. (Hodges 2012). The annual Space Coast Birding and Wildlife Festival is based in Titusville, FL. Many of the Festival’s activities and trips include the refuge. According to Festival organizer Barb Eager, in 2017, the six-day festival drew nearly 1,000 participants from 40 states and 10 countries. An estimated 87% of registered attendees came from outside Brevard County; of this 87%, 40% came from other Florida counties, while 47% came from other states or countries. The economic impact to Brevard County was estimated to be $841,651. Canaveral National Seashore received 1,629,944 visitors in 2016; it spent $104,943,600, creating 1,551 jobs, of which only 73 are at Canaveral National Seashore itself (National Park Service 2016 Visitor Use Survey). The only access point to Canaveral National Seashore’s Playalinda Beach District is through Merritt Island NWR. The Playalinda Beach District’s annual visitation is over 1.2 million. Canaveral National Seashore and the refuge share many of the same visitors. More than 53.6 million visits were made to national wildlife refuges in 2017, which had an economic impact of $3.2 billion on local communities and supported more than 41,000 jobs. (Carver and Caudill 2019). The economic area for the refuge is Brevard, Orange, and Volusia Counties in Florida. It is assumed that visitor expenditures occur primarily within these counties. Visitor recreation expenditures for 2011 were $39.1 million with non-residents accounting for $32.1 million or 82% of total expenditures. Expenditures on non-consumptive activities accounted for 79% of all expenditures. Final demand totaled $60.4 million with associated employment of 466 jobs, $18.1 million in employment income and $7.5 million in total tax revenue. At Merritt Island NWR in 2011, every $1 of budget expenditures is associated with $17.61 of total economic effects (Carver and Caudill 2013). REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION The Service manages 130,000 acres as Merritt Island NWR. Although the vast majority of the lands and waters of the refuge are managed under an agreement with NASA, the Service also manages lands and waters through agreements with the State of Florida and the Service owns nearly 1,000 acres in the Turnbull Creek area on the mainland side of the Indian River Lagoon.


Since the refuge is an overlay refuge, it has complex jurisdictional issues which are addressed in the agreement with NASA and in the establishing legislation for Canaveral National Seashore (much of which overlays the refuge and KSC). The immediate area includes the military mission of the adjacent Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the space mission of KSC, the refuge’s purposes, and the purposes of Canaveral National Seashore. VISITOR SERVICES The purpose of the Visitor Services program is to foster an understanding and instill appreciation of the fish, wildlife, and plants and their conservation by providing the public with safe, high quality, appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs and activities. In 1997, Congress passed the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) which provided that, on national wildlife refuges, wildlife comes first. The 1997 Improvement Act also identified six wildlife-dependent public use activities that should be facilitated on NWRs; these uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation. The refuge’s Visitor Services Plan (FWS 2008b) was prepared upon these guidelines. Between the VSP and the refuge’s CCP (FWS 2008a), all public use activities and programs on the refuge would be in compliance with national guidelines and would insure all visitor activities are compatible with the refuge’s overarching wildlife mission and purposes. To provide opportunities to see the widest variety of wildlife, a system of trails and viewing facilities has been established on the refuge; Figure 7 provides an overview of existing public use facilities on the refuge. Visitor facilities within or adjacent to planning study area include: Oak Hammock Trail, Palm Hammock Trail, Visitor Information Center, West Gator Creek Road, East Gator Creek Road, Catfish Creek Road, Peacock’s Pocket Road, and Timberline Dike. The Merritt Island NWR is considered one of the flagship refuges in the Southeast and received more than 1.6 million visitors in fiscal year 2018. More than 300,000 annually visit Black Point Wildlife Drive or one of the other trails designed to provide rewarding and diverse wildlife viewing experiences. Wildlife photography supported more than 700,000 visits to the refuge in 2018. Annually, approximately 3,900 children participate in the refuge’s environmental education programs and more than 3,600 in the refuge’s interpretive programs. The refuge’s Visitor Information Center received more than 80,000 visits in 2018. The refuge also protects some of the best estuarine flats fishing in east central Florida, with roughly 600,000 anglers annually plying the shallow lagoon waters in search of trophy redfish and seatrout. The refuge is also open seasonally to waterfowl hunting and archery deer and hog hunting, supporting 4,000 annual hunting visits. Nearly the entire southern half of the refuge is closed to public entry (under the KSC security area). The northern half of the refuge [north of Playalinda Beach Road (old SR 402)] is open to the public. Three major roads pass through the refuge: Playalinda Beach Road (old SR 402), Titusville Road (old SR 406 in the triangle), and Kennedy Parkway (North and South) (old SR 3). Playalinda Beach Road is the main access point to the refuge and Canaveral National Seashore for most visitors. The only other access point to the refuge is from the north (Kennedy Parkway North). These three roads form a triangle. By containing most visitor facilities within this primary public use zone, visitor impacts are concentrated and disturbance to wildlife is minimized outside of this area. Figure 7. Visitor Facilities of Merritt Island NWR


Wildlife observation is one of the most popular activities on the refuge. In a visitor use survey conducted at the refuge in 2010, the top three activities reported were: wildlife observation (78%), bird watching (66%), and auto tour route/driving (60%) (Sexton et al. 2012). From November to March, the refuge’s Visitor Information Center is open seven days a week from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. From April through October it is open Monday through Saturday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE The refuge serves as the headquarters for a complex of three NWRs: Merritt Island NWR, St. Johns NWR, and Lake Woodruff NWR. Twenty employees are currently assigned to the headquarters while two employees are stationed at Lake Woodruff NWR in DeLeon Springs, FL. St. Johns NWR is unstaffed. The current staff consists of managers, biologists, firefighters, law enforcement officers, maintenance workers, administration staff, and visitor services personnel. Nearly 20% of the 20 positions are assigned to the refuge’s fire management program. These individuals are responsible for wildfire suppression and hazardous fuel reduction (prescribed burning and mechanical vegetation removal) on the Merritt Island NWR Complex and assist with twenty-one additional NWRs located throughout east central and south Florida and the Caribbean. They also assist other refuge programs when needed (e.g., maintenance and invasive plant control). One full-time Federal Wildlife Officer (FWO) and a shared FWO from Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex patrol the three NWRs in the Merritt Island NWR Complex and four additional NWRs in the Everglades Headwaters NWR Complex. The biological staff is responsible for habitat management, wildlife inventory and monitoring, invasive species control, and research on the Merritt Island NWR Complex. The maintenance staff is responsible for maintaining approximately 100 miles of roads, 16 buildings and structures, 165 miles of levees, over 400 water control structures on Merritt Island NWR, and additional roads and facilities at Lake Woodruff NWR. Administration and management staff provide planning, support, and implementation oversight on refuge projects, budgets, and personnel issues on the Merritt Island NWR Complex. Visitor services staff manage the refuge’s public use programs at Merritt Island and Lake Woodruff NWRs. Their responsibilities include managing refuge volunteers, public outreach and education, refuge fee program, and special use permits and visitor facility operations and maintenance to support the 1.6 million annual visitors to Merritt Island NWR and the over 180,000 annual visitors to Lake Woodruff NWR.


