programmatic categorical exclusion analysis reportdnhiggins.com/docs/programmatic ce analysis...

6/9/2010 - 23702 - Ver: 1 - CCarithe CA#43 04880-013-000 - EWEWRPT - 2601

PROGRAMMATIC CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ANALYSIS REPORT

FLORIDA KEYS OVERSEAS HERITAGE TRAIL (FKOHT)

SPANISH HARBOR TO SEVEN-MILE BRIDGE MILE MARKER 30.0 TO 40.0

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT NUMBER: 250571-1 FDEP PROJECT NUMBER: FS051

COUNTY: MONROE

PREPARED FOR:

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS

PREPARED BY:

WILSONMILLER, INC. 1441 MACLAY COMMERCE DRIVE, SUITE 101

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32312

JUNE 2010

FKOHT-Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile Bridge Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Analysis Report


INDEX

Section Page

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Location.................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Project Purpose and Need.................................................................................................. 4

2 TOPICAL CATEGORY EVALUATION........................................................................................... 4 2.1 Local Traffic Patterns.......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Property Access and Right-of-Way Acquisition.................................................................... 4 2.3 Planned Community Growth/Land Use Patterns ................................................................. 5 2.4 Community Cohesiveness .................................................................................................. 5 2.5 Air Quality........................................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Noise.................................................................................................................................. 5 2.7 Water Quality...................................................................................................................... 6 2.8 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.9 Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways............................................................................... 7 2.10 Wildlife and Habitat............................................................................................................. 7 2.11 Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 9 2.12 Coastal Zone Consistency and Coastal Barrier Resources.................................................. 9 2.13 Historic/Archaeological Resources.................................................................................... 10 2.14 Section 4(f) Resources ..................................................................................................... 10 2.15 Farmlands ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.16 State Historic Highways.................................................................................................... 12 2.17 State Scenic Highways ..................................................................................................... 12 2.18 Contamination .................................................................................................................. 12 2.19 Public Hearing.................................................................................................................. 13 2.20 Controversy...................................................................................................................... 13 2.21 Permits............................................................................................................................. 13

3 REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................. 14

4 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 15

APPENDICES 1 Figures and Tables 2 Attachments (on Compact Disc)

Attachment 1 - Project Construction Plans Attachment 2 - “Natural Resources Impacts Assessment, FKOHT Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile

Bridge” (May 2010, WilsonMiller) Attachment 3 - Email from FWS to FDOT Regarding Proposed Relocation of Key Deer Exclusion

Fencing (11/18/08) Attachment 4 - Letter from WilsonMiller to FWS (Wrublik) Transmitting 75% Project Plans for

Review (12/9/09) Attachment 5 - Letter to FWS (Morkill) Transmitting 75% Project Plans for Review (12/9/09) Attachment 6 - Email from WilsonMiller to FWS (Morkill) Responding to Project Plan Questions

(1/16/10) Attachment 7 - Memo Regarding Meeting with FWS to Discuss Project (2/5/10) Attachment 8 - Email from WilsonMiller to FDOT Requesting Initiation of Section 7 Consultation

(2/5/10) Attachment 9 - WilsonMiller Transmittal of FLUCCS/Wetlands Maps to FWS (2/8/10)



INDEX (continued) Attachment 10 - WilsonMiller Transmittal of Landscape Plans to FWS (2/8/10) Attachment 11 - Letter from FDOT to FWS Requesting Informal Section 7 Consultation (4/5/10) Attachment 12 - Letter from FWS to FDOT Relaying Section 7 Consultation Findings (5/13/10) Attachment 13 - Letter from Monroe County to FDEP-OGT Regarding Mitigation of Key Deer

Habitat Impacts (6/8/10). Attachment 14 - Letter from WilsonMiller to SHPO Requesting Compliance Review (6/18/09) Attachment 15 - Letter from SHPO Regarding Compliance Review Conclusions (6/23/09) Attachment 16 - Letter from SHPO Regarding Compliance Review of Proposed Landscaping

(3/30/10) Attachment 17 - Letter from FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks to FDEP-OGT Relaying

Section 4(f) Concurrence for Use of Bahia Honda State Park Lands (5/13/10)



1

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT) is being developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection-Office of Greenways and Trails (FDEP-OGT), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and Monroe County as a 106± linear mile, multi-use bicycle and pedestrian trail (shared use path) that will eventually extend the length of the Florida Keys from Key Largo to Key West in Monroe County. The FKOHT has been divided into several segments (phases) for design/construction/funding purposes. One segment of the overall FKOHT system is referred to as the “Spanish Harbor to Seven-Mile Bridge” segment which extends from approximately Mile Marker (MM) 30.0 on the west to MM 40.0 on the east. This segment of the FKOHT is the subject of this report. The proposed work/activities associated with the project will require approval by FDOT. Part of FDOT’s review includes evaluation of the project’s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires Federal agencies to take into consideration the effects of proposed Federal actions on the human and natural environment. This report has been prepared to document the effects of the proposed action in compliance with NEPA requirements. Additionally, this report provides an analysis of information necessary to document that the Class of Action of the proposed project is a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion per the Agency Operating Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Authority, and FDOT (February 12, 2003). This Class of Action determination was made by FDOT District 6 staff during staff’s review of preliminary (75%) project plans. It is noted, however, that Section 2-2.2.1 of the FDOT PD&E manual indicates that “construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities” (i.e. facilities similar to the FKOHT) is considered to be a Type 1 Categorical Exclusion Class of Action. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION This project involves the “Spanish Harbor to Seven-Mile Bridge” segment of the FKOHT. The project is located in the Lower and Middle Keys in Monroe County, Florida, and traverses the following keys, listed in order from west to east (or from south to north); Big Pine Key, West Summerland Key, Bahia Honda Key, Ohio Key, Missouri Key, and Little Duck Key. The project occurs within the following geographic areas of Monroe County according to the Public Land Survey System: Sections 25, 26, 27, and 36, Township 66 South, Range 29 East; Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, and 34, Township 66 South, Range 30 East, and; Section 19, Township 66 South, Range 31 East. A location map for the project is provided as Figure 1 in Appendix 1. The majority of the project will be built within the State Road 5 (U.S. Highway 1; Overseas Highway) right-of-way, extending from a point near the intersection of Newfound Boulevard and US1 (approx. MM 30.0; Station 1117+60) on Big Pine Key to the western end (southern end) of the historic 7-Mile Bridge on Little Duck Key (approx. MM 40.0; Station 1640+01). A limited portion of the proposed shared-use path (trail) near the eastern end of West Summerland Key will extend outside of the US1 right-of-way into property owned by FDOT and the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF). Another small portion of the trail near the western end of Bahia Honda Key will also extend outside the US1 right-of-way into property owned by the TIITF (a portion of Bahia Honda State Park). Numerous exceptions, in which no work is proposed, occur within the overall project termini. These can be seen in the project plans and discerned from the data provided in Table 1. The total length of new trails proposed within the work program is approximately 45,808 linear feet (8.68 miles). The reader should understand the directional terminology used in this report. Since the overall layout of the project generally runs west to east, the term “west” may be viewed as corresponding to a southerly direction of travel through the keys while the term “east” may be viewed as corresponding to a northerly direction of travel. References to the “north” side of SR5/US1 indicate areas on the Gulf of Mexico/Florida Bay side of the highway while references to the “south” side of SR5/US1 indicate areas on the Atlantic Ocean side of the highway.



