Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendices

January 2019 This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX A Agency Coordination This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX A.1 Scoping Comments This Page Intentionally Left Blank AECOM 813.675.6843 tel 7650 West Courtney Campbell 813.636.2400 fax Causeway Tampa, FL 33607 www.aecom.com

December 11, 2017

Florida State Clearinghouse Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 47 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AT PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT (PGD), CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Charlotte County Airport Authority (CCAA) is considering a variety of airside and landside development options within its Master Plan Update (MPU) for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at Punta Gorda Airport (PGD), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implementing regulations, the CCAA is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider and document the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The enclosed Figure 1 shows the extent of the Proposed Project, which is comprised of comprise the following development actions:

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #’s 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project # 2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #’s 20 and 21); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #61); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project # 35); December 11, 2017 Page 2

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

During the course of the EA, AECOM will identify and consider potential social, economic, and environmental impacts related to Proposed Project. As part of our early coordination efforts for the EA, and on behalf of the CCAA, AECOM is attempting to identify preliminary key issues that will need to be addressed in the NEPA process. To accomplish this we would like to receive your comments relative to the proposed improvements as they relate to your specific area of expertise or regulatory jurisdiction, including permitting or mitigation requirements.

Of note, additional project data and information will be developed during preparation of the EA, including locations of potential ancillary project elements such as onsite staging and materials storage areas, construction haul routes, and locations of batch plants, that may prompt you to provide additional comments on issues to be considered in the EA. Consequently, you will be invited to review and provide additional comments on the Draft EA upon publication.

In order to sufficiently address any preliminary key project issues and maintain the project schedule, your written comments are requested. Please respond to me at the address provided below and feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul Sanford AECOM Project Manager 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607 813.675.6843 [email protected]

Enclosure (1)

Copy: EPS, FAA Ron Ridenour, CCAA File 2

2 I

21 60

53 7 54

20 F

H 20 4

35 32

61 12 20

C 3 20

21 1 B2 B3

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIGURE FIVE-YEAR CIP PROJECTS 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Stahl, Chris To: Sanford, Paul Cc: State_Clearinghouse Subject: State_Clearance_Letter_For_FL201712158216C_Environmental Assessment (EA) of The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at Punta Gorda Airport (PGD), Charlotte County Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:27:14 PM

January 30, 2018

Paul Sanford AECOM 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607-1462

RE: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Improvement Program, Environmental Assessment (EA) of The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at Punta Gorda Airport (PGD), Charlotte County, Florida SAI # FL201712158216C

Dear Paul:

Florida State Clearinghouse staff has reviewed the proposal under the following authorities: Presidential Executive Order 12372; § 403.061(42), Florida Statutes; the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1464, as amended; and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347, as amended.

The South District regulatory office of the department of the Environmental Protection has reviewed the project and determined that: 1.The proposed project will require DEP Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System Permitting. Guidance is available at the following web site link: https://floridadep.gov/water/domestic-wastewater/content/domestic-wastewater- collectiontransmission-system-permitting. 2.The proposed project will require DEP Drinking Water Main Extension Permitting. The applicable forms are available at the following web site link: https://floridadep.gov/water/source-drinking-water/content/drinking-water-forms-reporting- formats. 3.Operators of construction activities must obtain coverage under an NPDES stormwater permit and implement appropriate pollution prevention techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation and properly manage stormwater. Guidance is available at the following web site link: https://floridadep.gov/Water/Stormwater. 4. The activities may require a Conceptual ERP Permit and/or an Individual ERP Permit pursuant to 373, F.S. for wetland impacts and stormwater control requirements.

The Florida Department of Transportation noted that Figure 1 (page 3 of 3) depicts items labeled: 12, 53, B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I; for which there are no descriptions in the bulletized list on pages 1 and 2. Any proposed modification to existing wet ponds, or construction of new wet ponds, should take into consideration the steep-sided design guidelines in the FDOT Drainage Design Guide, FDOT Drainage Manual, FAA AC 150/5200-33B (Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports), and/or the FDOT ASO Statewide Airport Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual). (Comment submitted by FDOT ASO, Mike McClure @ 850-414-4506)

A review by Southwest Florida Water Management District determined that the proposed improvements will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). Early coordination with the District’s ERP staff is encouraged prior to any site work. For assistance or additional information, please contact Robin McGill, Senior Professional Engineer, at (813) 985-7481, extension 2072, or [email protected].

Based on the information submitted and minimal project impacts, the state has no objections to the subject project and, therefore, it is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The state’s final concurrence of the project’s consistency with the FCMP will be determined during any environmental permitting processes, in accordance with Section 373.428, Florida Statutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed plan. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me at (850) 717-9076.

Sincerely,

Chris Stahl

Chris Stahl, Coordinator Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, M.S. 47 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 ph. (850) 717-9076 [email protected] APPENDIX A.2 USFWS and FWC Consultation This Page Intentionally Left Blank

growth in commercial passenger service at PGD. :,a. Remove Airfield Wetland Areas: removal of various wetland areas on the PGD airfield will occur in two phases in the Five-Year CIP for the purposes of managing and minimizing wildlife hazards.

Effects Determi11atio11

To support the EA, the enclosed Official Species List (consultation reference code 04EF2000- 2018-SLI-O 135) was requested from the Service through its Information for Planning and Conservation System (IPaC). To address the recommendations of the Service in regards to this request, and pursuant to F AA's Section 7 consultation obligations under the ESA, the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared for the Service's review.

A summary of the effects determination on both federally listed and state listed species is provided on Table 1 below and detailed within the enclosed BA. The BA contains detailed descriptions of methods, data and considerations used to arrive at these conclusions.

Ta bl e 1 Eff- ect Ds t e ermma f10n s ummary Project Impact Federally Listed Species Determination Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Audubon's crested caracara (Polyborus plancus "May affect, not likely to audubonii) adversely affect" Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabifis pfumbeus) Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Florida bonneted bat (Ewnovs floridanus) Federally listed plant species "No effect" Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Florida panther (Puma concofor co,yi) Project Impact State Listed Species Determination Gopher tortoise (Gopher us polyphemus) Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus rnugitus) Florida burrowing owl (Athene cuniculariajloridana) Little blue heron (Egreffa caerulea) "May affect, not likely to Tricolored heron (Egrefla tricolor) adversely affect" Roseate spoonbill (Plata/ea ajaja) Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) Florida sandhill crane (Anlif?one canadensis pratensis)

State listed plant species Sherman's foxsqui1Tel (Sciurus niger sherrnani) "No effect" Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 Phone: (772) 562-3909 Fax: (772) 562-4288 http://fws.gov/verobeach

In Reply Refer To: November 21, 2017 Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2018-SLI-0135 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 Project Name: Punta Gorda Airport EA

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 seq. ).et

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq. ), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 2 human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. ), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment(s):

Official Species List

11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 1

Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 (772) 562-3909 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 2

Project Summary Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2018-SLI-0135

Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449

Project Name: Punta Gorda Airport EA

Project Type: DEVELOPMENT

Project Description: Charlotte County Airport Authority is undertaking this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA is being completed to support the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program at the Punta Gorda Airport. The purpose of the EA is to identify and consider the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project and any reasonable alternatives.

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/26.91770680258439N81.99173377565097W

Counties: Charlotte, FL 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 3

Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 21 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Mammals

NAME STATUS Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8630

Florida Panther Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1763 Habitat assessment guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/assessment/population/8/office/41420.pdf

Puma (=mountain Lion) Puma (=Felis) concolor (all subsp. except Similarity of coryi) Appearance Population: FL (Threatened) No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6049

West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

This species is also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and may have additional consultation requirements. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4469 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 4

Birds

NAME STATUS Audubon's Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii Threatened Population: FL pop. No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8250

Everglade Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7713 Species survey guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/1221/office/41420.pdf

Florida Scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6174

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8230

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except those areas where listed as endangered. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614

Whooping Crane Grus americana Experimental Population: U.S.A. (CO, ID, FL, NM, UT, and the western half of Wyoming) Population, No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Non-Essential Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758

11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 5

Wood Stork Mycteria americana Threatened Population: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8477 Habitat assessment guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/assessment/population/124/office/41420.pdf

Reptiles

NAME STATUS American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Similarity of No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Appearance (Threatened) Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/776

American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus Threatened Population: U.S.A. (FL) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6604

Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/646

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened Population: Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1110

Fishes

NAME STATUS Atlantic Sturgeon (gulf Subspecies) Acipenser oxyrinchus Threatened (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/651 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 6

Insects

NAME STATUS Miami Blue Butterfly Cyclargus (=Hemiargus) thomasi bethunebakeri Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3797

Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS Aboriginal Prickly-apple Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis) Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2833

Beautiful Pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4069

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. Norman, Tia

From: Hight, Jason Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:59 AM To: Norman, Tia Cc: Wagman, Jason; Wallace, Traci Subject: Punta Gorda Airport, Biological Assessment

Ms. Norman:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has reviewed the proposed Biological Assessment in accordance with the request from AECOM. The Biological Assessment is thorough and we have no additional comments, recommendations, or objections related to listed species and their habitat or other fish and wildlife resources to offer on this project.

If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office by email at [email protected]. If you have specific technical questions, please contact Jason Wagman at (941) 377-3722 ext. 6540 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jason Hight

Biological Administrator II

Office of Conservation Planning Services

Division of Habitat and Species Conservation

620 S. Meridian Street, MS 5B5

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

(850) 228-2055

34915, Punta Gorda Airport EA

1 Norman, Tia

From: Sanford, Paul Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 8:50 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Norman, Tia; Klein, Howard Subject: Re: RAI for Punta Gorda Airport 5 Year Capital Improvements \ 2018-TA-0135

Rebecca, thank you. We will get the info back to you ASAP.

V/r,

Paul Sanford Aviation Environmental Planner D +1-813-675-6843 [email protected]

Sent from my phone.

On Apr 5, 2018, at 08:44, "[email protected]" wrote:

Paul,

Please see attached notification from FWS. As indicated, we need to provide additional information for FWS on endangered species.

Thank you,

Rebecca

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager Federal Aviation Administration Orlando Airports District Office

(407) 487‐7225

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vero Beach, FW4 Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 8:33 AM To: Henry, Rebecca (FAA) Subject: RAI for Punta Gorda Airport 5 Year Capital Improvements \ 2018‐TA‐0135

1 We have received your <20171221>, request for consultation, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We received your request on <20171226>. Our office has assigned the project consultation code <2018-TA-0135>.

In an effort to improve our customer service, we have begun conducting a preliminary review of projects so that data gaps can be identified and addressed as early as possible in our consultation process. Our preliminary review identified that the information provided for this project is not sufficient to initiate consultation. Please see the attached Endangered Species Act Consultation Checklist for details. Once you have collected ALL of the requested information please submit the information to the Vero Beach website:[email protected] with the Service Consultation Code assigned to the project in the subject line: (example: Additional information requested for 2016-TA-1234). Please submit all of the information in a single response in order to ensure all the information is easily filed with your original consultation request.

Once this information is received your project will be placed in the queue, in the order it was received, to be processed through consultation. Please understand, submission of a complete package does not mean that a biologist will immediately begin work on the project. Consecutive years of reduced funding for the Service’s Ecological Services Program have had a meaningful impact in our region and office. Workload associated with implementation of the Act is greater than our resources can address. We apologize for the delay and one of our biologists will contact you immediately as soon as we are able to begin working on your project. The initial communication from our biologist will identify whether there are any additional information needs to complete the consultation. Once all necessary information is received by the biologist, appropriate regulatory timeframes will begin.

Again, we apologize for the delay in project processing. We hope that this preliminary assessment will enable you to provide the information required and will help expedite the consultation process once a biologist is assigned to your project.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Constance Cassler, Supervisor for Planning and Resource Conservation, West, at 772-469-4243 or [email protected]

US Fish and Wildlife Service 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 772-562-3909

NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.

<2018-TA-0135_ESA Consultation Checklist.pdf>

2 EndangeredSpeciesAct Consultation Checklist RAI submitted: USFWSFlorida RAI received: October2016 Complete:

Date:103/12/2018

ServiceConsultationCode:12018-TA-0135- Punta GodaAirport capitalimprovements CorpsNumber:I

County:ICharlotte

The following items havebeenidentified asoutstandingin your initial consultationrequestpackage. Pleasesubmitthe requestedinformation to: verobeach~fws.govwith the ServiceConsultationCodein the subject line.Pleaseincludeall outstandinginformation in a single correspondence.

Comments: (F)&(G) The wood storkdeterminationof “may affect, not likely to

(A) Cover Letter foraging habitatlost asa result of the project. Pleaseprovide a D adverselyaffect’ is contingenton adequatecompensationof suitable foraging prey baseanalysisoutlining the loss andcompensationvalues. (B) Project Description

(D) ProtectedResourcesthat maybe present

(E) Descriptionof HowtheActionMay AffectEachProtectedResource

(F) Section7 Findingsfor all Protected Resources

(G)Relevant Reportsand/orDocuments

(H) CumulativeEffects Analysis

(I) Historyof ContactsMadewith Service

(J) Listof Preparers

(K) LiteratureCited

Reviewer: 11~~ AECOM 813-286-1711 tel 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 www.aecom.com

Memorandum

To Rebecca Henry, FAA Orlando Airports District Office Page 1

CC Paul Sanford, AECOM Response to Request for Additional Information for Punta Gorda Airport 5- Year Capital Improvements Biological Assessment Consultation\ Consultation Subject Code: 2018-TA-0135

From Tia Norman, AECOM

Date April 9, 2018

Introduction

On December 22, 2017, the Federal Aviation Administration submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) for the Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Environmental Assessment (EA) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), South Florida Field Office for review and requested FWS’ concurrence with the effects determinations.

On April 4, 2018, the FWS responded to the BA with a Request for Additional Information (Consultation Code 2018-TA-0135) that stated the following:

The wood stork determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” is contingent on adequate compensation of suitable foraging habitat lost as a result of the project. Please provide a foraging prey base analysis outlining the loss and compensation values.

As mentioned in the BA and based on FWS data, seven active wood stork nesting colonies are reported within 18.6 miles of the Biological Study Area (BSA) established for the EA, (see Figure 5 of the BA) and individuals were observed foraging within Wetland B3 during the December 2016 field review. The BSA encompasses a 100-foot buffer from the construction footprint of the Five-Year CIP implementation (hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project) and comprises a total of 346.2 acres (see Figure 3 of the BA). In order to make a determination of the Proposed Project’s potential effect on the wood stork, the construction impacts were assessed using FWS’ Wood Stork Effect Determination Key (May 2010). Using this key, the following steps were followed to determine the effect of the Proposed Project on the wood stork:

A. A review of FNAI and FWS information indicates that the Proposed Project is located more than 2,500 feet from an active wood stork colony site. B. The Proposed Project will impact more than 0.5 acre of suitable foraging habitat (SFH). C. The Proposed Projet is located within the CFA of seven active wood stork nesting colonies. This rookery is located approximately five miles north of the project area. Six of the colonies are located approximately two to seven miles north of PGD in the Charlotte Harbor Estuary east of I-75. A seventh colony is located approximately 18 miles southeast of PGD along the Caloosahatchee River. D. Impacts to SFH have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable; compensation (FWS-approved mitigation bank or as provided in accordance with Mitigation Rule 33 CFR Part 332) for unavoidable impacts is proposed in accordance with the CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines; and habitat compensation replaces the foraging value matching the hydroperiod of the wetlands affected and provides foraging value similar to, or higher than, that of impacted wetlands.

Based on this assessment, it was determined that the Proposed Project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the wood stork.

In an effort to gather the information needed for FWS to initiate Section 7 Consultation, a Wood Stork Foraging Analysis has been prepared per the FWS-approved “Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology” dated July 12, 2012 (herein referred to as the “Methodology”; provided in Attachment A). The following sections outline the methodology and calculation of prey-base analysis, the assessment of loss of suitable foraging biomass, and potential mitigation alternatives. The goal of the exercise was to determine the amount of compensation required to offset the loss of suitable wood stork foraging habitat associated with the Proposed Project.

Foraging Assessment Methodology

Wood stork foraging biomass calculations were conducted for all wetlands impacted by the Proposed Project that can be considered potential wood stork habitat. The Proposed Project will result in a total of 37.1 acres of impact to potential wood stork foraging habitat. Table 1 below lists the acreage of proposed impact, by wetland number and classification, to suitable wood stork foraging habitat within the BSA. The locations of individual wetlands are depicted on Figure 2 in the BA and descriptions are presented below. Table 1: Proposed Impacts to Suitable Wood Stork Foraging Habitat FLUCFCS FLUCFCS Acres of WL ID FWS Classification2 Code1 Description1 Impacts PEM1J - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, B1 643 Wet prairie 3.6 intermittently flooded PEM1J - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, B2 643 Wet prairie 3.1 intermittently flooded Freshwater PEM1C - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, B3 641 11.7 marsh seasonally flooded PEM1C/PEM1J - Palustrine, emergent, Freshwater C 641/643 persistent, seasonally flooded/palustrine, 6.8 marsh/wet prairie emergent, persistent, intermittently flooded PSS1C/PEM1J - Palustrine, scrub-shrub, Wetland broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally F 631/643 3.7 scrub/wet prairie flooded/palustrine, emergent, persistent, intermittently flooded PEM1J - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, H 643 Wet prairie 0.2 intermittently flooded PEM1J - Palustrine, emergent, persistent, I 643 Wet prairie 8.0 intermittently flooded Total 37.1 1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Handbook, 3rd Edition (FDOT, 1999). 2 FWS, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetlands B1, B2, H, and I FLUCFCS: 643 – Wet Prairie FWS: PEM1J Wetlands B1, B2, H, and I are intermittently flooded and predominantly consist of pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.), beakrush (Rhychospora spp.), bushy broomsedge (Andropogon glomeratus), and torpedo grass (Panicum repens). Wetlands B1 and B2 are located on the south end of the BSA approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4. These wetlands are bounded by improved pasture that is regularly grazed by cattle and are adjacent to Wetland B3. Wetlands H and I are located within the infield area of the Airport and is routinely mowed and maintained. During the 2012-2013 field reviews conducted for the 2014 Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) prepared for PGD, species observed foraging within these wetlands included great egrets and snowy egrets. In addition, the following wildlife species were observed foraging within Wetlands B1 and B2: wood storks, roseate spoonbills, and white ibis. Wetland B1 comprises 3.6 acres of the BSA; Wetland B2 comprises 3.1 acres of the BSA; Wetland H comprises 0.2 acre of the BSA; Wetland I comprises 8.0 acres of the BSA.

Wetland B3 FLUCFCS: 641 – Freshwater Marsh FWS: PEM1C Wetland B3 consists of a seasonally flooded, freshwater marsh that is located on the south end of the BSA approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4 and is adjacent to Wetlands B1 and B2. This area is bounded by improved pasture that is regularly grazed by cattle. Dominant vegetation along the littoral edge of this wetland consists of pennywort, beakrush, bushy broomsedge, and torpedo grass. Several wading birds were observed foraging within Wetland B3 during the WHA and a 2016 field review including wood storks, roseate spoonbills, great egrets, great blue heron, snowy egrets, white ibis, green teal, mallards, and black-bellied whistling ducks. Wetland B3 comprises 11.7 acres of the BSA.

Wetland C FLUCFCS: 641/643 – Freshwater Marsh/Wet Prairie FWS: PEM1C/PEM1CJ Wetland C consists of a freshwater marsh with a wet prairie perimeter that is located approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 33. This area is bounded by upland shrub, unpaved and mowed Air Operations Area (AOA), and pine flatwoods. Dominant vegetation throughout this wetland consists of torpedo grass, cattails (Typha spp.), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. Wetland C comprises 6.8 acres of the BSA.

Wetland F FLUCFCS: 631/643 – Wetland Scrub/Wet Prairie FWS: PSS1C/PEM1J Wetland F consists of a wet prairie with a scrub-shrub wetland in the center that is located in the infield area of the Airport. This area is bounded by a mowed and maintained unpaved AOA and predominantly consists of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and cattail. Several wading birds were observed foraging and roosting within Wetland F during the WHA and 2016 field review including little blue heron, tricolored heron, cattle egrets, snowy egrets, white ibis, red-winged blackbirds, anhinga, and cormorants. Wetland F comprises 3.7 acres of the BSA.

Wetlands were evaluated based on four parameters in accordance with the Methodology: the density of the vegetation within suitable wood stork foraging habitat, the hydroperiod of each impacted wetland, the size of available prey, and potential competition from other wading bird species.

To calculate the wood stork foraging biomass potentially lost as a result of the Proposed Project, each impacted wetland was assigned an appropriate hydroperiod class based on data collected during field reviews. Hydroperiod classes range from Class 1, which includes inundation for 0-60 days, to Class 7, which includes inundation for 330-365 days per year. The FWS defines wetlands that are inundated for 0 to 180 days per year as having a “short hydroperiod” and includes Classes 1 through 3. Wetlands inundated for 180 days to 360 days per year are considered as having a “long hydroperiod” and include Classes 4 through 7 (as provided in Parameter 2- Wetland Hydroperiod of the Methodology). All wetlands included in the foraging analysis for the Proposed Project have short hydroperiods (between Class 1 and Class 3). The hydroperiod class table is found in Table WSM 4 of the Methodology. Table 2 below lists the hydroperiod class and length, the total acres of proposed impact, and the percent cover of nuisance/exotic vegetation (i.e. melaleuca or Brazilian pepper) for each wetland, by number and Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999) category, included in the foraging analysis.

Table 2: Summary of Hydroperiod Class and Percent Cover by Exotic Species

Wetland ID & Total Direct Percent Cover of Hydroperiod Length of FLUCFCS Impact Area Nuisance/Exotic Class1 Hydroperiod2 Classifications (acres) Vegetation B1 643 3.6 2 0 Short B2 643 3.1 2 0 Short B3 641 11.7 3 0 Short C 641/643 6.8 2 0 Short F 631/643 3.7 2 40 Short H 643 0.2 2 0 Short I 643 8.0 1 0 Short Total 37.1 1 As defined by the FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012 (Table WSM 4). 2 As defined by the FWS in the Wood stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology, Parameter 2- Wetland Hydroperiod, Page 3.

Prior to conducting biomass calculations, the acreage of impact to each wetland was converted to square meters (m2). The conversion of 37.1 acres of total direct impact to wetlands equates to 150,138.5 m2. This information is summarized below in Table 3.

The total biomass per hydroperiod class was established using Table WSM 11 in the Methodology. Each wetland was assigned a total biomass number based on class according to Table WSM 11. Using Table WSM 3 from the Methodology, each wetland was assigned a Wood Stork Foraging Suitability Index ranging from 1.00 for exotic coverage between 0-25 percent cover and 0.64 for exotic coverage between 26-50 percent. The forage biomass loss for each class is provided in Table 4 below. Table 3: Summary by Hydroperiod Class Average Percent Hydroperiod Total Direct Impact Total Direct Impact Nuisance/Exotic Class1 Area (acres) Area (m2)2 Vegetation Class 1 8.0 32,374.9 0.0 Class 2 17.4 70,415.4 40.0 Class 3 11.7 47,348.2 0.0 Total 37.1 150,138.5 40.0 1 As defined by the FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012 (Table WSM 4). 2 Acres converted to m2 as stated in the Summary of the factors affecting vulnerability of wetland habitats to wood stork foraging in the action area, FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012.

Table 4: Forage Biomass Lost by Class and Hydroperiod Forage Biomass Hydroperiod Class1 Wetland ID Lost (Kilograms)2 Class 1 Wetland I 3.26 Class 2 Wetlands B1, B2, C, F, H 15.11 Class 3 Wetland B3 9.54 Total Biomass Lost 27.91 1 As defined by the FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Methodology dated July 12, 2012. 2 Calculations based on total direct impact area (m2) multiplied by the total biomass hydroperiod and the exotic suitability foraging index. The total was divided by 1000 to convert to kilograms. As defined by the FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012.

