ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Space Coast Trail Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study From A. Max Brewer Memorial Highway to the Atlantic Ocean on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida September 2019

Financial Project ID: 437093-1-22-01 Federal Aid Number: N/A ETDM Number: 14227 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... iv LIST OF APPENDICES ...... iv LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... v

1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Proposed Action ...... 1

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Action ...... 5

1.3.1 Purpose ...... 5 1.3.2 Need ...... 6 1.3.3 MINWR CCP and CANA GMP Goals and Objectives ...... 6 1.3.4 Safety ...... 6 1.3.5 Multi-Modal Connectivity ...... 7

1.4 Decision Framework ...... 7

1.5 Authority, Legal Compliance and Compatibility ...... 7

1.6 Planning Study Area ...... 8

1.7 Purposes and Significance of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore ...... 9

1.7.1 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge ...... 9 1.7.2 Canaveral National Seashore ...... 10

1.8 Public Involvement and the Planning Process...... 10

2 ALTERNATIVES ...... 12 2.1 Formulation of Alternatives ...... 12

2.2 Description of Alternatives ...... 12

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative (Continue Current Management) ...... 12 2.2.2 Proposed Action (Develop the Space Coast Trail) ...... 12

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ...... 14

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 16 3.1 Introduction ...... 16

3.2 Natural Resources ...... 16

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment i 3.2.1 Floodplains ...... 16 3.2.2 Wetlands ...... 16 3.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat ...... 17

3.2.3.1 Seagrass ...... 18 3.2.3.2 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetlands (i.e., Mangroves) ...... 18 3.2.3.3 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands (i.e., Freshwater and Saltwater Marshes) . 19 3.2.3.4 Indian River Lagoon/Mosquito Lagoon Open Water and Sediments ...... 19 3.2.3.5 Managed Species Potentially Present in the Study Area ...... 19

3.2.4 Water Resources...... 20 3.2.5 Biological Resources ...... 20

3.2.5.1 Vegetation / Habitat ...... 20 3.2.5.2 Wildlife Including Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 21

3.2.6 Soundscapes and Noise...... 25

3.3 Cultural Resources ...... 25

3.3.1 Archaeological Resources ...... 26 3.3.2 Historic Structures ...... 27

3.4 Physical Resources ...... 28

3.4.1 Air Quality...... 28 3.4.2 Soils ...... 28 3.4.3 Contamination ...... 28

3.5 Socioeconomic Environment ...... 29

3.5.1 Demographics ...... 29 3.5.2 Regional Local Economy ...... 30

3.6 Administration and Management of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore ...... 30

3.6.1 Resource Protection ...... 30 3.6.2 Visitor Experience ...... 31 3.6.3 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ...... 31

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 32 4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ...... 32

4.1.1 Climate Change ...... 32 4.1.2 Cultural Resources ...... 32 4.1.3 Environmental Justice ...... 33

4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative ...... 33

4.2.1 Continue Current Management (No Action Alternative) ...... 33

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment ii 4.2.1.1 Natural Resources ...... 33 4.2.1.2 Cultural Resources ...... 33 4.2.1.3 Physical Resources ...... 34 4.2.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment...... 34 4.2.1.5 Administration and Management of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore ...... 34

4.2.2 Develop the Proposed Space Coast Trail (Proposed Action) ...... 34

4.2.2.1 Natural Resources ...... 34 4.2.2.2 Physical Resources ...... 42 4.2.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment...... 43 4.2.2.4 Administration and Management of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore ...... 43

4.3 Cumulative Impacts, Direct and Indirect Impacts, and Short-Term Uses Versus Long- Term Productivity ...... 46

5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 48 5.1 Public Involvement, Including Scoping ...... 48

5.2 Consultation and Coordination To-Date with Other Agencies, Offices, and Tribes ...... 48

5.3 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving Notice of Availability of this Document for Public Review and Comment ...... 49

5.3.1 Federal Agencies ...... 49 5.3.2 Native American Tribes ...... 49 5.3.3 State Agencies ...... 50 5.3.4 Other Agencies, Organizations, and Entities ...... 50

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment iii List of Tables

Page

TABLE 2.3-1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED...... 15 TABLE 3.2-1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 18 TABLE 3.2-2 DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 19 TABLE 3.2-3 HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ...... 20 TABLE 3.2-4 POTENTIAL FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED FAUNA AND FLORA ...... 22 TABLE 3.5-1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FROM THE 2017 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY .... 29 TABLE 4.2-1 DIRECT WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) ...... 35 TABLE 4.2-2 SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) ...... 36 TABLE 4.2-3 POTENTIAL WETLAND FUNCTIONAL LOSS ...... 37 TABLE 4.2-4 HABITAT IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) ...... 39 TABLE 4.2-5 FEDERAL SPECIES EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS ...... 40 TABLE 4.2-6 EXPECTED MAINTENANCE COST OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD ...... 45

List of Figures

FIGURE 1.1 – LOCATION MAP ...... 2 FIGURE 1.2 – REGIONAL TRAIL MAP ...... 4

List of Appendices

APPENDIX A – LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX B – FIGURES FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE APPENDIX C – VISITOR EDUCATION MASTER PLAN APPENDIX D – FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS APPENDIX E – WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS MAPS AND TABLE APPENDIX F – FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAPS APPENDIX G – CONTAMINATED SITES MAPS AND TABLE APPENDIX H – NPS WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment iv List of Acronyms

APE – Area of Potential Effect BAP – Benzo(A)pyrene BMP – Best Management Practice C2C – Coast-to-Coast CANA – Canaveral National Seashore CCP – Comprehensive Conservation Plan CFR – Code of Federal Regulations CRAS – Cultural Resource Assessment Survey CSER – Contamination Screening Evaluation Report EA – Environmental Assessment EFH – Essential Fish Habitat EIS – Environmental Impact Statement EPA – Environmental Protection Agency ETDM – Efficient Transportation Decision Making E-W MINWR – East-West Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge E-W CANA – East-West Canaveral National Seashore FAC – Florida Administrative Code FDEP – Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDHR – Florida Division of Historical Resources FDOT – Florida Department of Transportation FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map FLUCFCS – Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System FMSF – Florida Master Site File FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact FS – Florida Statutes FWC – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission GDP – Gross National Product GMP – General Management Plan HAPC – Habitat Areas of Particular Concern KSC – Kennedy Space Center LUCIP – Land Use Control Implementation Plan MINWR – Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment v NASA - National Aeronautical and Space Administration NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service NPS – National Park Service NRE – Natural Resource Assessment NRHP – National Register of Historic Places N-S MINWR – North-South Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge OFW – Outstanding Florida Water PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PD&E – Project Development and Environment PEPC – Planning, Environment and Public Comment SAFMC – South Atlantic Fish Management Council SCTL – Soil Cleanup Target Level SHPO – State Historic Preservation Officer TCE - Trichloroethene TRPH – Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons UMAM – Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method US – United States USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS – US Fish and Wildlife Service

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment vi 1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), prepared this EA for the proposed Space Coast Trail on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR or Refuge) and Canaveral National Seashore (CANA or Seashore) in Brevard and Volusia counties, Florida. The proposed Space Coast Trail would serve as a key link for the Coast- to-Coast (C2C) Trail and St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop Trail. The proposed trail has an east-west segment that extends from the eastern boundary of the Refuge at Playalinda Beach Road in Titusville, Florida to CANA Parking Area Number (No.) 1 and a north-south segment that follows Kennedy Parkway North from Playalinda Beach Road near the CANA entrance to US-1 (Figure 1.1 – Location Map). The FDOT would fund and construct the proposed trail, while the USFWS and NPS would maintain their respective portions of the proposed trail.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the possible environmental consequences of the alternatives considered, including the No Action Alternative. The EA is not a decision document but, rather, serves to support the decision document. The EA is developed to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. NEPA requires that all federal actions must be reviewed to determine their effects on the human environment.

Most of the lands and waters within the Refuge are owned by NASA for Kennedy Space Center (KSC) but managed by the USFWS through a cooperative agreement. A similar relationship exists between NASA and the NPS. In accordance with the Seashore’s establishing legislation in 16 USC §459(j), about 2/3 of the land that makes up the Seashore is owned by NASA but managed by NPS and USFWS. For the proposed trail, the USFWS and NPS are co-lead federal agencies and NASA is serving as a cooperating federal agency on this EA.

The FDOT in cooperation with the USFWS, NPS, and NASA funded a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to evaluate alternatives for the proposed Space Coast Trail. Prior to the start of the PD&E Study, USFWS, NPS, NASA, and FDOT conducted an alternatives evaluation and summarized the results in the Space Coast Trail Preliminary Alternatives Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Florida Department of Transportation 2016). This 2016 alternatives evaluation determined the alternatives that would be carried forward for further study.

1.2 Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the FDOT would fund and construct the proposed Space Coast Trail on MINWR and CANA and the USFWS and NPS would maintain their respective portions. While USFWS and NPS administrative boundaries overlap in a portion of the Refuge and Seashore, to aid the public’s understanding of the proposal, the proposed trail is divided into the listed five segments and limits (Figure 1.1):

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 1 Figure 1.1 – Location Map

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 2 · East-West (E-W) MINWR Segment: From the Parrish Park/MINWR boundary on Playalinda Beach Road to Kennedy Parkway North – 6.1 miles

· East-West (E-W) CANA Segment: From Kennedy Parkway North to Parking Area No. 1 within CANA – 4.6 miles

· North-South (N-S) MINWR-1 Segment: Along Kennedy Parkway North from Playalinda Beach Road to the Haulover Canal bridge – 7 miles

· North-South (N-S) MINWR-2 Segment: Along Kennedy Parkway North from the Haulover Canal bridge to US-1 – 9 Miles

· Interpretive Loop Trail – 3.5-mile pathway looping between the MINWR Visitor Center and the Space Coast Trail

The total length of all trail segments and the Interpretative Loop is approximately 30.2 miles. The E- W Segments of the proposed Space Coast Trail would serve as the easternmost section of the Florida C2C Trail, which is an ongoing statewide effort by multiple state, regional, and municipal agencies to provide a continuous multi-use trail extending from St. Petersburg on the Gulf of Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1.2 – Regional Trail Map). Once completed, the C2C Trail would provide a 250-mile long continuous trail across the Florida peninsula. Currently the C2C Trail, portions of which are already under construction or have been constructed, ends at Parrish Park in the City of Titusville, which is where the proposed trail would begin.

The proposed N-S Segments along Kennedy Parkway North would serve as a component of the St. Johns River-to-Sea Trail, a planned 266-mile trail from St. Augustine to Titusville looping along the St. Johns River Basin through the communities of Palatka, Crescent City, DeLand, and DeBary, and then continuing to Titusville and Edgewater (Figure 1.2 – Regional Trail Map). The St. Johns River- to-Sea Trail incorporates Volusia County's Spring-to-Spring Trail and Volusia and Brevard County's East Central Florida Regional Rail Trail, among other trails.

The proposed Space Coast Trail would require careful design to discourage use of the facility that is incompatible with the purposes, visions, and management goals of MINWR and CANA. To be consistent with the goals and objectives of MINWR and CANA, the proposed Space Coast Trail would need to provide opportunities for the enjoyment of appropriate and compatible outdoor recreation, promote awareness and appreciation of natural resources, and protect, conserve, and manage wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations, while also meeting NASA operational and security requirements

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 3 Figure 1.2 – Regional Trail Map

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 4 Development of this proposed trail by FDOT would be in cooperation with NASA as the landowner, with USFWS as the manager of MINWR, and with NPS as the manager of CANA, including acquiring appropriate permits from USFWS, NPS, and NASA. If the proposal were to be approved, the federal actions for this proposal are listed.

· FDOT would obtain all applicable permits, including those listed.

o USFWS would issue a Special Use Permit and/or agreement to allow FDOT to construct the proposed trail on MINWR.

o NPS would issue a Special Use Permit to allow FDOT to construct the proposed trail on CANA.

o NASA would issue a dig permit to allow FDOT to construct the proposal on KSC areas of MINWR and CANA.

· USFWS would maintain the proposed trail on MINWR.

· NPS would maintain the proposed trail on CANA.

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Action

1.3.1 Purpose

The purpose of the C2C Trail is to provide a continuous multi-modal opportunity to enjoy natural, cultural, and recreation resources within a statewide context and provide users the opportunity to explore central Florida from the Gulf of Mexico in St. Petersburg to the Atlantic Ocean at the CANA. The purpose of the St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop Trail is to provide users an opportunity to explore natural, cultural, and recreation resources from the St. Johns River to the Atlantic Ocean.