2

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project scope of work primarily consists of the construction of new segments of the FKOHT, a shared use path (trail). Other components of the project include construction of new stormwater management facilities, signing, pavement marking, fence construction, paved shoulder widening, and landscaping. A complete set of project construction plans is provided as Attachment 1 in Appendix 2. Specifics of the project are discussed in the following subsections. Trail Construction The project includes construction of a total of approximately 45,808 linear feet (8.68 miles) of new trail. This trail system consists of several sub-segments as itemized in Table 1. This specific portion of the overall FKOHT is rather unique in that certain trail sub-segments will be one-way trails (travel allowed in only one direction) whereas most of the FKOHT system, including portions of this project, consists of bi-directional trail (travel allowed in both directions). The proposed project incorporates one-way trail segments primarily due to physical constraints within the project corridor. The width of the one-way trails will vary from 4 feet to 6 feet while the width of the bi-directional (typical) trails will typically vary from 8 feet to 12 feet. As with all previously authorized/constructed segments of the FKOHT, use of the trails by motorized vehicles will be prohibited. The only exceptions to this prohibition are that motorized vehicles such as small trucks will be allowed to use the trail when conducting trail maintenance activities authorized by FDEP-OGT, and emergency vehicles may traverse the trail if necessary while in the performance of bona fide emergency activities. Trail sub-segments A1 and A5 on Big Pine Key, sub-segment B2 on West Summerland Key, and sub-segment C1 on Bahia Honda Key will all be bi-directional trails built along the south side of US1. Trail sub-segments A5 and A10 on Big Pine Key, sub-segment B1 on West Summerland Key, sub-segment C2 on Bahia Honda Key, sub-segment D on Ohio Key, sub-segment E on Missouri Key, and sub-segment F on Little Duck Key will all be bi-directional trails built along the north side of US1. Note that portions of sub-segments B2 and B4 (at east end of West Summerland Key) and portions of sub-segments C1 and C2 (at west end of Bahia Honda Key) actually will run beneath existing US1 bridges. Trail sub-segments A2 through A4 on Big Pine Key will all be 1-way trails built along the south side of US1. Trail sub-segments A6 through A9 on Big Pine Key, and trail sub-segment B3 on West Summerland Key will all be 1-way trails built along the north side of US1. It is noted that 1-way trail sub-segments A3, A4, A7, A8, and A9 will be restricted to usage by pedestrians. These sub-segments are situated within what is referred to herein as the “fenced key deer corridor”. From approximately Station 1188+00 to Station 1275+80 on Big Pine Key, SR5/US1 is bordered by chain-link fencing to prevent key deer from accessing the highway, directing them instead to two “underpasses” (wildlife crossing culverts) established beneath the highway. The distance between the highway and the deer fencing is insufficient to allow construction of bi-directional trails or 1-way multi-use trails throughout much of the fenced key deer corridor. This explains the pedestrian-only restriction applied to the narrow 1-way trail sub-segments cited. Bicyclists traveling in these restricted zones must use the paved shoulder of US1. Trail construction will typically involve minor excavation, emplacement of a 12-inch thick stabilized subbase, and paving of the trail with asphalt. A portion of the trail on West Summerland Key (Station 1383+75 to Station 1388+94) will be constructed using reinforced concrete overlaying existing sand cement bags. A portion of the trail on West Summerland Key (Station 1374+74 to Station 1383+75, north side of US1) will be built as an elevated boardwalk (boardwalk “A”), while another portion of the trail on Bahia Honda Key (area near Station 1456+40, south side of US1) will also be built as an elevated boardwalk (boardwalk “B”). Trail construction will include building approximately 2,613 linear feet of gravity retaining wall, much with associated handrails, in areas where the trail abuts wetlands and/or steep slopes. It will also include building approximately 4,037 linear feet of wooden post and rail fence. Much of this fencing will be along trail backslopes together with a 2-feet wide band of asphalt pavement extending beyond the trail proper. This backslope treatment is employed to avoid wetland impacts, allowing steeper backslopes with the fence provided for trail user safety. Activities necessary for trail construction include, but are not necessarily limited to: silt fence installation, clearing, grubbing, earthwork, subgrade stabilization, base work, paving, pavement



3

striping, installation of gravity walls and wooden post and rail fences, slope stabilization, and boardwalk construction. Construction of Stormwater Management Facilities The proposed project includes the construction of 13 stormwater management facilities (SWMFs). These will all be shallow, linear, dry retention areas built within the existing maintained US1 right-of-way. Their purpose will be to collect, treat, and attenuate stormwater runoff from certain segments of the project, primarily treating runoff from US1 rather than from the trail itself. Three SWMFs are proposed on Big Pine Key (on north side of US1), one is proposed on West Summerland Key (on south side of US1), one is proposed on Bahia Honda Key (on north side of US1), one is proposed on Ohio Key (on north side of US1), three are proposed on Missouri Key (on north side of US1), and four are proposed on Little Duck Key (on north side of US1). The project further includes construction of a drainage ditch adjacent to the south side of the trail near the east end of West Summerland Key (south side of US1). This ditch (approx. 275 linear feet) will collect stormwater runoff from US1, the trail, and adjacent uplands and route it downhill into SWMF S1 for treatment and attenuation. It will be equipped with ditch blocks constructed at intervals along the course of the ditch to reduce flow velocity. Shoulder Widening The proposed project will include widening the existing paved shoulder of SR5/US1 at various locations on Big Pine Key. Widening will take place within the fenced key deer corridor where the width of the current paved shoulder is less than 5 feet. In such areas, the paved shoulder will be widened from 1 to 2 feet to bring the final finished width of the shoulder pavement to 5 feet. As previously mentioned, 1-way trail segments will be constructed within the fenced key deer corridor and these segments will be restricted to use by pedestrians. Widening of highway shoulders is necessary to allow bicyclists to safely use the shoulder as a means of travel. Shoulder widening will take place at the following locations on Big Pine Key:

• Station 1202+27 to Station 1213+41, north side US1 (widen 1 to 2 feet) • Station 1214+78 to Station 1239+17, north side US1 (widen 2 feet) • Station 1202+01 to Station 1238+92, south side US1 (widen 1 to 2 feet) • Station 1254+33 to Station 1263+00, south side US1 (widen 1 foot)

Landscaping Areas of landscaping will be installed at 5 locations as part of this project, all within the previously cleared and maintained US1 right-of-way on the north side of the highway. Four of the landscaped areas will be near the ends of historic bridges: one at the west end of Ohio Key, one at the east end of Ohio Key, one at the west end of Missouri Key, and one at the east end of Missouri Key. The fifth landscaped area will be near the western end of Ohio Key in the zone from Station 1566+00 to Station 1567+80. Landscaping here will help buffer the trail from traffic on the frontage road paralleling the trail’s northern side. The other landscaped areas will be provided for aesthetic purposes. All landscaped areas will be planted with native species adapted to conditions found in the keys. Additional Activities Other miscellaneous components of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Provision of pavement striping where the trail crosses driveways and roadways. • Installation of new signs (e.g., stop signs, object marker signs, informational/warning signs, etc.) and

relocation of existing highway signs displaced by project construction features. • Installation of bollards across the trail at certain locations to preclude vehicles from entering or parking

on the trail.



4

• Installation of wooden post and rail fences adjacent to segments of the trail to preclude vehicles from entering or parking on the trail. These are in addition to wooden fences that will be installed along the backslope of the trail in various locations.

• Resetting certain existing guardrails adjacent to US1 to ensure they have the proper height following construction of the trail.

• Installation of chain-link fences adjacent to certain trail segments on Big Pine Key (near east end) and on Bahia Honda Key (near west end). The fencing on Big Pine Key will involve relocation of a segment of the existing key deer corridor fence along the north side of US1 to allow trail construction and installation of additional fencing to help prevent key deer from entering US1.