According to Kahl’s estimate (1964), 201 kg of forage is required for a successful wood stork nest. Because this project shows a total biomass loss of 27.91 kilograms, the calculation represents the loss of 0.13 nest. Table 5 summarizes the anticipated wood stork forage biomass lost as a result of the Proposed Project. Table 5: Summary of Wood Stork Forage Biomass Lost

Wetland Total Direct Total Direct Percent Cover Total Biomass per Exotic Forage Hydroperiod Length of ID & FLUCFCS Impact Area Impact Area by Exotic Hydroperiod Foraging Biomass Lost Class1 Hydroperiod6 Classifications (acres) (m2)2 Species (grams/m2 )3 Suitability Index4 (Kilograms)5

Wetland B1 643 3.6 2 14,568.7 0 0.2015 1.00 2.94 Short Wetland B2 643 3.1 2 12,545.3 0 0.4290 0.64 3.44 Short Wetland B3 641 11.7 3 47,348.2 0 0.2015 1.00 9.54 Short 641/64 Wetland C 6.8 2 27,518.6 0 0.2015 1.00 5.54 Short 3 631/64 Wetland F 3.7 2 14,973.4 40 0.2015 1.00 3.02 Short 3 Wetland H 643 0.2 2 809.4 0 0.2015 1.00 0.16 Short Wetland I 643 8.0 1 32,374.9 0 0.1008 1.00 3.26 Short Project Total 37.1 150,138.5 27.91 1 As defined by the FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012. (Table WSM 4). 2 Acres converted to m2 as stated in the summary of the factors affecting vulnerability of wetland habitats to wood stork foraging in the action area, FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012. 3 Total Fish and Crayfish Biomass per period as per Table WSM 11, FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012. 4 Exotic Foraging Suitability Index per Table WSM 3, FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012. 5 Calculations based on total direct impact area (m2) multiplied by the total biomass hydroperiod and the exotic suitability foraging index. The total was divided by 1000 to convert to kilograms, as defined by the FWS Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology dated July 12, 2012. 6 As defined by the FWS in the Wood stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology, Parameter 2- Wetland Hydroperiod, Page 3.

Conclusion

The March 2018 BA concluded that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork; to compensate for the loss of wood stork foraging habitat, PGD is committed to purchasing FWS-approved wood stork credits from a mitigation bank that, at a minimum, offset 27.91 kilograms of short hydroperiod forage biomass losses. The Boran Ranch Mitigation Bank (BRMB) services the Peace River watershed and is located in the 115,000-acre Peace-Myakka Wildlife Corridor in the western portion of DeSoto County. BRMB consists of approximately 404 acres of restored ephemeral wet prairie habitat, marshes, oak hammock and longleaf pine flatwood forested habitats. Permitted by both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Southwest Florida Water Management District, the bank offers both palustrine emergent and palustrine forested wetland credits. Mitigation bank credits at BRMB can be used to offset impacts to wood stork foraging habitat. At BRMB, the conversion factor for the short hydroperiod is 2.14 kilograms per credit. Therefore, to compensate for the loss of 27.91 kilograms of short hydroperiod forage biomass, approximately 13.0 wetland credits would be required. For the preparation of the EA for the Project Project, wetland impacts were assessed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM), Chapter 62-345, Florida Administrative Code. Based on the UMAM analyses performed, construction of the Proposed Project will result in the functional loss of 15.8 credits. Therefore, PGD proposes to purchase approximately 15.8 freshwater wetland credits from BRMB to compensate for the loss of 37.1 acres of wetland and wood stork foraging habitat.

Pursuant to the Wood Stork Effect Determination Key (FWS 2010) the project is not located within 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) of an active nesting wood stork colony, and suitable foraging habitat will be compensated in accordance with Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act and the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region (FWS 1990) through purchase of federal credits at a Service- approved mitigation bank. Additionally, the wetland habitats associated the proposed habitat compensation plan will provide equal foraging value to that of the impacted wetlands. Based on this information, it has been determined that the previous finding of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” regarding the wood stork remains valid for the Proposed Project. Norman, Tia

From: Sanford, Paul Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 1:50 PM To: John Wrublik Cc: [email protected]; '[email protected]'; Norman, Tia; [email protected]; 'Ron Ridenour'; James W Parish, P.E. Subject: RE: FW: [EXTERNAL] FW: RAI for Punta Gorda Airport 5 Year Capital Improvements \ 2018-TA-0135 Attachments: 1214_PuntaGordaAirport_FBB_Survey_Report_6August2018.pdf

Sir: on behalf of FAA, the attached report is provided for your review and consideration in response to the subject RAI. The report documents acoustic surveys and roosting surveys conducted for the Florida bonneted bat, as requested by the Service. Please advise if there are questions or if additional information is needed.

V/r,

Paul Sanford Aviation Environmental Planner D +1-813-675-6843 Cisco Internal +1856843 [email protected]

AECOM 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607, USA T +1-813-286-1711 aecom.com

Built to deliver a better world

This e-mail and any attachments contain AECOM confidential information that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.

From: Wrublik, John [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 9:08 AM To: Sanford, Paul Cc: [email protected]; Norman, Tia; [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: [EXTERNAL] FW: RAI for Punta Gorda Airport 5 Year Capital Improvements \ 2018-TA-0135

Paul, the proposed survey is acceptable to the Service.

John

John M. Wrublik U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Office: (772) 469-4282 Fax: (772) 562-4288 email: [email protected]

NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties. 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Pesi 1214

STUDIES FOR THE FLORIDA BONNETED BAT (EUMOPS FLORIDANUS) ON THE PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT PROJECT, CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CONSULTATION # 04EF2000-2018-SLI-0135

6 August 2018

Submitted to:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559

On behalf of:

7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607

Prepared by:

Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Executive Summary

Charlotte County Airport Authority is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implementing regulations, to consider and document the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the Five- Year Capital Improvement Program at the Punta Gorda Airport (hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project). Federal actions associated with the Proposed Project comprise FAA’s environmental approval of the EA and unconditional approval of updates to the Airport Layout Plan to reflect the Proposed Project. On 21 December 2017, the FAA initiated Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Proposed Project under Consultation Code 04EF2000-2018-SLI- 0135. On 15 June 2018, based on preliminary review of the Proposed Project, the USFWS requested acoustic surveys for the federally endangered Florida bonneted bat be conducted within areas of the Proposed Project’s footprint that contains potential roosting habitat (i.e., forested areas). Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. (ESI) was contracted by AECOM to address the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) on the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project area includes four separate forested sections totaling approximately 25 acres.

A 100% pedestrian roost survey was conducted within the Project area on 12 July 2018. A follow-up roost survey within forest adjacent to the Project area was conducted on 30 July 2018. Roosting potential within the Project area was deemed low. Five potential roosts were identified. Potential Roosts 01 and 05 were deemed unsuitable due to the lack of cavities and exfoliating bark. Potential Roosts 02, 03, and 04 were located adjacent to the Project area (on Charlotte County property) and could not be thoroughly assessed without proper access permissions. Potential Roost 02 was deemed unsuitable from the public road; however, Potential Roosts 03 and 04 could not be ruled out on visual assessment alone.

A total of 14,121 bat calls recorded over 40 detector nights was identified and analyzed to species by Kaleidoscope Pro (Kpro). Eight bat species used in the software analysis were recorded: Brazilian free-tailed (11,466 calls), northern yellow (Lasiurus intermedius; 1,884 calls), big brown (Eptesicus fuscus; 516 calls), evening (Nycticeius humeralis; 104 calls), Seminole (L. seminolus; 101 calls), eastern red (L. borealis; 31 calls), Florida bonneted (11 calls), and tri-colored (Perimyotis subflavus; 8 calls). Calls recorded ≤ 20 kHz were visually vetted by an experienced biologist. After this manual review, only 1 of the 11 calls identified by Kpro as a Florida bonneted bat were confirmed. Five additional Florida bonneted bat calls were identified from “No ID” and “TABR” files. Detections occurred at Sites 02, 03, 05, and 07.

Based on the acoustic detections at four sites, but the lack of suitable potential roosts within the Project area, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida bonneted bat. This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING ...... 4 3.0 ECOLOGICAL SETTING ...... 6 3.1 Description ...... 6 3.2 Status ...... 7 3.3 Species Distribution ...... 7 3.4 Ecology ...... 7 3.4.1 Roosting Ecology ...... 7 3.4.3 Food Habits and Foraging Ecology ...... 8 3.5 Survivorship/Population Size ...... 8 3.6 Causes of Past/Current Decline ...... 8 4.0 METHODS ...... 9 4.1 Roost Survey ...... 9 4.1.1 Pedestrian Roost Survey ...... 9 4.1.2 Cavity Scoping ...... 9 4.1.3 Emergence Surveys ...... 10 4.2 Acoustic Survey ...... 10 4.2.1 Level of Effort ...... 10 4.2.2 Acoustic Deployment ...... 10 4.2.3 Data Analysis ...... 11 4.2.4 Habitat Characterization ...... 11 4.2.5 Weather and Temperature ...... 12 5.0 RESULTS ...... 12 5.1 Roost Survey ...... 12 5.2 Acoustic Survey ...... 14 5.1.1 Habitat Characterization of Acoustic Monitoring Sites...... 16 5.1.2 Weather Data ...... 16 6.0 CONCLUSION ...... 16 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 17

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1. Location Map: Punta Gorda Airport Project in Charlotte County, Florida...... 5 Figure 2. Potential Roost Location Map – Punta Gorda Airport Project in Charlotte County, Florida...... 13 Figure 3. Acoustic Detector Location Map – Punta Gorda Airport Project in Charlotte County, Florida...... 15 Pesi 1214 ii Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. Potential roost locations for the Punta Gorda Airport Project...... 12 Table 2. Acoustic detector locations for the Punta Gorda Airport Project...... 14 Table 3. Manually vetted Florida Bonneted Bat detections for the Punta Gorda Airport Project...... 14 Table 4. Weather data for Punta Gorda Airport Project acoustic surveys...... 16

Appendices Appendix A: Data Sheets Appendix B: Weather Data Appendix C: Representative Photographs

Pesi 1214 iii Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport

1.0 Project Description

Charlotte County Airport Authority is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implementing regulations, to consider and document the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the Five- Year Capital Improvement Program at the Punta Gorda Airport (hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project). Federal actions associated with the Proposed Project comprise FAA’s environmental approval of the EA and unconditional approval of updates to the Airport Layout Plan to reflect the Proposed Project. On 21 December 2017, the FAA initiated Section 7 Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Proposed Project under Consultation Code 04EF2000-2018-SLI- 0135. On 15 June 2018, based on preliminary review of the Proposed Project, the USFWS requested acoustic surveys for the federally endangered Florida bonneted bat be conducted within areas of the Proposed Project’s footprint that contains potential roosting habitat (i.e., forested areas).

Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. (ESI) was contracted by AECOM to address the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) on the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project area includes four separate forested sections totaling approximately 25 acres (Figure 1).

This document contains the methods used to conduct (and results of) the roost and acoustic survey.

2.0 Regulatory Setting

The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.] was codified into law in 1973. This law provides for the listing, conservation, and recovery of endangered and threatened species of plants and wildlife. Under the ESA, the USFWS is mandated to monitor and protect listed species.

The USFWS listed the Florida bonneted bat as endangered under the ESA on 2 October 2013 (Federal Register Vol. 78, Number 191, Pp. 61003-61043). Section 9 of the ESA protects the species by prohibiting “take” unless otherwise specifically authorized by regulation. “Take” is defined by the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” [16 U.S.C. 1532(19)]. ESA further

Pesi 1214 4 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport

AreaInvestigatioof (AOI) n

F i gur e 1. LocatioFigure 1. MapPunta n – Gorda Airport Project Charlottein County, Florida.

0 0.5 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS Mile ProNo.1214 ject & INNOVATIONS, INC. BaseMap:USGS Topographic Map ² thunter creator: n_Topo_20180625.mxd; G:\Current\1214_AECOM_Punta_Gorda_Airport_FBB\MXD\Bat_Survey\Study_Plan_Figures\Figure1_1214_Locatio defines “harm” to include significant habitat modification or degradation [50 CFR §17.3].

Section 7(a) (2) of the ESA states that each federal agency shall insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Federal actions include (1) expenditure of federal funds for roads, buildings, or other construction projects, and (2) approval of a permit or license, and the activities resulting from such permit or license. Compliance is required regardless of whether involvement is apparent, such as issuance of a federal permit, or less direct, such as federal oversight of a state-operated program. Actions of federal agencies that do not result in jeopardy or adverse modification, but that could result in a take, must also be addressed under Section 7. Take by a federal agency can be authorized through the Section 7 consultation process, culminating in an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) by the USFWS. The take must be incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. It is the obligation of the project proponent to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species. If, through this process, take is avoided, then an ITS or Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is not required. The initial step in avoidance and minimization is to determine whether suitable habitat and listed species are present.

3.0 Ecological Setting

3.1 Description Federal Register Documents 78 FR 61003 61043: 2 October 2013: The Florida bonneted bat is the largest bat found in Endangered Species Status for the Florida Florida. Individuals have short, glossy fur which is Bonneted Bat; Final Rule 77 FR 60749 60776; 4 October 2012: darker on the dorsal side and lighter on the ventral side, Proposed Endangered Species Status for the and hairs are bicolored as the bases are white (Timm Florida Bonneted Bat: Proposed Rule; request for public comments and Genoways 2004). The fur may vary in color from 76 FR 66370 66439; 26 October 2011: Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for black to brown to brownish gray or cinnamon brown Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual (Timm and Genoways 2004). The forearm length has a Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing range of 60.0 to 69.1 millimeters (2.4 – 2.7 in) (Ober et Actions al. 2017). The head and body length range from 130 to 75 FR 69222 69294; 10 November 2010: Review of Native Species That Are 165 millimeters (5.1 – 6.5 in). Although Timm and Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Genoways (2004) describe the species without sexual Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of dimorphism, further study indicates males are slightly Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule 74 FR 57804 57878; 9 November 2009: larger than females and possess gular glands, which Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or are absent in females (Ober et al. 2017). Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions

Pesi 1214 6 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport 3.2 Status The USFWS listed the Florida bonneted bat as endangered on 2 October 2013 (USFWS 2013). The species was considered a subspecies of Wagner’s mastiff bat (Eumpops glaucinus) and was described as a separate species in 2004 (Timm and Genoways 2004). In the United States, there are eight species of bats within the family Molossidae, and the Florida bonneted bat is the only federally listed species. Factors affecting the status of this species include threats to roosting and foraging habitat, inadequacy of existing regulatory protections prior to listing, and other natural or manmade factors, especially a small population size, restricted range, low fecundity, and few, isolated colonies (USFWS 2013).

Additionally, this species is protected as a federally-designated endangered species by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).

3.3 Species Distribution The Florida bonneted bat has one of the most restricted distributions of any bat in North America, with records from only twelve counties in southern Florida: Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Osceola, and Polk (Timm and Genoways 2004, USFWS 2013).

Most of these known records are on federal, state or county managed lands; however, a few are on lands under private ownership.

3.4 Ecology Compared to other listed bat species in the United States, relatively little is known about the Florida bonneted bat. Recent studies are beginning to provide valuable information that is critical for the future of this species.

3.4.1 Roosting Ecology The Florida bonneted bat is known to roost in a variety of man-made structures and natural roosts. It has been found under the Spanish tile of buildings, in low shrubbery, and in growths of tropical flowers and shrubs in residential Miami, Coconut Grove, and Coral Gables (Best et al. 1997). Natural roosts include shafts of royal palms (Roystonea regia) and cavities excavated by red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis), and sometimes enlarged by pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus), in longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) (Best et al. 1997). In recent years, individuals have been discovered occupying a cavity in a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) at Avon Park Air Force Range in Osceola County and also a cavity in a slash pine (Pinus elliottii) in Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge in Collier County (Braun de Torrez et al. 2016). This species may also use utility poles or highway structures (i.e. bridges).

Pesi 1214 7 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport Artificial bat boxes also provide potential roosting habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. The species has been observed roosting in bat boxes in the Fred C. Babcock/Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area (BWWMA) (Ober et al. 2017). These boxes are mainly found in mesic and hydric pine flatwoods with other habitat types such as basin wetlands in the vicinity (USFWS 2013).

The Florida bonneted bat roosts in small colonies that may consist of a male and a harem of females. Roosting in tree cavities may allow a male to better defend the roost from other males (Belwood 1981).

3.4.2 Maternity Season Evidence suggests that Florida bonneted bats are polyestrous as pregnant bats have been found in early summer and September in Florida (Belwood 1981, Timm and Genoways 2004). Females give birth to one offspring each maternity season (USFWS 2013). Like other bats, females leave the young in the roost to forage during the lactation period. In the latter portion of the maternity season, the young forage with the females until the young can sufficiently forage alone (USFWS 2013).

3.4.3 Food Habits and Foraging Ecology This species is insectivorous and is known to feed primarily on flying insects such as beetles (Coleoptera), true bugs (Hemiptera), and true flies (Diptera) (Belwood 1981). Florida bonneted bats rely on using open spaces and avoid clutter as they are fast fliers but not as agile as smaller bats (Best et al. 1997). Recent evidence may suggest that males and females occupy separate foraging niches, as there is modest sexual dimorphism in wing morphology (Ober et al.). Florida bonneted bats rarely fly below 9 meters (30 ft) (Timm and Genoways 2004). Important foraging areas include wetlands and open, fresh water such as ponds and streams where they will also fly low to drink water (USFWS 2013).

3.5 Survivorship/Population Size The population size of the Florida bonneted bat is not known; however, it is thought to be less than that needed for optimum viability (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). Additional studies will provide more insight; however, initial thoughts range from less than a few hundred individuals (Marks and Marks 2008) to a numbers in the hundreds or low thousands (FWC 2011).

3.6 Causes of Past/Current Decline Habitat loss and modification as well as other natural and manmade factors appear to have an effect on the Florida bonneted bat. Management practices such as live or dead tree removal or prescribed burns may potentially destroy roosts. The species’ ability to adapt to roost in human structures puts it at risk to purposeful or inadvertent harm from humans. Activities such as utility pole removal or bridge maintenance can

Pesi 1214 8 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport disturb maternity roosts or cause mortality in a situation where there is a lack of awareness of the sensitivity of the Florida bonneted bat (USFWS 2013).

Small population size, restricted range, isolated colonies, and low fecundity can allow stochastic or catastrophic events to be severely detrimental to the Florida bonneted bat. These factors also create a bottleneck effect that makes the species vulnerable to genetic drift. With such a restrictive range and likely small population size, the Florida bonneted bat becomes more vulnerable to demographic, stochastic, and environmental processes (USFWS 2013).

Competition for tree cavities as roosts is high. Florida bonneted bats must compete for roosts with a variety of native and non-native wildlife. Competition has increased due to loss of habitat and potential roost trees resulting from development (USFWS 2013).

Several factors that may have an adverse effect on the Florida bonneted bat have not yet been examined. These include artificial light pollution, pesticides, disease, predation, and impacts from wind facilities. Further investigation is needed to address the potential impacts (USFWS 2013).

4.0 Methods

ESI conducted roost and acoustic surveys following guidelines provided by the USFWS Vero Beach Field Office. A Study Plan outlining the proposed level of effort, methods, and survey locations was submitted to (and approved by) the USFWS on 26 June 2018.

4.1 Roost Survey

4.1.1 Pedestrian Roost Survey A 100% pedestrian roost survey is conducted within the Project area. The survey focuses on forested habitat as well as other areas with tall, mature live or dead trees, tree snags, and trees with cavities, hollows, deformities, decay, crevices, or exfoliating bark. Utility poles and other man-made potential roosts are also assessed.

4.1.2 Cavity Scoping If possible, potential roosting cavities are inspected with a wireless camera. A lack of observation does not typically eliminate the potential roost from consideration as it is difficult to view 100% of a cavity due to the shape of the camera and potential hidden Pesi 1214 9 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport crevices within the tree. Conversely, presence can be confirmed using the scoping method.

4.1.3 Emergence Surveys If cavity scoping results are inconclusive, emergence surveys are conducted to determine occupancy. Surveyors are stationed at trees exhibiting potential roosting cavities prior to sunset and remain in place until approximately 1 ½ hours after sunset. An acoustic detector is positioned within the vicinity of the potential roost with the microphone directionally oriented toward the cavity.

4.2 Acoustic Survey

4.2.1 Level of Effort The recommended level of effort for non-linear projects is a minimum of 16 detector nights per 20 acres of suitable habitat. Based on the approximate 25 acre Project area, a minimum of 32 detect nights are required. A desktop habitat assessment was conducted to identify potentially suitable acoustic sites. The assessment was conducted using a combination of aerials and land use data from the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). This assessment identified potential roosting (forest and other areas with tall, mature trees or areas with suitable roost structures [forest is defined as all types including, but not limited to: pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, pine rocklands, royal palm hammocks, mixed or hardwood hammocks, cypress, and sand pine scrub]) and foraging (relatively open areas that provide sources of drinking water and prey such as open fresh water, permanent or seasonal freshwater wetlands, wetland and upland forests, and wetland and upland shrub) habitat.

ESI identified 8 acoustic sites to sufficiently cover the potentially suitable habitat within the Project area.

4.2.2 Acoustic Deployment Each acoustic site consists of one full spectrum detector (SM4Bat [Wildlife Acoustics]) equipped with an omni-directional ultrasonic microphone mounted a minimum of 10 feet above ground. Detectors are preset to record from approximately one hour before sunset to one hour after sunrise.

Preferred acoustic monitoring sites have limited acoustic clutter, which reduces the quality of the calls recorded (Britzke 2004, Broders et al. 2004), and regular bat traffic. This includes, but is not limited to: forest-canopy openings, forest edges, fencerows adjacent to open habitats or connecting two larger blocks of suitable habitat, utility corridors, water sources (including vegetated wetlands, ponds, and open stretches of streams), and other open linear corridors (including logging and other woodland roads/trails).

Pesi 1214 10 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport 4.2.3 Data Analysis Data from each detector are downloaded and analyzed using the USFWS approved software identification program Kaleidoscope Pro (Kpro; Version 4.2.0 [Wildlife Acoustics]). All files are analyzed for the presence of ten species, including the Florida bonneted bat. In addition, all recorded call files are visually vetted, including noise files as low-intensity calls are sometimes classified as noise by Kpro. The purpose is two-fold, as calls characteristic of the Florida bonneted bat are usually low in amplitude and relegated to noise files. Additionally, Florida bonneted bat calls found within call files containing Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis [TABR]) are assigned a TABR designation. ESI also uses a filter built by a qualified acoustic identification specialist to scan all recorded call files from a project which targets Florida bonneted bat calls. This allows for identifying calls under 20 kHz which many have been missed during regular call vetting. All calls vetted for the possibility of being a Florida bonneted bat, and all calls under 20 kHz are vetted and categorized either by species of bat or an animal of another taxa.

4.2.4 Habitat Characterization Habitat is described for each acoustic site. The emphasis of this description is habitat form: size and relative abundance of large trees and snags that potentially serve as roost trees, canopy closure, understory clutter/openness, water availability, and flight corridors.

ESI’s habitat characterization does more than emphasize species of large trees. It identifies components of the canopy and subcanopy layers. All trees that reach into the canopy are canopy trees, regardless of their diameter/size. Many smaller trees are often also found in the canopy, and in some situations, the canopy can be entirely composed of smaller diameter trees. ESI’s habitat characterization identifies dominant and subdominant elements of the canopy.