The purpose of the proposed Space Coast Trail would be to serve the purposes of MINWR and CANA while also serving as a major component of the C2C Trail and the St. John’s River-to-Sea Loop Trail, providing the easternmost section of the C2C trail between Titusville and the Atlantic Ocean and providing connectivity for the St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop Trail. Supporting the purposes and goals of MINWR and CANA, the Space Coast Trail would provide opportunities for the enjoyment of appropriate and compatible outdoor recreation; promote awareness and appreciation of natural resources; and protect, conserve, and manage wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations, while also meeting NASA operational and security requirements.

MINWR was established administratively in 1963 through an agreement between NASA and USFWS. The primary purpose of the MINWR is “…for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds" [16 USC §715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)]. Additional purposes of MINWR address protection and conservation of federally listed species and wetlands and application of the purposes of CANA in the CANA overlay of MINWR. MINWR is managed under the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997). As outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), the MINWR provides opportunities for appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent visitor uses which benefit the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the public. These uses include hunting,

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 5 fishing, observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation.

The CANA was established by Congress in 1975 “... 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 and Seashore administration. ” [16 USC §459(j)]. Visitors to CANA enjoy recreational opportunities that include fishing, boating, sailing, canoeing, kayaking, surfing, sunbathing, swimming, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and backcountry camping.

NASA is the land owner for the properties managed by MINWR and CANA at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) within the limits of the Space Coast Trail. Management agreements between the agencies stipulate that security and operations for NASA are given priority over the management of other activities. Trail alternatives and management plans would be developed and evaluated with the concurrent goal of meeting security and operational needs of NASA. It would be expected that access to the Space Coast Trail may be limited during certain operating conditions as deemed appropriate by KSC, MINWR, and/or CANA.

1.3.2 Need

The proposed E-W Segment of the Space Coast Trail would be needed to complete the eastern terminus of the C2C Trail and to provide a transportation alternative for bicyclists and hikers, including less experienced users, between Parish Park in Titusville through MINWR to the CANA and the Atlantic Ocean in accordance with the purposes of MINWR and CANA and the goals and objectives in the MINWR CCP and CANA General Management Plan (GMP). Further, the proposed Space Coast Trail, including both the E-W MINWR Segment and the N-S MINWR Segment, would be needed to provide a key segment of the St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop Trail.

1.3.3 MINWR CCP and CANA GMP Goals and Objectives

The proposed E-W Segments of Space Coast Trail would help meet goals and objectives identified in the MINWR CCP and the CANA GMP. These goals and objectives include providing trails for additional “wildlife first” opportunities for observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation. A central shared use trail would provide MINWR the framework to develop additional trails (including trails previously proposed in the CCP), education opportunities, interpretive displays, and wildlife viewing and photography areas. The facility would be designed to discourage uses such as racing or other higher speed activities, high-speed cycling, off-road/trail mountain biking, and exercise/fitness focused uses, which are incompatible with the MINWR purposes, goals, and objectives.

1.3.4 Safety

The proposed Space Coast Trail is needed to alleviate safety concerns for pedestrians and bicycling visitors to the MINWR and CANA. Currently the C2C Trail and the St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop alignment end at the western boundary of the MINWR. The eco-tourism-based users of the C2C and St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop who desire to travel to the Atlantic Ocean and visit the MINWR and

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 6 CANA currently utilize the existing road network for access. The existing roads are not adequately designed for eco-tourism and the use of them by pedestrians and cyclists creates safety concerns. These safety concerns were documented in the MINWR Road Safety Audit Report (US Department of Transportation 2014) and the MINWR CCP (FWS 2008).

1.3.5 Multi-Modal Connectivity

As visitation continues to grow at the MINWR and CANA, alternative forms of transportation would be needed, such as the proposed Space Coast Trail, to assist in reducing vehicular trips, improving visitor experience, and reducing the environmental impacts associated with pollution and congestion.

1.4 Decision Framework

Based on the assessment described in this document, the USFWS and NPS will: (1) select an alternative that best serves the purposes of MINWR and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes of CANA and the mission of the NPS; 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 (EIS) [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.11]. If no significant impacts are found, USFWS and NPS would each make a final decision in separate Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs). A FONSI is a statement explaining why the selected alternative would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (40 CFR §1508.13). These determinations by USFWS and NPS would be based respectively on an evaluation of the USFWS and National Wildlife Refuge System mission, the purposes for which the Refuge was established, and other legal mandates and on an evaluation of the NPS mission, purposes for which the Seashore was established, and other legal mandates. If the USFWS approves the proposal, the EA and the FONSI would update the 2008 CCP for the Refuge.

1.5 Authority, Legal Compliance and Compatibility

The USFWS and NPS assisted in the development of the proposed Space Coast Trail 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), and CANA Legislation (Public Law 93-626, January 3, 1975), the 1916 Organic Act that created the NPS, the General Authorities Act of 1970, the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the management of the National Park System and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1988. The actions described in the EA for the proposed Space Coast Trail also meet the requirements of NEPA.

The overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which MINWR and CANA were established in accordance with relevant agreements with NASA. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in Refuge management, and the USFWS allows and encourages public use (wildlife- dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with the Refuge’s mission and purposes.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 7 from incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that current and future generations of Americans can enjoy National Wildlife Refuge System lands and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge” [603 FW 2.6(B), 2.11(B), 2.12(A)(7), 2.12(A)(10), and 2.12(A)(12)]. In addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety” [603 FW 2.5(A)]. Any commercial activities on refuges have a higher standard and must go beyond the “…not materially interfere with or detract from” the purposes standard; a commercial use has the requirement that the use “…contributes to the achievement of the national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission” (50 CFR §29.1).

Canaveral National Seashore Legislation (Public Law 93-626, January 3, 1975) states “That in order to preserve and protect the outstanding natural, scenic, scientific, ecological, and historic values of certain lands, shoreline, and waters of the State of Florida, and to provide for public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of the same, there is hereby established the Canaveral National Seashore”.

1.6 Planning Study Area

For the proposed E-W Segment, the planning study area extends from the point where Playalinda Beach Road crosses into the Refuge and terminates at Parking Area No. 1 within the Seashore. Opportunities for connecting these two points are limited to areas that have already been disturbed or next to existing development to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbances consistent with the purpose and need. As a result, opportunities for connecting the C2C Trail to Parking Area No. 1 includes Dike T-10A, Pump House Service Road, NASA Railroad, and Playalinda Beach Road. The proposed E-W Segment would include a paved connection to the Refuge’s visitor center as a key trailhead and information center for the C2C Trail and the proposed Space Coast Trail. The trail would be located within or near these facilities to minimize habitat impacts.

For the proposed N-S Segment, the planning study area extends from the proposed E-W Segment to the northern entrance of the Refuge located at the intersection of US-1 and Kennedy Parkway North within Volusia County. Like the E-W Segment, opportunities for providing a north-south trail are limited to areas that have already been disturbed or next to existing development for consistency with the purpose and need. As a result, providing a north-south trail is limited to areas immediately adjacent to or near Kennedy Parkway North.

The proposed Interpretive Loop Trail would loop from the proposed E-W Segment where it intersects the visitor center connection; run north, east, and south along existing or former dirt roads; and reconnect to the proposed E-W Segment.

While potential impacts of the proposal would vary, depending on the resource and the category of impact, in general, a 250-foot buffer area and a 250-meter buffer zone of influence were considered. For those resource categories where impacts could extend beyond 250 meters, the extent of the potential impact was considered.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 8 1.7 Purposes and Significance of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore

1.7.1 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits served by the lands and waters of the Refuge, the Service administratively designated MINWR 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.

In 1995, under the authority of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 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 CANA as a unit of the NPS. 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 MINWR. 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. 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 Refuge for the 34,345 acres in the overlap area.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 9 As outlined in the 2008 CCP, MINWR provides opportunities for appropriate and compatible wildlife- dependent visitor uses which benefit the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the public. These uses include hunting, fishing, observing wildlife, photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation.

1.7.2 Canaveral National Seashore

The CANA was established by Congress in 1975 "... 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 and Seashore administration. " [16 USC §459(j)]. Visitors to the CANA and MINWR enjoy recreational opportunities that include fishing, boating, sailing, canoeing, kayaking, surfing, sunbathing, swimming, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and backcountry camping.

NASA is the land owner for the properties managed by MINWR and CANA within the limits of the proposed Space Coast Trail. Management agreements between the agencies stipulate that security and operations for NASA are given priority over the management of other activities. Trail alternatives and management plans would be developed and evaluated with the concurrent goal of meeting security and operational needs of NASA. It would be expected that access to the Space Coast Trail may be limited during certain operating conditions as deemed appropriate by NASA, MINWR, and/or CANA.

1.8 Public Involvement and the Planning Process

In accordance with USFWS and NPS guidelines and NEPA requirements, public involvement was a crucial factor throughout the development of this EA. The participation of the public, including local residents, interested individuals, area businesses, and interest groups, as well as local, state, and federal agencies and their ideas was of value in defining the proposed trail.

The Refuge and the Seashore previously included an east-west bike trail corridor in the Refuge’s 2006 Draft CCP, Draft VSP; and EA; the Refuge’s 2008 final CCP, final Visitor Services Plan (VSP), and FONSI; and the Seashore’s 2014 GMP and Record of Decision (ROD). The NEPA planning efforts associated with the CCP, VSP, and GMP included public involvement during their development. The exact alignment varies along some of the east-west corridor between the 2008 alignment outlined in Figure 23 of the CCP and the current proposal. The 2014 GMP specifically outlined that the Seashore would connect to the Refuge’s bicycle path into the Playalinda Beach entrance. Multiple goals, objectives, strategies, and the bicycling compatibility determination outlined in the Refuge’s 2008 CCP directly relate to the proposed Space Coast Trail; notable goals, objectives, and a strategy are listed.

· Visitor Services Goal 4: Provide Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities

· Visitor Services Goal 6: Interpret Key Resources

· Visitor Services Goal 7: Provide Appropriate and Compatible Recreation

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 10 o Visitor Services Objective 7.a(7): Within 10 years of approval of this CCP/EA develop three bicycle trails and make other facility improvements to move bicycle riders into appropriate areas where wildlife disturbance and visitor impacts will be reduced.

o Visitor Services Objective 7.b(1): With CCP/EA approval, two visitor use zones will be established to concentrate the most intensive visitor use activities and facilities within an identified primary zone and disperse other less intense uses in a secondary zone.

· Refuge Administration Goal 2: Foster strong and effective intergovernmental coordination

o Refuge Administration Objective 2.a(6): To further goals and objectives in programs of mutual interest, continue to work with local governmental partners, such as Brevard County (including mosquito control district, environmentally endangered lands program, parks and recreation, county commissioners, and sheriff’s department), the Brevard County Tourist Development Council, and the City of Titusville.

§ Strategy: Work with Canaveral National Seashore and local partners to support the development of an alternative transportation connection between the City of Titusville and the Atlantic Ocean (i.e., bicycle path).

The planning process began with the gathering of information. The USFWS and NPS formed an intergovernmental coordination team comprised of staff from the USFWS, NPS, NASA, and FDOT with support from the Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization, Brevard County, and City of Titusville. Key tasks of this group involved defining the purpose, need, and goals of the project; reviewing proposed trail alternatives; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the issues; and providing a reality check. The intergovernmental coordination team met regularly to review public comments, data, and information collected to write the EA. Professional reviews of the Refuge and Seashore were conducted to determine the status, trends, and conditions of resources and facilities.

Initial scoping for the proposed Space Coast Trail began with Tribal scoping letters sent in March 2016 to the five potentially interested Native American Tribes; the joint letter was signed by the Regional Director of the USFWS Southeast Region and by the CANA Park Superintendent. This was followed by the publication of the proposal on the FDOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) system on April 4, 2016 (https://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/). Multiple state and federal agencies submitted scoping comments through the ETDM system. The proposal was published on the NPS’s Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) site in August 2016 (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=67041).

Scoping continued with a public meeting open house on December 7, 2017 at the City of Titusville City Hall to obtain feedback from the public on the proposed alternatives and potential benefits and impacts. The public meeting open house was advertised within the local newspaper (Florida Today), on the Florida Administrative Register, and on the Refuge’s website and NPS’s PEPC site. Flyers were distributed to those on the Refuge and Seashore mailing lists. All advertisements and notifications included information on how to submit comments. Approximately 38 people attended the open house and five written comments were received. A total of 21 comments were received during public scoping: 10 general public, 1 Native American Tribe, 6 State agencies, and 4 federal agencies.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 11 2 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Formulation of Alternatives

Alternatives are different approaches to the proposal. Alternatives are formulated to address the priority issues, concerns, and problems identified. Two alternatives were analyzed for the proposed Space Coast Trail: No-Action Alternative (continue current management) and Proposed Action (develop the Space Coast Trail).