Land Clearing and Disturbance The majority of the proposed project components would be built within the existing FDOT right-of-way for SR5/US1 and would roughly parallel the vehicular roadway. Project construction associated with building the new trail and surface water management facilities would largely take place within the previously cleared and regularly maintained portions of the right-of-way. The total area contained within the project limits (i.e., within the project's limits of construction) is approximately 15.3 acres. The majority (96.7%) of this acreage occurs within previously cleared and regularly maintained portions of the right-of-way or other previously cleared lands. A limited extent of these construction activities would necessitate encroaching into the fringes of forested upland areas dominated by native trees and shrubs (total forested areas affected = 2.7 acres). Construction activities will also encroach into minor areas dominated by an admixture of largely native graminoids, forbs, and small woody species (total shrub/brush areas affected = 0.7 acres). All of these encroachment areas are uplands and have been subject to prior disturbance. One should refer to “Natural Resources Impacts Assessment” report in Appendix 2 for a more thorough discussion of existing habitats that would be directly impacted by project construction. 1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the project is to construct a pedestrian/bicycle trail and associated safety features that are consistent with FKOHT objectives and can be incorporated into the FKOHT system. The project is needed to address recreational needs in the Keys area as part of the overall FKOHT program, and provide an interconnected, shared-use linear trail that maximizes the safety of trail users by minimizing their interaction with motorized vehicular traffic. 2.0 TOPICAL CATEGORY EVALUATION 2.1 LOCAL TRAFFIC PATTERNS Local traffic patterns would not be significantly affected by the proposed project. Local traffic leaving or entering side streets or roads could be delayed by pedestrian/bicycle traffic with the right-of-way; however, this would be expected to occur under any situation where a sidewalk or bike path is provided adjacent to a street or roadway. The proposed project would not be expected to have any adverse effect on community mobility and neighborhood interaction and would serve to provide a positive effect on community pedestrian/bicycle mobility and interaction through provision of a safer and more efficient travel route. 2.2 PROPERTY ACCESS & RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION The proposed project would not have any adverse effects on property access since the vast majority of work would be performed within the existing FDOT right-of-way associated with US1 and entrances/driveways to commercial businesses and private residences would be maintained both during and following construction. The portion of the project located in Bahia Honda State Park would not have adverse effects on park accessibility since proposed project features in the park would not significantly impact current park roadways,



5

parking areas, or trails, and roadway access will be maintained during construction. The portion of the project slated for construction through FDOT and TIITF property on West Summerland Key would not affect accessibility of these parcels. The portion of the parcels directly impacted by project construction is undeveloped and not used as an access route. A dirt trail or footpath borders the northern side of the proposed trail boardwalk (boardwalk “A”) that would be constructed through the parcels. Public access to this unauthorized trail would likely be blocked during construction of boardwalk “A”, but would be unaffected following completion of the boardwalk. The acquisition of additional right-of-way is not required for the proposed project. 2.3 PLANNED COMMUNITY GROWTH / LAND USE PATTERNS Future land use categories designated along the project alignment according to the Monroe County Future Land Use Map (Monroe County, 1997) include those indicated in Table 2 (see Appendix 1). By its nature, the proposed project will not have any adverse impacts to planned community growth or land use patterns in the project area. Although portions of the trail pass through lands assigned the conservation land use category on West Summerland Key and Little Duck Key, one should note that the conservation category allows for recreational uses such as the FKOHT. In addition, all construction activities proposed on “conservation” lands will take place in previously cleared and/or disturbed areas. The proposed trail project will not interfere with the goal of natural resource protection on any “conservation” lands traversed by the trail. The project is supported by local government and community groups. In June of 2000, a resolution was passed by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners supporting the FDEP in becoming the lead agency for the planning, design, and construction of the FKOHT. In June of 2001, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into among the FDOT, FDEP and Monroe County that documents these agencies’ mutual support for this project due to, among other things, their mutual goal of providing a safe and convenient interconnected shared use linear trail. The feedback and results from a series of public meetings, presentations and committees dating back to 1997 (i.e., the Old Keys Bridges Task Force formed in 1997 by Governor Lawton Chiles) have resulted in continued community and public support, collaboration and teamwork by state and local governments, the National Park Service, and community and conservation organizations, such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Clean Florida Keys, Inc., and local kayak/paddling groups. 2.4 COMMUNITY COHESIVENESS By its nature, this project is not expected to have any adverse effects on the degree of cohesiveness of groups within adjacent neighborhoods or the community as a whole. The main goal of the overall FKOHT system is to provide access to non-motorized travel routes throughout the Florida Keys and increase the connectivity of those routes, thereby facilitating community cohesiveness. 2.5 AIR QUALITY The project is not a capacity improvement project and does not involve construction of new motorized vehicle travel lanes; therefore, it would have no long-term air quality impacts. Bicycle and pedestrian corridors have the potential to help reduce air quality impacts along highway corridors when they are used as a substitute to vehicular forms of travel. 2.6 NOISE The project is not a capacity improvement project and does not involve construction of new motorized vehicle travel lanes; therefore, it would have no long-term noise impacts. Bicycle and pedestrian corridors have the potential to help reduce noise impacts along highway corridors when they are used as a substitute to vehicular forms of travel. The project would result in an increase in noise levels during construction for existing receptors along SR5/US1, but this increase would be temporary in nature and noise levels would return to ambient levels following construction.



6

2.7 WATER QUALITY Surface waters adjacent to the project are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) pursuant to Chapter 62-302.700(9)(i)13, F.A.C. Open water areas and wetland areas below the mean high tide elevation are also part of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Stormwater runoff from the immediate project area currently flows either: (1) into existing stormwater management facilities (SWMFs) within the US1 right-of-way; (2) into developed or undeveloped uplands bordering the project; or (3) directly into wetlands or and surface waters lying adjacent to the project. The proposed project includes the construction of 15 SWMFs. These will all be shallow, linear, dry retention areas built within the existing maintained US1 right-of-way. Their purpose will be to collect, treat, and attenuate stormwater runoff from certain segments of the project, primarily treating runoff from US1 rather than from the trail itself. The pollutant loading from US1 stormwater runoff is substantially greater than will be the pollutant loading associated with runoff from the trail itself. Thus, the proposed SWMFs were largely situated to treat currently untreated runoff from US1 rather than runoff from the proposed trail. The proposed SWMFs will be insufficient to provide water quality treatment for all the stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces created as a result of trail construction. However, this condition is not anticipated to result in significant degradation of surface water quality in the general project area. The project is not expected to have any adverse effects on water quality in adjacent surface waters for the following reasons:

• The proposed trail would not be routinely used by motorized vehicles and recreational activities to be facilitated by the work are not significant sources of pollutants. Thus, runoff from the trail would not adversely affect water quality in adjacent wetlands or surface waters.

• As specified in the project plans, the contractor is required to prepare and implement an approved

Erosion Control Plan in accordance with FDOT Specification Section 104. The objective of this plan is to ensure that applicable water quality standards are maintained by preventing the discharge of foreign materials or sediments into adjacent waters or wetlands through use of the best available means of erosion and turbidity control measures.

• The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) regulates protection of surface water quality for

most types of development projects within SFWMD’s regulatory boundaries. This is accomplished through the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) permitting process. SFWMD has determined that the construction of shared use path facilities, such as the subject project, is exempt from the ERP permitting process, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051, F.A.C. One basis for this exemption is that SFWMD concluded such projects would have only de minimis impacts to surface water quality.

2.8 WETLANDS The proposed project does not include any work activities in wetlands or surface waters. The “Natural Resources Impacts Assessment” report provided in Appendix 2 provides a detailed discussion of existing wetlands and other surface waters near the project. Wetland/surface water impacts were avoided during the design process through several measures, including: (1) reducing the trail width to the minimum possible where required; (2) placing the trail as close as possible to SR5/US1 travel lanes as allowed by FDOT; and (3) using gravity retaining walls or steeper than normal side slopes adjacent to wetlands where necessary. Material staging areas would be located in uplands and appropriate precautions (e.g., silt fences, hay bales, turbidity curtains) would be implemented to ensure that sedimentation or other pollutants do not enter wetlands or other surface waters. Because the proposed improvements do not take any wetlands, Executive Order 11990 does not apply. Due in part to complete avoidance of impacts, the project qualifies for an exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051, F.A.C. (see Section 2.21 below). Complete avoidance of wetland impacts also precludes the need for a Department of the Army Permit (Section 404 Permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.