The subcanopy, or understory, vegetation layer is well defined in classical ecological literature. It is that portion of the forest structure between the ground vegetation (to approximately 0.6 meter [2 ft]) and the canopy layers, usually beginning at about 7.6 meters (24.9 ft). Vegetation in the understory may come from:  Lower branches of overstory trees;  Small trees that will grow into the overstory;  Small trees and shrubs that are confined to the understory. Each acoustic site is documented with a sketch on the Habitat Assessment data sheet (Appendix A).

Pesi 1214 11 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport

4.2.5 Weather and Temperature In order to ensure compliance with USFWS guidelines, ESI monitors weather during the acoustic survey. Additional level of effort may be required if the following conditions are encountered during the first 5 hours of the survey period:  Temperatures <65°F;  Precipitation (rain/fog) exceeding 30 minutes or continuing intermittently;  Sustained wind speeds >9 miles per hour for >30 minutes. ESI attempts to use data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service stations. The nearest NOAA weather station for this Project is located at the Punta Gorda (Charlotte County) Airport (Station KPGD). Due to data reporting issues with this station on two nights, supplemental weather data was obtained from a Weather Underground station (KFLPUNTA82; approximately 3 miles southwest of the Project area). Supporting weather documents are included in Appendix B.

5.0 Results

5.1 Roost Survey A 100% pedestrian roost survey was conducted within the Project area on 12 July 2018. A follow-up roost survey within forest adjacent to the Project area was conducted on 30 July 2018. Roosting potential within the Project area was deemed low. Five potential roosts were identified (Table 1; Figure 2). Potential Roosts 01 and 05 were deemed unsuitable due to the lack of cavities and exfoliating bark. Potential Roosts 02, 03, and 04 were located adjacent to the Project area (on Charlotte County property) and could not be thoroughly assessed without proper access permissions. Potential Roost 02 was deemed unsuitable from the public road (no cavities or exfoliating bark); however, Potential Roosts 03 and 04 could not be ruled out on visual assessment alone.

Table 1. Potential roost locations for the Punta Gorda Airport Project. Within Potential DBH Approximate Tree Species Suitability Project Latitude Longitude Roost (in) Height (ft) Health area 01 Pinus sp. 8 50 Dead Unsuitable Yes 26.931704 -81.975501 02 Pinus sp. 8 50 Dead Unsuitable No 26.931463 -81.974315 03 Pinus sp. 9 50 Dead Suitable No 26.931495 -81.973828 04 Pinus sp. 8 40 Dead Suitable No 26.931496 -81.973586 05 Pinus sp. 8 50 Dead Unsuitable Yes 26.926941 -81.993744 Pesi 1214 12 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport

02 01 ") ") ")")

03 04

") 05

AreaofInvestigation (AOI) ") PotentialRoost Suitable - ") PotentialRoost Unsuitable - Figure 2. Potential Figure Roost2. Location Map Punta– Gorda Airport Project Charlotte in County,Florida.

0 0.2 0.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS Mile ProjectNo.1214 & INNOVATIONS, INC. BaseMap: USGS Topog raphicMap ² thunter creator: D\Bat_Survey\Report_Figures\Figure2_1214_Potential_Roosts_20180806.mxd; G:\Current\1214_AECOM_Punta_Gorda_Airport_FBB\MX 5.2 Acoustic Survey Eight acoustic detectors were deployed for five consecutive calendar nights from 12 – 16 July 2018 (Table 2; Figure 3). Forty detector nights were completed.

Table 2. Acoustic detector locations for the Punta Gorda Airport Project. Detector ID Latitude Longitude 01 26.931644 -81.974962 02 26.930394 -81.976707 03 26.927765 -81.992846 04 26.927730 -81.995040 05 26.926818 -81.992887 06 26.926347 -81.994250 07 26.924607 -81.994090 08 26.908876 -81.986890

A total of 14,121 bat calls recorded over 40 detector nights were identified and analyzed to species by Kpro. Eight bat species used in the software analysis were recorded: Brazilian free-tailed (11,466 calls), northern yellow (Lasiurus intermedius; 1,884 calls), big brown (Eptesicus fuscus; 516 calls), evening (Nycticeius humeralis; 104 calls), Seminole (L. seminolus; 101 calls), eastern red (L. borealis; 31 calls), Florida bonneted (11 calls), and tri-colored (Perimyotis subflavus; 8 calls). A total of 7,009 files were classified as “noise” or “NoID”.

Calls recorded at 20 kHz or below were visually vetted by an experienced biologist. After this manual review, only 1 of the 11 calls identified by Kpro as a Florida bonneted bat were confirmed. Five additional Florida bonneted bat calls were identified from “No ID” and “TABR” files (Table 3).

Table 3. Manually vetted Florida Bonneted Bat detections for the Punta Gorda Airport Project. Site Date Time 14 July 2018 0421 02 14 July 2018 0421 15 July 2018 0118 03 15 July 2018 0255 05 13 July 2018 2201 07 14 July 2018 0117

Detector deployment sheets and representative photographs are provided in Appendix A and C, respectively.

Pesi 1214 14 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport D-01 ") D-02 ")

D-04 D-03 ") ") D-06 ") D-05 ")

D-07 ")

D-08 ")

") AcousticDetector Location AreaInveof stigation(AOI)

FigureAcoustic 3. Detector Location Map – Punta Gorda Airport Proje ctin CharlotteCounty, Florid a.

0 0.2 0.4 ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS Mile ProjeNo.1214 ct & INNOVATIONS, INC. BaseMap: US GSTopograph Map ic ² thunter creator: y \Report_Figures\Figure3_1214_Detector_Locations_20180725.mxd; G:\Current\1214_AECOM_Punta_Gorda_Airport_FBB\MXD\Bat_Surve 5.1.1 Habitat Characterization of Acoustic Monitoring Sites The overall Project area is located within and adjacent to an active commercial airport. The Project area mostly consists of scattered slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The subcanopy was composed mostly of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) with moderate herbaceous cover. Florida bonneted bat roosting potential was limited; however, there was ample foraging habitat within the Project area.

Evidence of timbering was observed within the Project area (primarily in the northeast and southeast sections). Trees remaining in the northeast section are mostly young (with some larger, mature trees scattered throughout) while the majority of the trees in the southeast section were completely removed.

Habitat assessment data sheets and photographs are provided in Appendix A and C, respectively.

5.1.2 Weather Data Weather data was recorded for each night detectors were deployed. The data indicates all nights of sampling met the minimum temperature, precipitation, and wind speed guidelines set forth by the USFWS. Table 4 summarizes the weather data for each night during the first 5 hours of the survey effort.

Table 4. Weather data for Punta Gorda Airport Project acoustic surveys. Maximum Sustained Night Low Temperature (°F) Precipitation (in) Wind Speed (mph) 12 July 2018 77 7 0 13 July 2018 78 5 0 14 July 2018 77 3 0 15 July 2018 83 6 0 16 July 2018 79 3 0.1 Low temperature, maximum sustained wind speed, and precipitation reported for first 5 hours of acoustic survey

6.0 Conclusion

Five potential roosts were identified during the pedestrian roost survey. Only two of the potential roosts were located within the Project area; however, neither were suitable. Two of the three potential roosts located adjacent to the Project area were potentially suitable; however, follow-up assessments (such as emergence counts or cavity scoping) could not be conducted due to lack of access. Pesi 1214 16 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport Calls consistent with the Florida bonneted bat were detected at 4 sites (Sites 02, 03, 05, and 07). Based on the limited quantity of calls, times of detection, and lack of potential roosts within the Project area, these bats are likely traveling to the Project area from their roosting sites to forage. Therefore, the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida bonneted bat.

ESI respectfully requests concurrence with the survey results and confirmation the Project may proceed as currently designed with respect to the Florida bonneted bat.

7.0 Literature Cited

Belwood, J. J. 1981. Wagner's mastiff bat. Eumops glaucinus floridanus, (Molossidae) in southwestern Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 62:411-413. Best, T. L., W. M. Kiser, and J. C. Rainey. 1997. Eumops glaucinus. American Society of Mammalogists 551:1-6. Braun de Torrez, E. C., H. K. Ober, and R. A. McCleery. 2016. Use of a multi-tactic approach to locate an endangered Florida bonneted bat roost. Southeastern Naturalist 15:235-242. Britzke, E. R. 2004. Acoustic surveys of bats in the eastern United States. in Indiana Bat and Coal Mining, A Technical Interactive Forum (K.C. Vories and A. Harrington, eds.) U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining. Alton, Illinois. Broders, H. G., C. S. Findlay, and L. Zheng. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis septentrionalis and M. lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 85:273–281. Ober, H. K., E. C. Braun de Torrez, R. A. McCleery, A. M. Bailey, and J. A. Gore. 2017. Sexual dimorphism in the endangered Florida bonneted bat, Eumops floridanus (Chiroptera: Molossidae). Florida Scientist 80:38-48. Timm, R. M. and H. H. Genoways. 2004. The Florida bonneted bat, Eumops floridanus (Chiroptera: Molossidae): distribution, morphometrics, systematics, and ecology. Journal of Mammalogy 85:852-865. USFWS. 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered species status for the Florida bonneted bat; final rule. Pages 61004-61043 in Federal Register Volume 78, No. 191. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Pesi 1214 17 Florida Bonneted Bat Studies – Punta Gorda Airport APPENDIX A DATA SHEETS This Page Intentionally Left Blank

APPENDIX B WEATHER DATA This Page Intentionally Left Blank weather.gov

Punta Gorda, Charlotte County Airport

Enter Your "City, ST" or zip code Go metric en español Precipitation D Temperature (ºF) Pressure Wind Heat (in.) a Time Wind Vis. Sky Relative Weather Chill Index sea t (edt) (mph) (mi.) Cond. 6 hour Humidity altimeter Air Dwpt (°F) (°F) level 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr e (in) Max. Min. (mb) 13 12:53 SW 10.00 Mostly SCT036 88 72 59% NA 95 30.16 1021.2 15 Cloudy SCT043 BKN070 13 11:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 A Few FEW034 91 73 56% NA 100 30.15 1021.0 Clouds 13 10:53 NE 5 10.00 Fair CLR 89 75 63% NA 99 30.16 1021.2 13 09:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 Fair CLR 88 75 66% NA 98 30.15 1021.1 13 08:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 85 74 70% NA 93 30.14 1020.6 13 07:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 74 79 77 85% NA 83 30.12 1020.1 13 06:53 NE 3 10.00 A Few FEW028 77 74 90% NA 78 30.11 1019.7 Clouds 13 05:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT023 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.4 13 04:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.1 13 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 74 90% NA 78 30.10 1019.2 13 02:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.11 1019.6 13 01:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 85 77 88% NA 78 30.12 1020.1 0.01 13 00:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.14 1020.7 12 23:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 73 82% NA 82 30.14 1020.7 12 22:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 80 74 82% NA 85 30.13 1020.2 0.01 12 21:53 SE 6 10.00 Fair CLR 81 73 77% NA 86 30.12 1020.0 12 20:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain FEW050 83 75 77% NA 90 30.12 1019.9 0.01 FEW090 BKN110 12 19:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 84 73 92 84 70% NA 90 30.11 1019.6 12 18:53 NE 5 10.00 Mostly BKN038 87 70 57% NA 92 30.09 1019.1 Cloudy 12 17:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 Thunderstorm CLR 89 70 53% NA 94 30.08 1018.7 in Vicinity 12 16:53 NW 7 10.00 Fair CLR 92 72 52% NA 100 30.09 1018.9 12 15:53 SW 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT045 90 72 56% NA 98 30.08 1018.5 12 14:53 NA 10.00 Thunderstorm SCT045 91 70 50% NA 97 30.10 1019.3 in Vicinity 12 13:53 NW 6 10.00 A Few FEW034 90 71 90 78 54% NA 96 30.11 1019.8 Clouds 12 12:53 W 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT026 90 74 59% NA 99 30.13 1020.2 12 11:53 S 3 10.00 Fair CLR 87 74 65% NA 95 30.12 1020.1 12 10:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 87 74 65% NA 95 30.12 1020.0 12 09:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 85 74 70% NA 93 30.11 1019.5 12 08:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 82 73 74% NA 87 30.09 1019.1 12 07:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 78 75 85% NA 80 30.08 1018.5 12 06:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.06 1017.8 12 05:53 NE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.7 12 04:53 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.4 12 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.03 1017.0 12 02:53 SE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.04 1017.1 12 01:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 77 76 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.4 0.04 12 00:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 72 85% NA 78 30.06 1017.9 11 23:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.07 1018.1 11 22:53 E 3 10.00 A Few FEW027 77 72 85% NA 78 30.06 1018.0 0.04 Clouds FEW044 11 21:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.5 11 20:53 NE 8 10.00 Mostly FEW065 77 73 88% NA 78 30.04 1017.2 0.04 Cloudy BKN110 11 19:53 SW 9 6.00 Thunderstorm FEW050 76 71 95 76 85% NA 77 30.03 1016.9 0.13 0.73 Light Rain SCT080 BKN100 11 18:53 NW 7 2.00 Thunderstorm FEW026 77 72 85% NA 78 30.05 1017.5 0.60 Heavy Rain OVC036 11 17:53 E 18 10.00 Thunderstorm BKN048 82 70 67% NA 86 29.99 1015.5 OVC060 11 16:53 NE 3 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT055 92 69 47% NA 97 29.98 1015.3 11 15:53 E 6 10.00 A Few FEW050 95 68 41% NA 100 29.99 1015.7 Clouds 11 14:53 SE 7 10.00 Overcast BKN049 92 70 49% NA 98 30.02 1016.4 OVC060 11 13:53 NA 10.00 Fair CLR 93 67 94 81 42% NA 96 30.03 1017.0 11 12:53 E 6 10.00 Fair CLR 91 69 49% NA 96 30.04 1017.2 11 11:53 Vrbl 5 10.00 A Few FEW030 90 67 47% NA 93 30.06 1017.9 Clouds 11 10:53 NE 5 10.00 A Few FEW025 88 72 59% NA 95 30.05 1017.7 Clouds 11 09:53 E 5 10.00 A Few FEW025 85 72 65% NA 91 30.04 1017.3 Clouds 11 08:53 E 6 10.00 Fair CLR 83 72 70% NA 88 30.04 1017.4 11 07:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 81 74 81 77 79% NA 86 30.04 1017.2 11 06:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 85% NA 80 30.03 1017.0 11 05:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.02 1016.5 11 04:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.01 1016.3 11 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.01 1016.3 11 02:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.01 1016.2 11 01:53 Calm 10.00 A Few FEW100 79 73 80 78 82% NA 82 30.04 1017.1 Clouds 11 00:53 SE 8 10.00 A Few FEW080 78 73 85% NA 80 30.04 1017.3 Clouds 10 23:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 82% NA 80 30.05 1017.7 10 22:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 79 71 77% NA 82 30.04 1017.3 10 21:53 SE 5 10.00 Fair CLR 79 72 79% NA 82 30.03 1017.1 10 20:53 S 6 10.00 Fair CLR 79 72 79% NA 82 30.02 1016.5 10 19:53 S 9 10.00 Fair CLR 81 71 92 78 72% NA 85 30.02 1016.7 0.05 10 18:53 S 7 10.00 Fair CLR 82 73 74% NA 87 30.00 1015.9 10 17:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 82 73 74% NA 87 30.01 1016.1 10 16:53 W 3 10.00 Thunderstorm SCT080 83 75 77% NA 90 30.02 1016.5 0.03 0.05 10 15:53 NW 9 10.00 Thunderstorm FEW015 78 71 79% NA 80 30.04 1017.2 0.02 Light Rain SCT055 BKN090 10 14:53 W 10 10.00 Mostly FEW041 88 72 59% NA 95 30.05 1017.7 Cloudy BKN085 10 13:53 NW 6 10.00 Mostly BKN044 90 69 92 80 50% NA 95 30.08 1018.7 Cloudy BKN055 Max. Min. sea D altimeter Air Dwpt Wind Heat level 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr a Time Wind Vis. Sky 6 hour Relative (in.) Weather Chill Index (mb) t (edt) (mph) (mi.) Cond. Humidity (°F) (°F) Precipitation e Temperature (ºF) Pressure (in.)

National Weather Service Back to previous page Last Modified: Febuary, 7 2012 Southern Region Headquarters Privacy Policy Fort Worth, Texas Disclaimer weather.gov

Punta Gorda, Charlotte County Airport

Enter Your "City, ST" or zip code Go metric en español Precipitation D Temperature (ºF) Pressure Wind Heat (in.) a Time Wind Vis. Sky Relative Weather Chill Index sea t (edt) (mph) (mi.) Cond. 6 hour Humidity altimeter Air Dwpt (°F) (°F) level 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr e (in) Max. Min. (mb) 14 07:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 74 78 76 87% NA 80 30.11 1019.6 14 06:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 73 91% NA 76 30.10 1019.3 14 05:53 NE 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 73 91% NA 76 30.09 1018.9 14 04:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.08 1018.5 14 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 82% NA 80 30.08 1018.4 14 02:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 82% NA 80 30.08 1018.6 14 01:53 SW 3 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 83 78 82% NA 80 30.10 1019.4 14 00:53 SW 3 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 85% NA 80 30.11 1019.7 13 23:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 85% NA 80 30.13 1020.3 13 22:53 SE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 73 82% NA 82 30.13 1020.4 13 21:53 NE 5 10.00 A Few FEW031 80 73 79% NA 84 30.12 1019.8 Clouds 13 20:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 81 72 74% NA 85 30.11 1019.5 13 19:53 SE 10 10.00 Fair CLR 83 73 88 77 72% NA 89 30.13 1020.2 13 18:53 S 7 10.00 Fair CLR 85 73 68% NA 92 30.12 1019.8 13 17:53 SW 5 10.00 Fair CLR 87 72 61% NA 93 30.10 1019.4 13 16:53 W 3 10.00 Fair CLR 85 72 65% NA 91 30.10 1019.4 13 15:53 SW 3 10.00 Light Rain FEW039 81 71 72% NA 85 30.12 1020.0 SCT090 SCT110 13 14:53 Calm 10.00 Mostly FEW046 79 70 74% NA 82 30.15 1021.0 Cloudy BKN100 13 13:53 S 5 5.00 Thunderstorm BKN037 77 68 92 75 74% NA 79 30.16 1021.3 1.22 1.22 Rain BKN050 OVC085 13 12:53 SW 10.00 Mostly SCT036 88 72 59% NA 95 30.16 1021.2 15 Cloudy SCT043 BKN070 13 11:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 A Few FEW034 91 73 56% NA 100 30.15 1021.0 Clouds 13 10:53 NE 5 10.00 Fair CLR 89 75 63% NA 99 30.16 1021.2 13 09:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 Fair CLR 88 75 66% NA 98 30.15 1021.1 13 08:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 85 74 70% NA 93 30.14 1020.6 13 07:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 74 79 77 85% NA 83 30.12 1020.1 13 06:53 NE 3 10.00 A Few FEW028 77 74 90% NA 78 30.11 1019.7 Clouds 13 05:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT023 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.4 13 04:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.1 13 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 74 90% NA 78 30.10 1019.2 13 02:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.11 1019.6 13 01:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 85 77 88% NA 78 30.12 1020.1 0.01 13 00:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.14 1020.7 12 23:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 73 82% NA 82 30.14 1020.7 12 22:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 80 74 82% NA 85 30.13 1020.2 0.01 12 21:53 SE 6 10.00 Fair CLR 81 73 77% NA 86 30.12 1020.0 12 20:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain FEW050 83 75 77% NA 90 30.12 1019.9 0.01 FEW090 BKN110 12 19:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 84 73 92 84 70% NA 90 30.11 1019.6 12 18:53 NE 5 10.00 Mostly BKN038 87 70 57% NA 92 30.09 1019.1 Cloudy 12 17:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 Thunderstorm CLR 89 70 53% NA 94 30.08 1018.7 in Vicinity 12 16:53 NW 7 10.00 Fair CLR 92 72 52% NA 100 30.09 1018.9 12 15:53 SW 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT045 90 72 56% NA 98 30.08 1018.5 12 14:53 NA 10.00 Thunderstorm SCT045 91 70 50% NA 97 30.10 1019.3 in Vicinity 12 13:53 NW 6 10.00 A Few FEW034 90 71 90 78 54% NA 96 30.11 1019.8 Clouds 12 12:53 W 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT026 90 74 59% NA 99 30.13 1020.2 12 11:53 S 3 10.00 Fair CLR 87 74 65% NA 95 30.12 1020.1 12 10:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 87 74 65% NA 95 30.12 1020.0 12 09:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 85 74 70% NA 93 30.11 1019.5 12 08:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 82 73 74% NA 87 30.09 1019.1 12 07:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 78 75 85% NA 80 30.08 1018.5 12 06:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.06 1017.8 12 05:53 NE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.7 12 04:53 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.4 12 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.03 1017.0 12 02:53 SE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.04 1017.1 12 01:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 77 76 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.4 0.04 12 00:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 72 85% NA 78 30.06 1017.9 11 23:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.07 1018.1 11 22:53 E 3 10.00 A Few FEW027 77 72 85% NA 78 30.06 1018.0 0.04 Clouds FEW044 11 21:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 76 72 88% NA 76 30.05 1017.5 11 20:53 NE 8 10.00 Mostly FEW065 77 73 88% NA 78 30.04 1017.2 0.04 Cloudy BKN110 11 19:53 SW 9 6.00 Thunderstorm FEW050 76 71 95 76 85% NA 77 30.03 1016.9 0.13 0.73 Light Rain SCT080 BKN100 11 18:53 NW 7 2.00 Thunderstorm FEW026 77 72 85% NA 78 30.05 1017.5 0.60 Heavy Rain OVC036 11 17:53 E 18 10.00 Thunderstorm BKN048 82 70 67% NA 86 29.99 1015.5 OVC060 11 16:53 NE 3 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT055 92 69 47% NA 97 29.98 1015.3 11 15:53 E 6 10.00 A Few FEW050 95 68 41% NA 100 29.99 1015.7 Clouds 11 14:53 SE 7 10.00 Overcast BKN049 92 70 49% NA 98 30.02 1016.4 OVC060 11 13:53 NA 10.00 Fair CLR 93 67 94 81 42% NA 96 30.03 1017.0 11 12:53 E 6 10.00 Fair CLR 91 69 49% NA 96 30.04 1017.2 11 11:53 Vrbl 5 10.00 A Few FEW030 90 67 47% NA 93 30.06 1017.9 Clouds 11 10:53 NE 5 10.00 A Few FEW025 88 72 59% NA 95 30.05 1017.7 Clouds 11 09:53 E 5 10.00 A Few FEW025 85 72 65% NA 91 30.04 1017.3 Clouds 11 08:53 E 6 10.00 Fair CLR 83 72 70% NA 88 30.04 1017.4 Max. Min. sea D altimeter Air Dwpt Wind Heat level 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr a Time Wind Vis. Sky 6 hour Relative (in.) Weather Chill Index (mb) t (edt) (mph) (mi.) Cond. Humidity (°F) (°F) Precipitation e Temperature (ºF) Pressure (in.)