Chapter III. Description of Alternatives FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives are different approaches to the proposal. Alternatives are formulated to address the priority issues, concerns, and problems identified. Two alternatives (the No Action Alternative and one action alternative) were analyzed for the proposed CCEC: No Action Alternative (Continue Current Management) and Proposed Action (Develop Community Conservation Education Center). Separate from this EA, the Service is also working with partners to consider water utility improvements that could address the Merritt Island NWR Headquarters, Biology, Fire, and Maintenance area; the Bunkhouse area; and the Visitor Center area, including the proposed CCEC. Any related federal water utility improvements would be analyzed in a separate National Environmental Policy Act environmental analysis and decision-making process. Also separate from this EA, the FWS and the National Park Service are co-lead agencies, with NASA serving as a cooperating agency and Florida Department of Transportation acting as a close partner, on an EA for the proposed Space Coast Trail, a 30-mile trail system that is a key part of Florida’s Coast-to-Coast Trail and River-to-Sea Loop Trail. The proposed CCEC would serve as the east coast welcome center and a trailhead for the Space Coast Trail. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED, BUT DISCARDED Multiple alternatives were considered, but discarded due to their inability to meet the previously stated purpose and need. In November 2014, a planning charrette was conducted with Service staff and Liollio Architecture to investigate and evaluate the optimal building and site concepts of the proposed future visitor center. Three sites in the vicinity of the current visitor center were evaluated. All considered sites were within the vicinity of the current visitor center to facilitate access to existing infrastructure to minimize costs. One site was accepted and two were discarded. The discarded sites included one located east of the current visitor center’s employee parking lot, overlooking the marsh to the south. This site was discarded because it did not meet the purpose and need, including unacceptable wetland impacts, associated costs, and concerns for pedestrian safety due to lack of adjacent visitor parking. The second site considered was located 320 feet northwest of the current visitor center, adjacent to the east side of the entrance road. This site was discarded because it did not meet the purpose and need, including that it would be located between the parking lot and road with limited outdoor views of natural areas and wildlife and that it lacked easy and safe access to the existing boardwalk. Another alternative was considered, but discarded that kept the existing visitor center and added a nearby environmental education building. This alternative was discarded because it did not meet the purpose and need, including fiscal responsibility due to the high costs associated with the long-term and ongoing repair and maintenance needs associated with the existing visitor center, health and safety concerns associated with the existing visitor center, and the limited ability for the existing facility to serve as a community hub.


DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT) Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and its implementing regulations, the Service is required to consider the No Action Alternative [see 40 CFR §1502.14(d)]. The No Action Alternative would continue current management. Under the No Action Alternative, management for the existing visitor center facility would continue; no action would be taken to construct the proposed CCEC facility. Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would continue operating the existing 5,200 square foot visitor center (with approximately 2,500 square feet of public space) that was constructed in 1985 (Figure 8). Visitor services staff, volunteers, and MIWA would continue to share office and storage space (2,724 square feet). The building would not be modified with the footprint remaining the same. The sales area (312 square feet), exhibits space (784 square feet) and 45-seat auditorium (841 square feet) would remain the same. Staff parking would remain at nine spaces with visitor parking remaining at approximately 45 spaces, with additional overflow parking available on the entrance and side roads and at the Headquarters/Shop area. Annual visitation to the refuge is 1.6 million, with visitation to the existing visitor center averaging 80,000 per year. Peak visitor center visitation (500-800 visitors per day) occurs during November-April. Currently, 3,000 students participate in on-site environmental education programs annually. During festivals and special events, peak visitation exceeds 800 persons per day. Given the long-term trends in visitation, these numbers would be expected to increase over time. Under the No Action Alternative, during peak visitation, the existing visitor center would be crowded, overwhelming the exhibit area, information desk, auditorium, programs, restrooms, and septic system. Long lines would block the entrance to the nature store and the exit to the boardwalk trail. Inside programs would continue to be limited to the seating availability in the auditorium. Designated parking for employees and the public, including the gravel overflow parking area, would remain unchanged from current capacity. The Service would employ a variety of tools to address overcrowding issues during the high visitation season (November-April) and special events. Portable chemical toilets would be rented and located in the parking area. At least one would be located adjacent to the parking area during the remainder of the year. To ease overcrowding inside the existing visitor center, Service volunteers would be staged outside the building to answer questions and/or provide information on additional activities within the visitor center area and refuge. Additional kiosks and signage would be available when volunteers and/or employees are not available. The Service has addressed numerous concerns with the existing visitor center to date: mold remediation, water treatment pump and septic capacity; however, to continue to operate the existing visitor center, upgrades would be needed for the water and septic systems, building insulation, existing exhibits, worn carpeting, and other interior finishes. The structurally unsound roof would need to be replaced. In 2013, the estimated costs to conduct the needed repairs was estimated to be over $750,000. Ongoing maintenance costs would be expected to be higher than a new or upgraded facility. Further, under the No Action Alternative, the Service would demolish the Munson-Lee house in accordance with the recommendation following the April 2013 inspection.


Figure 8. Image of Existing Visitor Center, Merritt Island NWR

PROPOSED ACTION (DEVELOP COMMUNITY CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTER) The Proposed Action would construct the proposed CCEC to meet the Service’s needs and also serve the conservation education needs of the local community. The new facility would be designed with the community in mind. The goal is to create a welcoming space where new audiences can be introduced to the refuge and the opportunities that it provides for wildlife dependent recreation as well as its significant role in providing wildlife habitat. The facility will be a stepping-stone to broader engagement with visitors. It will be the front door of the Service on the Space Coast. Under the Proposed Action, the proposed 8,100-square foot CCEC facility would be constructed within the 7.7-acre project area, adjacent to the current visitor center’s overflow parking area (figures 2 and 3). The proposed site is owned by NASA and managed under an agreement with the Service as Merritt Island NWR, in Brevard County, Florida. Based on current plans, it is not expected that the construction of the new CCEC facility and associated parking areas would impact more than ½ acre of wetlands, and therefore would not trigger the need for wetland mitigation. The existing visitor center would be removed once construction of the proposed CCEC was completed. Demolition and removal of the existing visitor center should not create any wetland impacts so long as best management practices (e.g. deployment of silt fencing and turbidity barriers) are utilized. Building materials from demolition would be recycled when possible. Because the proposed CCEC would be larger than the existing visitor center, another structure on the refuge, the Munson-Lee house, would also be demolished in order to maintain a no net gain in facility square footage on the refuge. The comprehensive condition assessment conducted in April 2013 indicated that the Munson-Lee house was in irreparable condition.