7

2.9 FLOODPLAINS AND REGULATORY FLOODWAYS Approximately 57% of the total length of the proposed trail occurs within the 100-year flood zone (100-year floodplain) according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Hazard Zones of the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM; GIS Dataset) for the project area (FEMA, 2009). For those portions of the proposed trail located in flood zones, trail construction would result in the addition of fill into the floodplain. This would raise the existing land surface by roughly 0.5 feet in elevation on average over an average 15-foot wide band encompassing the trail surface and side slopes. This alteration in topography would result in minimal encroachment in the 100-year flood zone and would not significantly change base flood elevations or floodplain limits in the project area. It is noted that many flood zone areas affected by the project do not currently provide floodplain storage. This is because such areas directly discharge into either waters of the Atlantic or waters of the Gulf. Project activities would result in minimal encroachment in the 100-year flood zones but would not involve the replacement or modification of any existing drainage structures. Given the minimal floodplain encroachments involved, the project should not affect flood heights or base floodplain limits. It should not result in increased or new environmental impacts. It should not increase flood risks or damage. There should be no significant change in the potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes. Project development would not support base floodplain development that is incompatible with existing floodplain management programs in the project area. The proposed project is not located in a regulated floodway and thus would have no involvement with same.

Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management”, portions of the proposed project were determined to be within the base floodplain. Impacts associated with the encroachment have been evaluated and determined to be minimal. Therefore, the proposed project will not constitute a significant floodplain encroachment. 2.10 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT This project has been evaluated for potential impacts to: federally listed animal and plant species (i.e. species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered species; state listed animal species (i.e. species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern); federally designated critical habitats, and; wildlife/habitat in general. A complete discussion of these topics is provided in the report provided as Attachment 2 in Appendix 2. This report includes figures illustrating existing habitats in close proximity to the proposed project along with the proposed project itself superimposed on the existing conditions mapping. Portions of the proposed project are located within US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation areas for the following federally-listed species as related to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 35 et seq): American crocodile (all portions of project), piping plover (all portions of project), roseate tern (all portions of project), Florida manatee (all portions of project), Lower Keys marsh rabbit (portion of project on Big Pine Key), Key deer (all portions of project except for segments on Missouri Key and Little Duck Key), Garber’s spurge (all portions of project), and Key tree-cactus (all portions of project). The proposed project also crosses through federally-designated critical habitat for piping plover that encompasses all of Bahia Honda Key and all of Ohio Key. As discussed in Attachment 2, it was determined that a total of 14 federally listed animal species and a total of 2 federally listed plant species could potentially occur in the general vicinity of the proposed project. Table 3 identifies these species and provides a synopsis of the proposed project’s anticipated impact to each species. It was determined that the project would have no effect on 11 of the animal species and 1 of the plant species. It was determined that the project would have no effect on federally-designated critical habitat for the piping plover. However, it was further determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium), and Garber’s spurge (Chamaesyce garberi). These potential impacts, if any, should not be significant and would not



8

jeopardize the continued existence of either of the cited species (refer to Attachment 2 for additional information). In addition to the 14 federally listed animal species, it was determined that 22 animal species only listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) could potentially occur in the general vicinity of the proposed project. These animal species are discussed in Attachment 2, as are the anticipated project impacts to these species. Of these 22 state-listed species, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the white ibis (Eudocimus alba), the white-crowned pigeon (Columba leucocephala), the red rat snake (Elaphe guttata), the Florida tree snail (Liguus fasciatus), and the mangrove rivulus (Kryptolebias marmoratus). Potential impacts should not be significant and would not jeopardize the continued existence of these species. The proposed project should have no effect on the remaining 17 state-listed species. The “Natural Resources Impacts Assessment” report (see Attachment 2) provides a description of the various habitat types that exist in the immediate vicinity of the project and provides mapping for these habitats. It further addresses the extent of impacts (disturbance) to these habitats that will result from project construction. A total of approximately 15.3 acres will be directly impacted by project construction activities. The majority of the areas impacted (96.7%; 14.8 acres) consists of highly disturbed and actively maintained areas that offer minimal habitat value to wildlife. These areas include cleared/maintained zones immediately adjacent to US1, previously cleared lands, and portions of dirt roads and trails. A total of approximately 0.4 acre of upland forests (2.6% of total impact area) will be impacted by the project. These forested communities include areas dominated by buttonwoods, by tropical hardwoods, and by mixtures of seagrapes and tropical hardwoods. They typically occur along the side-slopes of US1. These forested zones have limited value to wildlife largely owing to their close proximity to the highway. A total of approximately 0.1 acre (0.7% of total impact area) of disturbed uplands dominated by various graminoids, forbs, and occasional small woody species will be impacted by the project. Most of these areas were likely once forested. Today, their value as wildlife habitat is moderately low. Given the types of habitats that will be directly impacted by the project, it is anticipated that the project’s overall impacts to wildlife will not be significant. Various coordination activities with the FWS occurred during the planning and design phases of the proposed project, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The following provides an outline listing of these activities:

• 2008 – Field meeting conducted with Anne Morkill (FWS, Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, Marathon, FL) to discuss preliminary project concepts and specifically discuss proposed relocation of a portion of the Key deer corridor fence (exclusion fence) on the eastern end of Big Pine Key.

• 11/18/08 – John Wrublik (FWS, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, FL) determines

proposed relocation of Key deer corridor fence on Big Pine Key will not significantly affect Key deer (see Attachment 3 in Appendix 2). Drawings depicting the proposed fence relocation had previously sent to Mr. Wrublik for his review.

• 12/9/09 – Preliminary project plans (75% plans) sent to John Wrublik for review/comment (see

Attachment 4 in Appendix 2).

• 12/9/09 – Preliminary project plans (75% plans) sent to Anne Morkill for review/comment (see Attachment 5 in Appendix 2).

• 1/6/10 – WilsonMiller sends response to Anne Morkill regarding her initial questions concerning project

plans. (see Attachment 6 in Appendix 2)

• 2/4/10 – Meeting conducted with John Wrublik, Anne Morkill, and Philip Hughes (FWS, Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges) to discuss proposed project (see Attachment 7 in Appendix 2).

• 2/5/10 – WilsonMiller sends request to FDOT District 6 asking FDOT to send request for informal

consultation/project concurrence to FWS (see Attachment 8 in Appendix 2).



9

• 2/8/10 – Drawings illustrating existing habitats (FLUCCS), existing wetlands and other surface waters, and proposed project sent to John Wrublik per his request (see Attachment 9 in Appendix 2).