National Weather Service Back to previous page Last Modified: Febuary, 7 2012 Southern Region Headquarters Privacy Policy Fort Worth, Texas Disclaimer weather.gov

Punta Gorda, Charlotte County Airport

Enter Your "City, ST" or zip code Go metric en español Precipitation D Temperature (ºF) Pressure Wind Heat (in.) a Time Wind Vis. Sky Relative Weather Chill Index sea t (edt) (mph) (mi.) Cond. 6 hour Humidity altimeter Air Dwpt (°F) (°F) level 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr e (in) Max. Min. (mb) 15 08:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 76 75 97% NA 75 30.08 1018.5 15 07:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 74 73 97% NA NA 30.07 1018.2 15 06:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 74 73 97% NA NA 30.07 1018.2 15 05:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 73 73 100% NA NA 30.05 1017.5 14 19:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT080 81 75 90 76 82% NA 87 30.07 1018.2 14 18:53 S 9 10.00 A Few FEW040 79 73 82% NA 82 30.07 1018.2 Clouds 14 17:53 S 9 10.00 A Few FEW040 79 73 82% NA 82 30.07 1018.2 Clouds 14 16:53 W 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy FEW015 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.2 SCT040 14 15:53 W 12 0.50 Thunderstorm BKN014 76 73 91% NA 76 30.13 1020.2 0.94 Heavy Rain Fog 14 14:53 SE 8 10.00 Thunderstorm SCT041 90 73 58% NA 99 30.08 1018.6 in Vicinity BKN080 14 13:53 NE 6 10.00 Mostly BKN080 93 73 93 79 52% NA 102 30.11 1019.6 Cloudy BKN100 14 12:53 NE 6 10.00 Fair CLR 90 74 59% NA 99 30.12 1019.9 14 11:53 N 5 10.00 A Few FEW031 90 73 58% NA 99 30.12 1020.0 Clouds 14 10:53 NE 7 10.00 Partly Cloudy FEW023 88 74 63% NA 97 30.13 1020.2 SCT030 14 09:53 N 5 10.00 Fair CLR 86 75 70% NA 95 30.13 1020.2 14 08:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 83 75 77% NA 90 30.12 1020.0 14 07:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 74 78 76 87% NA 80 30.11 1019.6 14 06:53 E 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 73 91% NA 76 30.10 1019.3 14 05:53 NE 5 10.00 Fair CLR 76 73 91% NA 76 30.09 1018.9 14 04:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.08 1018.5 14 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 82% NA 80 30.08 1018.4 14 02:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 82% NA 80 30.08 1018.6 14 01:53 SW 3 10.00 Fair CLR 78 72 83 78 82% NA 80 30.10 1019.4 14 00:53 SW 3 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 85% NA 80 30.11 1019.7 13 23:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 78 73 85% NA 80 30.13 1020.3 13 22:53 SE 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 73 82% NA 82 30.13 1020.4 13 21:53 NE 5 10.00 A Few FEW031 80 73 79% NA 84 30.12 1019.8 Clouds 13 20:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 81 72 74% NA 85 30.11 1019.5 13 19:53 SE 10 10.00 Fair CLR 83 73 88 77 72% NA 89 30.13 1020.2 13 18:53 S 7 10.00 Fair CLR 85 73 68% NA 92 30.12 1019.8 13 17:53 SW 5 10.00 Fair CLR 87 72 61% NA 93 30.10 1019.4 13 16:53 W 3 10.00 Fair CLR 85 72 65% NA 91 30.10 1019.4 13 15:53 SW 3 10.00 Light Rain FEW039 81 71 72% NA 85 30.12 1020.0 SCT090 SCT110 13 14:53 Calm 10.00 Mostly FEW046 79 70 74% NA 82 30.15 1021.0 Cloudy BKN100 13 13:53 S 5 5.00 Thunderstorm BKN037 77 68 92 75 74% NA 79 30.16 1021.3 1.22 1.22 Rain BKN050 OVC085 13 12:53 SW 10.00 Mostly SCT036 88 72 59% NA 95 30.16 1021.2 15 Cloudy SCT043 BKN070 13 11:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 A Few FEW034 91 73 56% NA 100 30.15 1021.0 Clouds 13 10:53 NE 5 10.00 Fair CLR 89 75 63% NA 99 30.16 1021.2 13 09:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 Fair CLR 88 75 66% NA 98 30.15 1021.1 13 08:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 85 74 70% NA 93 30.14 1020.6 13 07:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 74 79 77 85% NA 83 30.12 1020.1 13 06:53 NE 3 10.00 A Few FEW028 77 74 90% NA 78 30.11 1019.7 Clouds 13 05:53 Calm 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT023 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.4 13 04:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.10 1019.1 13 03:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 74 90% NA 78 30.10 1019.2 13 02:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.11 1019.6 13 01:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 85 77 88% NA 78 30.12 1020.1 0.01 13 00:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 77 73 88% NA 78 30.14 1020.7 12 23:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 79 73 82% NA 82 30.14 1020.7 12 22:53 E 3 10.00 Fair CLR 80 74 82% NA 85 30.13 1020.2 0.01 12 21:53 SE 6 10.00 Fair CLR 81 73 77% NA 86 30.12 1020.0 12 20:53 SE 7 10.00 Light Rain FEW050 83 75 77% NA 90 30.12 1019.9 0.01 FEW090 BKN110 12 19:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 84 73 92 84 70% NA 90 30.11 1019.6 12 18:53 NE 5 10.00 Mostly BKN038 87 70 57% NA 92 30.09 1019.1 Cloudy 12 17:53 Vrbl 3 10.00 Thunderstorm CLR 89 70 53% NA 94 30.08 1018.7 in Vicinity 12 16:53 NW 7 10.00 Fair CLR 92 72 52% NA 100 30.09 1018.9 12 15:53 SW 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT045 90 72 56% NA 98 30.08 1018.5 12 14:53 NA 10.00 Thunderstorm SCT045 91 70 50% NA 97 30.10 1019.3 in Vicinity 12 13:53 NW 6 10.00 A Few FEW034 90 71 90 78 54% NA 96 30.11 1019.8 Clouds 12 12:53 W 6 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT026 90 74 59% NA 99 30.13 1020.2 12 11:53 S 3 10.00 Fair CLR 87 74 65% NA 95 30.12 1020.1 12 10:53 Calm 10.00 Fair CLR 87 74 65% NA 95 30.12 1020.0 12 09:53 S 5 10.00 Fair CLR 85 74 70% NA 93 30.11 1019.5 sea D Time Wind Vis. Weather Sky Max. Min. Relative Wind Heat altimeter a (edt) (mph) (mi.) Cond. Air Dwpt Humidity Chill Index level 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr 6 hour (in.) (°F) (°F) (mb) t Temperature (ºF) Pressure Precipitation e (in.)

National Weather Service Back to previous page Last Modified: Febuary, 7 2012 Southern Region Headquarters Privacy Policy Fort Worth, Texas Disclaimer ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY

FRIGIDAIRE 15,… LG ELECTRONI… FRIGIDAIRE 25.… ADORA 36 IN. … HAMPTON BA… NEXGRILL 4-B…

ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY

36 IN. W 27.8 C… LG ELECTRONI… FRIGIDAIRE 12,… LG ELECTRONI… 11.4 IN. NATUR… LG ELECTRONI…

ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY

FRIGIDAIRE 5,0… GE 10,000 BTU … LG ELECTRONI… 18-VOLT ONE+ … GE 6,000 BTU 1… WHIRLPOOL 36…

burnt store isles KFLPUNTA82 About this PWS | Report | Comments

Forecast for Punta Gorda, FL > 26.894 -82.034 > 11 ft

PWS viewed 54 times since July 1, 2018

Current Conditions 81.3 °F Feels Like 86.5 °F

0.0 mph

Wind from E DewGust sPoint: -- mph 73 °F Humidity: 77% Precip Rate: -- in/hr Precip Accum: 0.00 in Pressure: 30.06 in UV: 1 Solar: -- Soil Moisture: -- Soil Temp: -- Leaf Wetness: --

6:44 AM 8:23 PM

Waxing Crescent | 16% Illuminated

$899.10 $329.99

Radar Webcam  Icon © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap | Improve this map

View WunderMap

Weather History for Punta Gorda, FL [KFLPUNTA82]

Daily Mode

July 14

2018

View

Previous Next

Summary July 14, 2018

High Low Average

Temperature 92.8 °F 73.6 °F 83.2 °F

Dew Point 77.4 °F 71.1 °F 74 °F

Humidity 94% 57% 83%

Precipitation 2.52 in -- --

High Low Average

Wind Speed 19 mph -- 2 mph

Wind Gust 20 mph -- --

Wind Direction -- -- ENE

Pressure 30.13 in 30.05 in -- Graphs Table

Weather History Table July 14, 2018

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

12:07 72.4 -- 75.9 °F 89 % ESE 0 mph 30.12 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

12:22 72.1 -- 75.6 °F 89 % SSW 0 mph 30.12 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

12:37 72.3 -- 75.4 °F 90 % SSW 0 mph 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

12:53 72.6 -- 75.4 °F 91 % South 0 mph 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

1:08 72.4 -- 75.2 °F 91 % WSW 0 mph 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

1:24 72.4 -- 75.2 °F 91 % SSW 0 mph 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

1:39 -- 74.8 °F 72 °F 91 % SSW 0 mph 30.09 in 0 in 0 in AM mph

1:55 -- 74.8 °F 72 °F 91 % ESE 0 mph 30.09 in 0 in 0 in AM mph

2:10 72.3 1.1 -- 74.8 °F 92 % ESE 30.09 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

2:25 72.5 -- 75 °F 92 % ESE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

2:40 72.3 -- 74.8 °F 92 % ESE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

2:56 72.2 -- 74.7 °F 92 % ESE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

3:12 72.2 -- 74.7 °F 92 % ESE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

3:28 72.2 -- 74.7 °F 92 % SE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

3:43 72.2 -- 74.7 °F 92 % East 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

3:58 72.2 -- 74.7 °F 92 % ESE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

4:14 71.8 -- 74.3 °F 92 % SSE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

4:30 71.8 -- 74.3 °F 92 % NNE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

4:45 71.8 -- 74.3 °F 92 % West 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:01 72.1 -- 74.3 °F 93 % ENE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:16 72.1 -- 74.3 °F 93 % ENE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:31 72.3 -- 74.5 °F 93 % ENE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:47 72.3 -- 74.5 °F 93 % NE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:03 72.3 -- 74.5 °F 93 % ENE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:18 72.9 2.7 -- 74.7 °F 94 % NE 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

6:34 72.9 -- 74.7 °F 94 % ENE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:49 -- 74.8 °F 73 °F 94 % NE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM mph

7:04 72.6 -- 74.8 °F 93 % ENE 0 mph 30.09 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

7:20 73.5 -- 76.3 °F 91 % NE 0 mph 30.09 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

7:35 73.9 -- 78.1 °F 87 % ENE 0 mph 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

7:50 73.8 2.2 -- 79 °F 84 % ENE 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

8:05 74.3 -- 79.9 °F 83 % ENE 0 mph 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

8:20 74.8 2.2 -- 80.8 °F 82 % NE 30.1 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

8:35 75.3 3.2 -- 81.7 °F 81 % ENE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

8:51 75.6 1.7 -- 82.4 °F 80 % NE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

9:06 76.4 1.7 -- 84 °F 78 % WSW 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

9:22 76.7 1.1 -- 85.5 °F 75 % NNW 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

9:37 76.6 -- 85.8 °F 74 % ESE 0 mph 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

9:52 76.9 3.2 -- 86.2 °F 74 % East 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

10:07 77.2 4.7 -- 87.3 °F 72 % East 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

10:23 76.7 3.2 -- 87.3 °F 71 % NNW 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

10:38 77.2 3.2 -- 88.7 °F 69 % NE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

10:54 77.4 2.7 -- 89.4 °F 68 % ENE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

11:09 77.4 1.7 -- 89.8 °F 67 % ENE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

11:24 76.7 5.3 -- 90.5 °F 64 % East 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

11:39 76.7 -- 91.6 °F 62 % North 0 mph 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

11:54 75.2 1.7 -- 90.5 °F 61 % NE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

12:10 76.4 3.7 -- 91.8 °F 61 % NE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

12:25 77.4 -- 91.8 °F 63 % WNW 0 mph 30.11 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph

12:40 75.6 4.2 -- 92.5 °F 58 % ENE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

12:56 75.7 4.7 -- 92.1 °F 59 % NE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

1:11 75.6 4.7 -- 91.4 °F 60 % ENE 30.11 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

1:27 75.3 6.3 -- 92.8 °F 57 % NE 30.1 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

1:42 76.6 5.3 -- 92.5 °F 60 % ENE 30.1 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

1:57 74.6 6.3 -- 90.9 °F 59 % ENE 30.09 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:12 75.1 4.7 -- 90.9 °F 60 % ENE 30.09 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:27 75.3 3.7 -- 89.6 °F 63 % ESE 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:42 75.2 4.7 -- 90.5 °F 61 % South 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:58 74.2 9.4 -- 84.6 °F 71 % West 30.07 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

3:13 74.2 18.6 -- 80.2 °F 82 % West 30.08 in 0 in 0.15 in PM °F mph mph

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

3:28 73.1 1.1 20.2 75.9 °F 91 % ENE 30.1 in 0 in 0.93 in PM °F mph mph

3:44 71.1 9.4 -- 73.6 °F 92 % East 30.13 in 0 in 1.65 in PM °F mph mph

3:59 71.6 2.7 -- 73.8 °F 93 % ENE 30.12 in 0 in 2.29 in PM °F mph mph

4:14 71.9 3.7 -- 74.1 °F 93 % SSW 30.1 in 0 in 2.47 in PM °F mph mph

4:29 72.3 2.7 -- 74.5 °F 93 % SW 30.08 in 0 in 2.51 in PM °F mph mph

4:45 72.8 3.7 -- 75 °F 93 % South 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

5:00 73.2 1.7 -- 75.4 °F 93 % ESE 30.07 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

5:15 73.5 3.2 -- 76.3 °F 91 % SW 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

5:31 73.5 1.7 -- 77 °F 89 % SW 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

5:46 73.8 2.2 -- 78.3 °F 86 % ESE 30.07 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

6:02 73.9 2.2 -- 79.2 °F 84 % SW 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

6:17 73.9 3.2 -- 78.4 °F 86 % WSW 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

6:33 73.1 3.7 -- 78.3 °F 84 % South 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

6:48 4.2 -- 78.6 °F 73 °F 83 % WSW 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM mph mph

7:03 73.7 1.7 -- 78.6 °F 85 % SW 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

7:19 73.7 2.7 -- 80.1 °F 81 % West 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

7:34 73.7 2.2 -- 80.1 °F 81 % WSW 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

7:49 73.7 1.7 -- 80.1 °F 81 % West 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

8:04 73.9 -- 79.9 °F 82 % West 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

8:19 74.4 -- 79.7 °F 84 % West 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

8:34 74.4 -- 79.3 °F 85 % SW 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

8:49 74.5 -- 79 °F 86 % West 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

9:05 74.2 -- 78.4 °F 87 % SSW 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

9:20 74.5 -- 78.3 °F 88 % SW 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

9:36 74.6 -- 78.1 °F 89 % SE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

9:51 74.7 -- 77.9 °F 90 % WSW 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

10:07 74.7 -- 77.9 °F 90 % SW 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

10:22 74.5 -- 77.7 °F 90 % North 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

10:37 74.5 -- 77.7 °F 90 % ESE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

10:53 74.3 -- 77.5 °F 90 % NE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

11:09 75.1 2.7 -- 77.9 °F 91 % ENE 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

11:24 74.9 -- 77.7 °F 91 % NE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph

11:39 74.6 1.7 -- 77.4 °F 91 % NE 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

11:55 74.4 3.2 -- 77.2 °F 91 % ENE 30.08 in 0 in 2.52 in PM °F mph mph

Please note that DISQUS operates this forum. When you sign in to comment, your sign in information, along with your comments, will be governed by DISQUS' privacy policy. By commenting, you are accepting the DISQUS terms of service.

The comments made below do not necessarily represent the views of Weather Underground; The Weather Company, an IBM Business; or IBM. Comments below should not be perceived as official forecasts or emergency information. For official information on potential storm impacts and evacuation information, please follow guidance from your local authority's emergency operations department.

Comments for KFLPUNTA82

0 Comments Weather Underground 1 Login

 Recommend ⤤ Share Sort by Newest

Start the discussion…

Name

✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd Disqus' Privacy PolicyPrivacy PolicyPrivacy ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY

FRIGIDAIRE 15,… LG ELECTRONI… FRIGIDAIRE 25.… ADORA 36 IN. … HAMPTON BA… NEXGRILL 4-B…

ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY

36 IN. W 27.8 C… LG ELECTRONI… LG ELECTRONI… 11.4 IN. NATUR… LG ELECTRONI…

ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY ONLINE ONLY

FRIGIDAIRE 5,0… GE 10,000 BTU … LG ELECTRONI… 18-VOLT ONE+ … GE 6,000 BTU 1… WHIRLPOOL 36…

burnt store isles KFLPUNTA82 About this PWS | Report | Comments

Forecast for Punta Gorda, FL > 26.894 -82.034 > 11 ft

PWS viewed 54 times since July 1, 2018

Current Conditions 81.3 °F Feels Like 86.5 °F

0.0 mph

Wind from E DewGusts Point: -- mph 73 °F Humidity: 77% Precip Rate: -- in/hr Precip Accum: 0.00 in Pressure: 30.06 in UV: 1 Solar: -- Soil Moisture: -- Soil Temp: -- Leaf Wetness: --

6:44 AM 8:23 PM

Waxing Crescent | 16% Illuminated

$899.10 $329.99

Radar Webcam  Icon © Mapbox © OpenStreetMap | Improve this map

View WunderMap

Weather History for Punta Gorda, FL [KFLPUNTA82]

Daily Mode

July 15

2018

View

Previous Next

Summary July 15, 2018

High Low Average

Temperature 94.8 °F 73.9 °F 84.4 °F

Dew Point 74.9 °F 65.6 °F 71.5 °F

Humidity 93% 39% 68%

Precipitation 0 in -- --

High Low Average

Wind Speed 10 mph -- 3 mph

Wind Gust 0 mph -- --

Wind Direction -- -- SW

Pressure 30.09 in 30 in -- Graphs Table

Weather History Table July 15, 2018

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

12:10 74.4 1.1 -- 77.2 °F 91 % NE 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

12:26 74.2 -- 77 °F 91 % ENE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

12:41 73.8 -- 76.6 °F 91 % NNE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

12:57 73.5 -- 76.3 °F 91 % ENE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

1:12 73.5 4.2 -- 76.3 °F 91 % NE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

1:28 73.5 3.7 -- 76.3 °F 91 % ENE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

1:43 73.5 6.3 -- 76.3 °F 91 % ENE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

1:58 73.5 4.7 -- 76.3 °F 91 % NE 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

2:14 73.5 3.2 -- 76.3 °F 91 % ENE 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

2:29 73.3 2.7 -- 76.1 °F 91 % East 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

2:44 73.1 1.7 -- 75.9 °F 91 % East 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

3:00 72.8 -- 75.6 °F 91 % West 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

3:16 72.4 1.7 -- 75.2 °F 91 % ESE 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

3:31 72.4 -- 75.2 °F 91 % SE 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

3:46 72.2 -- 75 °F 91 % ENE 0 mph 30.03 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

4:02 71.9 -- 74.7 °F 91 % ESE 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

4:17 71.7 -- 74.5 °F 91 % East 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

4:33 71.7 -- 74.5 °F 91 % ENE 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

4:48 72.3 -- 74.8 °F 92 % NE 0 mph 30.03 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:04 72.2 -- 74.7 °F 92 % SW 0 mph 30.03 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:19 71.6 -- 74.1 °F 92 % North 0 mph 30.03 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:34 71.6 -- 74.1 °F 92 % East 0 mph 30.03 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

5:50 71.6 -- 74.1 °F 92 % East 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:05 71.6 -- 74.1 °F 92 % SSW 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:21 71.4 -- 73.9 °F 92 % ENE 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:36 71.6 -- 74.1 °F 92 % SE 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

6:52 -- 74.5 °F 72 °F 92 % NE 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM mph

7:07 72.8 -- 75 °F 93 % ESE 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

7:23 74.3 -- 76.5 °F 93 % East 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

7:38 74.2 -- 77.4 °F 90 % ENE 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

7:53 74.4 -- 79.3 °F 85 % East 0 mph 30.05 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

8:09 74.3 -- 79.9 °F 83 % NNE 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

8:25 74.9 3.7 -- 81.3 °F 81 % ENE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

8:40 74.6 -- 81.7 °F 79 % ENE 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

8:56 74.1 -- 82.4 °F 76 % ENE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

9:11 4.2 -- 83.1 °F 74 °F 74 % ENE 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM mph mph

9:27 3.7 -- 84 °F 74 °F 72 % ENE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM mph mph

9:42 -- 86.2 °F 74 °F 67 % West 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM mph

9:57 73.8 -- 86 °F 67 % SW 0 mph 30.07 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

10:13 73.3 -- 88.5 °F 61 % SSE 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

10:28 74.5 3.7 -- 88.7 °F 63 % SSW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

10:44 74.5 -- 88.7 °F 63 % WSW 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph

11:00 73.1 2.7 -- 89.8 °F 58 % WSW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

11:15 73.1 2.7 -- 89.8 °F 58 % SSW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

11:31 72.7 6.3 -- 90.5 °F 56 % WSW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

11:46 69.9 7.3 -- 90.5 °F 51 % SW 30.09 in 0 in 0 in AM °F mph mph

12:01 69.7 -- 91.6 °F 49 % West 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph

12:16 67.7 1.1 -- 92.8 °F 44 % South 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

12:32 67.8 1.7 -- 93.7 °F 43 % SSW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

12:47 66.3 3.2 -- 92.7 °F 42 % SW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

1:03 67.4 3.2 -- 93.2 °F 43 % WSW 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

1:18 68.5 -- 93.7 °F 44 % South 0 mph 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph

1:34 7.3 -- 94.6 °F 70 °F 45 % West 30.08 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

1:49 67.3 6.8 -- 93.9 °F 42 % WSW 30.07 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:05 9.9 -- 94.6 °F 68 °F 42 % SW 30.07 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

2:20 65.8 6.8 -- 94.6 °F 39 % SW 30.06 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:37 65.6 7.3 -- 94.3 °F 39 % SW 30.06 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

2:53 66.5 5.3 -- 94.6 °F 40 % SW 30.05 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

3:08 3.7 -- 94.8 °F 66 °F 39 % SSW 30.04 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

3:23 7.8 -- 94.3 °F 67 °F 41 % West 30.03 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

3:38 66.1 5.8 -- 94.1 °F 40 % WSW 30.03 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

3:53 67.4 3.7 -- 94.8 °F 41 % SW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

4:09 69.5 6.3 -- 94.1 °F 45 % SW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

4:24 69.8 7.8 -- 93.7 °F 46 % SW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

4:40 69.4 8.9 -- 93.2 °F 46 % SSW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

4:55 69.8 8.3 -- 93 °F 47 % WSW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

5:10 10.4 -- 93.2 °F 70 °F 47 % West 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

5:26 69.9 5.8 -- 90.5 °F 51 % WSW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

5:42 5.3 -- 89.4 °F 70 °F 53 % SSW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

5:57 69.7 8.9 -- 89.1 °F 53 % WSW 30 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

6:13 69.7 4.7 -- 89.1 °F 53 % SW 30 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

6:28 71.1 3.7 -- 90 °F 54 % WSW 30 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

6:43 71.6 5.3 -- 90.5 °F 54 % West 30 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

6:59 71.1 6.8 -- 90 °F 54 % SW 30 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

7:14 71.6 5.3 -- 89.4 °F 56 % SW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

7:29 4.2 -- 88.7 °F 72 °F 58 % WSW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

7:44 71.1 3.2 -- 88.3 °F 57 % SW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

7:59 71.2 3.2 -- 87.8 °F 58 % SW 30.01 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

8:14 71.5 4.7 -- 87.1 °F 60 % West 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

8:30 71.5 4.2 -- 86.5 °F 61 % West 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

8:45 71.9 5.8 -- 86 °F 63 % SW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

9:00 71.9 6.3 -- 85.5 °F 64 % WSW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

9:15 72.5 5.8 -- 85.1 °F 66 % West 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

9:31 72.7 2.2 -- 84.9 °F 67 % SW 30.02 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

9:46 73.4 2.7 -- 84.7 °F 69 % SW 30.03 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

10:01 73.1 2.2 -- 84.4 °F 69 % SW 30.04 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

10:17 73.2 -- 84 °F 70 % West 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph

10:33 72.5 -- 83.8 °F 69 % WSW 0 mph 30.04 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph

10:48 72.5 2.2 -- 83.8 °F 69 % WNW 30.06 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

11:03 72.5 -- 83.8 °F 69 % NW 0 mph 30.06 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

Dew Precip. Precip. Time Temperature Humidity Wind Speed Gust Pressure Point Rate. Accum.