2.2 Description of Alternatives

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative (Continue Current Management)

The No-Action Alternative assumes that the Space Coast Trail would not be constructed, and the Refuge and Seashore would continue to be managed per existing management plans. It provides a benchmark for comparative purposes with the Proposed Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative is a viable alternative throughout the study and can be applied to the entire project or segments of the project.

Under the No Action Alternative, bicycles would continue to be allowed on the Refuge and on the Seashore roadways in the lane of travel with cars, in accordance with Refuge and Seashore rules and in conformance with NASA restrictions that prohibit bicycles on the roadways from 6:00 to 9:00 am and from 3:00 to 6:00 pm. In accordance with the 2008 CCP, the Refuge would continue to pursue the sighting and development of bicycle paths to move bicycle users from inappropriate locations to help minimize user conflicts and wildlife and habitat impacts.

2.2.2 Proposed Action (Develop the Space Coast Trail)

The Proposed Action Alternative would consist of the following: constructing a paved shared-use path from the MINWR boundary at Playalinda Beach Road to Parking Area No. 1 within the Seashore; constructing paved buffered bicycle lanes along Kennedy Parkway North from the intersection of Playalinda Beach Road to US-1; and constructing the Interpretive Loop Trail as a pervious pathway with a paved section from the MINWR Visitor Center to the E-W Segment. To support these proposed trail alignments, bicycle/pedestrian roadway crossings would be added at: (1) the Playalinda Beach Road entrance to the Refuge to connect the trail on the north side of the road with the existing parking area, kiosk, and observation deck on the south side of the road; (2) the east side of the railroad crossing at Titusville Road; (3) Playalinda Beach Road to connect the Refuge’s visitor center area to the E-W Segment and the Interpretive Loop Trail; (4) the north side of the railroad crossing at Kennedy Parkway North; (5) the east side of the railroad crossing along the Seashore’s entrance road before the fee booth; and (6) at the Seashore’s curve where the entrance road turns north toward the parking areas. Railroad crossings would also be added at: (1) the Pump House Road railroad crossing immediately before the Titusville Road crossing, and (2) the railroad crossing to connect the proposed E-W Segment and Interpretive Loop Trail to the Refuge’s visitor center.

Additional details are provided below. Maps and figures related to the Proposed Action are provided in Appendix B. The Proposed Action would include signage and interpretive/educational kiosks

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 12 throughout the Refuge to ensure consistency with the Refuge’s mission and purpose to provide environmental education and interpretation. A Visitor Education Masterplan is provided in Appendix C and outlines opportunities for visitor engagement. During construction, a professional Archaeologist would monitor the short trail segment that passes along the margin of the Crook/Watton Cemetery. All related construction contracts would include an unanticipated site/burial discovery clause that briefly outlines measures to be taken if human remains or other types of cultural material are encountered during construction in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, notably the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 43 CFR Part 10 and Florida's Unmarked Human Burial Act, §872.05, Florida Statutes.

E-W MINWR (from Parrish Park/MINWR Boundary to Kennedy Parkway North: The Proposed Action would begin the trail at the newly constructed eastern terminus of the Coast-to-Coast Trail at the Refuge’s eastern boundary on Playalinda Beach Road. The entrance would include a bicycle/pedestrian crossing from the trail on the north side of the road to the existing entrance parking area, kiosk, and observation deck on the south side of the road. This includes the former roadway alignment that previously served as the entrance road. Pump House Road, Dike T-10A, and Dike T- 10F are all part of a former roadway with remnants of the road bed still in place. The Proposed Action for this segment would consist of constructing a 12-foot wide paved shared-use path on top of Dike T-10A and continuing along Pump House Road. Pump House Road is currently not paved and serves as a maintenance road with no public access. At the eastern terminus of Pump House Road, the trail would cross over a canal (unnamed) and continue along Dike T-10F. The trail would cross over the NASA railroad and Titusville Road adjacent to the existing railroad crossing and immediately turn towards the east to continue along the north side of the rail tracks. The proposed typical section may be reduced to 10-feet wide in areas of severe environmental constraint. In areas where the trail would cross wetlands, the trail would utilize boardwalks to minimize impacts.

This segment of the trail is located entirely within the boundaries of MINWR and the USFWS would be responsible for future maintenance activities.

Interpretive Loop Trail: The Proposed Action for this segment would consist of a 12-foot wide trail using a pervious surface that would connect to the proposed E-W Segment and would loop between the MINWR Visitor Center, Center Road, and the trail head for the Oak and Palm Hammock Trails. The trail alignment would follow existing unpaved maintenance roads. This would include a paved bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Playalinda Beach Road from the Refuge’s visitor center area to provide direct access to the E-W Segment and the Interpretive Loop Trail.

This segment of the trail is located entirely within the boundaries of MINWR and the USFWS would be responsible for future maintenance activities.

E-W CANA (from Kennedy Parkway North to Parking Area No. 1): The Proposed Action for this segment would consist of constructing a 12-foot wide paved shared-use path along the north side of the existing NASA railroad up to Playalinda Beach Road, and an 8-foot wide paved shared-use path along the south side of Playalinda Beach Road to the Seashore’s Parking Area No. 1. An 8-foot wide paved shared-use path is proposed from the crossing of Playalinda Beach Road to Parking Area No. 1 due to environmental constraints. As part of this alternative, the curve where the Seashore’s entrance road turns north toward the parking areas would be reconfigured into a T-intersection. In

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 13 addition, the section of the Seashore’s entrance road from the curve to Parking Area No. 1 would be shifted approximately 13 feet to the west to avoid the sand dune. In areas where the trail crosses wetlands, the trail would utilize boardwalks to minimize impacts.

The Proposed Action for this segment would include bicycle/pedestrian crossings at: (1) Kennedy Parkway North adjacent to the existing railroad crossing; (2) the Seashore’s entrance road at the existing railroad crossing; and (3) the re-alignment of the curve where the Seashore’s entrance road turns north towards the parking areas.

The section of the trail from Kennedy Parkway North to the railroad crossing at Playalinda Beach Road is located within the management overlap area and the USFWS would be responsible for future maintenance activities. NPS would be responsible for the section from the railroad crossing at Playalinda Beach Road to Parking Area No. 1 within the Seashore.

N-S MINWR (from Playalinda Beach Road to US-1): The Proposed Action would consist of constructing northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes along Kennedy Parkway North from Playalinda Beach Road to US-1 with the exception of the crossing over the Haulover Canal bridge. Sharrow markings would be provided over the Haulover Canal bridge, then continuing with the buffered bike lane along Kennedy Parkway North to US-1. A three-foot wide steel metal plate along each direction of travel would be attached to the bridge surface to aid bicyclist during wet/slippery conditions.

This segment of the trail is located entirely within the boundary of MINWR. Because the buffered bike lanes would be connected to the existing roadway, future maintenance activities for the buffered bike lanes could rest with USFWS, NASA, or a combination of USFWS and NASA.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed

A preliminary alternatives analysis was completed prior to the initiation of this EA to identify alternatives viable for further consideration (documented in the Space Coast Trail Preliminary Alternatives Report, incorporated herein by reference). Other alternatives, in addition to the Proposed Action Alternative, were considered but ultimately dismissed because they could not meet the stated purpose and need. Table 2.3-1 describes the other alternatives considered and reasons for elimination from further consideration and analysis.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 14 TABLE 2.3-1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED Reason for Elimination from Further Alternative Consideration and Analysis E-W MINWR Segment Shared-use path along north side of Playalinda Does not meet the purpose and need as this Beach Road alternative does not expand opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation within the Refuge due to its proximity to the roadway and vehicles traveling at high speeds and expressed safety concerns. E-W CANA Segment Shared-use path along north side of Playalinda Does not meet the purpose and need as this Beach Road up to CANA fee station alternative does not expand opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation within the Refuge due to its proximity to the roadway and vehicles traveling at high speeds and expressed safety concerns. Sharrow markings on Playalinda Beach Road from Does not meet the purpose and need as sharrow the CANA fee station to Parking Area No. 1 markings do not accommodate less experienced allowing bicyclists and vehicles to share the road riders. Shared-use path along the north side of the NASA Does not meet the purpose and need due to railroad up to Patrol Road and then shared-use NASA safety, operational, and management path along the west side of Patrol Road and requirements. Eliminated after NASA Playalinda Beach Road. announcement of intent to develop the Patrol Road area for additional launch facilities N-S MINWR Segments 1 and 2 Shared-use path along the west side of Kennedy Does not meet the purpose and need due to Parkway North cultural resource impact concerns and anticipated wildlife and habitat disturbance. Shared-use path along the east side of Kennedy Does not meet the purpose and need due to Parkway North cultural resource impact concerns and anticipated wildlife and habitat disturbance. Shared-use path within NASA overhead electric Does not meet purpose and need due to NASA powerline corridor. safety, operational and management requirements.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 15 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction

Information from the Affected Environment section of the 2014 CANA GMP EIS and ROD and the 2008 MINWR CCP EA FONSI are incorporated herein by reference to allow for appropriate analysis of impacts for those resource categories where impacts could extend beyond the 250-meter zone of influence. For the purposes of the affected environment and environmental consequences discussion, the study area was defined as the proposed multi-use trails and a 250-foot buffer surrounding the trails. The study area was expanded for evaluating potential hazardous material effects to the search distances defined in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1527- 13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.

The listed impact categories were determined to be either not present or impacts would not occur and therefore are not discussed further in this document.

· Geologic Resources

· Ethnographic Resources

· Cultural Landscapes

3.2 Natural Resources

3.2.1 Floodplains

In accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, a federal agency must avoid, to the extent possible, long- and short-term adverse effects to occupying or modifying floodplains. Federal agencies are also required to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development when there is a practical alternative. Per Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM panel numbers 12009C0120G, 12009C0140G, 12009C0145G, 12009C0130G, 12009C0110G, 12009C0045G, 12009C0040G, and 12009C0050G, dated 2014), the study area is located within FEMA flood zones AE, A, AO, X, and X500 (see Appendix D - Flood Insurance Rate Maps). Flood zone AE represents areas of 100-year flood where base flood elevations are determined. Flood zone AO represents areas of 100-year flood with flood depths of 1 to 3 feet. Flood zone X500 represents areas of 0.2% annual chance flood. Flood zone X represents areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. The Proposed Action would involve construction of the trail along existing berms, railroad, or existing roads. These areas have been previously disturbed and may, depending on surveyed elevations, be above the 100-year floodplain.

3.2.2 Wetlands

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, Wetlands Protection, federal agencies are directed to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with impacts to wetlands. Further federal agencies must avoid direct or indirect wetland impacts if there is a practical alternative. A wetland evaluation was conducted, and the results are summarized in the Natural

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 16 Resource Evaluation (NRE) (May 2019) and the NPS Wetland Statement of Findings (Appendix H), incorporated herein by reference. Wetland classifications occurring within the study area were determined based on Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et.al. 1979). Based on this evaluation, four different types of surface waters (FLUCFCS 510, 524, 540, and 571) and nine different types of wetlands (FLUCFCS 612, 617, 618, 619, 631, 641, 641 Roadside, 642, 651) were identified within the study area (see Appendix E - Wetlands and Surface Waters Maps and Tables). The classification of 641 Roadside was used to define the roadside ditches along the roadways within the Refuge and Seashore. These ditches generally were isolated and contained less species diversity than a typical freshwater marsh and therefore were lower quality. Appendix E provides a summary table of the wetlands and surface waters evaluated in the study area. The wetland polygons were individually characterized based on their FLUCFCS type. Due to the large size of the study area, the number of wetland and surface water features that occur and the similarity among the various wetlands observed, the wetlands and surface waters provided in Appendix E are grouped based on FLUCFCS type and each individual wetland is not described.

3.2.3 Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires that fishery management plans describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH), minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for the spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The designation of EFH permits the South Atlantic Fish Management Council (SAFMC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to intervene in decisions on non-fishing activities by highlighting essential habitat and requires other federal agencies with responsibility for proposed non-fishing actions to consult with NMFS on projects with potential adverse impacts on EFH.

As a subset of the areas identified as EFH, the SAFMC can identify Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). HAPC are those areas within EFH that are of ecological importance to the long- term sustainability of managed species or are rare or susceptible to degradation or development. EFH-HAPC are areas of special significance to the managed species. The EFH-HAPC includes significant or critical areas, regions or habitats, which serve as spawning, nursery, feeding, or refuge areas.