The proposed CCEC would serve as a coastal nature and conservation education center and include a visitor contact area, exhibit hall, nature store, public restroom, auditorium, classroom, storage/mechanical space and outdoor play scape as well as offices and work space for three full-time visitor services staff (Supervisory Refuge Ranger, Volunteer Coordinator, Fee/Permit Coordinator), a National Park Service employee and volunteers and interns who would support the visitor services program. The facility would welcome and orient visitors, interpret refuge resources and management strategies, educate visitors about local natural and cultural history, connect visitors with local community and refuge recreational opportunities and provide meeting and classroom space for conservation organizations, partnering agencies, local schools and youth groups such as Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, home schooled students, and master naturalists. The classroom and/or auditorium would also be used to conduct classes such as boater and hunter safety classes. The CCEC would be located off of the Indian River Lagoon Scenic Byway. The facility would also serve as a trailhead for the proposed 30-mile Space Coast Trail. Twelve exhibits would be constructed to interpret natural and cultural history, refuge purposes, management activities, and local wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. A concept plan for the proposed exhibits was completed in 2016. Construction and installation of the exhibits would cost approximately $750,000. The refuge’s friends group, the Merritt Island Wildlife Association (MIWA), entered into a fundraising agreement with the Service in 2018 to conduct a capital campaign for exhibits, audiovisual equipment for the auditorium and classroom, guest Wi-Fi and furnishings for retail space. To date, MIWA has secured approximately $300,000 in donations and a $500,000 reimbursable grant from the Brevard Tourist Development Council. The Service was awarded a reimbursable grant for $375,000 from the Florida Inland Navigation District to fund exhibits related to the Indian River Lagoon. Approximately 80,000 people visit the existing visitor center annually. Based on documented similar increases on other NWRs, the number would be expected to increase by 50% in the first year of operation of the proposed CCEC and maintain a sustained 30% increase in subsequent years. The MIWA would operate a nature store and maintain offices and storage space within the proposed CCEC. The proposed 400-square foot retail area would be fully accessible to all refuge visitors. Parking areas would be expanded to accommodate current and projected visitation increases. A total of 70 parking spaces would be included in the Proposed Action, as well as a transportation hub for tour buses and a trailhead to access the proposed Space Coast Trail. Conceptual drawings for the proposed CCEC are provided in figures 9, 10, and 11. The current estimated cost for the proposed building construction would be $4.2 million. Federal funding for the new facility would be phased over two-three years. To align with the phased funding, construction of the proposed facility may be phased. The option to build in phases would be taken into consideration during planning and design of the proposed facility. Additional funding for parking and road infrastructure would be provided by the Service.


Figure 9. Concept Design, East and West Elevation for the Proposed Community Conservation Education Center, Merritt Island NWR

____________________________________________________________________________ Figure 10. Concept Design, North and South Elevation for the Proposed Community Conservation Education Center, Merritt Island NWR


Figure 11. Proposed Floorplans for the Proposed Community Conservation Education Center, Merritt Island NWR Exhibits and visitor contact area,

Environmental Education and Community Space

Staff Offices

Breezeway


Chapter IV. Environmental Consequences OVERVIEW This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be reasonably expected by the implementation of the alternatives described in Chapter III of this EA. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed. Neither alternative would be expected to have significant beneficial or adverse impacts. EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES A few potential effects would be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. None of the management alternatives described in this EA would disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. Implementation of either alternative would include public use and outreach. These activities have potential to provide a benefit to those residing in the surrounding communities. CLIMATE CHANGE The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long-range planning endeavors. The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive planning for national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon emissions and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The


conclusions of the Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. None of the alternatives would impact global climate change, sea level rise, or carbon sequestration. The proposed project would have minimal impact to the surrounding natural habitats, which would continue to provide effective carbon sequestration. Potential impacts to wetlands would be minimized. The utilization of xeric native plants in landscaping would conserve water utilization. Minimizing disturbance to natural habitats, restoring and enhancing surrounding natural areas would promote climate resiliency within and around the project site. OTHER MANAGEMENT None of the alternatives would impact other management, including subsurface mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, and historical and archaeological resources (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017a and b). Any management under either alternative that would potentially impact these would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. Given its current state, the Munson-Lee house would be demolished under both alternatives. The removal of the Munson-Lee property would not be anticipated to have any negative impacts. The property is in very poor condition and is beyond reasonable expectation of repair. In its current state it would be unsafe to enter. Its removal would enhance safety on the refuge. LAND ACQUISITION None of the alternatives would impact land acquisition; neither alternative includes the acquisition of land. CULTURAL RESOURCES None of the alternatives would be anticipated to have adverse impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resource surveys were conducted at the proposed CCEC site and the Munson-Lee house in 2017 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017a and 2017b). No intact cultural deposits were observed during the resource survey at the proposed site of the CCEC. Additionally, the survey of the Munson-Lee house and property indicated that removal of the Munson-Lee house would have “no effect” upon the Refuge’s historic properties. REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, 16 USC715s, as amended, authorizes revenues and direct appropriations to be deposited into a special fund, the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, and used for payments to units of local governments where the Service administers lands that the Service has acquired in fee or that have been reserved from the public domain. Because the majority of Merritt Island NWR overlays NASA’s KSC, no payments are required for these lands. The Munson-Lee property is owned fee-title by the Service and payment would continue annually to Volusia County. There would be no change in Revenue Sharing.