11:18 2.2 -- 83.8 °F 73 °F 70 % East 30.06 in 0 in 0 in PM mph mph

11:35 73.3 4.2 -- 82.8 °F 73 % ENE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

11:50 72.6 3.7 -- 81.7 °F 74 % NE 30.07 in 0 in 0 in PM °F mph mph

Comments for KFLPUNTA82

0 Comments Weather Underground 1 Login

 Recommend ⤤ Share Sort by Newest

Start the discussion…

Name

✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd Disqus' Privacy PolicyPrivacy PolicyPrivacy This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX C REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS This Page Intentionally Left Blank Site 01

Site 02 Site 03

Site 04 Site 05

Site 06 Site 07

Site 08 Potential Roost 01

Potential Roost 02 Potential Roost 03

Potential Roost 04 Potential Roost 05 4 0 United States Department of the Interior

FISII AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20 Street Vero Beach. Florida 32960

October31, 2018

Rebecca Henry Federal Aviation Administration 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822

Service Consultation Code: 04EF2000-20 18-1-0135 Date Received: December 22, 2017 Project: Punta Gorda Airport Improvements Applicant: Charlotte County Airport Authority County: Charlotte

Dear Ms. Hendry:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) request to initiate consultation dated December 22, 2017, for the Charlotte County Airport Authority (Applicant) to conduct improvements at the Punta Gorda Airport (Project). The FAA determined that the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Florida bonneted bat (Eurnopsfloridanus; FBB) and Evergiade snail kite (Rosirharniis sociabilis plumbeus; ESK), and the threatened wood stork (Mj’cleria americana), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi), and Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyhorus plancus). This letter is submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The FAA is proposing to authorize the Applicant to implement the Project. The improvements include the following: 1) reconstruct and extend existing runways 4-22 (from 7,193 feet [ft.j to 7,920 ft.) and 15-33 (from 5,688 ft. to 6,281 ft.); 2) acquire 45 acres (ac) of property northeast of the existing runway 4-22 and 2.7 ac of property southeast of runway 15-33 to extend the runway protection zones for safety purposes; 3) construct a holding bay near the end of runway 4-22; 3) reconfigure the taxiway/runway entrance to runway 15-33 and relocate the existing wind cone; 4) relocate and construct a new general aviation terminal including a restaurant, apron for up to 24 new aircraft, buildings, hangar and up to 97-space parking facility; 5) construct a new flight school building, aircraft storage area and parking area; 6) expand the long term parking lot and construct new cell phone waiting and taxi/bus waiting areas; and 7) fill 18 ac of on-site wetlands that present a bird strike hazard to aircraft per FAA rules. The purpose of the Project is to improve the safety and function of existing runways and to increase airport facilities based on the need for additional services. The Project will fill 37.1 ac of wetlands. To compensate for impacts to wetlands the airport has agreed to acquire credits from a Service-approved wetland mitigation bank. The 346.2-ac Project site includes 177.3 ac of existing airport development. Rebecca 37.1 26.9 Through the habitat cleared

take provide Project adversely fact consultation these Please

Audubon’s the The

cabbage site on result yet determination concurrence indicated Applicant The that records Eastern

above, the for prior eastern species used

Service

Applicant’s the

occurred.

does

Wildlife (i.e.,

12029

Project

that

ac the

Project

projects in

near

of eastern site it appears

indigo either: activities on

majority

completion

Henry

adverse palms),

emails

may

indigo

not where

the

aware

above,

affect

wetlands

has the • the

projects

that

the

occurs

occurs crested

pursuant

applies

Foundation

contain

longitude

Project

have

the where

Project that eastern

already

snake, a

indigo

Service’s

the

consultant. to

land

that

snake

concurrence

and

effects about

that

FAA’s

federally

include

the

occurred. within

within Applicant

and

where

suitable

caracara only it

land or

site

suitable caracara

to the

THREATENED benefit

snake. footprint.

indigo

Service

cleared

Project

our

-81.991238°

164 tree

ditches,

the

of the

without

and

policy

to Service

clearing

the about

land the

consultation

the

listed ac Florida’s

clearing

Act.

Moreover, the

habitat

Services

snake

nesting the

for the

However,

has geographic were

geographic

may dated Due

about of

Audubon’s

clearing

portion

not and

137

Consequently,

Applicanf a lands

survival authorization

species;

requests

recently

has

determination

affect,

not

occurring

August 25

been

164 ac

habitat (WFF)

the

not

policy

consult

Punta

the have

the

observed

and of

has

AND in

scale

range

and completed).

but

occurred,

crested of

lands the that

cleared

Project

some

Service

s of

has

already

ready

17,

Eastern for

authorization

forested Gorda,

original

not

within

proposed

recovery

ENDANGERED

lands

the

from

the

resulted of

2018,

the

not that

cases,

complete

clearing

caracara,

site approximately

the Applicant

been

the

does

Service

consult

caracara occurred.

the

likely

and

at the

the

Charlotte

were 4

Indigo

biological

lands.

and Audubon’s

has eastern

the

Therefore,

the

Project

cleared

Project

action not

FAA

in complete

not

the

that to

August

already

Project

the informal

Service

miles

and finds

Snake have

(i.e., The

adversely

provide

the

eastern discussed

indigo

County,

Because

loss has

development

agency

site

site on

assessment

the

SPECIES

action

(mi) it

any

Project

164

crested

single

either site for

29,

been

occurred, Fund.

the

can C

of unlikely

concur

during

where

and

Service.

snake,

records

indigo these

potential ac

2018, of

that

that Project

$15,000.00

consult affect Florida.

the

agency

destroyed.

formal

informal

the of

caracara.

Monies

land

may surveys

with

occurring the

clearing

small

potential located

areas,

that

and for

the

activities

Project

the

snake,

this

The

site.

project

habitat

for

clearing

the provide

consultations

the

FAA

caracara the

the

Service

groups

or species.

in we

the acreage

any

donation

conducted

at As

Project.

FAAs This such

The occurred

Service Project

site.

the

formal

wildlife

within

informed

latitude

portions

after-the-

will

for

stated

incidental

habitat

has

fund

Project

finds

not

as of

nesting

The

Page

the

not As

will

not the

has

are

for

2 C C

Rebecca Henry Page 3

acquiring, managing, and protecting currently unprotected eastern indigo snake habitat. For your convenience, the contact information for the WWF is provided below. Street Address E-Mail Address Mr. WillBradford ifo@wildlfflorida. org Wildli/ Foundation of Florida 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32339

Evergiade snail kite

The Project is within the geographic range of the ESK, but is not located in the Service’s consultation area for the ESK. Active nests of the Everglade ESK were not observed on or near the Project site during surveys conducted by the Applicant’s consultants, and the nearest known ESK nest was been documented approximately 26 mi southeast of the Project site. Based on this information, the Service concurs with the FAA’s determination that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the ESK. As indicated above, about 164 ac of lands have ready been cleared on the Project site. This concurrence applies only to the portion of the Project site where land clearing has not yet occurred.

Florida bonneted bat

The Project occurs within the geographic range of the FBB. The Applicant’s consultants conducted surveys of the Project site for the FBB on July 12, 2018, and July 30, 2016, that included roosting and acoustic components. Forested habitat was identified as the only potential roosting sites for the FBB on the Project footprint. Consequently, this habitat was searched to identify trees that contained either cavities or exfoliating bark that could be used for roosting. A total of two mature trees were identified on the Project site. However, these trees were judged to be unsuitable for FBB roosting because they did not contain either cavities or exfoliating bark that could be used for roosting. In addition, roosting FBBs or bat guano was not observed during visual inspections of these trees. The acoustic survey identified a total of six FBB calls. None of the calls occurred within one and one half hours of sunset or sunrise. This is the time period where FBBs would likely be detected if they roosted on or near the Project site. Based on the lack of FBB calls recorded in the aforementioned time period, the lack of suitable roosting sites on the Project site, and the fact that FBBs were not observed on the Project site, the Service finds it unlikely that the FBB occurs on the Project site.

FBBs are known to forage as far as I to 7 mi from their roost sites (Ober 2016). Because FBB calls were identified during the acoustic survey, it is likely that FBB use the Project site for foraging. Consequently the Project will impact habitat types that provide potential foraging habitat for the FBB. Some of this acreage will remain on the Project site as lower quality foraging habitat following completion of the Project. However, as previously indicated, the Applicant has already cleared about 164 ac of lands at the Project site that may provide foraging habitat for the FBB. Due to the scale of clearing that has occurred, much of suitable habitat on the Project site has already been destroyed. It is the Service’s policy not to consult or complete informal occurred. Rebecca in currently $1 Wood benefit The Areas The the the adversely cleared Project As sites habitat

habitat credits kilograms foraging

This hiomass modifications questions, necessary. listed Thank

5000.00 the

wood

Service

Project

loss

conservation

letter

wetlands

loss

species (CFA;

stork

you the

resulting assessment

will

Henry

and of

from

habitat

unprotected

stork. a

affect

Because

(kg)

the survival

please

fulfills

wetlands donation Service-approved

for concurs

occurs

result

formal potential

defined

becomes

short

are

Project

your

where

the

lost Based

from

contact

made wood

the in

measure,

within

the (Service

and

hydroperiod wood with

cooperation consultations

due the

within

FBB

requirements

land

the site.

habitat

clearing

available, the

recovery

all

stork

loss

the

John

Project.

the

stork.

the

clearing

habitat.

WFF’s lands

This the

the a

2012),

FAA’s

Mitigation geographic CFA

for

forage. minor

Project,

Wrublik

Project

occurred

37.1 Applicant

concurrence

and

wetlands.

As within of

the

for

Through

FBB

the

may

of has

Contact the

determination

indicated

amount

effort

FBB,

species

section

Applicant’s

consist

of FBB,

not

fund.

reduce new

18.6

prior

additional Bank

range

offset

will wetlands

772-562-3909,

the

yet application

information

species mi)

Sincerel’ Roxanna Field

South applies on such

protecting

above, to

Monies of

compensate

Service that

occurred.

foraging potential

the

projects

completion

short

the

that as

consultant

Supervisor

provide

information loss,

that

Florida several

only

acquiring,

about

wood

Act

requests

Hinzman hydroperiod

the

of listed,

may

federally opportunities for

the

foraging

where

the

extension

the

and

Project

for

active

Ecological

164

the

stork

Applicant

the

fund

provide

Service’s determined

reinitiation

least

the

further

our

that

WFF

land

involving ac managing,

portion

and

habitat

listed are

wood

loss

may

C of

27.91

consultation

wetlands

282.

the

clearing

suitable

is lands

used

action within

for

will

Services wood

affect,

Applicant

listed

species.

stork of

lost of that

wood

the

potential

in the

and

acquire

have

consultation

the

that

stork

has

activities wood

due

foraging

above. the nesting

but

proposed

not wood

protecting

stork

Office

and

Core ready

already

provide

37.1

provide is

foraging

required.

wetland you

effects

stork.

the

not

has

stork

foraging

colonies.

Foraging

habitat

been

that

have

Project.

likely

resulted

Project

may

Page

27.91

The

forage

any

for

4 0 C

Rebecca Flenry Page 5 cc: electronic only EPA, West Palm Beach, Florida (Richard Harvey) FWC, Tallahassee, Florida (FWC-CPS)

Literature Cited

Ober. Fl. 2016. Annual report to USFWS for calendar year 2016. Permit Number TE23583B-1. University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, North Florida Research and Education Center. Quincy, Florida.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2012. Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology. https://www.fws.gov/verobeachlBirdsPDFs/20 120712WOST% 20Forage%2oAssessment%20Methodology Appendix. pdf APPENDIX A.3 FDHR Consultation This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Airports District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400 Orlando, Florida 32822 407-812-6331

February 9, 2018

Mr. Timothy A. Parsons Division Director, State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building 500 S. Bronough Street, Room 305 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program at Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

Dear Mr. Parsons:

Charlotte County Airport Authority (CCAA) is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implementing regulations to consider and document the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the Punta Gorda Airport (i.e., PGD, or the Airport), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project. Federal actions associated with the Proposed Project comprise FAA’s environmental approval of the EA and unconditional approval of updates to the Airport Layout Plan to reflect the Proposed Project.

The purpose of this letter is to describe the Proposed Project and to fulfill FAA’s consultation obligations with the Florida State Historic Preservation Office/Florida Division of Historic Resources (SHPO/DHR) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Description of the Proposed Project

A variety of individual landside and airside development projects are included within the Five-Year CIP. For the purposes of alternatives evaluation and environmental impact analysis necessary to complete this EA, the individual projects are grouped into the following four main categories:

improvements.  Relocate General Aviation (GA) Terminal and Develop GA Facilities: improvements in this category are necessary to relocate PGD’s current GA facilities and initiate flight school operations at PGD for a number of interested parties.  Expand Parking Facilities: parking facility improvements are necessary due to ongoing growth in commercial passenger service at PGD.  Remove Airfield Wetland Areas: removal of various wetland areas on the PGD airfield will occur in two phases in the Five-Year CIP for the purposes of managing and minimizing wildlife hazards.

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Historic Properties

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4(c), historic architectural significance of buildings and structures within the Proposed Project Areas of Potential Effect (APE) was appraised by applying National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria, as detailed within the enclosed Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS). SHPO/DHR records were reviewed and supplemented with a field study conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017. One masonry vernacular structure, a former WWII bunker known as EAA 565, is located in the APE but is not recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

The potential for significant archaeological deposits related to either prehistoric or historic occupations being present within the APE was considered, as detailed within the enclosed CRAS. Research conducted within one-mile of the Proposed Project APE identified four previously recorded archaeological sites, 12 cultural resource studies, 13 standing resources, eight resource groups, one cemetery, and one bridge adjacent to the APE. The Punta Gorda Army Airfield (8CH2058) is the only cultural resource recorded within the PGD property.

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted between December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

The FAA requests the SHPO/DHR’s review and concurrence with the effects determination summarized in this letter and detailed within the enclosed CRAS. Florida Master Site File (FMSF) survey log sheets and historical structure forms are also included for your consideration as attachments to the CRAS. Any comments you have on the provided materials will also be accepted and considered in preparing the EA. Please respond to me at the address provided below with your comments/concurrence decision, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, 3

[FAA Signature Block]

Enclosures (2)

Copy: Ron Ridenour, CCAA Paul Sanford, AECOM

This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX A.4 Tribal Consultation This Page Intentionally Left Blank Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Mr. Billy Cypress Chairman Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Tamiami Station P.O. Box 440021 Miami, Florida 33144

Dear Mr. Cypress:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

This letter is to inform you Charlotte County Airport Authority (CCAA) is undertaking an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA.) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is implementing regulations to consider and document the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the Punta Gorda Airport (PGD or the Airport), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project. Federal actions associated with the Proposed Project comprise FAA’s environmental approval of the EA and unconditional approval of updates to the Airport Layout Plan to reflect the Proposed Project.

The purpose of this letter is to describe the Proposed Project and initiate project-specific consultation with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida such that any issues of importance can be identified and considered in the EA.

Description of the Proposed Project

Please refer to the enclosures for a project vicinity map and a conceptual diagram of the Proposed Project. As referenced on the enclosed diagram, the Proposed Project and connected improvements comprise the following actions:

 Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4);  Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3);  Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58);  Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59);  Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2);  Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I);  Acquire avigation easements (Project #1);  Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7);  Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12);  Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65);  Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29);  Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32);  Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); 2

 Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and  Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) has been prepared for the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations. The objectives of the CRAS were to identify cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the Proposed Project and assess their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

The FAA would like the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida’s feedback on the Proposed Project, including whether the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida would like to be involved in further consultation throughout preparation of the EA. We will accept and consider any comments submitted on the provided materials in preparing the EA. A copy of the completed CRAS can also be transmitted to you in hard copy if you so request. Please respond to me at the address provided on this letter with comments and a consultation decision, and feel free to contact me at (407) 487-7225, or [email protected], if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Mr. Fred Dayhoff, Section 106 and NAGPRA Coordinator Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Mr. Fred Dayhoff Section 106 and NAGPRA Coordinator Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida HC 61 SR Box 68 Old Loop Road Ochopee, Florida 34141

Dear Mr. Dayhoff:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

The purpose of this letter is to describe the Proposed Project and initiate project-specific consultation with Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida such that any issues of importance can be identified and considered in the EA.

Description of the Proposed Project

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); 2

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Mr. Billy Cypress, Chairman Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida \ AECOM 813 286 1711 tel 7650 Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 www.aecom.com

Record of Conversation

Items Discussed:

Project: PGD Five–Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Assessment Date: March 21, 2018

Recorded by: Tia Norman, AECOM

Owner/Client: Rebecca Henry, FAA Orlando Airports District Office (ORL/ADO)

Talked with: Fred Dayhoff, Section 106 and NAGPRA Coordination, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

Subject: Section 104 Consultation

The following is a transcript of a voicemail received from a representative of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida regarding the PGD Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Asssessment. The audio file of this message is provided in the administrative record.

“Hi Ms. Rebecca, this is Fred Dayhoff with the Miccasukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. We received your letter about the Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County. We don’t have any interest in this project. Should you find any objects while you’re working, just contact the Historic Preservation Officer for the State of Florida and they will contact us if there is any need to relocate these items, particularly if it’s human remains but as long as you follow their guidelines, we are in good shape. I realize with a federal project, most likely all of it, but as long as you follow the state’s guideline on it, they know where all the sites are and always willing to help and they contact the Miccosukee and Seminole Trible. Thank you very much, should you need to reach me, 239-695-4360. Thank you and take care.” Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

March 2, 2018

Mr. James Floyd Principal Chief Muscogee (Creek) Nation Office of the Administration P.O. Box 580 Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447

Dear Mr. Floyd:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

The purpose of this letter is to describe the Proposed Project and initiate project-specific consultation with Muscogee (Creek) Nation such that any issues of importance can be identified and considered in the EA.

Description of the Proposed Project

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); 2

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

The FAA would like the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s feedback on the Proposed Project, including whether the Muscogee (Creek) Nation would like to be involved in further consultation throughout preparation of the EA. We will accept and consider any comments submitted on the provided materials in preparing the EA. A copy of the completed CRAS can also be transmitted to you in hard copy if you so request. Please respond to me at the address provided on this letter with comments and a consultation decision, and feel free to contact me at (407) 487-7225, or [email protected], if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Historic and Cultural Preservation Department Muscogee (Creek) Nation Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Historic and Cultural Preservation Department Muscogee (Creek) Nation Cultural Preservation P.O. Box 580 Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447

Dear Sir or Madam:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

Description of the Proposed Project

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); • Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and 2

• Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Mr. James Floyd, Principal Chief Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Mr. Leonard M. Harjo Principal Chief Seminole Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1498 Wewoka, Oklahoma 74884

Dear Mr. Harjo:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

The purpose of this letter is to describe the Proposed Project and initiate project-specific consultation with Seminole Nation of Oklahoma such that any issues of importance can be identified and considered in the EA.

Description of the Proposed Project

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); 2

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

The FAA would like the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma’s feedback on the Proposed Project, including whether the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma would like to be involved in further consultation throughout preparation of the EA. We will accept and consider any comments submitted on the provided materials in preparing the EA. A copy of the completed CRAS can also be transmitted to you in hard copy if you so request. Please respond to me at the address provided on this letter with comments and a consultation decision, and feel free to contact me at (407) 487-7225, or [email protected], if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Ms. Natalie Harjo, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Ms. Natalie Harjo Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Seminole Nation of Oklahoma P.O. Box 1498 Wewoka, Oklahoma 74884

Dear Ms. Harjo:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

Description of the Proposed Project

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); 2

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Mr. Leonard M. Harjo, Principal Chief Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Norman, Tia

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:40 PM To: Sanford, Paul Subject: FW: SNO Response to FAA Project at Punta Gorda Airport, fl

From: Theodore Isham [mailto:isham.t@sno‐nsn.gov] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 7:02 PM To: Henry, Rebecca (FAA) Subject: RE: SNO Response to FAA Project at Punta Gorda Airport, fl

Thank you, no further comments

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:00 PM To: Theodore Isham Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: SNO Response to FAA Project at Punta Gorda Airport, fl

Mr. Isham,

Thank you for your response. Attached please find a copy of the Cultural Resource Assessment, as you requested. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager Federal Aviation Administration Orlando Airports District Office

(407) 487‐7225

From: Theodore Isham [mailto:isham.t@sno‐nsn.gov] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:49 PM To: Henry, Rebecca (FAA) Subject: SNO Response to FAA Project at Punta Gorda Airport, fl

This Opinion is being provided by Seminole Nation of Oklahoma’s Cultural Advisor, pursuant to authority vested by the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma General Council. The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma is an independently Federally-Recognized Indian Nation headquartered in Wewoka, OK.

In keeping with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)d, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 36 CFR Part 800, this letter is to acknowledge that the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma has received notice of the proposed project at the above mentioned location.

1 Based on the information provided showing the topographic setting, the undeveloped nature of the property, and the potential for buried cultural resources, the proposed project has a potential of affecting archaeological resources that may be in the project APE, some of which may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma requests the CRAS reports for the project. We request that if cultural or archeological resource materials are encountered at all activity cease and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and other appropriate agencies be contacted immediately.

Furthermore, due to the historic presence of our people in the project area, inadvertent discoveries of human remains and related NAGPRA items may occur, even in areas of existing or prior development. Should this occur we request all work cease and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and other appropriate agencies be immediately notified.

Therefore, we recommend a finding of “No Adverse Effect” for the proposed undertaking.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (405) 234-5218 or by e-mail at isham.t@sno- nsn.gov. Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Theodore Isham Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Historic Preservation Officer PO Box 1498 Seminole, Ok 74868 Phone: 405‐234‐5218 Cell: 918‐304‐9443 e‐mail: isham.t@sno‐nsn.gov

2 Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Paul N. Backhouse, Ph.D. Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Tribal Historic Preservation Office 30290 Josie Billie Highway PMB 1004 Clewiston, Florida 33440

Dear Mr. Backhouse:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

The purpose of this letter is to describe the Proposed Project and initiate project-specific consultation with Seminole Tribe of Florida such that any issues of importance can be identified and considered in the EA.

Description of the Proposed Project

• Reconstruct/rehabilitate Runway 04/22 (Project #4); • Extend and rehabilitate Runway 15/33 (Project #3); • Construct new general aviation (GA) terminal apron, terminal, taxiway, and parking (Project #53, 54 and 58); • Construct new flight school building and parking (Project #59); • Acquire property and easement in Runway 22 approach Runway Protection Zone (Project #2); • Wetland mitigation (Project #20 and 21, including areas B1, B2, B3, C, F, H, and, I); • Acquire avigation easements (Project #1); • Reconfigure taxiway/runway entrance to Runway 15 (Project #7); • Construct holding bay near approach end of Runway 4 (Project #12); • Relocate segmented circle/wind cone (Project #65); • Construct Building 111 replacement and demolish existing structure (Project #29); • Construct Phase 3 of the existing long-term parking (Project #32); • Construct cell phone and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) parking lot (Project #35); 2

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

The FAA would like the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s feedback on the Proposed Project, including whether the Seminole Tribe of Florida would like to be involved in further consultation throughout preparation of the EA. We will accept and consider any comments submitted on the provided materials in preparing the EA. A copy of the completed CRAS can also be transmitted to you in hard copy if you so request. Please respond to me at the address provided on this letter with comments and a consultation decision, and feel free to contact me at (407) 487-7225, or [email protected], if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Mr. James E. Billie, Chairman Seminole Tribe of Florida Orlando Airports District Office 8427 South Park Circle, Suite 524 Orlando, Florida 32819 (407) 487-7220

February 28, 2018

Mr. James E. Billie Chairman Seminole Tribe of Florida 6300 Stirling Road Hollywood, Florida 33024

Dear Mr. Billie:

RE: Environmental Assessment for the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) Charlotte County, Florida

Description of the Proposed Project Please refer to the enclosures for a project vicinity map and a conceptual diagram of the Proposed Project. As referenced on the enclosed diagram, the Proposed Project and connected improvements comprise the following actions:

 Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Description of Steps Taken to Identify Archaeological Resources

Based on evaluation to date, there is evidence of pre-existing soil disturbance and development activities throughout the archaeological APE. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and resulted in the excavation of 19 shovel test pits. During this time, no evidence of the previously recorded archaeological sites was discovered within the APE, and no new archaeological sites were identified. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the survey area. Nevertheless, excavation activities within this area would be monitored for inadvertent discoveries.