An EFH assessment was conducted and the results are summarized in the Natural Resources Evaluation (May 2019). Data obtained from the NMFS EFH Mapper (version 3.0) indicates that waters within MINWR and CANA and the adjacent Indian River Lagoon and Mosquito Lagoon, overlaps the boundaries of EFH from four management units (Shrimp, Snapper/Grouper Complex, Spiny Lobster, and Highly Migratory Species), which are summarized in Table 3.2-1. Estuarine emergent wetlands (saltwater marshes), estuarine scrub/shrub wetlands (mangroves), and seagrass are considered EFH for these management units. HAPC within the study area are coastal inlets and continuous seagrass.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 17 TABLE 3.2-1 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT AND HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Management Unit EFH HAPC Shrimp Estuarine Emergent Wetland Coastal Inlets Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Seagrass - FL Snapper/Grouper Continental Margin Sediments - Sand Continuous Seagrass Complex Estuarine Emergent Wetland Coastal Inlets Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Seagrass - FL Spiny Lobster Continental Margin Sediments - Sand N/A Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Seagrass - FL Highly Migratory Blacktip Shark - Juvenile N/A Species Bull Shark – Neonate and Adult

Compiled by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. July 2017.

NMFS commented in the ETDM Programming Screen conducted by FDOT that the SAFMC has designated mangrove as EFH, as well as a HAPC and that these areas provide habitat for white shrimp, brown shrimp, and estuarine-dependent species of the snapper-grouper complex, such as grey snapper. NMFS also commented that smalltooth sawfish and sea turtles can access the project site. Lastly, NMFS commented that red mangrove prop roots can be utilized by juvenile smalltooth sawfish. A field meeting was held with NMFS on December 7, 2018.

3.2.3.1 Seagrass

A review of NMFS designated critical habitat maps indicates that the project study area is not located within designated critical habitat for Johnson’s seagrass, which is the only listed species of seagrass in Florida. In addition, no seagrasses have been documented within the Proposed Action.

3.2.3.2 Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetlands (i.e., Mangroves)

Mangroves are found along E-W segments of the project both within the Refuge and Seashore. The mangroves exist along the tidal edges of the Indian River Lagoon and Mosquito Lagoon, and along the canals connecting to the Indian River Lagoon and Mosquito Lagoon. The mangroves occur extensively throughout the MINWR/CANA and connect to large wetland systems outside of the study area. Black, white and red mangroves with Brazilian pepper interspersed in some areas were documented during field reviews. These habitats are routinely flooded thereby providing nursery, feeding, and refuge for both recreationally and commercially important fisheries.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 18 3.2.3.3 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands (i.e., Freshwater and Saltwater Marshes)

Saltwater marshes occur throughout the study area. Saltwater marshes consisted of a dominance of black needlerush and smooth cordgrass.

3.2.3.4 Indian River Lagoon/Mosquito Lagoon Open Water and Sediments

The water column and underlying sediments of the Indian River Lagoon and Mosquito Lagoon, including the impoundments, can be classified as EFH within the study area. The open water areas are influenced by tidal currents. Sediment composition is unknown in the study area due to lack of underwater surveys taking place.

Maintenance dredging has occurred within the Haulover Canal. Due to the conditions, seasonal fluctuations in temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, phytoplankton and organic matter are likely in this area. These characteristics also make the water column an important transport mechanism for the dispersal of organic and inorganic detritus and nutrients, planktonic eggs and larvae, as well as migrating organisms. Meanwhile, the substrate provides settlement and foraging potential for benthic organisms during several important life stages, nutrient fixation, and primary productivity.

3.2.3.5 Managed Species Potentially Present in the Study Area

Based on a review of SAFMC Fishery Management Plans, comments received from NMFS during the ETDM screening, and data available from the MINWR CCP and the Mosquito Lagoon Native Species List, a list of managed fisheries species and associated life stages likely to occur near the study area was compiled (Table 3.2-2).

TABLE 3.2-2 DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Life Stages Snapper/Grouper Complex Gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis All Rock sea bass Cetropristis philadelphica All Grey snapper* Lutjanus griseus All Spiny lobster Spiny lobster Panulirus argus All Highly Migratory Species Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatus Juvenile Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas Neonate and Adult

Other Species Common snook Centropomus undecimalis All Striped mullet Mugil cephalus All Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma All Spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus All

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 19 TABLE 3.2-2 DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Life Stages Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus All Black drum Pogonias cromis All Tarpon Megalops atlanticus All White shrimp* Litopenaeus setiferus All Brown shrimp* Farfantepenaeus aztecus All Smalltooth sawfish* Pristis pectinata Juvenile Compiled by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2017. *Species identified in NMFS ETDM review was Grey Snapper

3.2.4 Water Resources

The waters within the study area are considered Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), including all waters within the MINWR and CANA. There are no aquatic preserves within the study area; however, the Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve is just north of the study area in southern Volusia County.

3.2.5 Biological Resources

3.2.5.1 Vegetation / Habitat

A Protected Species and Habitat Assessment was conducted, and the results are summarized in the Natural Resources Evaluation (May 2019). Uplands and wetlands were mapped based on the FLUCFCS (see Appendix F – Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Maps). The FLUCFCS categories that have been mapped within the study area are shown in Table 3.2-3.

TABLE 3.2-3 HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

FLUCFCS Description Code 320 Shrub and Brushland 321 Palmetto Prairie 410 Upland Coniferous Forests 411 Pine Flatwoods 420 Upland Hardwood Forests 421 Xeric Oak 422 Brazilian Pepper 427 Live Oak 428 Cabbage Palm 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 438 Mixed Hardwoods 441 Pine Plantations 510 Streams and Waterways

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 20 TABLE 3.2-3 HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 524 Lakes less than 10 Acres 540 Bays and Estuaries 612 Mangrove Swamp 617 Mixed Wetland Hardwood 618 Willow and Elderberry 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 631 Wetland Scrub 641 Freshwater Marshes

3.2.5.2 Wildlife Including Threatened and Endangered Species

Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the study area was evaluated for the potential occurrence of federal and/or state listed threatened and endangered species, species classified by federal agencies as candidates for listing, and state species classified as species of special concern. Based on the data and literature review and subsequent field surveys, state and federally listed species that may occur in the study area are identified in Table 3.2-4.

Information on the potential occurrence of federal and state listed species within the project study area was based on a review of available literature, database review, and based on field reconnaissance that was conducted within the study area.

Habitat, gopher tortoise surveys, and plant surveys were conducted on October 24, 25, and 26 and November 8, 9 and 30, 2016. The marking of seasonal high-water lines was conducted on December 7, 2016. Florida scrub-jay surveys were conducted on March 6-10, 13, 17, 20-22, and 26-30, 2017. The results of the scrub-jay surveys are summarized in the Florida Scrub-Jay Report dated May 2017, incorporated herein by reference.

Additionally, observations of or indicators of wildlife within the corridor were noted such as tracks, burrows, scat, calls (avian), and evidence of foraging activities in addition to actual observations of plants and animals.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 21 TABLE 3.2-4 POTENTIAL FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED FAUNA AND FLORA Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Status Status1 Mammals West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus T FT Southeastern beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus T FT niveiventris Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana T FT Florida scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T FT Audubon’s crested caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii T FT Piping plover Charadrius melodus T FT Red knot Calidrus canutus rufa T FT Least tern Sterna antillarum - T Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis - T Southeastern American kestrel Falco sparverius paulus - T Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor - T Reddish egret Egretta rufescens - T Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja - T Little blue heron Egretta caerulea - T American oystercatcher Haematopus palliates - T Black skimmer Rynchops niger - T Reptiles Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T FT Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E FE Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E FE Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T FT Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E FE Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T FT Atlantic salt marsh snake Nerodia clarkii taeniata T FT Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus C T Florida pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus - T American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A) FT (S/A) Plants Pine pinweed Lechea divaricate - E Sand-dune spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola - E Coastal vervain Glandularia maritima - E Celestial lily Nemastylis floridana - E Simpson’s prickly apple Harrisia simpsonii - E Tampa vervain Glandularia tampensis - E

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 22 TABLE 3.2-4 POTENTIAL FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED FAUNA AND FLORA Common Name Scientific Name Federal State Status Status1 Atlantic coast Florida lantana Lantana depressa var. floridana - E Hand fern Ophioglossum palmatum - E Nodding pinweed Lechea cernua - T Large-flowered rosemary Conradina grandiflora - T Giant orchid Pteroglossaspis ecristata - T Many-flowered grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus - T Curtiss’ sandgrass Calamovilfa curtissii - T Curtiss’ milkweed Asclepias curtissii - E Satinleaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme - T Threadroot Orchid Harrisella filiformis - T Crested coralroot Hexalectris spicata - E Catesby Lilly Lilium catesbaei - T Shell mound prickly-pear Opuntia stricta - T Plume polypody Polypodium plumula - E Peperomia Peperomia humilis - E Florida peperomia Peperomia obtusafolia - E Rose pogonia Pogonia ophioglossoides - T Beachstar Cyperus pendunculatus - E Scaveola Scaveola plumieri - T Lace-lip ladies’- tresses Spiranthes lacinata - T Narrow-leaved hoary-pea; coastal Tephrosia angustissima var. - E hoary-pea curtissii Giant wild pine Tillandsia utriculata - E Yellow butterwort Pinguicula lutea - T Blue butterwort Pinguicula caerulea - T Sea lavender Tournefortia gnaphalodes - E Coontie Zamia pumila - CE Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea - CE Royal fern Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis - CE Saw palmetto Serenoa repens - CE Butterfly orchid Encyclia tampensis - CE Greenfly orchid Epipendrum canopseum - CE Based on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2018) State listed plants: 5B-40.0055 Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and Revised Florida and List of Threatened and Endangered Plants for the John F. Kennedy Space Center Area (Schmalzer et al. 2002) Federal Status: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T(S/A) = Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance; SSC = Species of Special Concern; C = Candidate Species; “-“ = Not Listed State Status: FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FT(S/A) = Federally Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. Note: Coordination is not required with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) for Federally listed species. E- Engendered, T- threatened

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 23 Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge:

The following species are listed in the CCP as existing within the Refuge: loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake, Atlantic saltmarsh snake, eastern indigo snake, Florida scrub-jay, piping plover, reddish egret, little blue heron, tricolored heron, Audubon’s crested caracara, , Florida sandhill crane, American oystercatcher, wood stork, black skimmer, least tern, roseate tern, bald eagle, southeastern American kestrel, Rufa red knot, southeastern beach mouse, and West Indian manatee.

According to the Listed Species of the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (2002), additional species that have been recorded within the Refuge include snail kite and 28 state-listed plants. According to the Conservation Plan and the Listed Species of the MINWR (2002) list, there are no known federally listed plants on the Refuge and none were identified within the limits of the Proposed Action.

Canaveral National Seashore:

The following listed species have been recorded within the Seashore: loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Eastern indigo snake, hawksbill sea turtle, gopher tortoise, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Atlantic salt marsh snake, Florida pine snake, Florida scrub-jay, red knot, piping plover, Wilson’s plover, Kirtland’s warbler, little blue heron, reddish egret, tricolored heron, American kestrel, Florida sandhill crane, bald eagle, American oystercatcher, wood stork, roseate spoonbill, black skimmer, least tern, roseate tern, sei whale, finback whale, North American right whale, southeastern beach mouse, sperm whale, West Indian manatee, sand dune spurge, coastal vervain, fragrant prickly-apple, east coast lantana, pine pinweed, celestial lily, hand fern, false coco, narrow- leaved hoary pea, and giant wild pine. This species list includes wildlife that may occur within the CANA, but not necessarily within the study area.

The study area is not located within any Core Foraging Area (CFA) for wood stork nesting colonies. However, as described in the MINWR CCP, there is ample foraging opportunities in the Refuge and wood storks historically nested in the MINWR. The study area is in the USFWS designated critical habitat for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta).

The study area is also located within the USFWS Consultation Areas for Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii), West Indian manatee, piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and the Atlantic salt marsh snake (Nerodia clarkii taeniata).

The Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncates) occurs and is protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. The local dolphin population within the Indian River Lagoon on the Atlantic coast of Florida ranges from Ponce de Leon Inlet to the Jupiter Inlet and includes all estuarine waters between these locations (Waring et al 2014). There would be no in-water work and thus adverse impacts to this species would not be anticipated.

As of January 2019, the osprey is no longer listed within any county in Florida, however the nests are still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Osprey are found throughout Florida, with localized areas with sparse populations. Suitable roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat can be found

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 24 throughout the study area. Osprey were observed during field reconnaissance flying throughout MINWR in various locations throughout the study area. Additionally, there is an artificial nesting site at the southwest corner of the intersection of Kennedy Parkway North and A. Max Brewer Memorial Highway. Ospreys were observed utilizing this artificial perch. No nests would be directly impacted by the project. Thus, adverse effects to this species would not be anticipated.

Bald eagles are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and FWC's bald eagle rule (68A-16.002 FAC). There are many eagle nests documented within MINWR and CANA. Nest BE066 and Nest VO057 are the closest nests to the Proposed Action and are approximately 190 feet and 150 feet from Kennedy Parkway North, respectively. Disturbance could be minimized with the listed measures.