• 2/8/10 – Landscaping plans for project sent to Philip Hughes per his request (see Attachment 10 in

Appendix 2). It is noted that, during the meeting conducted on 2/4/10, Mr. Wrublik suggested that initiation of informal Section 7 consultation with the FWS would be the best process for obtaining FWS’s written conclusions as to the proposed project’s likely impacts to federally listed species and federally designated critical habitats. WilsonMiller requested FDOT to initiate this consultation and sent a draft Section 7 consultation request letter to FDOT. On 4/5/10, FDOT sent a request to the FWS asking this agency to initiate informal Section 7 consultation regarding the proposed project (see Attachment 11 in Appendix 2). The FWS issued its Section 7 consultation conclusions in a letter to FDOT dated 5/3/10 (see Attachment 12 in Appendix 2). They agreed with the anticipated listed species impacts presented in Table 3 regarding federally listed species. Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit TE083411-1 (an Incidental Take Permit or ITP) requires development activities impacting potential Key deer habitats on Big Pine Key to be mitigated in accordance with the Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Key Deer and other Protected Species on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, Monroe County, Florida (the HCP). Construction of the proposed project will impact 0.920 acre of previously cleared lands on Big Pine Key that directly abut SR5/US1 and are accessible to Key deer. These are actively maintained portions of the US1 clear zone. Project construction will also impact 0.001 acre of “native” habitat on Big Pine Key – the outer fringe of a partially disturbed Keys pinelands adjacent to US1. The HCP is unclear as to whether project impacts to cleared, disturbed, and actively maintained areas within the US1 clear zone require mitigation. Regardless, Monroe County determined that all of the proposed project’s impacts to any habitats on Big Pine Key that are accessible to Key deer must be mitigated in accordance with the ITP and HCP (see Attachment 13 in Appendix 2). The County has committed to providing the necessary mitigation for the proposed project, has stated that sufficient mitigation already exists to fully offset the impacts, and has agreed to document the proposed project’s impacts to Key deer habitats and the appropriate mitigation of these impacts in its next annual HCP report that will be submitted to the FWS (see Attachment 13 in Appendix 2). Given these commitments, the proposed project will comply with the aforementioned ITP and HCP. 2.11 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) This project is not located within and will not adversely affect areas identified as Essential Fish Habitat; therefore an Essential Fish Habitat consultation (pursuant to the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) is not required. 2.12 COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY AND COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES According to Coastal Barrier Resources System Maps (October 15, 1992) the project is located within an “Otherwise Protected Area” (OPA) named Bahia Honda Key Unit FL-48P and adjacent to Key Deer/White Heron Unit FL-47P. Within these OPAs, there are no restrictions placed on Federal expenditures, except for Federal flood insurance for new construction. The proposed project is not located within designated regions of the Coastal Barrier Resources System established pursuant to the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 that require CBRA Coordination. The closest such region is the No Name Key Unit #FL-50, which is located to the north and east of the project. As no work is proposed within otherwise designated units, adverse impacts to the coastal resources are not anticipated.



10

2.13 HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES In June of 2009, WilsonMiller prepared an analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to other resources of historical, architectural, or archaeological value. The analysis determined that the Florida Master Site File documented 11 archaeological sites, 12 structures, and 2 resource groups in the general vicinity of the project (see Attachment 14 in Appendix 2). The analysis report, submitted to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, concluded that construction of the project would not result in any impacts to historic/archaeological resources (WilsonMiller, 2009). Based on the cited report and related information, the State Historic Preservation Officer subsequently determined that the proposed project would have no effect on resources listed, or considered eligible for listing, in the NRHP (see copy of letter from SHPO dated 6/23/09, provided as Attachment 15 in Appendix 2). The letter from the SHPO noted that WilsonMiller’s analysis indicated the locations of areas to be landscaped had not been determined as of the time of the submitted analysis. The SHPO also requested that final work plans for the landscape areas be provided if landscaping could affect or alter the character of previously documented cultural resources. Although the proposed landscape areas would have no potential for affecting or altering the character of documented cultural resources, FDOT District 6 staff advised that further coordination with SHPO should be conducted regarding the landscape areas. WilsonMiller therefore relayed the project’s proposed landscape plans to SHPO (WilsonMiller, 2010b). The SHPO subsequently determined that the proposed landscaping will have no effect on historic properties (see copy of letter from SHPO dated 3/30/10, provided as Attachment 16 in Appendix 2). Given the above, Section 303 of the Department of Transportation Act is not applicable and the project will have no effect on properties protected under Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act. 2.14 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES The project occurs in the vicinity of, but is not located within, the following Section 4(f) lands:

• The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), designated pursuant to Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), encompasses all lands and waters below the mean high water (MHW) elevation throughout the extent of the proposed project. The FKNMS is managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Proposed project activities are located within a few feet of to several hundred feet away from lands below the MHW elevation.

• The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge, owned by the State of Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) and the FWS, and managed by the FWS (managed by the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge), is located more than 7,000 feet from the project at its closest point.

• The National Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge, which is owned by the State of Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) and the FWS, and is managed by the FWS. At its closest point, the proposed project is about 2 feet from lands within the refuge, whereas other refuge lands are situated over 10,000 feet from the project.

• Terrestris Preserve, owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy, is located on Big Pine Key about 6,500 feet northwest from the project.

• Monroe County Managed Areas, a group of numerous disjunct parcels owned by the TIITF (a Florida Forever acquisition) and managed by Monroe County, are located on Big Pine Key from 40 to 2,500 feet from the project.

• Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve, located off the southwest coast of Big Pine Key, is owned by the State of Florida and managed by FDEP, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas (CAMA). Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve is located 350 feet west from the project.



11

• Various tracts of land comprising the Florida Keys Wildlife and Environmental Area, owned by the TIITF and managed by FWC, are located over 8,350 feet from the project and occur on various keys.

• Veteran’s Memorial Park is located on the eastern end of Little Duck Key on the south side of US1. It is owned and managed by Monroe County. At its closest, the proposed project is situated approximately 100 feet from the park and is on the opposite side of US1.

As mentioned, the proposed project would not encroach into any of the lands listed above. The activities, features, and attributes particular to the vital functions of these lands would not be substantially impaired by project construction activities or use of the completed trail. Thus, the proposed project would not constitute an indirect use (constructive use) of the aforementioned Section 4(f) lands due to the project’s minimal proximity impacts. A portion of the proposed project is located within Bahia Honda State Park, which is owned by TIITF and managed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks. The park’s Unit Management Plan, which has been approved by the TIITF, specifically anticipates future construction of the FKOHT through the park and identifies the general area where the proposed trail will pass through the park as being the probable location of future FKOHT development (FDEP, 2003). Project features specifically proposed in the park include a portion of the paved trail, a portion of an elevated boardwalk trail segment (boardwalk “B”), gravity walls installed adjacent to the trail, and fencing to segregate the trail from the park. This construction would occupy or “use” approximately 0.084 acre situated within the existing perimeter park fence. However, a portion of this fenced area actually falls within the US1 right-of-way and thus is not owned by the park. Project construction would occupy only 0.041 acre of the actual park property. The overall park property encompasses 138.5 acres of uplands and 352.5 acres of submerged lands (FDEP, 2003). The proposed project construction would therefore “use” less than 0.03 percent of the park’s upland area and less than 0.01 percent of the total park property. The affected area is presently comprised by previously cleared and disturbed uplands that are essentially the fill embankment for US1. This area is not currently used by the park for conservation purposes, nor does it provide any true recreational opportunities. The FDEP-OGT worked closely with the Bahia Honda State Park manager and with the FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks during the process of planning and designing the portion of the project that will impact the park. In a letter dated 5/13/10, the FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks concluded that the proposed project’s impact to the park would be de minimis (see copy of letter provided as Attachment 17 in Appendix 2). They further noted that all possible planning to minimize impacts to the park had been accomplished in the location and design of the proposed project. Given these findings, it is concluded that the project’s use of this Section 4(f) resource is acceptable to the park, is consistent with the designated use of the park, and will not impair the use of the remainder of the park, in whole or in part, for its intended purpose. Another small segment of the trail, specifically a portion of proposed boardwalk “A” on West Summerland Key, will pass through another parcel that is owned by the TIITF and one that is owned by FDOT, both of which are situated outside the US1 right-of-way. The affected portions of these parcels are not recreational areas, parks, or lands managed for purposes preserving/protecting wetlands, uplands, waterfowl, or wildlife habitat. Therefore, the affected lands do not classify as Section 4(f) resources. Overall, the proposed project is not expected to have any adverse effects on Section 4(f) resources for the following reasons: (1) the vast majority of all construction activities associated with the project will occur within the existing FDOT highway right-of-way; (2) although the project requires the use of a small portion of Bahia Honda State Park (a Section 4(f) resource as defined in Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act, as amended), this use will not adversely impact the park and has been approved by appropriate park officials; (3) the proposed work is not located in any Aquatic Preserves established pursuant to Chapter 62-302.700(9)(h), F.A.C. and thus would not have an impact on aquatic preserve resources; and (4) the project does not have any involvement with historic properties (see Section 2.13 above).