OTHER EFFECTS Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible long-term effects on migratory birds, wildlife in general, federally and state listed species, meteorology, air quality, geology, general human health and safety, children, hazardous materials, waste management, and aesthetics and visual resources. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE The following section describes the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge management alternative. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT) Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue at levels and activities similar to the recent past. Health and safety concerns of the existing visitor center would be addressed through repair and maintenance activities. Physical Resources Under the No Action Alternative, no new building or additional parking lots would be constructed. Staff and visitors would continue use of the existing visitor center. Repairs and maintenance would be ongoing, given the condition of and problems with the existing visitor center structure. Health and safety concerns related to the existing visitor center would continue. High visitation would continue to overwhelm the facility, including the restrooms and septic system. The wetlands and surface waters would continue as is, with no impacts anticipated. Biological Resources No wildlife and habitat impacts would be associated with implementation of the No Action Alternative. Socioeconomic Resources Under the No Action Alternative, no expected changes would be anticipated for the number or type of eco-tours offered from the visitor center. Thus there would be no or minimal beneficial anticipated change in the economic impact on the local community. Annual visitation would be expected to increase at the same rate of <5% as it has been over the past five years. Visitor Services Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change in the visitor services offered. Interpretation and environmental education offerings would remain the same, serving a similar number of participants as are currently served. The level of customer service provided to welcome and orient visitors would also remain unchanged. Existing exhibits would continue to be repaired as needed.


Refuge Management Refuge management priorities and primary purposes would not be affected under the No Action Alternative. PROPOSED ACTION (DEVELOP COMMUNITY CONSERVATION EDUCATION CENTER) Under the Proposed Action, the Service would develop the proposed CCEC. Physical Resources The proposed CCEC would provide 8,100 square feet of space. This structure would consolidate space from two previous structures that would be removed. The consolidated space would provide a larger auditorium, exhibit space, and retail space. It would also include space to be used as a classroom. In addition to the structure, additional parking spaces would be added, as well as a larger lawn area that would support visitor and education activities. Although the Service would not go through the certification process, the proposed CCEC would be constructed in accordance with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver requirements and comply with the latest local building codes, making the structure safer and more resilient with respect to the potential effects of weather. The site of the Munson-Lee house would be expected to have minor beneficial impacts to physical resources from the removal of the deteriorating structure. While the proposal would result in the direct loss of less than ½ acre of wetland, enhancements to the wetland on site would include the removal of encroaching woody vegetation, and control of invasive exotics. It’s anticipated this would improve the quality and function of this wetland system. Improvements will benefit the wetland, overall aesthetics, environmental education and interpretation opportunities. The overall impacts to wetlands and surface waters would be anticipated to be beneficial, but minor. Biological Resources The implementation of the Proposed Action and the development of the proposed facility would have mixed impacts to wildlife and habitats occurring on the site. The site is currently incidentally used by limited numbers of species. Those species that use the site to move through the area would be anticipated to continue to do so, avoiding the actual building site. A portion of the proposed facility may impact an existing ½ acre wetland if advoidance is impractical. This wetland habitat is of low quality and impacts to wildlife would be minimal. Although the need for wetland mitigation is not anticipated, if required, mitigation would occur in proximity to the project site. . While negative impacts would be anticipated during construction activities (e.g., noise impacts would cause some species to avoid the site), these would be limited in duration and scope. Negative impacts would continue to be anticipated to wildlife use of the site during festivals and other events, but these would be anticipated to be limited in duration and scope, similar to current conditions. The adverse wildlife and habitat impacts anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Action would be considered to be discrete and would not be considered significant. The site of the Munson-Lee house would be expected to have minor beneficial impacts to biological resources from the removal of the deteriorating structure and control and removal of exotic vegetation.


Socioeconomic Resources The proposed CCEC would be expected to have a positive socioeconomic impact on the local community. It would draw visitors from the greater Orlando-Melbourne-Daytona Beach area to Brevard County. The proposed CCEC would also provide space for conservation education and special events and gatherings, enhancing quality of life for local residents and welcoming new user groups to the refuge. Based on documented similar increases on other NWRs, that number would be expected to increase by 50% in the first year of operation of the proposed CCEC and maintain a sustained 30% increase in subsequent years. The anticipated increase in visitation would be anticipated to have minor beneficial economic impacts to the local community. The site of the Munson-Lee house would be expected to have no impacts to socioeconomic resources from the removal of the deteriorating structure. Visitor Services The Proposed Action would be anticipated to increase the number of visitors, types of opportunities, and quality of experience. The proposed CCEC would provide office space for visitor services staff, volunteers, and the refuge Friends group, the MIWA, a visitor center for the purpose of education and outreach, associated parking, adjacent interpretive and demonstration habitats, and an outdoor playscape. The building would also offer space for educational displays; a bookstore that would be managed by the MIWA, and classroom space to be used by local schools and the NWR to enhance their wildlife education programs. The area outside this building would provide a space for native plant displays, a pollinator garden, a lawn for special events and adequate parking to meet the current and future demands of the continually increasing visitation. The higher profile CCEC would serve more visitors, relieving the burden which can be placed on the refuge administrative offices, or National Park Service fee station during peak visitation. The increase in visibility and enhanced resident and visitor access to the CCEC would be expected to positively contribute to the local economy and regional tourism industries. The refuge visitor services program would be expected to be enhanced and increased in volume. An increase in the number of visitor contacts within the proposed CCEC would be expected, but would not be anticipated to be significant. The site of the Munson-Lee house would be expected to have no impacts to visitor services from the removal of the deteriorating structure. Refuge Management Refuge management priorities and primary purposes would not be affected under the Proposed Action. The CCEC would allow the Service to better convey refuge purposes to increased numbers of visitors, enhancing their understanding of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s mission.


Due to its nature as an overlay of the KSC and its unique location and resources, the refuge has two traditional purposes, as well as an additional purpose stemming from legislation that created a unit of the National Park Service. Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits served by the lands and waters of the refuge, the Service administratively designated Merritt Island NWR in 1963 under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, outlining a primary purpose of these lands and waters: "... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds" [16 USC §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)]. Further reading of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act also recognizes benefits to other species, including those designated threatened or endangered: “... to conserve and protect migratory birds ... and other species of wildlife that are listed ... as endangered species or threatened species and to restore or develop adequate wildlife habitat” [16 USC §715i (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)]. The refuge’s primary purpose applies to all lands and waters managed by the refuge, regardless of when they were added to the refuge. Since the refuge has management agreements with NASA and the State of Florida, the lands and waters under those management agreements are also subject to the conditions of those agreements. Congruent to the discussion of the traditional purposes of the refuge is the congressional enabling legislation in 1975 that established Canaveral National Seashore as a unit of the National Park Service. Congress established a national seashore partially on new lands and waters and partially as an overlay of NASA’s KSC on lands and waters that were already being managed as part of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. In the legislation, Congress outlined that the majority of the overlay portion of the Seashore would be managed as a refuge. The overlay area encompasses approximately 34,345 acres and includes southern Mosquito Lagoon. Figure 3 shows the complex land ownership and management picture for this area. The Seashore was established “... to preserve and protect the outstanding natural, scenic, scientific, ecologic, and historic values ... and to provide for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the same ... the Secretary shall retain such lands in their natural and primitive condition, shall prohibit vehicular traffic on the beach except for administrative purposes, and shall develop only those facilities which he deems essential for public health and safety” (16 USC 459j). This language applies much as a wilderness designation might apply, making this a secondary purpose for the 34,345 acres in the overlap area. The site of the Munson-Lee house would be expected to have minor beneficial impacts to refuge management from the removal of the deteriorating structure.


SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2. Summary comparison of the environmental consequences of implementation of the alternatives.

Impact Topic No Action Alternative (Continue Current Management)

Proposed Action (Develop Community Conservation Education Center)

Physical Resources Air Quality Minor adverse impacts to air quality

Increasing visitation would continue to have localized decreased air quality during peak visitation. However, these impacts would be expected to be short-lived and discrete, limited to peak days.

Minor adverse impacts to air quality With an anticipated increase in visitation during the first year of operation of the proposed facility, localized decreases in air quality would be anticipated during peak visitation. However, these impacts would be expected to be short-lived and discrete, limited to peak days.

Topography No change Neutral impacts to topography

Neutral to beneficial impacts to topography Topography on the site would be altered to accommodate proposed storm water retention and wetland restoration.

Soils No change Neutral impacts to soils

Adverse to neutral impacts to soils Additional parking would alter the soils and soil formation processes.

Hydrology No change Neutral impacts to hydrology

Minor adverse impacts to hydrology Temporary negative impacts to surface water quality would be experienced during demolition and construction activities. However, these impacts would be discrete and short lived. Long-term, increased impervious surface for the parking area would be expected to have minor negative impacts, however these impacts would be localized in this isolated system.

Wetlands No change Neutral impacts to wetlands

Beneficial impacts to wetlands Temporary negative impacts to on site wetlands would be expected during demolition and construction activities. Long-term, beneficial impacts would be anticipated from the wetland restoration activities to set back succession. This would represent an increase in the quality of the wetland and wetland functions; the size of the wetlands would be expected to be the same.

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Impacts

Negligible adverse impacts to climate change and sea level rise Increased visitation from current levels would be anticipated, which would be expected to result in minor increases in carbon emissions. However, the negative impacts would be negligible to global climate change and sea level rise.

Negligible adverse impacts to climate change and sea level rise Increased visitation from current levels would be anticipated, which would be expected to result in minor increases in carbon emissions. Offsetting beneficial impacts would be anticipated from more efficient building materials and operations. The building would be expected to meet LEED Silver standards. However, the negative impacts would be negligible to global climate change and sea level rise.


Biological Resources Habitat No change

Neutral impacts to habitat Minor beneficial impacts to habitat Temporary negative impacts to on site wetlands would be expected during demolition and construction activities. Long-term, beneficial impacts would be anticipated from the wetland restoration activities that set back succession. This would represent an increase in the quality of the wetland and wetland functions; the size would be expected to be the same. A small loss of wet palmetto habitat (approximately 0.3 acres) would result from the increased parking area. This is only a fraction of 1% of this habitat found on the refuge.

Federally Listed Species

No change Neutral impacts to federally listed species

Neutral to minor adverse impacts Minor adverse impacts would be expected for the eastern indigo snake during demolition and construction activities. However, these would be discrete and short-lived.

State Listed Species

No change Neutral impacts to State listed species

Neutral to minor adverse impacts Minor adverse impacts would be expected for little blue herons and tricolor herons during demolition and construction activities. However, these would be discrete and short-lived.

Socioeconomic Resources Socioeconomic Resources and Ecotourism

No change Ongoing beneficial impacts to socioeconomic resources

Minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts would add to the ongoing beneficial impacts under the No Action Alternative Increased visitation would be anticipated to have positive economic impacts in the local community. Increased environmental education programs and interpretive programs would be anticipated to have beneficial impacts in increased awareness and understanding. Use of the proposed facility for community conservation meetings and activities would better integrate the refuge with the community and provide an additional benefit to the local community.

Visitor Services Welcome and Orient Visitors

No change Adverse impacts would continue as visitors continue to experience overcrowding and dysfunctional facilities.

Beneficial impacts to visitor welcome and orientation New exhibits and additional square footage would provide better welcome and orientation to visitors.

Support of Visitor Services Programs

No change Adverse to negative impacts would be experienced by the visitor services staff as they would continue to work in a dysfunctional space.

Beneficial impacts to the visitor services program support Additional square footage would provide better support for Service staff, MIWA, volunteers, exhibits, sales area, auditorium, environmental education classroom, and storage of visitor services equipment and materials.

Number of Visitors to Visitor Center

Beneficial impacts to the number of visitors to the existing visitor center Visitation continues to increase by small increments annually despite dysfunctional facilities; visitation was approximately 80,000 in 2018.

Beneficial impacts to the number of visitors to the proposed facility 120,000 visitors would be anticipated in the first year of operation of the proposed facility with larger increases anticipated annually compared to the No Action Alternative.


Environmental Education Programs

Adverse impacts to environmental education programs No change; approximately 3,000 student participants per year. Students would continue to be turned away.

Beneficial impacts to environmental education programs With a larger facility, the Service would be better able to meet existing and increasing demand for environmental education programs. The availability of the proposed environmental education classroom combined with the larger proposed visitor center would also be anticipated to result in increased demand for environmental education programs. The quality of the environmental education program experience would be expected to increase.

Interpretive Programs

Neutral impacts to interpretive programs No change; approximately 4,500 participants per year

Beneficial impacts to interpretive programs Increased support of interpretive programs would be anticipated from volunteers and presenters, resulting in an increase in the number and type of programs offered. The numbers of participants in interpretive programs would be anticipated to increase.

Community Hub

Adverse impacts to community hub No community hub offered in the existing visitor center

Beneficial impacts to community hub The proposal includes the community’s use of the facility for various activities of community and conservation organizations, better connecting and integrating the refuge and the local community.

Total Square Footage of Visitor Center

Neutral impacts to total square footage of visitor center No change; 5,300 square feet. The existing Visitor Information Center would remain.

Beneficial impacts to total square footage of visitor center to 8,100 square feet The proposed CCEC would increase the square footage for the visitor center by 2,876 square feet. The existing visitor center would be demolished; much of the building materials would be recycled. The Munson-Lee house would also be demolished.

Parking Area Neutral impacts to the parking area No change; approximately 42 spaces with additional overflow parking available on the entrance and side roads and at the Headquarters/Shop area

Beneficial impacts to the parking area with an increase to 70+ spaces The Proposed Action would increase the number of spaces by 30 spaces; overflow parking would continue to be available along the roadway and at the Headquarters/Shop area.