· Restrictions on construction timing

· Contractor education to avoid impacts

· Nest monitoring during construction

3.2.6 Soundscapes and Noise

Due to the location of the proposed multi-use trails within the Refuge and Seashore, there are several noise sensitive resources within the study area. Noise sensitive resources include the Visitor Center, Playalinda Beach, users of the Refuge and Seashore, and wildlife resources within the Refuge and Seashore.

3.3 Cultural Resources

The Refuge and Seashore have a diverse history that have contributed to a landscape with many historic and archaeological resources, several of which are listed in or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Archeologists have identified seven distinct Native American cultures occupying Merritt Island dating back 6,000 years. Early European settlers were present in the Cape Canaveral area, but neither Spanish settlements nor missions were known to occur in the Refuge though they may have passed through the area. British settlers moved into the Cape area for a time until the American Revolution ended British occupation. A second Spanish period resulted in several Spanish Land Grants being established on the Refuge including the Gomez Grant at the northern boundary of the Refuge. Spain transferred Florida to the United States in 1821. Though a treaty enacted in 1821 between the United States and Spain, what became the territory of Florida was ceded to the U.S. and defined the boundary between the U.S. and New Spain. Modern development of transportation and fortifications began on the Refuge during the Second Seminole War. Fort Anne was developed in 1837 near the present day Haulover Canal followed by the first Haulover Canal construction which served to bring settlers and goods and to send produce to northern markets. Later in the 19th Century, areas such as Clifton included African-American settlers and sites such as the Clifton schoolhouse; one of the oldest African-American schoolhouses in the country. The lands south of Fort Anne were cultivated for citrus which was the precursor to Florida’s citrus industry. From the 1930s to the 1950s, the land use on Merritt Island was for cattle grazing and citrus with several small residential communities becoming established. Cape

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 25 Canaveral was where space exploration began and, when more land was needed for the future space program, NASA acquired the lands within the Refuge in the late 1950s and 1960s.

There are numerous archaeological sites on the Refuge that speak to the history of this area including prehistoric resources (artifact scatters, shell middens, middens, burial mounds, lithic scatters and single artifact occurrences) and historic resources (15 refuse deposits, six cemeteries, a fort, canal, saltworks, homestead/grove and sugar mill ruins).

A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) was conducted to locate and identify any cultural resources within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the NRHP. As defined in 36 CFR Part §800.16(d), the APE is the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” The CRAS is incorporated herein by reference. The CRAS was initiated to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended by Public Law 89-665; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, as amended by Public Law 93-291; Executive Order 11593; and Chapter 267, Florida Statutes (FS). All work was carried out in conformity with Part 2, Chapter 8 (“Archaeological and Historical Resources”) of the FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual, Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) standards contained in the Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual (FDHR 2003), and the provisions contained in the Chapter 1A- 46, FAC. In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 USC §470aa- mm, permits for Archaeological Investigations were obtained from the United States Department of Interior, USFWS and NPS prior to initiating fieldwork. The specific subsurface testing regime was determined by the USFWS and was included in the FDOT approved Research Design and Field Methodology which was appended to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit.

Research methods included preliminary background research; the preparation of a research design for review and approval by FDOT; archaeological and historical/ architectural field surveys; artifact analysis; and preparation of draft and final reports. The CRAS was conducted from July 2017 through January 2018 after the Research Design and Field Methodology was reviewed and approved by participating state and federal agencies. Realizing that numerous historic properties are present, the parties focused on alternative alignments for the proposed Space Coast Trail that possessed the least potential to impact archaeological sites, historic landscape, and features. This included previously disturbed areas, such as existing roads, dikes, and abandoned railroad beds.

3.3.1 Archaeological Resources

The initial review of the Florida Master Site File (FMSF), National Register listings, and the CANA database for this project indicated that six previously recorded archaeological sites (8BR00188, 8BR01617, 8BR01618, 8BR01625, 8BR01630, and 8BR02229) and one archaeological district (8VO09407) containing a linear resource (8VO09406) are located within or adjacent to the project APE, with another 50 archaeological sites recorded within 0.5 miles. The archaeological district includes 8VO09406, Plantation Road, a linear resource that is transected by the proposed Space Coast Trail APE. Of the six archaeological sites, 8BR0188 has been listed on the NRHP; 8BR01630 has been determined potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP; 8BR01617, 8BR01618, and 8BR1625 have been determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP; and 8BR02229 has not been

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 26 evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The Elliott Plantation (8VO9407) has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO, but the road (8VO09406) has not been individually evaluated by the SHPO. The background research suggested a variable probability for archaeological site occurrence within the project APE.

Historic/architectural background research indicated five historic resources had been previously recorded within the historic APE including four resource groups and one bridge. The resource groups include three linear resources, the New Smyrna to Haulover Canal Road (8BR02230/8VO08880), the New Haulover Canal (8BR02258), and the NASA Railroad at KSC (8BR02931) as well as one district, the NASA KSC Railroad System Historic District (8BR02932). The bridge is the Haulover Canal Bridge (8BR02957). Of these resources, two have not been evaluated by the SHPO (the New Smyrna to Haulover Canal Road (8BR02230/8VO08880) and the New Haulover Canal (8BR02258)) and three were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by SHPO (Haulover Canal Bridge (8BR02957), the NASA Railroad at KSC (8BR02931), and the NASA KSC Railroad System Historic District (8BR02932)). A review of the relevant United States Geographical Survey quadrangle maps and property appraiser’s website data revealed no potential for new historic resources 50 years of age or older (constructed 1968 or earlier).

The archaeological investigations consisted of surface reconnaissance combined with systematic subsurface testing. A total of 2066 shovel tests were excavated, only eight of which contained cultural materials. This resulted in the boundary expansion of 8BR02229, the recording of two new archaeological sites (i.e., 8BR03912 and8BR03913), and three archaeological occurrences. No evidence of the other five sites (i.e.,8BR00188, 8BR01617, 8BR01618, 8BR01625, and 8BR01630) was found, nor were any materials recovered, or historic features identified, from the Elliott Plantation archaeological district (8VO09407) as contained within the project APE, including the Plantation Road (8VO09406).

3.3.2 Historic Structures

No new historic resources were identified, and the five previously recorded resources were confirmed. Two of the previously recorded historic linear resources (the New Smyrna to Haulover Canal Road (8BR02230/8VO08880) and the New Haulover Canal (8BR02258)) were re-evaluated and updated FMSF forms were prepared. The New Haulover Canal (8BR02258) no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method of original construction or engineering and available data did not indicate any significant historical associations. In addition, alterations to this historic linear resource diminishes its integrity for inclusion in the NRHP either individually or collectively as a district. The New Smyrna to Haulover Canal Road (8BR02230/8VO08880) however, does appear eligible for listing in the NRHP. Evidence shows the road was associated with the Second Seminole Indian War and early nineteenth and twentieth century settlement of the area.

Three previously recorded and NRHP eligible resources were also identified within the historic APE. The NASA KSC Railroad System Historic District (8BR02932) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by SHPO in 2012 for its association in the areas of Space Exploration and Transportation, and because it has achieved exceptional national significance in the last 50 years. The NASA Railroad at KSC (8BR02931) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by SHPO in 2012 as a contributing resource to the NASA KSC Railroad System Historic District (8BR02932). The Haulover

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 27 Canal Bridge (8BR02957) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by SHPO in 2013 in the areas of Community Planning and Development, and Space Exploration and Transportation; as well in the area of Engineering. The three eligible resources have been recently documented and no changes to the resources were identified; therefore, the FMSF forms were not updated.

3.4 Physical Resources

3.4.1 Air Quality

Under the Clean Air Act, amended in 1990, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA set NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The MINWR and CANA are considered in attainment for all criteria pollutants or clean air under the Clean Air Act.

3.4.2 Soils

Based on a review of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Brevard and Volusia Counties, there are 29 major soil types within the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974 and 1980). In general, the soils found within the study area are derived from sandy marine sediments, are gently sloping, and with a variety of drainage characteristics.

3.4.3 Contamination

A Level 1 Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER) (November 2018) was prepared using historical research, review of environmental record databases, site reconnaissance, and detailed file reviews. The CSER is incorporated herein by reference. A total of six (6) potentially contaminated and/or known to be contaminated sites were identified within the project study area with risk evaluation ratings ranging from No Risk to High Risk (see Appendix G – Contaminated Sites Maps and Table).

The low risk sites were associated with facilities with former storage tanks and/or were issued regulatory closure (e.g., No Further Action (NFA) letter) with no land use restrictions and/or controls from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

One facility was assigned a high risk based on the reasonably available information associated with the specific property. The high-risk site is the former Wilson Corners/Hot Spot facility situated due south of the project area and west of the intersection of Playalinda Beach Road and Kennedy Parkway North. This area formerly operated as a rocket engine component cleaning facility associated with chlorinated solvents discharged into drain fields. Land-use controls are required, prohibiting the use of ground water. The institutional controls are implemented by the KSC Environmental Program Office through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with FDEP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The land use controls implementation plan will remain in place until a land use change has been implemented by NASA based on their Master Plan.

A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment included soil sampling at seven (7) locations along the E-W Section of the rail corridor. The soil samples were analyzed for arsenic and copper, Total

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 28 Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPHs), and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Results of this sampling event identified benzo(a)pyrene congeners in five (5) of the fourteen (14) soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis. The benzo(a)pyrene (BAP) equivalent concentration associated with one sample, SB-5 (0.5 feet.), was identified above the Commercial Soil Cleanup Target Level (SCTL) of 0.7 milligrams per kilogram. The remaining samples were below the applicable SCTLs. Soil sample SB-5 was collected in an area historically associated with multiple, parallel railroad spurs for staging materials on rail cars. No evidence of petroleum-related compounds was observed at this location. As such, this observation was not associated with a release of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products into the environment from the containers but is most likely attributed to the observed use of this section of the rail corridor.

3.5 Socioeconomic Environment

3.5.1 Demographics

There are no census tracts or block groups within the Refuge or Seashore boundaries; therefore, demographic data was obtained for Brevard and Volusia counties as well as the two gateway cities located outside of the Refuge and Seashore: Titusville to the west across the Indian River Lagoon in Brevard County and Oak Hill on the north side of the Refuge within Volusia County. A summary of the demographic data is provided in Table 3.5-1. The data presented in Table 3.5-1 is extracted from the Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey.

TABLE 3.5-1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FROM THE 2017 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (CENSUS BUREAU) Brevard Volusia Evaluation Criteria Titusville Oak Hill County County Total population 568,183 518,660 41,729 385 Percent of the population that 82.9% 82.9% 78.6% 90.7% is White Percent of the population that 10.2% 10.7% 14.7% 6.2% is Black Percent of the population that 9.7% 12.9% 6.1% 1.3% is Hispanic Percent of the population that 2.4% 1.8% 2.8% 0.3% is Asian Percent of the population that 4.5% 4.6% 4.0% 2.6% is Other1 Percent of the population that is 24.7% 27.1% 26.0% 10.7% considered ‘Minority’ Median population age 47 46 48 60 Percent of the population that is 22.8% 23.4% 23.4% 27.3% above 65 years old Median household income $51,536 $43,838 $46,426 $33,040 Percent of households below 12.5% 14.8% 16.6% 18.5% poverty level 1 Other nationalities include: American Indian or Alaska native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander, some other race, or 2 or more races.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 29 3.5.2 Regional Local Economy

Based on a NPS study of visitor spending effects (National Park Service 2017), 1.6 million visitors to the Seashore in 2017 spent an estimated $101 million in local gateway regions (Brevard and Volusia counties). The amount spent by these visitors supported a total of 1,410 jobs, $45.5 million in labor income, $80.6 million in value added, and $134 million in economic output. The Refuge also received approximately 1.6 million visitors; however, an overlap of visitors between the Refuge and Seashore is anticipated. An analysis of the combined effect of the Refuge and Seashore on the local economy has not been completed but it can be expected that the benefits exceed the values reported in the NPS study.

Within the nine-county region consisting of Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Sumter, Lake, Orange, Volusia, Seminole and Brevard counties, the 250-mile Coast-to-Coast Trail is projected to have a positive effect. Parts of the trail are open and already contributing to those local economies. Over a ten-year period (2015 to 2025), visitors to the Coast-to-Coast Trail would generate an average of 259 jobs annually in a variety of industries. The cumulative economic impact includes $235 million in sales, $143 million in personal income that results in $140 million to the counties’ gross domestic product (GDP). In addition, the construction of the trail gaps (including the proposed Space Coast Trail) would generate 804 jobs, $82 million in sales, $38 million in personal income, and add $50 million to the nine-county area GDP (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 2017).