12

2.15 FARMLANDS The project area contains no farmland as defined in 7 CFR 658. Therefore, the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 do not apply to this project. Pursuant to the Letter of Agreement between FHWA and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) dated January 9, 1985, the project is exempt from farmland evaluation due to the proposed work being within an existing highway right-of-way. Since the class of action for the project is a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, coordination with the NRCS is not required. 2.16 STATE HISTORIC HIGHWAYS This project does not involve a State Historic Highway, as designated in the Laws of Florida. 2.17 STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS The entire stretch of SR5/US1 (the Overseas Highway) extending from Mile Marker 0 (in Key West) to approximately Mile Marker 110 (north of Key Largo) has been designated a Scenic Highway under Florida’s Scenic Highway Program, and is referred to as the Florida Keys Scenic Highway. In October of 2009, the Federal Highway Administration also designed this same highway as an All-American Road, the first to be so designated in Florida. This project is located adjacent to a section of SR5/US1 that has been designated as a Scenic Highway under Florida’s Scenic Highway Program. FDOT and FDEP-OGT have been coordinating closely as the Concept Plan for this Scenic Highway is developed. Based on preliminary meetings, both FKOHT and the Scenic Highway would share many of the same amenities, such as historic markers and trail heads, and would serve to complement one another. As such, this project is not anticipated to adversely affect the goals and objectives for this Scenic Highway. 2.18 CONTAMINATION An evaluation of the project was conducted to determine the likelihood of involvement with contamination within the proposed project limits from properties or operations located in the vicinity of the project. This evaluation consisted of a GIS analysis/search of publicly available data provided by FDEP (FDEP 2005, 2006, 2007a-b, 2008), the Florida Department of Health (DOH, 2008), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2005, 2007, 2009a-b) and review of online data maintained by FDEP’s Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems and Bureau of Waste Cleanup (FDEP 2009a-d). The evaluation identified 12 documented contamination sites within approximately 3,000 feet of the project. Ten of these sites are located along the project alignment (i.e. either immediately adjacent to or laterally removed from the right-of-way), and two sites are located outside the alignment (i.e. beyond the project termini). A summary of these sites is provided in Table 4. None of the reviewed data provided information on the lateral extent of contamination at the identified sites. The ten sites located along the project alignment are located on the same side of the right-of-way as the proposed trail; however, these sites are often far removed from the trail location. Although documented contamination may exist at these facilities, involvement with significant contamination is considered unlikely due to one or more of the following reasons:

• The project does not involve the acquisition of new right-of-way.

• Project activities involve minor excavation in the vicinity of the facilities (i.e. 16 inches deep or less) and do not require any dewatering.

• The location of project activities is not in the assumed downgradient direction of groundwater flow from

a contaminated site, making migration of contamination to the project site unlikely.



13

The two facilities identified on Table 4 as not being along the project alignment are not considered significant sources of contamination for the same reasons as cited above, and because both of them are separated from project activities by relatively large distances (approximately 600 to 3,000 feet). The evaluation of GIS datasets also identified a number of sites within approximately 3,000 feet of the project that do not have documented contamination but which handle or store hazardous substances. A number of sites with regulated or unregulated storage tanks (DEP, 2007b) were identified primarily on Big Pine Key, but also on West Summerland Key, Bahia Honda Key, and Ohio Key. Additional petroleum storage tanks (University of Florida GeoPlan Center, 2007) were identified mostly on Big Pine Key, with one each on West Summerland Key and Bahia Honda Key, and three on Ohio Key. A dozen sites that handle hazardous substances, as identified by FDEP RCRA regulatory facilities data (FDEP, 2006), are located on Big Pine Key, and five facilities which handle bio-medical waste that are inspected by DOH (DOH, 2008) are also located on Big Pine Key. Based on the above evaluation, the proposed project contains no known areas or sites with significant contamination. 2.19 PUBLIC HEARING No public hearing or opportunity for public hearing is proposed or required for this project per Part 1, Chapter 11 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. The overall FKOHT project and development of the FKOHT Master Concept Plan (including incorporation and repair of historic bridges) incorporated numerous public meetings, presentations and committees dating back to 1997 (e.g., the Old Keys Bridges Task Force formed in 1997 by Governor Lawton Chiles). As a result of these public-input opportunities and extensive collaboration at the federal, state, and local level, the FKOHT project has benefited from continued community and public support. 2.20 CONTROVERSY No controversial issues are known to exist regarding this project. The potential for any significant controversy is deemed minimal due to the relatively limited scope of work involved, the nature of the project, and the absence of any need for acquisition of new right-of-way. 2.21 PERMITS This project was part of conceptual approval for the overall FKOHT system provided by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) on January 15th, 2004 via Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit #44-00323-P. This permit provided approval of the preferred corridor for the FKOHT with final construction approval to be provided via separate authorizations on a segment-by-segment or project-by-project basis as individual segments/projects are designed and funded. The specific nature of the project’s work activities qualifies it for an exemption from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing project construction, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(12), F.A.C. The Rule 40E-4.051(12), F.A.C. exemption criteria include: (1) complete avoidance of wetland/surface water impacts; (2) implementation of best management practices during construction to prevent secondary impacts in adjacent wetlands or other surface waters due to erosion and sedimentation; (3) a width of 12 feet or less for bidirectional trails; and (4) a prohibition on use by motorized vehicles powered by internal combustion engines except for maintenance and emergency vehicles. The proposed project meets all of these criteria. The SFWMD conducted a review of the proposed project and determined that minor revisions to the project plans were necessary for it to qualify for the cited ERP exemption. The project plans were revised accordingly and the copy of the plans provided in Appendix 2 reflect these revisions. Based on completion of these revisions, SFWMD stated that the proposed project will indeed be exempt from ERP permitting requirements (Peekstok, 2010). No Department of the Army permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1344) as the proposed work does not impact Waters of the



14

United States. Likewise, a permit from the USACE is not required under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403 et seq.) since no work will be conducted in navigable waters. No permit is required from the U.S. Coast Guard as the project does not involve any work in navigable waters or any alterations to bridges. The proposed project does require authorization under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) program implemented as part of Section 302 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342). Prior to initiation of project construction, a “Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Large and Small Construction Activities” will be obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the project. This permit will constitute the required authorization pursuant to the NPDES program. 3 REFERENCES CITED Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Flood Hazard Zones of the Digital Flood Insurance Rate

Map (DFIRM) - February 2009 – GIS Dataset for Monroe County. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2003. Bahia Honda State Park unit management plan.

FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, FL. Ibid. 2005. Solid waste facilities – GIS dataset for Florida. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Ibid. 2006. CHAZ IMS (handlers of hazardous or regulated waste) – GIS dataset for Florida. FDEP Division of

Waste Management, Tallahassee, FL. Ibid. 2007a. State cleanup sites – GIS dataset for Florida. FDEP Division of Waste Management, Hazardous

Waste Cleanup Section. Ibid. 2007b. Tanks – GIS dataset for Florida. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL. Ibid. 2008. Petroleum contaminated facilities, 2008 – GIS dataset for Florida. FDEP Bureau of Waste

Cleanup, Tallahassee, FL. Ibid. 2009a. Contaminated Facilities List (1/5/09). FDEP Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Tallahassee, FL.

Available online: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/database_reports/pages/stcm/petro_reports.htm

Ibid. 2009b. Contaminated Media Report (1/5/09). FDEP Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Tallahassee, FL.


Ibid. 2009c. Discharge Cleanup Summary (1/5/09). FDEP Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Tallahassee, FL.