Requested Action

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager

Enclosures (2) cc: Mr. Paul N. Backhouse, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Seminole Tribe of Florida March 29, 2018

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager Federal Aviation Administration Orlando Airports District Office Phone: 407-487-7225 Email: [email protected]

Subject: FAA EA for 5 yr Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County FL THPO #: 0030610

Dear Ms. Henry,

Thank you for contacting the Seminole Tribe of Florida – Tribal Historic Preservation Office (STOF-THPO) regarding the FAA EA for 5 yr Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County FL. The proposed undertaking does fall within in the STOF Area of Interest. We have reviewed the documents provided and completed our assessment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing authority, 36 CFR 800. We have no objections to the project at this time. However, please notify us if any archaeological, historical, or burial resources are inadvertently discovered.

Thank you and feel free to contact us with any further questions.

Respectfully,

Victoria L. Menchaca, MA, Compliance Review Specialist STOF-THPO, Compliance Review Section 30290 Josie Billie Hwy, PMB 1004 Clewiston, FL 33440 Office: 863-983-6549 ext 12216 2 Email: [email protected] Web: www.stofthpo.com

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:32 AM To: Victoria Menchaca Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: FAA EA for 5 yr Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County FL

Good Morning Victoria,

Thank you so much for your e‐mail. I’ve attached an electronic copy of the CRAS for the above reference project for your review.

I’ve copied Paul Sanford of AECOM, Inc., on this e‐mail; he is the consultant who is preparing the EA. He can assist us with any specific questions you may have.

Again, thank you.

Rebecca

Rebecca R. Henry Assistant Manager Federal Aviation Administration Orlando Airports District Office

(407) 487‐7225

From: Victoria Menchaca [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 11:26 AM To: Henry, Rebecca (FAA) Subject: FAA EA for 5 yr Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County FL

3 March 29, 2018

Rebecca Henry Assistant Manager Email: [email protected]

Subject: FAA EA for 5 yr Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County FL THPO #: 0030610

Dear Ms. Henry,

Thank you for contacting the Seminole Tribe of Florida – Tribal Historic Preservation Office (STOF-THPO) regarding the FAA EA for 5 yr Capital Improvement Program Punta Gorda Airport, Charlotte County FL. The proposed undertaking does fall within in the STOF Area of Interest. We have reviewed the documents provided and would respectfully like to request a copy of the Cultural Resources Assessment Survey that was conducted so that we may complete our assessment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing authority, 36 CFR 800.

Thank you and feel free to contact us with any further questions.

Respectfully,

4 This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX A.5 USDA NRCS Consultation This Page Intentionally Left Blank

U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request

Name of Project PGD 5-Yr Capital Improvement Program EA Federal Agency Involved Federal Aviation Administration (FM) Charlotte, Florida Proposed Land Use Airport Development and Airport Safety Areas County and State PART II (To be completed by NRCS) J Person Completing Form: LeRoy Date Request/ Received/ k By NRCS 12 4 2018NO Croc ett Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland? YES Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form) . I XD 13716 765 Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA % 7.25 % 0.0579 Citrus Vegetables Acres: 32163 Acres: 25706 Name of Land Evaluation System Used Name of State or Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS / / Soil Productivity Rating None 12 12 2018 PART Ill (To completed by Federal Agency) be Alternative Site RatinQ Site A SiteB Site C Site D A. Total Acres ToBe Converted Directly 51.98 B. Total Acres ToBe Converted Indirectly 101.02 C. Total Acres In Site 153.00 PART IV (To completed by NRCS) be Land Evaluation Information 153 A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local ImportantFarmland 0 .0047 C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit ToBe Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 24 PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 73 PART VIRelative (To be Value completed of Farmland by Federal ToBe Agency) Converted (Scale of Oto 100 Points) Maximum (Criteria are exolained in CFR 658. Sb. For CorridorSiteproject Assessment use form Criteria NRCS-CPA-106) Points Site A Site B Site C Site D 7 (15)

1. Area In Non-urban Use (10)

2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (20)

3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20)

4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (15) 5 . Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15)

6. Distance To Urban Support Services (10)

7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10)

8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (5)

9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (20)

10. On-Farm Investments (10)

11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10) 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 0 0 0 0 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) (From Part V) 0 0 0 0 Relative Value Of Farmland 100 (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 0 0 0 0 Total Site Assessment 160 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 0 0 0 0 260 Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Site Selected: Date Of Selection YESD NOD Reason For Selection:

Paul Sanford AECOM (for FAA) 11/27/2018 Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date (See Instructions on reverse side) I : Form AD-1006 (03-02)

From: Sanford, Paul To: "Crockett, Leroy - NRCS, Quincy, FL"; "Vega-Marrero, Israel - NRCS, SARASOTA,FL" Subject: RE: Form AD-1006 Point of Contact? Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 12:20:56 PM Attachments: 190110_PGD_Form AD-1006_rev2.pdf

Good afternoon: per thread below I’m returning a completed Form AD-1006 for your records. We completed the remainder of the form using the input you provided. Please let me know if you require hard copy to be sent. Please also let me know if there are questions or additional needs related to this submittal. Thanks again for the assistance!

V/r,

Paul Sanford Aviation Environmental Planner D +1-813-675-6843 Cisco Internal +1856843 [email protected]

AECOM 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607, USA T +1-813-286-1711 aecom.com

Built to deliver a better world

From: Sanford, Paul Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 3:47 PM To: 'Crockett, Leroy - NRCS, Quincy, FL'; Vega-Marrero, Israel - NRCS, SARASOTA,FL Subject: RE: Form AD-1006 Point of Contact?

Sirs: received, thank you! I’ll let you know if there are any questions as we use the information you provided. Otherwise we will soon return the completed form to you for your records.

The FAA would also like to send a copy of the upcoming draft Environmental Assessment for this project to the NRCS, which will include the completed Form AD-1006, for review and comment. So unless you say otherwise I will plan to send a copy to the attention of Mr. Vega-Marrero once the document is issued.

Thanks again.

V/r,

Paul Sanford Aviation Environmental Planner D +1-813-675-6843 Cisco Internal +1856843 [email protected]

AECOM U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request

Name of Project Federal Agency Involved

Proposed Land Use County and State

PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By Person Completing Form: NRCS Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland? YES NO Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size (If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form) Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: % Acres: % Name of Land Evaluation System Used Name of State or Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating Site A Site B Site C Site D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria Maximum Site A Site B Site C Site D (Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor project use form NRCS-CPA-106) Points 1. Area In Non-urban Use (15) 2. Perimeter In Non-urban Use (10) 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed (20) 4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government (20) 5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area (15) 6. Distance To Urban Support Services (15) 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average (10) 8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland (10) 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services (5) 10. On-Farm Investments (20) 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services (10) 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use (10) TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment) 160 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Site Selected: Date Of Selection YES NO Reason For Selection:

Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: Date: (See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02) STEPS IN THE PROCESSING THE FARMLAND AND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM

Step 1 - Federal agencies (or Federally funded projects) involved in proposed projects that may convert farmland, as defined in the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) to nonagricultural uses, will initially complete Parts I and III of the form. For Corridor type projects, the Federal agency shall use form NRCS-CPA-106 in place of form AD-1006. The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) process may also be accessed by visiting the FPPA website, http://fppa.nrcs.usda.gov/lesa/.

Step 2 - Originator (Federal Agency) will send one original copy of the form together with appropriate scaled maps indicating location(s)of project site(s), to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) local Field Office or USDA Service Center and retain a copy for their files. (NRCS has offices in most counties in the U.S. The USDA Office Information Locator may be found at http://offices.usda.gov/scripts/ndISAPI.dll/oip_public/USA_map, or the offices can usually be found in the Phone Book under U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture. A list of field offices is available from the NRCS State Conservationist and State Office in each State.)

Step 3 - NRCS will, within 10 working days after receipt of the completed form, make a determination as to whether the site(s) of the proposed project contains prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland. (When a site visit or land evaluation system design is needed, NRCS will respond within 30 working days.

Step 4 - For sites where farmland covered by the FPPA will be converted by the proposed project, NRCS will complete Parts II, IV and V of the form.

Step 5 - NRCS will return the original copy of the form to the Federal agency involved in the project, and retain a file copy for NRCS records.

Step 6 - The Federal agency involved in the proposed project will complete Parts VI and VII of the form and return the form with the final selected site to the servicing NRCS office.

Step 7 - The Federal agency providing financial or technical assistance to the proposed project will make a determination as to whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the FPPA.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FORM (For Federal Agency)

Part I: When completing the "County and State" questions, list all the local governments that are responsible for local land use controls where site(s) are to be evaluated.

Part III: When completing item B (Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly), include the following:

1. Acres not being directly converted but that would no longer be capable of being farmed after the conversion, because the conversion would restrict access to them or other major change in the ability to use the land for agriculture. 2. Acres planned to receive services from an infrastructure project as indicated in the project justification (e.g. highways, utilities planned build out capacity) that will cause a direct conversion.

Part VI: Do not complete Part VI using the standard format if a State or Local site assessment is used. With local and NRCS assistance, use the local Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA).

1. Assign the maximum points for each site assessment criterion as shown in § 658.5(b) of CFR. In cases of corridor-type project such as transportation, power line and flood control, criteria #5 and #6 will not apply and will, be weighted zero, however, criterion #8 will be weighed a maximum of 25 points and criterion #11 a maximum of 25 points.

2. Federal agencies may assign relative weights among the 12 site assessment criteria other than those shown on the FPPA rule after submitting individual agency FPPA policy for review and comment to NRCS. In all cases where other weights are assigned, relative adjustments must be made to maintain the maximum total points at 160. For project sites where the total points equal or exceed 160, consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could reduce adverse impacts (e.g. Alternative Sites, Modifications or Mitigation).

Part VII: In computing the "Total Site Assessment Points" where a State or local site assessment is used and the total maximum number of points is other than 160, convert the site assessment points to a base of 160. Example: if the Site Assessment maximum is 200 points, and the alternative Site "A" is rated 180 points:

Total points assigned Site A 180 X 160 = 144 points for Site Maximum points possible = 200 A

For assistance in completing this form or FPPA process, contact the local NRCS Field Office or USDA Service Center.

NRCS employees, consult the FPPA Manual and/or policy for additional instructions to complete the AD-1006 form. This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX B Biological Assessment and UMAM Score Sheets This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX B.1 Biological Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Punta Gorda Airport Five–Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Assessment

Biological Assessment

Prepared for:

Charlotte County Airport Authority

Prepared by:

AECOM

December, 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Airport Description ...... 1 1.2. Description of the Proposed Project ...... 1 1.2.1. Improve Runway Safety and Function ...... 3 1.2.1.1. Reconstruct/Rehabilitate Runway 04-22 (CIP Project ID 4) ...... 3 1.2.1.2. Acquire Property & Easement in Runway 22 Approach RPZ (CIP Project ID 2) ...... 3 1.2.1.3. Acquire Avigation Easements (CIP Project ID 1) ...... 5 1.2.1.4. Construct Holding Bay Near Approach End of Runway 4 (Project ID 12) ...... 5 1.2.1.5. Extend and Rehabilitate Runway 15-33 (CIP Project ID 3) ...... 5 1.2.1.6. Relocate Segmented Circle/Wind Cone (CIP Project ID 65) ...... 5 1.2.1.7. Re-configure Taxiway/Runway Entrance to Runway 15 (CIP Project ID 7) ...... 5 1.2.2. Relocate GA Terminal and Develop GA Facilities ...... 6 1.2.2.1. Develop GA Apron, Buildings and Parking Facilities (CIP Project IDs 53, 54, 58, 60, 61) ...... 6 1.2.2.2. Construct New WMU Flight School Building and Parking (CIP Project ID 59) ...... 7 1.2.3. Expand Parking Facilities ...... 7 1.2.3.1. Construct Building 111 Replacement & Demolish Existing Structure (CIP Project ID 29) ...... 7 1.2.3.2. Construct Phase 3 of Existing Long-Term Parking (CIP Project ID 32) ...... 7 1.2.3.3. Construct Cell Phone & TNC Parking Lot (CIP Project ID 35) ...... 7 1.2.4. Remove Airfield Wetland Areas (CIP Project IDs 20 and 21) ...... 8 1.3. Project Purpose and Need ...... 8 1.3.1. Improve Runway Safety and Function ...... 8 1.3.2. Relocate GA Terminal and Develop GA Facilities ...... 8 1.3.3. Expand Parking Facilities ...... 9 1.3.4. Remove Airfield Wetland Areas ...... 9 1.4. Alternatives ...... 10

2.0 Methodology ...... 10 2.1. Agency Coordination...... 12 2.2. Data Collection and Field Review ...... 12

3.0 Existing Land Uses and Vegetative Cover ...... 13 3.1. Upland Land Use/Vegetative Cover Descriptions ...... 13 3.2. Wetland and Other Surface Water Land Use/Vegetative Cover Descriptions ...... 17

4.0 Wildlife ...... 18

5.0 Listed Species ...... 18 5.1. Flora ...... 21 5.2. Fauna ...... 21

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment i Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

5.2.1. Federally Listed Species ...... 21 5.2.2. State Listed Species ...... 24 5.2.3. Other Species of Concern ...... 25

6.0 Effects of Proposed Project ...... 25 6.1. Listed Species ...... 29 6.1.1. Flora ...... 29 6.1.2. Fauna ...... 29 6.1.2.1. Federally Listed Species ...... 29 6.1.2.2. State Listed Species ...... 30 6.1.2.3. Other Species of Concern ...... 32 6.2. Critical Habitat ...... 32

7.0 Commitments ...... 32

8.0 Summary ...... 33

9.0 References ...... 34

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Existing Land Use and Vegetative Communities within the BSA ...... 15 Table 5-1: Listed Species Potentially Occurring within BSA ...... 19 Table 6-1: Vegetative Community/Land Use Conversions Resulting from the Proposed Project ...... 26 Table 6-2: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Vegetative Communities Within the BSA ...... 27 Table 8-1: Project Impact Determination on Listed Species ...... 33

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Airport Location ...... 2 Figure 2 Five-Year CIP Projects ...... 4 Figure 3 Biological Study Area ...... 11 Figure 4 Existing Land Use/Vegetative Cover Map ...... 14 Figure 5 Wood Stork Rookery Location Map ...... 23 Figure 6 Proposed Land Use and Vegetative Cover ...... 28

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - Agency Coordination Appendix B - Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment ii Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Charlotte County Airport Authority (CCAA) is undertaking this Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The EA is being completed to support the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the Punta Gorda Airport (i.e., PGD, or the Airport), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project. The purpose of the EA is to identify and consider the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project and any reasonable alternatives.

A Biological Assessment (BA) is required as part of the EA due to the presence of listed species within the study area of the Proposed Project. This BA is intended to: (1) describe the Proposed Project at PGD; (2) discuss the biology and distribution of plant and animal species that have the potential to be present in the project vicinity and have protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA); and (3) determine the potential effect of the Proposed Project on such ESA protected species. This BA is part of the EA documentation prepared for the Airport and submitted to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for environmental approval of the runway improvement project. This process included field inspections by qualified biologists of habitats within and adjacent to the Biological Study Area (BSA), as well as literature and database reviews. Details on the study methodologies and results are provided below.

1.1. AIRPORT DESCRIPTION

PGD is a Part 139 certified airport owned by Charlotte County and managed by the CCAA. PGD currently services commercial air carrier Allegiant Air. It also serves public, private, and corporate clients with a mixed fleet of helicopters, single and twin-engine propeller aircraft, corporate jets, and experimental aircraft.

PGD is located approximately 0.75 mile east of I-75 and south of the Peace River in Charlotte County, Florida, as shown on Figure 1. The Airport is surrounded by mostly low to medium density commercial development, low density residential housing, and agricultural cattle pasture. Other development features include Edison State College located west of I-75, and a local race track on Piper Road that is on property owned by the CCAA and leased to the track managers. The Peace River is located to the north and Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico are generally located to the west of the Airport. In addition, the nearly 81,000-acre Fred C. Babcock/Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is located approximately 1.2 miles east of PGD and is one of the oldest and largest WMAs in the State of Florida.

1.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A variety of individual landside and airside development projects are included within the Five- Year CIP. These individual projects are shown on Figure 2 and are individually described in the following sections. For the purposes of alternatives evaluation and environmental impact analysis necessary to complete this EA, the individual projects are grouped into the following four main categories:

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1 !Ä

!Ä

LEGEND Property Boundary !Ä Punta Gorda Airport

Feet º 0 6,600

Sources: ESRI, 2017.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AIRPORT LOCATION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Path: Co AirportAuthority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Biological Resources\171106_Figure PGD Location_rev0.mxd, 1 Saved: 12/11/2017 Date 10:24:31 AM Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

 Improve Runway Safety and Function: this category contains Runway 15-33 and Runway 4-22 improvements, as well as other improvement projects that are necessary to accommodate, support, and/or enable the execution of the runway improvements. Individual CIP Project IDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, and 65, as portrayed on Figure 2, are included in this category

 Relocate General Aviation (GA) Terminal and Develop GA Facilities: improvements in this category are necessary to relocate PGD’s current GA facilities and initiate flight school operations at PGD for a number of interested parties. Individual CIP projects comprise building, roadway, and apron construction actions and are represented by Project IDs 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, and 61 on Figure 2.

 Expand Parking Facilities: parking facility improvements are necessary due to ongoing growth in commercial passenger service at PGD (CIP Project IDs 29, 32, and 35 on Figure 2).

 Remove Airfield Wetland Areas: removal of various wetland areas on the PGD airfield will occur in two phases in the Five-Year CIP for the purposes of managing and minimizing wildlife hazards (CIP Project IDs 20 and 21 on Figure 2).

1.2.1. IMPROVE RUNWAY SAFETY AND FUNCTION

1.2.1.1. RECONSTRUCT/REHABILITATE RUNWAY 04-22 (CIP PROJECT ID 4)

Results of recent in-place California Bearing Ratio and asphalt thickness testing performed on the existing Runway 4-22 limerock base indicate that pavement rehabilitation is needed on the existing runway to provide adequate pavement strength for the existing aircraft fleet at operating PGD, as well as to conform to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) minimum standards for pavement condition. The current pavement conditions and potential future rate of pavement deterioration compels the CCAA to include a rehabilitation and overlay of the existing Runway 4-22 in the Five-Year CIP.

1.2.1.2. ACQUIRE PROPERTY & EASEMENT IN RUNWAY 22 APPROACH RPZ (CIP PROJECT ID 2)

This project consists of acquiring approximately 45 acres of property within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) on the north end of Runway 4-22. Some of these parcels are not currently within the RPZ, but would be encompassed by the RPZ with a proposed 727-foot extension of Runway 4-22 (note, construction of this extension is included in the Intermediate- Term CIP).

The FAA’s airport design guidelines recommend that airports own the property underneath approach and departure areas to the limits of the RPZ, where practicable. The guidelines further recommend that the RPZ be cleared of all above ground objects where practicable. Therefore, this project will achieve compliance with FAA guidance for land uses within RPZs.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 3 2

2 I

21 60

53 7 54

20 F

H 20 4

35 32

61 12 20

C 3 20

21 1 B2 B3

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIVE-YEAR CIP PROJECTS FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

1.2.1.3. ACQUIRE AVIGATION EASEMENTS (CIP PROJECT ID 1)

This project consists of acquiring an avigation easement for approximately 2.7 acres of property that will be within the RPZ on the south end of Runway 33 once it is extended 593 feet to the south and 2.2 acres of property within the existing and future RPZs at the north end of Runway 4-22.

This project will achieve compliance with FAA guidance for land uses within RPZs as described in the FAA Memorandum entitled “Interim Guidance on Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone” dated September 27, 2012. The acquired easement will include provisions for land use controls and height restrictions.

1.2.1.4. CONSTRUCT HOLDING BAY NEAR APPROACH END OF RUNWAY 4 (PROJECT ID 12)

This project consists of constructing a holding bay west of Taxiway D near the south end of Runway 15-33 and Runway 4-22. This holding bay will allow pilots to conduct engine run-ups and pre-flight activities without delaying other aircraft operations. The proposed location will serve aircraft departing on Runway 4 and Runway 33.

1.2.1.5. EXTEND AND REHABILITATE RUNWAY 15-33 (CIP PROJECT ID 3)

This project consists of constructing a 593-foot extension on the south end of Runway 15-33 and rehabilitating the existing runway pavement. This project will provide a runway length of between 6,000 and 6,200 feet that is capable of maintaining existing air carrier operations at the Airport during the period that Runway 4-22 is closed for reconstruction and will bring existing runway pavements up to good condition.

This project will also bring the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) for the north end of Runway 15-33 into compliance with Aircraft Design Group (ADG) C- III standards. These standards require an RSA and ROFA that extend 1,000 feet beyond the end of the runway.

1.2.1.6. RELOCATE SEGMENTED CIRCLE/WIND CONE (CIP PROJECT ID 65)

The Airport’s existing segmented circle and wind cone are located inside the ROFA of Runway 15-33. This project would relocate the segmented circle/wind cone to the east side of Runway 15-33 just outside the ROFA in compliance with FAA design standards.

1.2.1.7. RE-CONFIGURE TAXIWAY/RUNWAY ENTRANCE TO RUNWAY 15 (CIP PROJECT ID 7)

This project consists of reconfiguring existing pavement at the north end of Runway 15 where it intersects with Taxiway E and Runway 9-27. This project will bring the runway/taxiway intersection into compliance with FAA design standards. The current configuration violates design standards because it consists of a wide expanse of dual use pavements where a taxiway leads direct to the end of a runway.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 5 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

This project will also remove the existing excess pavement between Runway 15-33 and Runway 9-27 and provide an entrance to Runway 9-27 that is consistent with a standard 90 degree entrance to a runway end. This project is a safety item that will reduce the likelihood of a runway incursion at the approach end of Runway 15.

1.2.2. RELOCATE GA TERMINAL AND DEVELOP GA FACILITIES

1.2.2.1. DEVELOP GA APRON, BUILDINGS AND PARKING FACILITIES (CIP PROJECT IDS 53, 54, 58, 60, 61)

Since inception of Allegiant Airlines operations at PGD in 2008, the need for expanding the commercial passenger terminal at PGD is becoming increasingly imminent. The Master Plan Update (MPU) evaluated a variety of options for commercial passenger terminal expansion within the CIP. The CCAA is currently considering options to expand on both the north and south side of the existing commercial passenger terminal, although there are documented constraints to relocating aviation-related facilities on the north side. Facilities located south of the existing commercial passenger terminal include the Skyview Café and the Airport’s GA terminal facility. Therefore, if southward commercial terminal development is selected, these facilities are proposed to be re-located to the north of Runway 9-27 and east of the 600 Series T-Hangars on PGD.