In Florida, outdoor recreation employs more people than the information technology and aviation and aerospace industries combined (485,000 versus 322,000). Outdoor recreation in the State generates $58.6 billion in consumer spending, 485,000 in jobs, $17.9 billion in wages and salaries, and $3.5 billion in state and local tax revenue (Outdoor Industry Association 2017).

The economic area for the Refuge and Seashore 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 percent of total expenditures. Expenditures on non-consumptive activities accounted for 79 percent of all expenditures. Final demand totaled $60.4 million with associated employment of 466 jobs, $18.1 in employment income and $7.5 million in total tax revenue. At MINWR in 2011, every $1 of budget expenditures is associated with $17.61 of total economic effects. (Carver and Caudill 2013).

3.6 Administration and Management of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore

3.6.1 Resource Protection

The USFWS and NPS are involved in a variety of land protection, conservation, preservation, and rehabilitation efforts within the Refuge and Seashore boundaries. These activities are coordinated through lease and management agreements with the State of Florida and NASA. Refuge and Seashore management activities include natural resource protection, management, and monitoring; cultural resource protection; fire management (prescribed fire and wildfire); invasive species management; impoundment management; visitor services; environmental education; and governmental coordination.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 30 3.6.2 Visitor Experience

The Refuge is known as an international destination for wildlife-dependent recreational activities and receives approximately 1.6 million visitors each year. The Refuge offers opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Key attractions on the Refuge include the Visitor Center, Black Point Wildlife Drive, the Manatee Observation Deck, a mix of trail opportunities, multiple boat ramps, and paved and unpaved roads, providing access to a mix of coastal barrier island habitats and experiences, including marshes, wetlands, scrub, hammocks, and estuaries.

The Seashore receives approximately 1.7 million visitors each year; the annual visitation to the Playalinda District is 1.2 million. The Seashore provides visitors with access to coastal habitats, estuarine habitats and a pristine and undeveloped beach. Most beaches in Florida have been modified through development which makes the natural setting of the Seashore unique.

3.6.3 Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance

Both the USFWS and NPS employ staff dedicated to the management and maintenance of the Refuge and Seashore, respectively. Staff members consist of managers, park rangers, biologists, fire management specialists, equipment operators, maintenance workers, administrative workers, and law enforcement officers.

Visitor contact within the Refuge is generally limited to the Refuge Visitor Center and at check points during hunting season, while volunteers provide interpretive information and programs at various times and locations throughout the publicly accessible portions of the Refuge. USFWS and/or NASA security or law enforcement regularly patrol the Refuge. There are no manned entry gates or stations when entering the Refuge; only informational kiosks are provided to help direct visitors. There is a fee booth for visitors to the Seashore. To support KSC management and operations, NASA sometimes closes the Seashore’s Apollo Beach south of parking lot #4, the Seashore’s Playalinda District, and the Refuge with gate closures at the Playalinda Beach Road entrance and along Kennedy Parkway North just south of Haulover Canal.

Within the Refuge, the existing paved roadways, including Playalinda Beach Road and Kennedy Parkway North, and the bascule bridge over the Haulover Canal are maintained by NASA. All other trails, unpaved roadways, and recreational facilities including Titusville Road are operated and maintained by the USFWS. Within the Seashore, the roadway between the fee station and the beach parking areas, known as Playalinda Beach Road, is maintained by NPS.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 31 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives

4.1.1 Climate Change

As stated in the CANA GMP EIS, climate change is identified as a continued threat to the Seashore. Specifically, it is noted that climate change may cause an increase in sea level rise and an increase in storm frequency and intensity. These issues will directly impact both the natural environment (including dune vegetation and wetlands) within the Seashore as well as the visitors’ experiences (National Park Service 2014).

Given the uncertainty regarding the types and amounts of climate change impacts and the specific rates of change, it is challenging to determine how climate change will negatively impact the Refuge or Seashore, including the proposed Space Coast Trail. However, the effects of climate change would be anticipated to be the same for all alternatives analyzed. Further, the proposed Space Coast Trail is not anticipated to impact local or global climate.

4.1.2 Cultural Resources

Based on the background research and results of the field investigations, the Proposed Action would have no effect on any archaeological resources that are listed, determined eligible, or that appear potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP within the archaeological APE. Also, the three eligible historic resources (8BR02931, 8BR02932, and 8BR02957), would not be affected by the Proposed Action considering NASA KSC has proactively completed mitigation measures of these historic properties scheduled for modification or demolition. This work was approved by the SHPO in 2013 and 2014 (Slovinac 2013, 2014). In addition, the linear historic resource, New Smyrna to Haulover Canal Road (8BR02230/8VO08880), appears eligible for listing in the NRHP. The resource is located within the proposed N-S MINWR segments. The proposed undertaking for the N-S MINWR segments would consist of constructing a seven-foot buffered bike lane on both sides of the roadway. This proposed alternative would remove the grass shoulder and add pavement. Overall, the proposed undertaking for the N-S MINWR segments would retain the existing roadway features and would not result in the removal or destruction of significant cultural resources. The Proposed Action would not be anticipated to have adverse impacts on cultural resources of the Refuge and Seashore.

The CRAS was submitted to the SHPO for concurrence on the findings. The SHPO concurred with the determination in a letter dated August 6, 2019, that no historic properties will be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking on the condition that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the Crook/Watton Cemetery (8BR01626). The SHPO also requested that Florida Statutes Chapter 872.05 regarding unanticipated finds be referenced.

USFWS and NPS commits to the listed measures to minimize effects on cultural resources:

· A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the Crook/Watton Cemetery (8BR01626). · Construction plans will include notes referencing the Florida Statutes Chapter 872.05 regarding unanticipated finds and associated requirements per the statute.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 32 4.1.3 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to assess whether their action have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low- income populations (Environmental Justice). There are minority and low-income populations in Brevard and Volusia counties; however, the Proposed Action is entirely within the boundaries of the Refuge and Seashore and no direct impacts would be anticipated. USFWS, NPS, and FDOT solicited public input as part of the planning process and gave equal consideration to input from all persons, regardless of age, race, income status, or other socioeconomic or demographic factors. The impacts associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action would not disproportionately affect any minority or low-income population or community. Implementation of the trail is expected to enhance recreational and educational opportunities for all persons utilizing the trail system and would not result in any identified effects that would be specific to any minority or low-income community. USFWS, NPS, and FDOT do not anticipate that any adverse impacts on public health and/or the socioeconomic environment would appreciably alter the physical and social structure of the nearby minority or low-income populations or communities.

The Proposed Action would not result in disproportionately high or adverse effects on low-income or minority populations for the listed reasons.

· No direct impacts to Environmental Justice populations would result from the construction of the Proposed Action since the proposed trail would be constructed entirely on the Refuge and Seashore.

· The proposed Space Coast Trail would be open to all visitors.

· The proposed Space Coast Trail would provide users with the opportunity of other modes of travel and would connect to other existing trails within the adjacent communities; thus, enhancing multimodal travel and opportunities for recreation, wildlife viewing and wildlife/habitat education.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any identified effects that would be specific to any minority or low-income communities.

4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative

4.2.1 Continue Current Management (No Action Alternative)

4.2.1.1 Natural Resources

The No-Action Alternative would have no impacts to floodplains, wetlands, EFH, water resources or biological resources (native habitat and wildlife) of the Refuge or Seashore.

4.2.1.2 Cultural Resources

The No-Action Alternative would have no impacts to any archaeological or historic resources located within the Refuge or Seashore.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 33 4.2.1.3 Physical Resources

The No Action Alternative would have no impacts to physical resources within the Refuge or Seashore, including air quality, soils, or possible contamination sites.

4.2.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment

The No-Action Alternative would continue to allow visitation to the Refuge and Seashore as presently allowed. However, this alternative would not enhance the recreational and educational opportunities provided by the Proposed Action. The No-Action Alternative would limit potential economic benefits for Brevard and Volusia counties when compared with the Proposed Action. It would also jeopardize the State’s vision of providing a trail across Florida from Coast-to-Coast for the benefit and enjoyment of residents and visitors.

4.2.1.5 Administration and Management of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore

Under the No-Action Alternative, USFWS and NPS would continue to manage the Refuge and Seashore as outlined in their respective management plans. No additional resources, personnel, or maintenance would be required. However, the No-Action Alternative would not expand opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation within the Refuge, and it would not provide an alternative transportation mode within the Seashore.

4.2.2 Develop the Proposed Space Coast Trail (Proposed Action)

4.2.2.1 Natural Resources

Floodplains

While the Proposed Action would result in the listed impacts to the 100-year floodplain with direct paving of the proposed E-W Segment, N-S Segment, and Visitor Center connection totaling an estimated 14.92 acres, it would represent a small percentage of the Refuge and Seashore and would not impair the flood storage function of this area.

· E-W MINWR Segment – 2.85 acres

· E-W CANA Segment – 1.48 acres

· N-S MINWR Segment – 10.59 acres

· Interpretive Loop Trail – 0 acres

The FEMA-FIRM maps show Pump House Road, portions of Playalinda Beach Road and the east side of Kennedy Parkway North in the 100-year floodplain. Depending on the actual elevation, the roads, adjacent shoulders, and berms may have been built above the flood elevation; thus, the actual potential impacts on the 100-year floodplain could be less.

Because of the location of the Refuge and Seashore within and adjacent to the Indian River and Mosquito Lagoons, complete avoidance of floodplains is not possible with a build alternative. Floodplain impacts have been minimized to the extent practical, by locating the trail on existing berms

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 34 and previously developed/disturbed areas. The proposed Space Coast Trail would minimize floodplain encroachments by constructing the trail as near the existing ground levels as possible or with the construction of boardwalks for water crossings. While the pavement of the proposed trail would decrease the pervious surface area, given that the Refuge and Seashore are large managed natural areas, the negative impacts to the pervious surface would be minor to negligible.

Wetlands and Surface Waters

The Proposed Action would result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and surface waters. The anticipated adverse impacts to an estimated 3 acres of wetlands and surface waters for the Proposed Action area are shown in Table 4.2-1. The summary of impacts for all alternatives considered is included in the NRE, incorporated herein by reference. TABLE 4.2-1 DIRECT WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) SW/WL Interpretive E-W MINWR E-W CANA N-S MINWR Number Loop Trail SW 1 0.01 0.48 0 0 SW 2 0 0 0 0.01 SW 3 0 0 0 0 Total Surface Water 0.01 0.48 0 0.01 Impacts

WL1 0.07 0.93 0 0 WL3 0.40 0.01 0 0.04 WL4 0 0.05 0 0.02 WL6 0.02 0 0 0 WL7 0.05 0.59 0 0.21 WL9 0 0 0 0.11 Total Wetland 0.54 1.58 0 0.38 Impacts

Grand Total Surface Water and Wetland 0.55 2.06 0 0.39 Impacts

Because of the expansive number of wetlands within the Refuge and Seashore and the location of many of the wetlands immediately adjacent to the existing roads, berms, and railroad, complete avoidance of wetlands is not possible. The Proposed Action was designed to minimize potential adverse impacts to wetlands and surface waters by locating much of the proposed trail on existing berms, former roadways, and previously disturbed areas (e.g., railroad and road shoulders), where practical. Furthermore, where necessary to minimize adverse impacts, the proposed trail width may be reduced to as small as 8 feet in areas of severe constraint and/or boardwalks may be used.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 35 Secondary impacts were also considered for each alternative and are summarized in the NRE and presented in Table 4.2-2 for the Proposed Action.

TABLE 4.2-2 SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) WL Interpretive Loop E-W MINWR E-W CANA N-S MINWR Number Trail WL1 7.03 3.38 0.06 0 WL2 0 0.12 0 0 WL3 3.68 0.23 0.03 0.87 WL4 0 0.09 0.87 0.11 WL6 0.19 0 0 0 WL7 2.88 0.67 5.95 1.88 WL8 0 0.06 0 0.26 WL9 0.03 0 0 1.11 Total Secondary 13.81 4.55 6.91 4.23 Wetland Impacts

A functional assessment using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) was completed for the impacted wetlands to determine the functional loss that would need to be mitigated. Details of the wetland impacts for the Proposed Action, including functional values and UMAM functional gain needed, are included in Table 4.2-3. Mitigation would be provided for direct and secondary impacts to wetlands, EFH, and listed species through enhancement or restoration of wetlands within the Refuge and Seashore.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 36 TABLE 4.2-3 POTENTIAL WETLAND FUNCTIONAL LOSS Alternative Wetland Direct Impacts UMAM Potential Number/FLUCFCS (Acres) Composite Functional Loss Score E-W MINWR WL1/612 0.07 0.77 0.05 WL3/641 0.40 0.80 0.32 WL6/619 0.02 0.63 0.01 WL7/641 Roadside 0.05 0.33 0.02 Total 0.40 E-W CANA WL1/612 0.93 0.77 0.72 WL3/641 0.01 0.80 0.01 WL4/631 0.05 0.67 0.03 WL7/641 Roadside 0.59 0.33 0.19 Total 0.95 Interpretive WL3/641 0.04 0.80 0.03 Loop Trail WL4/631 0.02 0.67 0.01 WL7/641 Roadside 0.21 0.33 0.07 WL9/618 0.11 0.73 0.08 Total 0.19

NPS Wetland Requirements

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands directs all federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. In the absence of such alternatives, parks must modify actions to preserve and enhance wetland values and minimize degradation. Consistent with Executive Order 11990 and NPS Director’s Order #77-1: Wetland Protection, NPS adopted a goal of “no net loss of wetlands.” Director’s Order #77-1 states that for new actions where impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided, proposals must include plans for compensatory mitigation that restores wetlands on NPS lands, where possible, at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1.