Ibid. 2009d. Historical Contaminated Facilities List (1/5/09). FDEP Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Tallahassee,

FL. Available online: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/database_reports/pages/stcm/petro_reports.htm

Florida Department of Health (DOH). 2008. Biomedical waste facilities – GIS dataset. DOH, Tallahassee, FL. Monroe County. 1997. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map. Monroe

County Growth Management Division. Marathon, FL.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/database_reports/pages/stcm/petro_reports.htm






15

Peekstok, Ron. 2010. Personal communication regarding ERP exemption verification application #100405-19. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. US EPA toxic release inventory – releases. GIS dataset

for Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Toxics Assessment & Implementation Section, Atlanta, GA.

Ibid. 2007. US EPA toxic release inventory – basic facility information. GIS dataset for Florida. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Ibid. 2009a. US EPA regulated Superfund/National Priority List (NPL) sites – GIS dataset for Florida. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Ibid. 2009b. US EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated facilities – GIS dataset for

Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2007. Petroleum tanks – GIS dataset for Florida (based on FDEP

spreadsheet data). University of Florida GeoPlan Center, Gainesville, FL. WilsonMiller. 2009. Request for compliance review of the FKOHT Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile Bridge project, as

submitted to the Compliance and Review Section of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historic Resources. WilsonMiller, Tallahassee, FL.

WilsonMiller. 2010a. Natural resources impacts assessment, FKOHT Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile Bridge (MM

30.0 to 40.0). WilsonMiller, Tallahassee, FL. WilsonMiller. 2010b. Request for compliance review of the FKOHT Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile Bridge project’s

proposed landscaping locations, as submitted to the Compliance and Review Section of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historic Resources. WilsonMiller, Tallahassee, FL.

4 LIST OF PREPARERS WilsonMiller, Inc. Mr. Clay Carithers Senior Project Manager

B.A. in Arts & Sciences, M.S. in Agronomy, all coursework required for Ph.D. in Agronomy 24 years experience in environmental analysis and environmental document preparation.

Ms. Christine Haddock Senior Ecologist

B.S. in Marine Science/Biology, M.S. in Marine Biology 7 years experience in preparing NEPA assessments and conducting environmental analyses

Ms. Trina Mitchell GIS Analyst

B.S. in Biological Sciences 9 years experience in conducting GIS analyses, focusing on environmental issues, and in conducting ecological studies



APPENDIX 1

FIGURES AND TABLES

## #

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

WESTSUMMERLAND

KEY

BIG PINEKEY

BAHIAHONDA

KEY

OHIOKEY

MISSOURIKEY

LITTLEDUCKKEY

BIG PINEKEY

US 17-MILEBRIDGENO NAME KEY

S19_T66S_R31E

S25_T66S_R30E

S24_T66S_R30E

S26_T66S_R30E

S35_T66S_R30E

S27_T66S_R30E

S34_T66S_R30ES33_T66S_R30E

S32_T66S_R30E

S29_T66S_R30E

S20_T66S_R30E

S17_T66S_R30ES18_T66S_R30ES13_T66S_R29E

S12_T66S_R29E

S19_T66S_R30E

S30_T66S_R30E

S31_T66S_R30E

S6_T67S_R30ES1_T67S_R29E

S36_T66S_R29E

S25_T66S_R29E

S24_T66S_R29E

S11_T67S_R29ES10_T67S_R29E

S2_T67S_R29ES3_T67S_R29E

S35_T66S_R29ES34_T66S_R29E

S26_T66S_R29ES27_T66S_R29E

S23_T66S_R29ES22_T66S_R29E

S14_T66S_R29ES15_T66S_R29E

S11_T66S_R29ES10_T66S_R29E S9_T66S_R30ES8_T66S_R30ES7_T66S_R30E

ATLANTIC OCEAN

FLORIDA BAY

31

32

3334

3536 37

38

3940

41

29 30

\\apopka\library$\Projects\04880-FKOHT_Trail\FKOHT_Seg6_SpanishHarbor\MXD\ERP\04880_Seg6_Location_20090206_01_01514.mxdI

Legend

0 0.5 1 1.5Miles

Conceptual Trail (FKOHT)

Sections

Mile Marker with Marker NumberRoads

#30

Florida Keys OverseasFlorida Keys OverseasHeritage Trail (FKOHT)Heritage Trail (FKOHT)

FDEP Project # FS051 FDOT FPID: 250571-1

Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile Bridge(approx MM 30 to MM 40)

FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP



Table 1. Length and location data for sub-segments of the proposed trail.

Project Stationing Sub-Segment

Length (feet) Begin End

Location / Description

A1 1,493 1117+60 (RT) 1131+89 (RT) Big Pine Key - south side US1 Bi-directional trail

A2 4,926 1139+19 (RT) 1188+71 (RT) Big Pine Key - south side US1 1-way trail

A3 3,857 1200+66 (RT) 1239+27 (RT) Big Pine Key - south side US1 1-way trail (pedestrian only; bikes use highway shoulder)

A4 902 1253+99 (RT) 1263+00 (RT) Big Pine Key - south side US1 1-way trail (pedestrian only; bikes use highway shoulder)

A5 481 1263+00 (RT) 1267+67 (RT) Big Pine Key - south side US1 Bi-directional trail

A6 1,067 1176+14 (LT) 1186+35 (LT) Big Pine Key - north side US1 1-way trail

A7 1,157 1201+80 (LT) 1213+41 (LT) Big Pine Key - north side US1 1-way trail (pedestrian only; bikes use highway shoulder)

A8 2,477 1214+77 (LT) 1239+60 (LT) Big Pine Key - north side US1 1-way trail (pedestrian only; bikes use highway shoulder)

A9 892 1253+83 (LT) 1263+00 (LT) Big Pine Key - north side US1 1-way trail (pedestrian only; bikes use highway shoulder)

A10 1,366 1263+00 (LT) 1276+36 (LT) Big Pine Key - north side US1 Bi-directional trail

B1 915 1309+95 (LT) 1318+89 (LT) West Summerland Key – north side US1 Bi-directional trail

B2 7,232 1318+83 (RT) 1388+97 (RT) West Summerland Key – south side US1 Bi-directional trail

B3 655 1368+34 (LT) 1374+74 (LT) West Summerland Key – north side US1 1-way trail

B4 1,553 1374+74 (LT) 1388+97 (LT) West Summerland Key – north side US1 Bi-directional trail (includes boardwalk segment 906’ long)

C1 1,560 1455+74 (RT) 1468+85 (RT)

Bahia Honda Key – south side US1 Bi-directional trail (includes boardwalk segment 186’ long; includes segment within Bahia Honda State Park)

C2 9,741 1455+74 (LT) 1552+05 (LT) Bahia Honda Key – north side US1 Bi-directional trail (includes segment within Bahia Honda State Park)

D 1,765 1562+56 (LT) 1580+11 (LT) Ohio Key – north side US1 Bi-directional trail

E 1,512 1594+57 (LT) 1609+57 (LT) Missouri Key – north side US1 Bi-directional trail

F 2,257 1618+09 (LT) 1640+01 (LT) Little Duck Key – north side US1 Bi-directional trail

Total 45,808 linear feet (8.68 miles) includes 29,875 lf (5.66 mi.) bi-directional trail & 15,933 lf (3.02 mi.) one-way trail



Table 2. Future land use category designations for lands traversed by the proposed project.

KEY NAME Land Use Category Big Pine West

Summerland Bahia Honda Ohio Missouri Little Duck

Conservation X X

Institutional X X Mixed Use / Commercial X X

Recreational X X Residential Conservation X X

Residential Low X

Residential Medium X

Table 3. Species listed as threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that may

occur in the general vicinity of the proposed project, along with the anticipated impact of the project to each species.