Number of Exhibits

Neutral impacts to the number of exhibits No change; the visitor center would continue to have 9 interior exhibits interpreting refuge management activities, threatened and endangered species, and habitat diversity.

Beneficial impacts to the number of exhibits to 12 interior exhibits The proposal would increase from 9 to 12 exhibits that would be constructed to interpret natural and cultural history, refuge purposes and management activities, and local wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. Exhibits expected to cost approximately $750,000; a fund raising campaign is underway by MIWA.

Total Cost Increase costs of over $750,000 plus additional higher than expected ongoing maintenance costs The Service would conduct repairs and upgrades and address health and safety concerns. This would not address overcrowding concerns, environmental education needs, or any other needs; this would only address health and safety deficiencies.

Increase costs to $4.2 million It would cost an estimated $4.2 million to demolish the existing visitor center and the Munson-Lee house and construct the proposed CCEC.


Utilities and Infrastructure Need for Portable Chemical Toilets

Neutral to negative impacts to the need for portable chemical toilets No change; from November to April, 3 portable chemical toilets would continue to be maintained in the parking lot with 1 maintained the remainder of the year. With increased visitation, the need may increase.

Negative impacts to the need for portable chemical toilets Portable chemical toilets would continue to be employed during high visitation special events, but would not be employed as a regular restroom solution as in the No Action Alternative.

Refuge Management Refuge Volunteer Program

Neutral impacts to the refuge’s volunteer program No change would be anticipated.

Beneficial impacts to the refuge’s volunteer program An increase in the number of volunteers would be anticipated with the increases in community awareness of the facility and volunteer opportunities. The increased square footage would allow for increased programs, trainings, and events. Additional volunteers would need to be recruited to keep pace with serving the increased visitation.

Refuge Partnerships

Neutral impacts to refuge partnerships No change would be anticipated.

Beneficial impacts to refuge partnerships With the availability of the proposed facility for community and conservation activities, increased numbers of new partners would be expected. This could result in new opportunities not previously contemplated.


UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on current plans, it is not expected the construction of the new CCEC facility and associated parking areas would impact more than ½ acre of wetlands, and therefore would not trigger the need for wetland mitigation; however, if mitigation would be required, it would be conducted within wetlands proximal to the project site. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR §1508.7). Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each other’s effect on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource. In addition, sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the sum of the individual effects, such as when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of reproductive sustainability, and threatens to extinguish the population. A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not take place in a vacuum: there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or would affect it in the reasonably foreseeable future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else would likely happen to it. While cumulative impacts are difficult to evaluate, given the fluid nature of proposals at KSC, the Proposed Action and its anticipated impacts are such that they would not be anticipated to change any cumulative impacts. The Service is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in significant cumulative impacts when added to the Proposed Action. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. For the Proposed Action, direct impacts could include temporary construction noise, minor and temporary air pollution caused by dust and diesel emissions, and soil disturbance for the building and parking lot footprints. Ospreys are known to nest within the area; they might be affected by construction noise or dust. Temporary construction at this site is unlikely to cause nest abandonment. The area around the construction site may contain the gopher tortoise (federal candidate and state listed as threatened) and eastern indigo snake (federally listed as threatened). The potential exists for roadway mortality of an eastern indigo snake during


construction activities. Temporary construction noise and pollution may have limited, short-term impacts to listed species. Construction crews and equipment entering and exiting the area may intermittently slow traffic on Playalinda Beach Road (old SR 402). There would be no anticipated road closures associated with the construction. Direct habitat impacts would include the removal or trimming of native plants within the construction site and potential filling of a small (<1/2 acres), low quality wetland. None of the direct impacts would be anticipated to be significant.

Indirect impacts are those effects that may be reasonably expected later in time and space, including the expected increase in visitation to the CCEC in the future and potential need to manage transportation issues (vehicle, tour bus and bicycle). Minimal indirect impacts would be anticipated. SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The anticipated short-term impacts would not be anticipated to impact long-term productivity of refuge systems and habitats. Merritt Island NWR is a large and diverse collection of habitats. This small scale construction activity would not be anticipated to create a measureable impact to long-term productivity.


Chapter V. Consultation and Coordination OVERVIEW This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying the issues, alternatives, and Proposed Action, which are presented in this EA; numerous meetings and contacts were undertaken by the Service during the planning for the proposed CCEC and during preparation of the EA. Throughout the planning process, the refuge consulted with St. Johns River Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding wetland delineation and permitting. Coordination with NASA KSC Environmental Program regarding stormwater management and permitting was conducted multiple times. Coordination with the MIWA regarding exhibit planning and funding was ongoing throughout the conceptual and final design planning process for the building. Coordination with Florida Department of Transportation was ongoing in relation to the proposed Space Coast Trail and location of a proposed trailhead at the CCEC. NASA KSC Spaceport Integration leadership was regularly updated on the progress of the project. Local community leaders, elected officials, and organizations were regularly updated concerning the status of CCEC funding and construction plans. In January 2017, the Service notified the potentially interested Native American Tribes of its proposal to build the CCEC. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma responded with a request for more information regarding flora and fauna species located at the site. The Service responded by providing lists of the known and suspected flora and fauna for the site. During public review and comment, the Service sent the EA to the Florida State Clearinghouse for state agency review and comment. The Service also provided notice of availability of the EA to those entities on the mail and email lists, general public, other governmental agencies, and the potentially interested Native American Tribes. The Service will review all substantive comments submitted during public review and comment prior to making a decision on the proposal.

50 Appendices

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations

BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research

CCEC Community Conservation Education Center

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EA Environmental Assessment

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MIWA Merritt Island Wildlife Association

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PAMS Permanent Air Monitoring System

RHPO/RA Regional Historic Preservation Officer/Regional Archaeologist

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SR State Road

US United States

USC United States Code

VSP Visitor Services Plan

51 Appendices

Appendix B. References and Literature Citations Breininger, D.R., M.J. Barkaszi, R.B. Smith, D.M. Oddy, and J.A. Provancha. 1994. Endangered

and potentially endangered wildlife on John F. Kennedy Space Center and faunal integrity as a goal for maintaining biological diversity. NASA Technical Memorandum 109204 451pp.

Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 2017. Projections of Florida Population by

County, 2020-2045, with Estimates for 2016. Volume 50, Bulletin 177, April 2017. University of Florida. https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Research%20Reports/projections_2017.pdf

Campbell, T. 2000. Analysis of the Effects of an Exotic Lizard (Anolis sagrei) on a Native

Lizard (Anolis carolinensis) in Florida, Using Islands as Experimental Units. Ph.D. University of Tennessee. 336 pp.