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 404), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issues permits for activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Regulated activities range from depositing fill for building pads or roads to discharges associated with mechanized land clearing.

Although portions of the USACE’s Section 404 permit procedures (33 CFR §320-332) are similar to some of the requirements found in NPS Director’s Order #77-1 and NPS Procedural Manual #77-1: Wetland Protection, there are significant differences in scope that warrant a separate NPS wetland protection process. First, the Section 404 permit program regulates only the discharge of dredged or fill material, while Executive Order 11990 covers a much broader range of actions that can have adverse impacts on wetlands, including groundwater withdrawals, water diversions, nutrient

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 37 enrichment, and other examples listed in Section 4.1.4 of NPS Procedural Manual #77-1: Wetland Protection. Second, the wetland definition for the Section 404 permit program (33 CFR §328.3) is narrower than the NPS wetland definition (Section 4.1.1 of those procedures), so a broader range of shallow aquatic habitat types fall under NPS procedures. Third, the USACE has "general permit" provisions that allow many projects affecting wetlands to proceed with only limited review. Therefore, in many cases, the Section 404 permit program does not meet the wetland protection directives of Executive Order 11990 for resources managed by the NPS.

An NPS standard wetlands delineation was performed on July 31, 2019. The Proposed Action results in a maximum permanent disturbance of 2.0 acres. As a result, this action is not eligible for a NPS exception under Section 4.2 and a NPS Wetlands Statement of Findings has been prepared. See Appendix H for the NPS Wetlands Statement of Findings.

Summary

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, USFWS, NPS, and FDOT have undertaken all actions to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities. Nonetheless, there is no practicable alternative to construction impacts occurring in wetlands. Any unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to achieve no net loss of wetland function. While the Proposed Action would have adverse impacts to an estimated 3 acres of wetlands and surface waters (combined impact within the Refuge and Seashore), given the small size of these impacts in comparison to the amount of wetlands and surface waters in the Refuge and the Seashore and given the mitigation commitment, the adverse impacts of the Proposed Action on wetlands and surface waters of the Refuge and Seashore would be anticipated to be minor to negligible.

Essential Fish Habitat

As stated in the Affected Environment section, seagrass and mangrove swamps are the two types of EFH and HAPC within the study area. No alternatives would impact seagrass. E-W MINWR Segment would have 0.07 acres of permanent adverse impacts and 7.03 acres of secondary adverse impacts to mangrove swamps. E-W CANA Segment would have 0.12 acres of permanent adverse impacts and 3.07 acres of secondary adverse impacts to mangrove swamps. The Interpretive Loop Trail would have no impacts to mangrove swamps. N-S MINWR Segment would have no permanent adverse impacts to mangroves and 0.06 acres of secondary adverse impacts.

Impacts would be anticipated to the water column and sediments in areas where the pedestrian bridge crosses over the canal along Pump House Road. This would include potential water quality impacts during construction and the impact of pile driving during construction. The extent of these impacts would be expected to be minimal and Best Management Practices (BMPs) including but not limited to turbidity curtains, silt fencing and hay bales would be used to minimize these impacts. These minor adverse impacts would be limited in time and scope to the period of construction and to the immediate area surrounding construction activities. The Proposed Action would be anticipated to have minor to negligible adverse impacts to EFH on the Refuge and Seashore.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 38 In an email, dated September 6, 2019, NMFS indicated that EFH consultation with NMFS would occur when the acreage impacts were more certain. Impacts would be finalized during design and permitting, and consultation will be initiated at that time.

Water Resources

The waters within the Refuge are designated by the State of Florida as OFW. There are no aquatic preserves within the study area; however, the Mosquito Lagoon Aquatic Preserve is just north of the study area in southern Volusia County. Impacts on water quality would be minimized by avoiding and minimizing direct impacts to wetlands and surface waters. Based on Chapter 62-330.051 of the FAC, the construction of a shared-use path or buffered bike lanes is exempt from stormwater management requirements; thus, a stormwater management system is not proposed. During construction, BMPs for erosion control would be employed to minimize impacts to the adjacent habitats, water column and sediments. BMPs could include hay bales and turbidity curtains. The adverse impacts of the Proposed Action to water resources of the Refuge and Seashore would be minor to negligible.

Biological Resources

A summary of the proposed 6.42 acres of habitat impacts for the Proposed Action is presented in Table 4.2-4. Based on the size of the Refuge and Seashore and the total amounts of these habitat types on the Refuge and the Seashore, the associated adverse habitat impacts of the Proposed Action would be minor.

TABLE 4.2-4 HABITAT IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) FLUCFCS E-W Interpretative DESCRIPTION E-W CANA N-S MINWR CODE MINWR Loop 320 Shrub and Brushland 0 0 0 0 321 Palmetto Prairie 0 0.28 0 0.01 Upland Coniferous 410 0 0 0 0 Forests 411 Pine Flatwoods 0 0 0.2 0 Upland Hardwood 420 0.36 0.04 1.22 0.42 Forests 421 Xeric Oak 0 0.23 0.07 0 422 Brazilian Pepper 0 0 0 0 Tropical Hardwood 426 0 0.05 0 0 Hammocks 427 Live Oak 0 0.01 0 0.09 428 Cabbage Palm 0 0.02 0.27 0 Hardwood-Conifer 434 0.01 0 0.02 0 Mixed 438 Mixed Hardwoods 0 0 0 0.07 441 Pine Plantations 0 0 0 0

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 39 TABLE 4.2-4 HABITAT IMPACTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (ACRES) FLUCFCS E-W Interpretative DESCRIPTION E-W CANA N-S MINWR CODE MINWR Loop Streams and 510 0 0 0 0 Waterways Lakes less than 10 524 0 0 0 0 Acres 540 Bays and Estuaries 0.01 0.48 0.05 0 612 Mangrove Swamp 0.07 0.93 0 0 Mixed Wetland 617 0 0 0 0 Hardwood 618 Willow and Elderberry 0 0 0 0.11 Exotic Wetland 619 0.02 0 0 0 Hardwoods 631 Wetland Scrub 0 0.05 0 0.02 641 Freshwater Marshes 0.45 0.61 0 0.25

Fifteen (15) federally-listed species and one candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act were evaluated to determine if the proposed project would affect these species (Table 3.2-4). Based on review of available data, in conjunction with field reconnaissance and surveys, the listed effects determinations were made (Table 4.2-5).

TABLE 4.2-5 FEDERAL SPECIES EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS Federally Listed Species Effect Determination West Indian manatee May affect, not likely to adversely affect Southeastern beach mouse May affect, not likely to adversely affect Wood stork May affect, not likely to adversely affect Florida scrub-jay May affect, not likely to adversely affect Audubon’s crested caracara No effect Piping plover No effect Red knot No effect Atlantic green sea turtle No effect Hawksbill sea turtle No effect Kemp’s ridley sea turtle No effect Leatherback sea turtle No effect Loggerhead sea turtle No effect Eastern indigo snake May affect, not likely to adversely affect Atlantic saltmarsh snake May affect, not likely to adversely affect American Alligator No effect Gopher tortoise May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 40 Forty-nine state-listed species were evaluated in this study (Table 3.2-4) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2018 and 5B-40.0055 FAC). No adverse effects are anticipated to these species.

USFWS and NPS commits to the listed measures to minimize effects on wetlands, EFH and protected species.

· The Standard Protection Measures for the eastern indigo snake during construction would be implemented.

· During construction, if there are stock pile areas, these should be covered when not in use to avoid potential nesting least terns (April – August).

· Eagle nest monitoring should take place during design and permitting prior to construction. Coordination with USFWS Migratory Bird Division should occur following the updated survey, when the current condition n of the nest is known. Minimization measures should include restrictions on construction timing, contractor education to avoid impacts to nests, and nest monitoring during construction.

· The listed excerpt from the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (2011) would be followed.

o Siltation and turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, shall be property secured and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement and entrapment.

o Barriers shall be installed as to not impede manatee movement.

· Contractor staging, and storage areas would be coordinated with the USFWS and CANA staff and would be placed in previously disturbed or paved areas.

· Pre-construction surveys for gopher tortoises would be conducted and, impacts will be addressed on the Refuge or Seashore, as applicable.

· Construction would occur during daylight hours only.

· Trail would be open during daylight hours only.

· Contractor education materials would be provided to minimize effects on wildlife that could be encountered.

· BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation in accordance with FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction would be implemented.

The adverse impacts of the Proposed Action on the biological resources of the Refuge and Seashore would be anticipated to be minor to negligible.

In an email, dated September 6, 2019, NMFS concurred with a no effect determination for swimming sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish and they did not anticipate a need for Section 7 consultation with NMFS for the project.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 41 Soundscapes and Noise

Careful attention would be made during construction to limit the noise impacts on these resources. Noise abatement would include appropriate construction timing, limiting of idling construction equipment, and situating noise-producing equipment as far from sensitive resources as possible.

4.2.2.2 Physical Resources

Air Quality

The Proposed Action would include a trail for pedestrians and cyclists which would not result in a direct increase of emissions and long-term air pollution. Secondary impacts would be possible with an increase in visitation by persons driving to the Refuge or Seashore to access the proposed trail. These secondary impacts are not expected to be significant as the increase in visitation would be anticipated to be about 10% of the Refuge’s and Seashore’s visitation. Construction activities would cause short-term air quality impacts in the form of dust from earthwork. These impacts would be minimized by adherence to all applicable State and local regulations and to the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

Soils

The Proposed Action would locate the trail along existing disturbed areas such as dikes, railroad beds, and road beds. The adverse impacts of the Proposed Action to existing soils of the Refuge and Seashore would be minor to negligible.

Contamination

As indicated in Section 3.4.1 Contamination, the Hot Spot 1 Interim Measure/Wilson Corners site (see Appendix G – Contamination Sites Maps and Table, Site 4) is in a known contamination site. All other sites evaluated would not pose a significant risk to the development of the Proposed Action and are considered low risk sites. Site 4 is located adjacent to Playalinda Beach Road and thus is not directly adjacent to the Proposed Action, but the facility is the vicinity of the site. The Wilson Corners facility utilized chlorinated solvents [trichloroethene (TCE)] to clean various components of rockets, including fuel lines and other larger components. All wastes were discharged into on-site drain fields. In 1977, groundwater contamination was identified with TCE observed at concentrations of several thousand micrograms per liter. Because of the identified contamination, a Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) was prepared that identified an approximately 18- acre plot of land that documents the limits of groundwater contamination, which is predominantly located north of Playalinda Beach Road. The LUCIP prohibits the use of groundwater at this site, in the form of an institutional control that is implemented by the KSC Environmental Program Office, under a MOA between NASA, FDEP, and EPA, effective February 23, 2001. Other restrictions associated with the LUCIP include development and reuse for the area and would remain in place until a land use change is implemented and the concerns of the LUCIP are mitigated. Any change in land use control management must be approved by FDEP and EPA and implemented by modification of NASA’s operating permit.

This facility was also issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit in June 2014. No inspections and/or violations were associated with this permit.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 42 Any soil excavations and/or dewatering effluent generated during construction will be handled appropriately using BMPs to preclude the potential migration of contaminants within the project corridor. In addition, any construction activities conducted within a potentially contaminated area must protect the health of workers and the public. All construction activities would be closely coordinated with KSC to minimize any risks associated with the Wilson Corners facility.

4.2.2.3 Socioeconomic Environment

Local Regional Economy

The Proposed Action would support the local economy as trails are shown to increase sales for nearby businesses (e.g., hotels, restaurants, and bike repair shops), generate jobs, and provide additional tax revenues to local municipalities (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 2017). The Proposed Action would not have adverse impacts to the local regional economy.