Based on a GA Terminal Relocation Study, preliminary space requirements for a relocated GA terminal constitute an 8,000-square foot (SF) terminal building with a 10,000-SF hangar and a 3,000-SF restaurant area (to replace Skyview Café) with up to 30 vehicle parking spaces. Final sizing will be determined during final design. The project also includes the construction of an approximately 55,000-SF vehicle parking area sufficient to accommodate up to 97 parking spaces and an approximate 350,000-SF aircraft parking apron sufficient to accommodate 24 ADG II tie-down positions.

A GA aircraft parking apron on the north side of the airfield would require additional taxiway access. A proposed access taxiway would connect to Taxiway E near the east side of the 600 Series T-Hangars. The proposed taxiway would be built to ADG III standards to support future operations at the new GA terminal described in following projects. The new terminal apron would provide space for 24 ADG II aircraft or a fewer number of larger aircraft. This apron would be designed to accommodate aircraft up to 100,000 pounds (i.e., Gulfstream 650). This would accommodate nearly all aircraft that are likely to use the GA terminal. A taxiway leading to this apron from Taxiway E is also included in this project.

The existing self-serve fueling facility will be moved from its current location south of the passenger terminal to a site near the proposed GA terminal, affording fueling capability in proximity to the new GA terminal, flight schools and the 600 series T-hangars.

Roadway access from Challenger Road will be provided to the 600 Series T-Hangars and proposed new GA facilities. This includes approximately 800 linear feet of new roadway. Aside from providing access to the new facilities, the road is needed to replace access from Henry

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 6 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

Street that will be converted into a perimeter road in the future to bring the RSA for Runway 15- 33 into compliance with FAA design standards.

1.2.2.2. CONSTRUCT NEW WMU FLIGHT SCHOOL BUILDING AND PARKING (CIP PROJECT ID 59)

Additionally, CCAA is currently in discussions with multiple flight schools about initiating operations at PGD. Based on operational compatibility, it is logical to co-locate new flight school facilities with GA facilities at PGD. Therefore, in addition to relocating the GA terminal facilities, the Five-Year CIP will include provisions for GA campus development sufficient for initiation of flight school operations at PGD. Depending on the number of potential tenants, flight school space requirements may total up to 17,000 SF of hangar space; 12,000 SF of classroom/office space; approximately 680,000 SF of aircraft parking apron to accommodate up to 35 ADG-I tie- down positions; and approximately 92,000 SF of vehicle parking area to accommodate 60 vehicle parking spaces.

This initial phase of this project consists of the construction of a new flight school building and parking lot for Western Michigan University, which will be evaluated in the EA. The flight school building will provide approximately 10,000 SF of space for classrooms and flight briefings, etc. The associated parking lot would provide space for up to 40 vehicles.

1.2.3. EXPAND PARKING FACILITIES

1.2.3.1. CONSTRUCT BUILDING 111 REPLACEMENT & DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE (CIP PROJECT ID 29)

Building 111 is located west of Skylane Way on a parcel designated for the Phase 3 expansion of the existing long-term parking lot. Construction of a replacement building for this facility is needed so that the existing structure can be demolished and the Phase 3 parking expansion can be implemented. The new structure will be located on Cheney Way.

1.2.3.2. CONSTRUCT PHASE 3 OF EXISTING LONG-TERM PARKING (CIP PROJECT ID 32)

This project will provide 233 additional parking spaces in the expanded long-term parking lot once Building 111 has been replaced. This expansion will provide an incremental increase to long-term parking capacity before construction of an additional long-term lot is necessary on the west side of Golf Course Boulevard.

1.2.3.3. CONSTRUCT CELL PHONE & TNC PARKING LOT (CIP PROJECT ID 35)

This project consists of the construction of a 50-space parking lot at the southwest corner of Viking Avenue and Golf Course Boulevard for cell phone users awaiting arriving passengers and Transportation Network Company (TNC) drivers, such as Uber and Lyft. This is the same location as an existing lot that is also used for these purposes, but is mostly unpaved. This project includes the construction of a paved parking surface, marking, lighting, signage and fencing. It is anticipated that the need for this lot will grow as TNCs continue to grow in importance.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 7 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

1.2.4. REMOVE AIRFIELD WETLAND AREAS (CIP PROJECT IDS 20 AND 21)

Wetland Mitigation – Phase 1 (CIP Project ID 20) consists of the design, permitting and construction required to fill approximately 14 acres of existing wetlands on airport property. Wetland Mitigation – Phase 2 (CIP Project ID 21) consists of the design, permitting and construction required to fill approximately 23 acres of existing wetlands on airport property. The wetlands to be mitigated in Phase 1 include B1, C, F, and H. The wetlands to be mitigated in Phase 2 include B2, B3 and I. These projects also include the purchase of required wetland mitigation credits.

These wetlands were identified in the Airport’s 2016 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) as having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and are shown on Figure 2. Consequently, the plan recommended that they be mitigated in accordance with Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports.

1.3. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The Airport Sponsor’s purpose for the Five-Year CIP, as well as the underlying need for each set of improvements, is described in the following sections. The purpose and need statements are distinct for each of the four categories of CIP projects comprising the EA Proposed Project (described in Section 1.2).

1.3.1. IMPROVE RUNWAY SAFETY AND FUNCTION

The purpose of runway and associated airfield improvements within the Five-Year CIP is threefold: 1) to provide a phased approach to performing pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction activities on both Runways; 2) to maintain adequate runway length for the aircraft fleet mix using Runway 15-33 during Runway 4-22 pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction; and 3) to attain or maintain compliance with design standards, safety criteria and land use compatibility for current and proposed future RSAs and RPZs on both Runway 4-22 and Runway 15-33.

1.3.2. RELOCATE GA TERMINAL AND DEVELOP GA FACILITIES

The purpose of the proposed GA facility development is: 1) to maintain flexibility to expand the existing commercial passenger terminal without diminishing or constraining GA facilities; 2) to furnish a development footprint of at least 25 acres to accommodate sizing and operational requirements of the GA terminal and one large flight school; and 3) to preserve capability for future GA expansion. Analysis of commercial passenger terminal facility requirements in the MPU indicates that additional commercial terminal space is required to accommodate the increase in passenger enplanements and air carrier aircraft operations. In addition, larger facilities are needed to accommodate the increasing GA operational and service demand at PGD.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 8 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

1.3.3. EXPAND PARKING FACILITIES

The purpose of expanding the parking facilities is to provide space for the ongoing growth in commercial passenger service at PGD. Based on demand analysis, a shortage of between 217 and 434 spaces would be incurred by the end of the Five-Year CIP if the existing long-term parking facility is not expanded. In addition, there is a need for additional space in the cell phone/TNC lot due to continued growth of TNCs.

1.3.4. REMOVE AIRFIELD WETLAND AREAS

As previously stated in Section 1.2.4, the wetlands proposed to be filled and mitigated were identified in the Airport’s 2016 WHMP as having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. Consequently, the WHMP recommended that those wetlands be mitigated in accordance with AC 150/5200-33B.

The purpose of the proposed removal of airfield wetland areas and wetland mitigation in the Five-Year CIP is to minimize risk to passengers and flight crews by reducing wildlife hazards and associated risks to aircraft and airport operations caused by wildlife activities on and in the vicinity of the Airport.

Following a night-time bird strike of a sandhill crane in March 2011, the CCAA was informed by the FAA Airport Safety Certification Inspector that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) was required to assess potential wildlife hazards on the Airport property. A WHA was conducted from November 2012 through December 2013 and accepted by the FAA in 2014. Based on the results and recommendations of the WHA, the FAA requested a WHMP be developed and implemented at PGD. The WHMP provides management responsibilities for the CCAA and PGD personnel based on the findings of the WHA in accordance with FAA Regulation Part 139.337.

In addition to FAA Regulation Part 139.337, the publication Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports, A Manual for Airport Personnel, Second Edition, July 2005 (FAA/U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]) was used during the preparation of the WHA as a guide to address the specific objectives of the 2014 WHA. FAA’s AC 150/5200-33B was also used to provide guidance on identifying land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public use airports. These publications show that hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided or mitigated within a five-mile range of airports to protect approach, departure, and circling airspace. In addition, the publications advise that hazardous wildlife attractants must be 10,000 feet from the nearest Air Operations Area (AOAs) for airports serving turbine-powered aircraft and 5,000 feet from the nearest AOAs for airports serving piston-powered aircraft.

Wetlands are wildlife attractants for a number of species, including wading birds, that can be a significant hazard to aircraft due to their size and flocking habits. Based on the results of the 2014 WHA, recommendations were included in the 2016 WHMP. One recommendation included filling and grading the depressional wetlands that are located on the airfield and that

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 9 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

become saturated and/or inundated during the wet season (identified as Wetlands F, H, and I in the EA) to eliminate standing water that is attractive to wading birds and waterfowl. In addition, it was recommended that PGD also evaluate the feasibility of filling, removing, or improving the drawdown time of the depressional wetlands (identified as Wetlands B1, B2, and B3 in the EA) in the cattle pasture south of the Airport’s perimeter fence that become saturated and/or inundated during the wet season. Mitigating the hazard attractiveness of these wetlands should be a high priority since they are located within or near the approach and departure spaces for Runways 4-22 and 15-33. Minimizing depressional wetlands to the greatest extent practicable should reduce this wildlife hazard attractant to birds.

1.4. ALTERNATIVES

A detailed analysis evaluated alternatives for their ability to achieve the purpose and need of the project, overall environmental impacts, and constructability and operational issues.

The alternatives analysis was conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations [40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Section (§) 1502.14] and FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, which require that federal agencies perform the following tasks:

• Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and, for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.

• Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the Proposed Project, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.

• Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

• Include the alternative of “No-Action.”

Reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project, including a No-Action Alternative, were identified and subjected to a tiered screening process to identify which alternatives should be eliminated from further evaluation in the EA, versus those that should be retained for detailed evaluation. The alternatives screening and selection process is outlined in the EA.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this BA is to describe the existing environmental conditions of the study area and the potential impacts to wetlands, other surface waters, and federal and state listed species that could occur as a result of the Proposed Project. The BSA for the BA encompasses a 100- foot buffer from the construction footprint of the CIP projects and comprises a total of 346.2 acres (Figure 3).

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 10 Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Co Airport Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Biological Resources\171121_Figure 3 Biological Study Area_rev0.mxd, Date Saved: 12/11/2017 10:26:27 AM 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL 5-YEAR PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT GORDA PUNTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY STUDY AREA BIOLOGICAL º Biological Study Study Area Biological Sources: SWFWMD, FDOTSources: 2016; SWFWMD, 2014. APLUS, LEGEND 0 1,800 FIGURE Feet 3 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

The potential presence of state and federally listed species within the BSA was assessed by review of the following:

 Listed species accounts;

 2014 WHA completed at PDG;

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) listings of species known to occur or potentially occurring in Charlotte County;

 Online database sources from the FWS, FWC, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI); and

 Field observations of habitats and wildlife species.

2.1. AGENCY COORDINATION

As part of the NEPA process, an Advance Notification (AN) of the Proposed Project was sent to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the FWC requesting comments on potential effects of the Proposed Project on listed species and potential permit requirements (see Appendix A). In addition, an official species list was requested from the FWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database (Consultation code 04EF2000-2018-SLI-0135) and is provided in Appendix A.

2.2. DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD REVIEW

Documented occurrences of rare species likely to occur within Charlotte County were obtained from FNAI’s Searchable Tracking List website (FNAI, 2017) and observations recorded during the 2012, 2013 and 2016 field inspections by AECOM ecologists.

The following information was reviewed prior to the field reviews to characterize habitat features and land use patterns within the BSA:

 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Topographical Quadrangle Map, Cleveland, FL, 1987;

 Aerial photographs, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet (FDOT APLUS 2014);

 USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey of Charlotte County, Florida. (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) (NRCS 2017);

 Florida Association of Professional Soil Scientists, Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Fourth Edition (Hurt, 2007);

 FDOT, Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Handbook

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 12 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

(FLUCFCS), Third edition (FDOT 1999);

 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), FLUCFCS GIS Database (SWFWMD 2016);

 FWS, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979); and

 FDEP, Map Direct Gateway (http://ca.dep.state.fl.us/mapdirect/gateway.jsp).

An environmental scientist familiar with Florida’s natural communities conducted multiple field reviews of the Airport property during a year-long WHA at the PGD. The WHA was conducted from November 2012 to October 2013. On December 21, 2016, an additional field review was conducted within the BSA. During the field reviews, each vegetative community and land use type within the BSA was visually inspected to assess approximate boundaries and document dominant vegetation. Exotic plant infestations and other disturbances such as erosion and existing structures (i.e. riprap) were noted. Field activities also included identifying wildlife and signs of wildlife usage within the BSA and within adjacent habitats.

3.0 EXISTING LAND USES AND VEGETATIVE COVER

Based on in-house and field reviews, ten upland community types, three wetland community types, and one surface water community type are present within the BSA (Figure 4). The individual wetlands are depicted on Figure 2. All vegetative habitats and land uses within the BSA were classified using FLUCFCS (FDOT 1999). Wetland habitats were also classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et. al., 1979). A summary description of each land use/vegetative cover type is provided below. Table 3-1 summarizes the acreage of each land use/vegetative cover type within the BSA.

3.1. UPLAND LAND USE/VEGETATIVE COVER DESCRIPTIONS

Residential, Low Density / Residential, High Density FLUCFCS: 110 / 130 Residential, low density land use consists of rural areas with less than two dwelling units per acre. These residences are often found among other land uses such as agriculture or pastureland. Within the BSA, portions of this land use type are located northeast of Runway 22 and comprise 3.8 acres of the BSA. Residential, high density land use consists of urban housing developments and includes a 0.4-acre portion of the Ventura Lakes community located southeast of Runway 33 on the south side of Woodlawn Drive.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 13 110 260 260 110

190

643 810 411 260 510 810 140 434 434

643 810 631

810 810 LEGEND

510 810 Biological Study Area FLUCFCS Description 110 - Residential Low Density < 2 Dwelling Units 130 - Residential High Density 140 - Commercial and Services 190 - Open Land 810 810 210 210 - Cropland and Pastureland 190 320 260 - Other Open Lands 810 (Rural) 810 810 320 - Shrub and Brushland 641 411 - Pine Flatwoods

643 411 434 - Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 643 510 - Streams and Waterways 631 - Wetland Scrub 641 210 260 641 - Freshwater Marshes 643 - Wet Prairies 210 810 - Transportation

320 Feet º 0 1,800 210 210 130

Sources: SWFWMD, 2016; FDOT APLUS, 2014.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT EXISTING LAND USE AND FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM VEGETATIVE COVER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\CharlottePath: Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 Co Airport GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Biological Resources\171115_Figure Landand 4 VegetativeUseExisting Date Cover_rev2.mxd, Saved: 2:39:5311/21/2017 PM Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

Table 3-1: Existing Land Use and Vegetative Communities within the BSA 1 Vegetative FLUCFCS 2 FWS Classification Acres in BSA Community/Land Use Code Uplands Residential, low density 110 N/A3 3.8 Residential, high density 130 N/A 0.4 Commercial and 140 N/A 3.8 services Open land 190 N/A 4.6 Cropland and 210 N/A 27.5 pastureland Other open lands (rural) 260 N/A 58.6 Shrub and brushland 320 N/A 7.9 Pine flatwoods 411 N/A 4.4 Hardwood conifer-mixed 434 N/A 20.6 Transportation 810 N/A 177.3 Subtotal Uplands 308.9 Wetlands Palustrine, scrub-shrub, Wetland scrub 631 broad-leaved deciduous, 1.1 seasonally flooded (PSS1C) Palustrine, emergent, Freshwater marshes 641 persistent, seasonally flooded 15.0 (PEM1C) Palustrine, emergent, Wet prairies 643 persistent, intermittently 21.0 flooded (PEM1J) Subtotal Wetlands 37.1 Other Surface Waters Palustrine, emergent, Streams and waterways 510 persistent, seasonally flooded, 0.2 (ditches) excavated (PEM1Cx) Subtotal Other Surface Waters 0.2 TOTAL 346.2 1 FDOT, 1999. 2 Cowardin, Lewis M., et.al. 1979. 3 NA = Not applicable

Commercial and Services FLUCFCS: 140 Commercial and services are predominantly associated with the distribution of products and services. Within the BSA, this land use type consists of cleared land used by the Suncoast Trucking Academy that is located north of Runway 9-27. This land use type comprises 3.8 acres of the BSA.

Open Land / Other Open Lands (Rural) FLUCFCS: 190 / 260 Open land includes undeveloped land within urban areas that does not typically exhibit any structures or any indication of intended use. Within the BSA, open land is located on the west side of the Airport west of Piper Road as well as northeast of Runway 22 and comprises 4.6

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 15 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

acres of the BSA. Other open lands (rural) include agricultural open lands whose intended usage cannot be determined. Within the BSA, several areas defined as other open lands (rural) are located southeast of Runway 33, north of Challenger Road, and northeast of Runway 22. Other open lands (rural) comprise 58.6 acres of the BSA.

Cropland and Pastureland FLUCFCS: 210 Cropland and pastureland includes agricultural land which is managed for the production of row or field crops as well as improved, unimproved, and woodland pasture. The majority of the cropland and pastureland within the BSA is grazed by cattle and located on the south side of the Airport property. This land use type comprises 27.5 acres of the BSA.

Shrub and Brushland FLUCFCS: 320 Shrub and brushland typically consists of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), and other shrubs and brush. Within the BSA, this vegetative cover type is located southeast of Runway 33 on the south side of Woodlawn Drive and comprises 7.9 acres of the BSA.

Pine Flatwoods FLUCFCS: 411 Within the BSA, small portions of pine flatwoods systems are located northeast of Runway 22 as well as southeast of Runway 33 and are dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Other vegetative species present in these areas include saw palmetto, gallberry, and bushy broomsedge (Andropogon glomeratus). Pine flatwoods comprise 4.4 acres of the BSA.

Hardwood - Conifer Mixed FLUCFCS: 434 This vegetative cover type is reserved for those forested areas in which neither upland conifers nor hardwoods achieve a 66 percent crown canopy dominance. Within the BSA, these areas predominantly consist of live oak (Quercus virginiana), slash pine, Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), saw palmetto, wax myrtle, cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), and bushy broomsedge. Hardwood - conifer mixed is located on the north side of the Airport and comprises 20.6 acres of the BSA.

Transportation FLUCFCS: 810 This land use type in the BSA includes unpaved areas within the infield and outfield areas of the Airport that are dominated by ruderal grasses, sedges, and forbs that are regularly mowed as part of airport maintenance and operations. This land use type also includes the runways, terminals, service buildings, navigational aids, fuel storage, parking lots, and roadways. The transportation land use comprises 177.3 acres of the BSA.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 16 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

3.2. WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER LAND USE/VEGETATIVE COVER DESCRIPTIONS

Streams and Waterways (Ditches) FLUCFCS: 510 FWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Streams and waterways include linear water bodies such as rivers, creeks, canals, and ditches. Within the BSA, this classification type includes small portions of ditches excavated through the grassed infields that are seasonally inundated by surface water during the wet season and intermittently flooded after rainfall events in the dry season. Vegetation in the ditches is regularly mowed during airport maintenance activities. The ditches are part of a stormwater management system that directs water off the Airport property generally northwest toward the Peace River watershed. They are under the jurisdiction of the SWFWMD through Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Number 4900164.025 issued in 2003. Ditches comprise approximately 0.2 acre of the BSA.

Wetland Scrub FLUCFCS: 631 FWS: PSS1C (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded) Wetland scrub is associated with topographic depressions and poorly drained soils consisting of low scrub species. Within the BSA, the center portion of Wetland F is comprised of wetland scrub habitat and is located within the infield area between Runways 9-27 and 15-33. This wetland type predominantly consists of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), cattail (Typha spp.), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Wetland scrub comprises approximately 1.1 acres of the BSA.

Freshwater Marshes FLUCFCS: 641 FWS: PEM1C (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded) Freshwater marshes are non-forested areas usually confined to low-lying areas consisting predominantly of herbaceous vegetation. Within the BSA, this wetland community type is located in the infield and outfield areas in the southern portion of PGD and includes Wetland B3 and the center portion of Wetland C. Dominant vegetation in these areas consist of water pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.), beakrush (Rhychospora spp.), bushy broomgrass, torpedo grass (Panicum repens), and cattail. Vegetation within Wetland B3 is regularly grazed by cattle. Freshwater marshes comprise approximately 15.0 acres of the BSA.

Wet Prairies FLUCFCS: 643 FWS: PEM1J (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Intermittently Flooded) Wet prairies are composed of grassy vegetation and are distinguished from marshes by a reduced hydroperiod and more transitional wetland species. Within the BSA, Wetlands B1, B2, H, I, and the outer perimeter of Wetlands C and F are classified as wet prairies and located within the outfield and infield areas of PGD. During the dry season, these areas are typically

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 17 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

mowed during airport maintenance activities. Dominant vegetation within these areas consist of water pennywort, beakrush, bushy broomgrass, and torpedo grass. Vegetation within Wetlands B1 and B2 are regularly grazed by cattle. Wet prairies comprise approximately 21.0 acres of the BSA.

4.0 WILDLIFE

The unpaved infield grasses within the BSA provide potential habitat for various lizards, snakes, field birds, gallinaceous birds, shrews, rats, rabbits, skunks, coyotes, and bobcats. However, these areas are regularly mowed which limits the amount of sufficient cover provided to these species. The ditches and freshwater herbaceous wetlands in the BSA provide potential habitat for various snakes, turtles, wading birds, and raccoons. The utilization of these habitats on the Airport property by large-bodied mammals (i.e., deer, feral pigs, coyotes, etc.) is limited due to existing wildlife exclusion and security fencing around the airport property.

5.0 LISTED SPECIES

The BSA was evaluated for potential occurrences of federally and state listed plant and animal species. Federally listed species are those plant and animal species protected by the federal government pursuant to the ESA. Federally listed species are classified as endangered or threatened. State listed species are those plant and animal species managed by the state of Florida pursuant to Chapter 5B-40 Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and Chapter 68A-27 FAC, respectively. State listed species are classified as endangered, threatened, species of special concern (animals), or commercially exploited (plants). During the 2012, 2013 and 2016 field reviews, the BSA was assessed for the presence of, or potential use by, federally and state listed plant and animal species. The following literature and online data sources were used to collect information concerning the potential presence of federally and/or state listed species within the BSA:

 FWS, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12 (FWS 2015);  FWS, IPaC (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac) (FWS 2017);  FWC, Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern, Chapter 68A-27 F.A.C (FWC 2017);  FWC, Eagle Nest Locator website (http://myfwc.com/eagle/eaglenests/nestlocator.aspx) (FWC 2017);  FNAI, Charlotte County Tracking List, (http://fnai.org/bioticssearch.cfm), updated July 2017 (FNAI 2017);  Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry (FDACS), 2010 Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants: Botany Contribution No. 38, 5th edition; and  NatureServe Explorer maps and database (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/), accessed July 2017 (NatureServe 2017).

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 18 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

For a listed species to be considered potentially occurring within the BSA, appropriate habitat for reproduction, nesting, foraging, feeding, or resting must be present in the BSA and the BSA must be located within the species’ geographical range. The listed species with potential to occur within the BSA are described below. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the listed and protected species with potential to occur within the BSA.