SPECIES

Common Name Scientific Name ANTICIPATED

IMPACT

BASIS FOR IMPACT

ASSESSMENT (see notes)

BIRDS

Piping plover Charadrius melodus No effect 1, 2, 3

Wood stork Mycteria americana No effect 1, 2, 3

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii No effect 1, 2, 3

MAMMALS

Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium

May affect, not likely to adversely affect 4

Silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus No effect 5

Lower keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri No effect 1, 6

Florida manatee Trichechus manatus No effect 1, 2

REPTILES

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta No effect 1, 2

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas No effect 1, 2

American crocodile Crocodylus acutus No effect 1, 2

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea No effect 1, 2

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi

May affect, not likely to adversely affect 7

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata No effect 1, 2

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii No effect 1, 2



SPECIES

Common Name Scientific Name ANTICIPATED

IMPACT

BASIS FOR IMPACT

ASSESSMENT (see notes)

PLANTS

Garber’s spurge Chamaesyce garberi May affect, not likely to adversely affect 8

Key tree-cactus Pilosocereus robinii No effect 1, 5

CRITICAL HABITATS Piping plover critical habitat (on Bahia Honda Key & Ohio Key) No effect 1

Notes – Basis for Impact Assessment:

1. Project will not impact any habitats typically utilized/occupied by this species. 2. Project will not impact any wetlands or other surface waters. 3. Documented nesting sites for species do not occur in the immediate vicinity of the project. 4. Project will primarily impact previously cleared and actively maintained areas (habitats) on Big

Pine Key. The impacts will be mitigated in accordance with requirements set forth in the FWS Incidental Take Permit and the associated Habitat Conservation Plan established for Key deer impacts on Big Pine Key. Project incorporates several measures to help ensure protection of Key deer during construction on Big Pine Key. Deer not documented on other keys traversed by project.

5. Species not documented as occurring in the immediate vicinity of the project. 6. Currently occupied habitats not documented in the immediate vicinity of the project. Previously

occupied habitats have been documented relatively near project but will not be impacted by project.

7. Project will impact various disturbed and undisturbed (native) habitats. This species has an

extensive home range and frequents an array of habitat types. Given this, the project could potentially impact areas that are occasionally utilized by this species, although it is doubtful that this species nests in areas that will be directly impacted by the project. The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) recommended “Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake” will be followed during project construction.

8. Project will not impact any documented plants. However, it is possible that new plants could

grow within the project’s limits of construction on certain portions of Bahia Honda Key before construction commences. Project plans include measures to appropriately mitigate such a future impact if this scenario arises. Any necessary mitigation measures (ex. transplanting affected plants to protected location) would be coordinated with FWS.



Table 4. Summary of documented contamination sites in the general vicinity of the proposed

project.

Contamination Data Location Relative to

Project Facility Name1

FDEP Facility I.D.No.1

Facility Status1

Facility Type1,2 Discharge

Date1

Discharge Type/

Gallons1,3

Contam-inated

Media1,4

FACILITIES ALONG PROJECT ALIGNMENT

Sta. 1140+00± (Same side of US1)

Gold Coast Bev. Distributer 8631548 Closed UNK 7/1/98 LG,UG MW

Sta. 1152+00± (Same side of US1) Tom Thumb 8512009 Open UST 4/4/86 UG MW


Big Pine True Value Gas 8511663 Open AST & UST 12/20/88 LG,UG MW

Sta. 1160+00± (Same side of US1) Coca-Cola Bottling Co 8624724 Closed UNK 9/12/91 UG MW


Key West City-Pine Key Peaking Station 9100313 Closed UNK 3/10/92 FO S

Sta. 1202+00± (Same side of US1) Tarmac of FL 9502154 Closed UNK 6/2/95 D GW,S

Sta. 1269+00± (Opposite side of US1)

Big Pine Key Fishing Lodge. 8511664 Open UST 2/10/39 UG MW

Sta. 1452+00± (Same side of US1) State Park Bahia Honda 8511653 Closed UNK 10/28/91 UG GW

Sta. 1562+00± (Same side of US1) Sunshine Key Marina 8511977 Open AST 6/10/97 GG MW,S


Sunshine Key Gas Station 8511976 Open UST 7/13/94 UG

MW,S,GW

FACILITIES NOT ALONG PROJECT ALIGNMENT (beyond project termini) Sta. 1112+00± (620’ to SW)

Key Sea Center 8511837 Closed UNK 2/24/92 UG GW

Sta. 1088+00± (3,000’ to W)

Paradise Petroleum 8511665 Open UST 7/26/94 8/24/93

UG,D MW,S

NOTES: 1 Source: FDEP (2007b, 2008, 2009a-d)

2 AST=Aboveground petroleum storage tank, UST=Underground petroleum storage tank, ABT=Abandoned tank, UNK=Unknown

3 D=Vehicular Diesel, LG=Leaded gas, UG=Unleaded gasoline, WO=Waste oil, FO=Fuel oil-onsite heat, GG=Generic gasoline, NR=Not

reported 4 GW=Ground water, MW=Monitoring well, S=Soil



APPENDIX 2

ATTACHMENTS (on compact disc)

Attachment Description of Attachment

1 Project Construction Plans (11”x17” plans set entitled “Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail, Spanish Harbor to Seven-Mile Bridge, MM 30.0 to 40.0, Contract Plans”)

2 Document entitled “Natural Resources Impacts Assessment, Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail, Spanish Harbor to 7-Mile Bridge”, dated May 2010, prepared by WilsonMiller, Tallahassee, FL

3 E-mail dated 11/18/08 from John Wrublik (FWS) to John Palenchar and Catherine Owen (FDOT District 6) regarding proposed relocation of Key deer exclusion fencing on Big Pine Key.

4 Letter dated 12/9/09 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to John Wrublik (FWS) transmitting 75% project plans for review.

5 Letter dated 12/9/09 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to Anne Morkill (FWS) transmitting 75% project plans for review.

6 E-mail dated 1/6/10 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to Anne Morkill (FWS) responding to Ms. Morkill’s questions regarding 75% project plans.

7 Memo dated 2/5/10 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to John Wrublik (FWS), Anne Morkill (FWS), and Todd McGee (FDEP-OGT) documenting meeting with FWS to discuss proposed project.

8 E-mail dated 2/5/10 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to Catherine Owen (FDOT District 6) asking FDOT to request FWS to initiate informal Section 7 consultation regarding the proposed project (with additional e-mail response from FDOT).

9 Transmittal dated 2/8/10 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to John Wrublik (FWS) relaying drawings depicting proposed project, existing FLUCCS, and existing wetlands.

10 Transmittal dated 2/8/10 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to Philip Hughes (FWS) relaying project’s proposed landscape plans.

11 Letter dated 4/5/10 from Steven James (FDOT) to John Wrublik (FWS) requesting initiation of informal Section 7 consultation.

12 Letter dated 5/3/10 from Paul Souza (FWS) to Steven James (FDOT) documenting results of the FWS Section 7 consultation.

13 Letter dated 6/8/10 from Michael Roberts (Monroe County) to Todd McGee (FDEP-OGT) regarding County’s mitigation of project’s impacts to Key deer habitat.

14 Letter dated 6/18/09 from Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) to Laura Kammerer (Div. Historical Resources/SHPO) requesting cultural resources compliance review of project.

15 Letter dated 6/23/09 from Laura Kammerer (SHPO) to Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) presenting SHPO’s review of project per 36 CFR Part 800 and Chapter 267, FS.

16 Letter dated 3/30/10 from Laura Kammerer (SHPO) to Clay Carithers (WilsonMiller) presenting SHPO’s review of project’s landscape areas per 36 CFR Part 800 and Chapter 267, FS.

17 Letter dated 5/13/10 from Penny Rolleston (FDEP Division of Recreation and Parks) to Todd McGee (FDEP-OGT) regarding proposed use of Bahia Honda State Park land, pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.

programmatic categorical exclusion analysis reportdnhiggins.com/docs/programmatic ce analysis...

Documents