Campbell, T. and A.C. Echternacht. 2002. Character release and body sizes of introduced lizards in their native and invaded lands. Institute of Biological Invasions. pp 67.

Carver, E. and Caudill, J. 2013. Banking on Nature 2011: The Economic Benefits to Local

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. 356 pp. https://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/refugereports/pdfs/BankingOnNature2013.pdf

Caudill, James and Erin Carver. 2019. Banking on Nature 2017: The Economic Contributions of

National Wildlife Refuge Recreational Visitation to Local Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Falls Church, Virginia. 32pp. https://www.fws.gov/economics/divisionpublications/bankingOnNature/BoN2017/Banking-on-Nature-2017v4.pdf

Deming, Joan G., Carrie J. Scupholm and Kimberly Hinder. 2001. Cultural Resource

Management Plan. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida. Sarasota, Florida. 79 pp.

Dreese, J. H. 2006. Air quality summary and monitoring status at John F. Kennedy Space

Center for the fourth quarter (October-December 2005, and the first, second, third quarters 2006. Prepared for the NASA KSC Environmental Program Branch, Contract #NAS10-0200, DRD No. 004.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2018. Florida’s Endangered and

Threatened Species. Species conservation Planning Section, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation. December 2018. https://myfwc.com/media/1945/threatened-endangered-species.pdf

FWC FWRI. 2011. Manatee Synoptic Surveys. St. Petersburg, FL, USA. Accessed January 9,

2012. Available from http://www.myfwc.com/research/manatee/projects/population-monitoring/synoptic-surveys/

Florida Power and Light. 2010. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/08/23/fpl-readies-

cape-canaveral-clean-energy-center/

https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Research%20Reports/projections_2017.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/refuges/about/refugereports/pdfs/BankingOnNature2013.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/economics/divisionpublications/bankingOnNature/BoN2017/Banking-on-Nature-2017v4.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/economics/divisionpublications/bankingOnNature/BoN2017/Banking-on-Nature-2017v4.pdf

https://myfwc.com/media/1945/threatened-endangered-species.pdf

https://myfwc.com/media/1945/threatened-endangered-species.pdf

http://www.myfwc.com/research/manatee/projects/population-monitoring/synoptic-surveys/

http://www.myfwc.com/research/manatee/projects/population-monitoring/synoptic-surveys/

52 Appendices

Hodges, Alan W. 2012. Economic Profiles of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Related Industries in Florida Counties, 2010. Compiled from IMPLAN Florida state-county data (MIG, Inc.). University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 135 pp. http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic-impact-analysis/Florida-county-profiles-2010.pdf

Milliman, J.D. 1972. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States – petrology of the

sand fraction of sediments, Northern New Jersey to Southern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 529-J. Washington, D.C. 40 pp. and maps

Montague, C.L. and R.G. Wiegert. 1990. Salt marshes. pgs. 481-516 in Myers, R.L., and J.J.

Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida. UCF Press. Orlando, FL. USA. 765 pp. NASA. 2010. Environmental Resources Document, Kennedy Space Center. KSC-PLN-1911,

Revision E. <https://tdksc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch?doc=KSC-PLN-1911&rev=$latest>

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1984. Master Plan. John F. Kennedy Space

Center. Titusville, FL. National Park Service. 2016. Visitor Use Survey. Canaveral National Seashore, Titusville, FL National Weather Service. 2005. Accessed at

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/ltgcenter/ltgmain.html National Weather Service Office Melbourne FL

Patrick Air Force Base. 2009. Operational Climatic Data Summary, NASA Shuttle Facility FL Provancha, M.J., P.A. Schmalzer, and C.R. Hinkle. 1986. Vegetation types. John F.

Kennedy Space Center, Biomedical Operations and Research Office (Maps in Master Planning format, 1:9600 scale, digitization by ERDAS, Inc.).

Randazzo, A.F. 1997. The Sedimentary Platforms of Florida: Mesozic to Cenozoic: In

Randazzo, A.F. and D. S. Jones (eds). The Geology of Florida. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, FL. pp 39-56.

Schmalzer, P.A., T.E. Foster, and B.W. Duncan. 2002. Revised flora and list of threatened and endangered plants of John F. Kennedy Space Center Area, Florida. Draft NASA Technical Memorandum. John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Schmalzer, P.A. and C.R. Hinkle. 1990. Flora and threatened and endangered plants of John F.

Kennedy Space Center, Florida. NASA Technical Memorandum 102791. John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL 68p.

Seigel, R.A.,and D.A. Pike. 2003. Continued Studies on Amphibians and Reptiles of the

Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, and Canaveral National Seashore. Annual Report. Towson University. 29 pp.

Seigel, R. A., R. B. Smith, J. Demuth, L. M. Ehrhart, and F. F. Snelson, Jr. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida: A Long-Term Assessment of a Large Protected Habitat (1975-2000). Florida Scientist 65:1-12.

http://www.fred.ifas.ufl.edu/economic-impact-analysis/Florida-county-profiles-2010.pdf

https://tdksc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch?doc=KSC-PLN-1911&rev=$latest

https://tdksc.ksc.nasa.gov/servlet/dm.web.Fetch?doc=KSC-PLN-1911&rev=$latest

53 Appendices

Sexton, N.R., Dietsch, A.M., Don Carlos, A.W., Koontz, L.M., Solomon, A.N. and Miller, H.M.. 2012. National wildlife refuge visitor survey 2010/2011—Individual refuge results: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 643.

Stolen, Eric, A. Collazo, Jaime and Franklin Percival, H. 2012. Group-Foraging Effects on

Capture Rate in Wading Birds (Efectos del Forrajeo en Grupo sobre la Tasa de Captura en Aves Vadeadoras). The Condor. 114. 744-754. 10.1525/cond.2012.110159.

Smith (Bolt) R.B., and Breininger. 1995. Wading Bird Populations of the Kennedy Space Center,

Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 57(1): 230-236. 1995. Stantec Consulting Service, Inc. 2016. Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Future Visitor

Center Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report. 33pp U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. American Communities Survey.

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/ U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. 2010 Demographic Profile.

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/ U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 2000 Demographic Profile.

Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/ U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development.

Washington, DC. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program.

Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/index.html, http://www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/03080202_303d.html (Cape Canaveral area), and http://www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/03080203_303d.html (Vero Beach area). Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-

Associated Recreation: National Overview. October 2018. Washington, D.C. 132 pp https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017a. Phase 1 Archaeoloigical Testing for Visitor Center at

Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Brevard County, Florida: A Negative Findings Report. 58 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017b. Munson-Lee House Documentation. Merritt Island

National Wildlife Refuge, Volusia County, Florida. 12 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-

Associated Recreation: National Overview. August 2012. Washington, DC. 20 pp. http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2011_Survey.htm

http://www.census.gov/



http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/publications/1999_rdreport/

http://www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/03080202_303d.html%20(Cape%20Canaveral%20area),%20and%20http:/www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/03080203_303d.html%20(Vero%20Beach%20area).

http://www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/03080202_303d.html%20(Cape%20Canaveral%20area),%20and%20http:/www.epa.gov/iwi/303d/03080203_303d.html%20(Vero%20Beach%20area).

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw16-nat.pdf

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2011_Survey.htm

54 Appendices

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. August 2008. Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 316 pp. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/MerrittIslandFinal/Final_Merritt_Island_Final_CCP.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Services

Plan. August 2008. Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 99 pp. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/MerrittIslandFinal/Merritt%20Island%20Appendix%20G%20Final%20Visitor%20Services%20Plan.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. November 2006. Southeast Region. Atlanta, GA. 303 pp. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Merritt%20Island%20Draft/Edited%20Draft%20CCP.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia clarkii taeniata) 5-year

review: Summary and evaluation. Ecological Services Field Office, Jacksonville, Florida. 20 pp.

Visit Florida. 2019. Research: 2018 Estimates of Visitors to Florida by Quarter; Direct Tourism

Spending in Florida in 2016; Tourism Employment in Florida in 2016. Tallahassee, FL. http://www.visitfloridamediablog.com/home/florida-facts/research/

Zwick, Paul D. and Margaret H. Carr. 2006. Florida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario.

A research project prepared for 1000 Friends of Florida by the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. 25 pp. http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/PUBS/2060/Florida-2060-Report-Final.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/MerrittIslandFinal/Final_Merritt_Island_Final_CCP.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/MerrittIslandFinal/Final_Merritt_Island_Final_CCP.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/MerrittIslandFinal/Merritt%20Island%20Appendix%20G%20Final%20Visitor%20Services%20Plan.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/MerrittIslandFinal/Merritt%20Island%20Appendix%20G%20Final%20Visitor%20Services%20Plan.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Merritt%20Island%20Draft/Edited%20Draft%20CCP.pdf

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/Merritt%20Island%20Draft/Edited%20Draft%20CCP.pdf

http://www.visitfloridamediablog.com/home/florida-facts/research/

http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/PUBS/2060/Florida-2060-Report-Final.pdf

55 Appendices

Appendix C. Socio-economic Information Demographic data; employment, income, and poverty level data; occupation data; and industry data from the 2010 Census are tabulated for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida. 2010 demographic data comparison for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012) City of Titusville Brevard County Volusia County State of Florida Percent of Population >62 years old

24.3% 24.3% 25.3% 20.9%

Median Age 44.3 45.5 45.3 40.7 Percent White 80.8% 83.0% 82.5% 75.0% Percent Black or African American

13.5% 10.1% 10.5% 16.0%

Percent American Indian or Alaska Native

0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Percent Asian 1.4% 2.1% 1.5% 2.4% Percent Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

Percent of Total Population Also Identified as Hispanic or Latino

6.5% 8.1% 11.2% 22.5%

Comparison of employment, income, and poverty level for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012) City of Titusville Brevard County Volusia County State of Florida Percent of Population in Labor Force

57.1% 58.9% 56.2% 61.3%

Percent of Population Unemployed

7.5% 8.8% 7.9% 8.9%

Median Income $44,076 $49,523 $44,400 $47,661 Median Household Income

$56,592 $65,457 $58,666 $66,323

Per Capita Income

$24,221 $27,606 $24,768 $26,551

Percent of People below the Poverty Level

12.6% 10.5% 13.8% 13.8%

56 Appendices

Comparison of Occupation Categories for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012) Occupation City of Titusville Brevard County Volusia County State of Florida Management, Business, Science, and Arts Occupations

32.1% 36.7% 30.3% 32.8%

Service Occupations

19.1% 18.0% 20.3% 19.0%

Sales and Office Occupations

26.7% 25.3% 28.2% 28.3%

Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations

10.7% 9.9% 11.8% 10.7%

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations

11.4% 10.2% 9.3% 9.2%

Comparison on Employment Industries for the City of Titusville, Brevard County, Volusia County, and the State of Florida (U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2012) Industry City of Titusville Brevard County Volusia County State of Florida Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining

0.7% 0.4% 0.9% 1.1%

Construction 8.9% 7.8% 9.5% 8.6% Manufacturing 11.4% 11.4% 6.2% 5.8% Wholesale Trade 1.0% 1.9% 2.6% 3.2% Retail Trade 14.3% 13.1% 14.0% 13.1% Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities

5.8% 4.5% 4.6% 5.2%

Information 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.3% Finance and Insurance, and Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

4.0% 5.5% 6.6% 8.2%

Professional, Scientific, and Management, and Administrative and Waste

10.3% 13.1% 10.5% 11.8%

57 Appendices

Management Services Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance

19.5% 19.7% 21.5% 19.9%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation and Food Services

7.9% 9.5% 11.5% 10.9%

Other Services, Except Public Administration

5.2% 4.8% 5.1% 5.3%

Public Administration

8.9% 6.1% 4.9% 4.8%

58 Appendices

Appendix D. List of Preparers and Reviewers PREPARERS

● Cheri M. Ehrhardt, AICP, Natural Resource Planner, South Atlantic-Gulf and Mississippi Basin Interior Regions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Layne Hamilton, Project Leader, Merritt Island NWR Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Kim King-Wrenn, Supervisory Park Ranger, Merritt Island NWR Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Mike Legare, Refuge Complex Biologist, Merritt Island NWR Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Steven Trull, Wildlife Refuge Specialist, Merritt Island NWR Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

REVIEWERS

● Kathy Burchett, Refuge Supervisor, Area 2, South Atlantic-Gulf and Mississippi Basin Interior Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Ernie Clarke, Deputy Refuge Supervisor, Area 2, South Atlantic-Gulf and Mississippi Basin Interior Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Paul Tritaik, Acting Assistant Refuge Supervisor, Area 2, South Atlantic-Gulf and Mississippi Basin Interior Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Daffny Pitchford, Lead Division Chief, Planning, Realty, Strategic Resource Management and Visitor Services, South Atlantic-Gulf and Mississippi Basin Interior Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

● Billy Brooks, Section 7 Reviewer, North Florida Ecological Services Field Office, South Atlantic-Gulf and Mississippi Basin Interior Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

nvironmental a for proposed community … · merritt island nwr is located along florida’s...

Documents