4.2.2.4 Administration and Management of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore

Expected Number of Users

An economic analysis of the C2C Trail conducted by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and East Central Florida Regional Planning Council estimates that there would be 28,800 users of the C2C Trail within Brevard County by 2025 (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 2017). For the Refuge, a more realistic estimate of 80,000 to 160,000 users per year is likely based on 5 to 10% of existing visitors (1.6 million per year). For the Seashore, 60,000 to 120,000 users per year are expected based on 1.2 million visitors to the Playalinda District. Compared to the Regional Planning Councils’ estimate, a higher number can be expected for the listed reasons.

· Titusville is at the confluence of three major trail systems: Florida C2C Trail, East Coast Greenway, and the St. Johns River-to-Sea Loop and would be expected to draw more users than the C2C alone.

· Titusville is making significant investments in the marketing and development of trails. In June of 2018, it was designated as a Florida Trail Town by the FDEP Office of Greenways and Trails.

· The proposed Space Coast Trail would provide a unique experience for users unlike any other segment of the C2C Trail. It would provide the opportunity to view wildlife and natural landscapes, access to the beach, and views of the existing launch facilities at KSC.

Revenue

The Refuge would charge $1 per user per day for access to the proposed Space Coast Trail. A fee collection tube would be placed at key access points. In the future, it would be anticipated that this user fee would increase to $5 per person per day. Based on the estimated number of users, anticipated revenues would be over $100,000 per year (at the initial fee of $1) and would likely increase to over $450,000 per year (based on $5 per user).

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 43 A separate user fee would be charged for access to the Seashore. The current rate for a bicyclist is $5 per week. Daily passes are not available, only weekly passes are sold. In the future, this weekly rate is expected to increase to $15. Based on the estimated number of users, anticipated revenues would be over $300,000 per year at a $5 per week rate which could increase to $900,000 per year at a $15 per week rate. All fees would be collected at the existing fee station.

Resource Protection

The construction and operation of the trail as identified by the Proposed Action would not interfere with resource protection activities conducted by the USFWS and NPS. The Proposed Action would not have adverse impacts to resource protection of the Refuge and Seashore. Sections of the trail could be closed, as needed, to accommodate various management activities including prescribed fires. In addition, the proposed trail could be closed at times during space launch activities and as deemed necessary by NASA. The trail would be designed to allow access for maintenance vehicles which would enhance access within the Refuge and Seashore for management activities.

Visitor Experience

In contrast to other portions of the C2C Trail and the River-to-Sea Loop Trail, the proposed trail on the Refuge and Seashore would have a nature-based focus. The Proposed Action would expand opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. It would encourage alternative transportation modes through the Refuge and Seashore and provide uncrowded experiences for all users. The Proposed Action would provide opportunities for appropriate and compatible wildlife-oriented activities. Hiking, walking, and bicycling would be expected on the proposed trail. To ensure that the Proposed Action meets USFWS compatibility requirements, meets NPS requirements, and minimizes impacts to wildlife and habitat, the proposed trail would not provide opportunities for sport, exercise, competitive races, or any type of extreme sporting events.

Within the Refuge, bicycling is not banned on the Black Point Wildlife Drive, but it is not encouraged. Consistent with Visitor Services Objective 7.a(7) in MINWR CCP, bicycling would be discontinued on the wildlife drive once a new bike path is developed. This would not have an impact on visitors as the number of bicyclists on Black Point Wildlife Drive is low. Rather, the Proposed Action would expand opportunities for bicyclists and provide a more suitable surface for riding through the Refuge. The Proposed Action would be expected to have beneficial impacts to the visitor experience at the Refuge and the Seashore.

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance

While representing additional maintenance activities, the Proposed Action would not adversely impact the personnel, operations, and maintenance of the Refuge and Seashore. As discussed above, user fees would be collected and would support the needed maintenance activities. While FDOT would pay for construction of the proposed trail using State funds, USFWS and NPS would be responsible for ongoing maintenance costs for the proposed trail and NASA would be responsible for maintenance of the Haulover Canal bridge. Maintenance needs could include those listed.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 44 · Resurfacing and repaving

· Trail pavement management (e.g., addressing potholes, cracks, edge damage, root damage, and patches)

· Trail pavement markings, including signage, interpretive panel, lighting at crossings, and painted symbols on pavement

· Vegetation management (e.g., mowing and trimming)

· Trailhead parking maintenance

· Bicycle parking maintenance

· Trash and debris removal

· Graffiti removal

· Motorized carts for volunteers and staff (e.g., for litter pickup, maintenance, trail assessment/inspection, interpretive programs, and visitor assistance)

The anticipated annual maintenance cost would be estimated at $2,500 per mile per year based on industry average and experience. For the Refuge, this would amount to $15,000 to $20,000 per year. For the Seashore, this would be $9,000 to $12,000 per year.

Other major maintenance activities would be expected. The trail would need to be resurfaced every 20 to 25 years. The present-day cost for resurfacing a 12-foot wide trail is approximately $100,000 per mile. In order to extend the life and quality of the trail, the trail should be resealed every 5 to 7 years. The cost for resealing is about $25,000 per mile.

For the Refuge, the cost of resurfacing would be approximately $700,000 and the cost for resealing would be approximately $175,000. For the Seashore, the cost of resurfacing would be approximately $400,000 and the cost for resealing would be approximately $100,000.

Assuming 2% inflation, the cost for annual maintenance activities, resealing, and resurfacing over a 20-year period is provided in Table 4.2-6.

TABLE 4.2-6 EXPECTED MAINTENANCE COST OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD Activity Refuge Seashore Annual Maintenance (20-year period) $485,947 $291,568 Reseal Year 5 $193,214 $110,408 Reseal Year 10 $213.324 $121,899 Reseal Year 15 $235,527 $134,587 Resurface Year 20 $1,040,163 $594,379 20-Year Total $2,168,175 $1,252,841

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 45 During this same period, the Refuge would be expected to generate approximately $7.25 million in revenues and the Seashore would be expected to generate $15 million from anticipated trail users which is sufficient to cover the expected maintenance costs including resurfacing, resealing, pavement and vegetation management, parking areas, signage, lighting, trash and debris removal, and staff and volunteer costs.

The cost breakdown provided in Table 4.2-5 does not account for maintaining the proposed buffered bicycle lanes along Kennedy Parkway North within the Refuge. Some of the maintenance costs for the North-South Segment could be shared with NASA as they maintain and operate Kennedy Parkway North, including Haulover Bridge. The Proposed Action would not adversely impact Refuge, Seashore, and KSC personnel, operations, and maintenance. Certain management and operational activities of the Refuge, Seashore, and/or KSC could temporarily close the proposed trail, such as emergency operations, fire management activities, space launch and landing activities, and roadway or railway transport of space support materials. However, these adverse impacts to access and use of the proposed trail would be minor, temporary, and short lived and would not be anticipated to have lasting adverse impacts.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts, Direct and Indirect Impacts, and Short-Term Uses Versus Long- Term Productivity

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 Code of Federal Regulations §1508.7). 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 USFWS and NPS are unaware of any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future planned actions that would result in significant cumulative impacts when added to the Proposed Action.

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. The direct and indirect beneficial and adverse impacts of the Proposed Action would be expected to be minor to negligible. Further, the Proposed Action would not be anticipated to have adverse impacts to long-term productivity of the systems and resources of the Refuge and Seashore. Potential indirect impacts to wetlands, EFH, and managed species would have the potential to occur during construction of the project and could include a reduction in the intrinsic functions of wetlands adjacent to the constructed alternatives. For the Proposed Action, potential indirect effects to wetlands, EFH, and managed species would be expected to be temporary in nature and could be avoided or minimized via the incorporation of environmental protection measures into project construction plans and specifications. Potential secondary impacts to wetlands, EFH, and managed species from the construction of a multiuse trail could include those listed.

· Indirect disturbance to migrating, spawning, rearing, or foraging habitats

· Additional noise activity with increased use of Refuge

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 46 · Alterations in hydrology and disruption of natural waterway processes

· Sedimentation and turbidity from construction activities, including side slope erosion

· Degradation of water quality from runoff, fuel spills, or petroleum leakage

· Increased trash within MINWR and CANA due to increased use of proposed trails

However, these adverse impacts would be anticipated to be minor to negligible with some limited to only the construction period for the proposed trail. The Proposed Action would not be anticipated to result in cumulative adverse impacts, more than minor direct or indirect adverse impacts, and reduction in long-term productivity.

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 47 5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

In accordance with USFWS and NPS guidelines and NEPA requirements, public involvement was a crucial factor throughout the development of this EA. In addition, consultation and coordination was conducted with federal, state, and local agencies and Native American Tribes to identify potential issues and concerns related to implementing the Proposed Action within the Refuge and Seashore. This chapter provides a summary of public involvement and consultation activities that were conducted as part of the development of this EA.

5.1 Public Involvement, Including Scoping

Initial scoping began with Tribal scoping letters sent in March 2016 to the five potentially interested Native American Tribes; the joint letter was signed by the Regional Director of the USFWS Southeast Region and by the CANA Park Superintendent. This was followed by the publication of the proposal on the FDOT’s ETDM system on April 4, 2016 (https://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/). Multiple state and federal agencies submitted scoping comments through the ETDM system. The proposal was published on the NPS’s PEPC site in August 2016 (https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=67041).

Scoping continued with a public meeting open house on December 7, 2017 at the City of Titusville City Hall to obtain feedback from the public on the proposed alternatives and potential benefits and impacts. The public meeting open house was advertised within the local newspaper (Florida Today), on the Florida Administrative Register, and on the Refuge’s website and NPS’s PEPC site. Flyers were distributed by email and mail to those on the Refuge and Seashore mailing lists. All advertisements and notifications included information on how to submit comments.

Approximately 38 people attended the open house and five written comments were received. All comments expressed support for the proposed Space Coast Trail, and most expressed a preference for providing some separation between the proposed trail and the existing roadways. Two commenters specifically expressed concern over the “sharrow” option that would allow bicyclist and vehicles to share the roadway within the Seashore segment. Three commenters specifically identified a preference for a shared-use path along Kennedy Parkway North as opposed to buffered bike lanes. A total of 21 comments were submitted during scoping: 10 general public, 1 Native American Tribe, 6 State agencies, and 4 federal agencies.

Prior to the public scoping, only a sharrow option within the Seashore was considered. Following the public scoping, a shared-use path option within the Seashore was considered and developed as part of the Proposed Action.

5.2 Consultation and Coordination To-Date with Other Agencies, Offices, and Tribes

The USFWS, NPS, NASA, and FDOT coordinated closely to develop and evaluate the Proposed Action, including alternative alignments and impacts. All four agencies would be involved in some aspect of implementation of the proposal with FDOT leading construction, including needed permits

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 48 from USFWS, NPS, and NASA; USFWS and NPS leading implementation, including maintenance; and ongoing regular coordination between USFWS, NPS, and NASA.

The CRAS was submitted to the SHPO, for concurrence on the findings. The SHPO concurred with the determination in a letter dated August 6, 2019, that no historic properties will be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking, on the condition that a qualified archaeological monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the Crook/Watton Cemetery (8BR01626). The SHPO also requested that Florida Statutes Chapter 872.05 regarding unanticipated finds be referenced.

Public scoping, discussed above, included Native American Tribes, other federal agencies, State agencies, and local governments; these entities will again have the opportunity to comment on the proposal during the public review and comment period on the EA. The State Clearinghouse review will occur during the public review and comment period, including coordination under the Coastal Zone Management Act and including coordination with the SHPO for concurrence that the Proposed Action would not have adverse impacts to cultural resources. Section 7 consultation with Ecological Services of the USFWS began with early coordination on the proposal. Coordination with the NMFS also began in the early planning stages of the proposal. Section 106 consultation also began in the early planning stages of the proposal. All permitting to implement the Proposed Action would be coordinated between FDOT, USFWS, NPS, and NASA, as appropriate.

5.3 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving Notice of Availability of this Document for Public Review and Comment

5.3.1 Federal Agencies

· National Aeronautics and Space Administration · U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – North Florida Ecological Services Office

· U.S. Air Force · National Marine Fisheries Service 5.3.2 Native American Tribes

· Seminole Tribe of Florida

· Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

· Muscogee (Creek) Nation

· Poarch Band of Creek Indians

· Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 49 5.3.3 State Agencies

· State Clearinghouse

· Florida Department of State

· Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

· Florida Department of Environmental Protection

· Florida Department of Economic Opportunity

· Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

· St. Johns River Water Management District

5.3.4 Other Agencies, Organizations, and Entities

· Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization

· River-to-Sea Transportation Planning Organization

· Brevard County

· Volusia County

· City of Titusville

· City of Cape Canaveral

· City of Cocoa Beach

· City of Edgewater

· City of Oak Hill

· Local businesses

· Local media

· Local non-governmental organizations

· Local homeowner’s associations

· Entities on the email and mail lists

· Requesting members of the public

Space Coast Trail Environmental Assessment 50