Table 5-1: Listed Species1 Potentially Occurring within BSA Federal State Scientific Name Common Name 2 3 Habitat Preference Status Status Plants Brackish and freshwater Acrostichum aureum Golden leather fern NL T marshes. Dry to moist flatwoods with Many-flowered Calopogon multiflorus NL T longleaf pine, wiregrass, and grass-pink saw palmetto. Open slash pine or longleaf Deeringothamnus pine flatwoods with wiregrass Beautiful pawpaw E E pulchellus and dwarf live oak in the understory. Nymphaea Sleeping beauty Shallow ponds, canals, NL E jamesoniana waterlily sloughs. Pteroglossaspis Pine flatwoods. Giant orchid NL T ecristata Reptiles Drymarchon corais Various habitats with the Eastern indigo snake FT FT couperi exception of open water. Dry upland habitats, including Gopherus disturbed habitats such as Gopher tortoise C T polyphemus pastures, old fields, and road shoulders. Open canopies and dry sandy soils; sandhill and former Pituophis sandhill, old fields and melanoleucus Florida pine snake NL T pastures, but also sand pine mugitus scrub and scrubby flatwoods. Often coexists with pocket gophers and gopher tortoises. Birds Fire-dominated xeric oak Aphelocoma Florida scrub jay T FT communities on well drained coerulescens sandy soils. High, sparsely vegetated, sandy ground. Natural habitats include dry prairie and Athene cunicularia sandhill. Makes extensive use Florida burrowing owl NL T floridana of ruderal areas such as pastures, airports, road right- of-ways, and vacant spaces in residential areas. Antigone canadensis Prairies, freshwater marshes, Florida sandhill crane NL T pratensis and pastures. Permanently and seasonally Egretta caerulea Little blue heron NL T flooded wetlands, streams,

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 19 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

Federal State Scientific Name Common Name 2 3 Habitat Preference Status Status lakes, and swamps, and in manmade impoundments and ditches. Permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands, streams, Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron NL T lakes, and swamps, and in manmade impoundments and ditches. Falco sparverius Southeastern Open pine habitats, woodland NL T Paulus American kestrel edges, prairies and pastures. Nests in inundated forested wetlands. Forages in Mycteria americana Wood stork T FT freshwater marshes, swamps, flooded pastures. Marine tidal flats and ponds, coastal marshes, mangrove- Platalea ajaja Roseate spoonbill NL T dominated inlets and pools, and freshwater sloughs and marshes. Open country with scattered Polyborus plancus Audubon’s crested cabbage palms, cabbage T FT audubonii caracara palm/live oak hammocks, and shallow ponds/sloughs. Large, open freshwater marshes and lakes; open water areas without emergent Rostrhamus sociabilis vegetation required for Everglade snail kite E FE plumbeus foraging; nests 1-5 m above water in low shrub/tree, sawgrass, maidencane habitat. Mammals Roosts in upland forests with mature trees or artificial Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat E FE structures; forages near open freshwater wetlands, upland forests, and shrub. Variety of habitats including Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E FE upland forests, prairies, wetlands. A variety of forested habitats with open to moderately dense Big Cypress Sciurus niger understory and shrub cover. A (mangrove) fox NL T avicennia mosaic of pine flatwoods, squirrel cypress swamps, and hardwood hammocks. Sciurus niger Sherman’s fox Sandhills, pine flatwoods, NL SSC shermani squirrel pastures. Other Species of Concern Haliaeetus 4 4 Nests in tall trees. Forages Bald eagle NL NL leucocephalus near bodies of water. Note: F = Federal; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of Special Concern; E = Endangered; NL = Not Listed; C = Candidate

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 20 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

1 As reported by the “FNAI Tracking List, Charlotte County” http://www.fnai.org. (FNAI 2017) and the FWS IPaC “Official Species List” (FWS 2017). 2 As listed by the FWS in 50 CFR 17 (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/), updated February 2015 (FWS 2015). 3 Plant species listed by the FDACS pursuant to Chapter 5B-40, FAC, updated 2010 (FDACS, 2010). Animal species listed by the FWC pursuant to Rules 68A-27.003 through 68A-27.005, FAC. (http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/), updated May 2017 (FWC, 2017). 4 The bald eagle is neither state nor federally listed; however, this species is federally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bald eagle is also managed in Florida by the FWC's bald eagle rule (Chapter 68A-16.002, FAC).

5.1. FLORA

A review of state and federally listed plants that occur within Charlotte County and their preferred habitats was performed prior to field reviews. Listed plant species have been documented within Charlotte County; however, most of these plant species are located within xeric scrub habitat that is not present in the BSA. In addition, the majority of the BSA is routinely mowed and maintained for airport operations. General field reviews did not detect the occurrence of any protected plant species within the BSA.

5.2. FAUNA

5.2.1. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) The eastern indigo snake is listed as threatened by the FWS. The indigo snake can be found in a variety of habitats including mesic flatwoods, swamps, wet prairies, xeric pinelands, and scrub areas. It may use gopher tortoise burrows for shelter to escape hot or cold ambient temperatures within its range. While suitable habitat is available for this species in the BSA, no eastern indigo snakes were observed during the field reviews.

Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) The Florida scrub jay is listed as threatened by the FWS and is typically found in early successional stages of fire-dominated xeric oak communities located on well-drained, sandy soils. Preferred habitat consists of scrub oaks between three and ten feet tall with open sand and scattered clumps of herbaceous vegetation. The BSA is located within the FWS Consultation Area for the scrub jay and is included in a Habitat Conservation Plan approved December 2014 by FWS for all of Charlotte County. However, no xeric oak scrub communities are located inside the BSA and no scrub jays were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

Audobon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii) The crested caracara is listed as threatened by the FWS and inhabits open country, such as dry prairie and pasturelands with scattered cabbage palms, cabbage palm/live oak hammocks, and shallow ponds and sloughs, and requires cabbage palms or live oaks with low-growing surrounding vegetation for nesting. Although the BSA is located within the FWS Consultation Area for this species, only marginally suitable foraging habitat is available within the BSA and no individuals or nests were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 21 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) The snail kite is federally listed as endangered by the FWS due to habitat degradation and loss. This species prefers large open freshwater marshes and lakes with shallow water and feeds exclusively on apple snails (Pomacea paludosa). The BSA is not located within the FWS Consultation Area for the snail kite. While marginally suitable foraging habitat exists for this species in the BSA within the freshwater wetlands, no snail kites or apple snails were observed during the field reviews.

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) The wood stork is listed as threatened by the FWS. This wading bird species is opportunistic and uses various habitat types, including forested wetlands, freshwater marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, tidal creeks, flooded pastures, and ditches for feeding. A specialized feeding technique commonly referred to as “groping” limits the wood stork to feeding in shallow water. This species can be expected to use the ditches and marshes within the BSA for seasonal foraging; however, existing wildlife hazard management activities actively discourage foraging on airport property. The FWS has defined the core foraging area (CFA) for the wood stork in Charlotte County as an 18.6-mile radius from breeding colonies. Based on information provided by the FWS, the BSA is located within the 18.6-mile radius CFA of seven active wood stork nesting colonies. As shown on Figure 5, six of the colonies are located approximately two to seven miles north of PGD in the Charlotte Harbor Estuary east of I-75. A seventh colony is located approximately 18 miles southeast of PGD along the Caloosahatchee River. During the 2016 field reviews, several wood storks were observed foraging within Wetland B3.

Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) The Florida bonneted bat is listed as endangered by the FWS. Roosting habitat includes forested areas such as pine flatwoods, royal palm hammocks, mixed or hardwood hammocks, and cypress domes with tall, mature trees with snags or cavities. Artificial roosting structures include buildings, bridges, and bat houses. Foraging habitat consists of sources of drinking water and prey including open freshwater wetlands, upland and wetland forests, and shrub habitats. The BSA is located within the FWS Focal Area and Consultation Area for this species. However, only marginally suitable habitat is available within the upland forests and the wetland areas and no individuals or cavities were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) The Florida panther is listed as endangered by the FWS and prefers large forested communities and wetlands that are generally inaccessible to humans for diurnal refuge. The BSA does not fall within the FWS Consultation Area or the “Primary” or “Secondary” Zones for this species. Marginally suitable habitat is available for this species in the forested upland areas; however, the majority of the BSA is mowed and maintained by the Airport and is located inside the Airport’s existing boundary fence, which discourages large mammals and their prey from entering the Airport property.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 22 ®[ ®[ ®[®[®[ ®[®[

!Ä

®[ ®[

LEGEND !Ä Punta Gorda ®[ Wood Stork Nesting Colonies Core Foraging Area (18.6 miles)

Miles º 0 7

Sources: ESRI, 2017; USFWS, 2016.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT WOOD STORK FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ROOKERY LOCATION MAP 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Path: Co AirportAuthority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Biological Resources\171106_Figure Wood 5 Stork Rookery Map_rev0.mxd, Location Date Saved: 12/11/2017 10:33:08AM Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

5.2.2. STATE LISTED SPECIES

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) The gopher tortoise is listed as threatened by the FWC and is considered a candidate species by FWS due to habitat loss, degradation, and a declining number of individuals. The gopher tortoise requires well-drained, loose, sandy soils for burrowing, and low-growing herbs and grasses for food. Marginally suitable habitat for this species is present within the BSA; however, no gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) The Florida pine snake is listed as threatened by the FWC and prefers sandhill, old fields, and pastures with sandy soils as well as sand pine scrub and scrubby flatwoods. It may use gopher tortoise burrows for shelter to escape hot or cold ambient temperatures within its range. Marginally suitable habitat for this species is available in the BSA within the pine flatwoods and grassy upland areas; however, no pine snakes were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) The Florida burrowing owl is listed as threatened by the FWC. This species inhabits high, sparsely vegetated, sandy ground including dry prairie, pastures, airports, and road rights-of- way for nesting. Within the BSA, suitable habitat for this species is available within the grassed infield areas. During the 2012-2013 WHA at PGD, several pairs of burrowing owls and their burrows were observed within the grassed infields.

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) The little blue heron, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill are listed as threatened by the FWC. These wading birds nest and forage among both fresh and saltwater habitats such as freshwater marshes, coastal beaches, mangrove swamps, cypress swamps, hardwood swamps, wet prairies and bay swamps. Suitable habitat for these wading birds is available within the BSA within the wetland areas. During the 2016 field review, several roseate spoonbills were observed foraging within Wetland B3. During the 2012-2013 WHA at PGD, little blue herons and tricolored herons were observed roosting in Wetland F.

Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) The southeastern American kestrel is listed as threatened by FWC and is non-migratory. The species utilizes open habitats for foraging and nests in tree cavities. Habitats such as pine scrub, dry prairies, mixed pine and hardwood forests, and pine flatwoods are preferable for the southeastern American kestrel. Suitable foraging habitat for this species is available in the BSA within the mowed infield grasslands. During previous visits to PGD, several American kestrels were observed foraging in the AOA and perched on existing signs and fences. However, no nests have been observed or documented within the BSA.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 24 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis) The Florida sandhill crane is listed as threatened by the FWC. The sandhill crane is associated with shallow freshwater areas, pasture, and open woods habitats. Habitats such as wet and dry prairies, marshes, and marshy lake margins are preferred. Suitable habitat for this species is available in the BSA within the mowed infield grasslands, wet prairies, and ditches. During previous visits to PGD, several sandhill cranes were observed foraging in the AOA, but no nests have been observed or documented within the BSA.

Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) The Sherman’s fox squirrel is listed as a species of special concern by the FWC. This species prefers high pine sandhills, pine flatwoods, pastures and other open, ruderal habitats with scattered pines and oaks. Marginally suitable habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrel is available within the BSA in the mowed infield grasslands and upland forests; however, no fox squirrels were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

Big Cypress (mangrove) fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) The Big Cypress fox squirrel is listed as threatened by the FWC. This species utilizes a variety of forested habitats with open to moderately dense understory and shrub cover, including pine flatwoods, cypress swamps, and hardwood hammocks. Marginally suitable foraging habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is available within the BSA area in the mowed infield grasslands and upland forests; however, no fox squirrels were observed within the BSA during the field reviews.

5.2.3. OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Though the bald eagle has been removed from federal and state listings, it is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act in accordance with 16 United States Code (USC) § 668 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in accordance with 16 USC §§ 703-712. The bald eagle typically uses riparian habitat associated with coastal areas, lake shorelines, and river banks. The nests are generally located near water bodies that provide a dependable food source. The FWC online bald eagle nest locator website indicates that there are no nest sites documented within one mile of the BSA and none were observed within the BSA during the field reviews. The nearest documented bald eagle nest is located approximately 1.5 miles east of PGD.

6.0 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

Implementation of the Proposed Project will result in the conversion of approximately 66 acres of land use/vegetative cover to Airport use (FLUCFCS 811) as a result of runway improvements, GA relocations, development of GA facilities, and filling of wetlands to remove wildlife hazard attractants. It is anticipated that 18.4 acres of land use/vegetative cover (Wetlands B1, B2, and B3) will convert into Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCFCS 210) as a result of filling wetlands to remove wildlife hazard attractants. Table 6-1 lists the vegetative communities and land uses that will be converted to Airport use or Crop and Pastureland use by the Proposed Project. Land

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 25 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

uses occurring within the proposed acquisition areas needed for RSA/RPZ standardization will not be affected by the Proposed Project and will remain the same; therefore, these land uses are not included in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Vegetative Community/Land Use Conversions Resulting from the Proposed Project Acres Acres Converted Vegetative FLUCFCS FWS Converted to to Crops and Community/Land 1 2 Total Code Classification Airport Pastureland Use (FLUCFCS 811) (FLUCFCS 210) Uplands Residential, high 130 N/A 0.4 0.0 0.4 density Commercial and 140 N/A 3.8 0.0 3.8 services Open land 190 N/A 1.7 0.0 1.7 Cropland and 210 N/A 11.5 0.0 11.5 pastureland Other open lands 260 N/A 2.4 0.0 2.4 (rural) Shrub and 320 N/A 6.9 0.0 6.9 brushland Hardwood - 434 N/A 20.6 0.0 20.6 conifer mixed Subtotal Uplands 47.3 0.0 47.3 Wetlands Wetland scrub 631 PSS1C 1.1 0.00 1.1 Freshwater 641 PEM1C 3.3 11.7 15.0 marshes Wet prairies 643 PEM1J 14.3 6.7 21.0 Subtotal Wetlands 18.7 18.4 37.1 Total 66.0 18.4 84.4 Notes: 1 FDOT, 1999 2 Cowardin, Lewis M., et.al. 1979.

The wetlands proposed to be removed from the airfield are of low quality and provide minimal level of support of wetland functions. Bounded by the AOA and paved roadways, and fenced to prevent intrusions onto the Airport property and pasture, there is little to no access to these areas for wildlife other than wading birds. The wetlands receive water through overland flow from the mowed infield areas and paved runways/taxiways, decreasing water quality. Nuisance and exotic vegetation is also present throughout the wetland areas. To offset the loss of wetland functions and values, all wetland impacts will be mitigated to satisfy all mitigation requirements of 33 USC 1344 and Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (FS).

Table 6-2 summarizes the proposed land use and vegetative cover types resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Project. The proposed land use and vegetative cover types are also depicted on Figure 6.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 26 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

Table 6-2: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Vegetative Communities Within the BSA

1 Existing Proposed Vegetative FLUCFCS FWS 2 Acres in Acres in Community/Land Use Code Classification BSA BSA Uplands Residential, low density 110 N/A 3.8 3.8 Residential, high density 130 N/A 0.4 0.0 Commercial and 140 N/A 3.8 0.0 services Open land 190 N/A 4.6 2.9 Cropland and 210 N/A 27.5 34.4 pastureland Other open lands (rural) 260 N/A 58.6 56.2 Shrub and brushland 320 N/A 7.9 1.0 Pine flatwoods 411 N/A 4.4 4.4 Hardwood conifer-mixed 434 N/A 20.6 0.0 Transportation 810 N/A 177.3 243.3 Subtotal Uplands 308.9 346.0 Wetlands Wetland scrub 631 PSS1C 1.1 0.0 Freshwater marshes 641 PEM1C 15.0 0.0 Wet prairies 643 PEM1J 21.0 0.0 Subtotal Wetlands 37.1 0.0 Other Surface Waters Streams and waterways 510 PEM1Cx 0.2 0.2 (ditches) Subtotal Other Surface Waters 0.2 0.2 Total 346.2 346.2 1 FDOT, 1999. 2 Cowardin, Lewis M., et.al. 1979.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 27 110

260 260 110

190

810 411 260

510 810

810

510 810

LEGEND 810 810 Biological Study Area

810 FLUCFCS Description 110 - Residential Low Density 810 < 2 Dwelling Units 320 130 - Residential High Density 190 - Open Land 411 210 - Cropland and 810 Pastureland 210 260 - Other Open Lands 210 (Rural) 260 320 - Shrub and Brushland 210 411 - Pine Flatwoods 510 - Streams and Waterways 810 - Transportation

Feet 810 º 0 1,800

Sources: SWFWMD, 2016; FDOT APLUS, 2014.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT PROPOSED LAND USE AND FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VEGETATIVE COVER Path: S:\Projects\C\CharlottePath: Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 Co Airport GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Biological Resources\171115_FigureUse 6 Proposed Land and Cover_rev2.mxd, Vegetative 12/11/2017 Date AMSaved: 10:39:31 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

6.1. LISTED SPECIES

The Proposed Project would result in adverse impacts to habitats potentially utilized by listed and protected species. The potential effect of the habitat impacts on state and federally listed species with potential to occur within the BSA are discussed below.

6.1.1. FLORA

Most of the study area has been disturbed as part of ongoing airport activities. Therefore, it is unlikely that any listed plant species will be adversely affected by the project. One federally listed plant species (beautiful pawpaw) was determined to have the potential to occur within the BSA. However, the suitable habitat for this species present within the BSA (pine flatwoods) is not proposed to be impacted. General field reviews did not detect the occurrence of any state or federally listed species within the BSA. As a result, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have “no effect” on listed plant species.

6.1.2. FAUNA

6.1.2.1. FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

While no eastern indigo snakes were observed during the field reviews, suitable habitat for this species is available within the BSA. To minimize potential adverse impacts to the eastern indigo snake, PGD will commit to use the FWS-approved Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (updated August 2013) (see Appendix B) as part of the Proposed Project. In addition, the Proposed Project will impact less than 25 acres of marginally suitable indigo snake habitat and there are no known gopher tortoise burrows within the BSA. Utilizing the most recent (August 1, 2017) FWS Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key, it has been determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the eastern indigo snake.

Though the BSA is located within the FWS Consultation Area for the Florida scrub jay, no xeric oak scrub communities are located inside the BSA and no scrub jays were observed within the BSA during field reviews. Based on this information, it has been determined that the Proposed Project will have “no effect” on the Florida scrub jay.

The BSA is located within the FWS Consultation Area for the crested caracara; however, only marginally suitable foraging habitat is available within the BSA and no individuals or nests were observed within the BSA during the field reviews. Prior to construction, PGD will perform an informal survey of appropriate habitat to avoid any potential impacts to this species. If any individuals or nests are observed, further coordination with FWS will be implemented. With this commitment, it has been determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the crested caracara.

While marginally suitable foraging habitat exists for the Everglade snail kite in the BSA within the freshwater wetlands, no snail kites or apple snails were observed during the field reviews. Wetland values and functions lost as a result of project construction will be mitigated. Based on

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 29 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

this information, it was determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the snail kite.

Suitable foraging habitat for the wood stork is available within the BSA within the wetlands. Based on FWS data, seven active wood stork nesting colonies are reported within 18.6 miles of the BSA (Figure 5) and individuals were observed foraging within the BSA during the 2016 field review. Compensation for suitable foraging habitat will be provided within the service area of an FWS-approved wetland mitigation bank or wood stork conservation bank (preferably located within the CFA of wood stork foraging habitat lost). Based on these commitments and the 2010 FWS Programmatic Concurrence Letter for the Wood Stork, it was determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork.

The BSA is located within the FWS Consultation Area and Focal Area for the Florida bonneted bat. However, only marginally suitable habitat is available for this species within the upland forests and the wetland areas. No individuals or cavities were observed within the BSA during field reviews and no individuals have been reported on the Airport property. Wetland values and functions lost as a result of project construction will be mitigated. Prior to construction, PGD will perform an informal survey of appropriate habitat to avoid any potential impacts to this species. If any individuals or cavities are observed, further coordination with FWS will be implemented. With this commitment, it has been determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida bonneted bat.

The BSA does not fall within the FWS Consultation Area or the “Primary” or “Secondary” Zones for the Florida panther and only marginally suitable habitat is available for this species in the BSA. The majority of the BSA is located inside the Airport’s existing boundary fence, which discourages large mammals and their prey from entering the Airport property and no individuals were observed within the BSA during the field reviews. Therefore, it has been determined that the Proposed Project will have “no effect” on the Florida Panther.

6.1.2.2. STATE LISTED SPECIES

Marginally suitable habitat for the gopher tortoise is available within the BSA within the grassy open areas. However, no gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the BSA during the field reviews. Prior to construction of the Proposed Project, surveys of the appropriate habitats will be conducted for the presence of gopher tortoise burrows. If gopher tortoises or their burrows are found in or within 25 feet of the construction limits of the Proposed Project, coordination with the FWC will be implemented to secure permits needed to relocate the gopher tortoises prior to construction. Based on these commitments, it was determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the gopher tortoise.

Marginally suitable habitat for the Florida pine snake is available within the BSA in the open upland areas; however, no pine snakes were observed within the BSA during field reviews. No gopher tortoise burrows were observed during the field reviews, no pine snakes were observed within the BSA during field reviews, and none have been documented within BSA by FNAI or

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 30 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

FWS. Therefore, it was determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida pine snake.

Florida burrowing owls have been observed within the BSA in the infield areas. To avoid any potential impacts to this species, PGD will resurvey appropriate upland habitats within the Proposed Project area for burrowing owls or their burrows prior to construction. If any burrows are located in the project area, PGD will coordinate with FWC to develop and implement the appropriate protection criteria prior to construction. With this commitment, a determination has been made that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida burrowing owl.

Suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the little blue heron, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill is available within the BSA and individuals were observed within the BSA during the field reviews. As part of the Proposed Project, adverse wetland impacts will be mitigated as necessary to prevent a net loss of wetland habitat functions and values. Based on this information, it has been determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the little blue heron, tricolored heron, and the roseate spoonbill.

During previous visits to PGD, several southeastern American kestrels have been observed foraging in the AOA and perched on existing signs and fences within the Airport property. However, no nests have been observed or documented within the BSA. Prior to construction of the Proposed Project, surveys will be conducted for the presence of the southeastern American kestrel. If any individuals or nests are observed, coordination with FWC will be implemented. With this commitment, it has been determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the southeastern American kestrel.

Suitable foraging habitat is available within the BSA for the Florida sandhill crane and several individuals were observed foraging within the BSA during the field reviews. As part of the construction of the Proposed Project, all wetland impacts will be mitigated to prevent a net loss of wetland functions and values. In addition, PGD will resurvey the project area for sandhill crane nests prior to construction. If Florida sandhill crane nests are found within the Proposed Project area, PGD will coordinate with the FWC prior to construction to minimize adverse impacts to this species to the greatest extent possible. With this commitment, it has been determined that the Proposed Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida sandhill crane.

Marginally suitable habitat for the Sherman’s and Big Cypress (mangrove) fox squirrels is available within the BSA; however, no individuals were observed during the field reviews. Due to its mobility and ability to use adjacent areas for foraging, it has been determined that the Proposed Project will have “no effect” on the Sherman’s or Big Cypress (mangrove) fox squirrels.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 31 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

6.1.2.3. OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN

Based on the FWC online database, there are no bald eagle nests documented within one mile of the BSA. No bald eagle nests were observed within the BSA during the field review. For these reasons, it has been determined that this project will not affect the bald eagle. Pursuant to the FWS bald eagle guidelines, any disturbance within 1,000 feet of a bald eagle nest requires additional coordination and potential permitting with the FWS. To avoid any potential impacts to this species, PGD will resurvey appropriate upland habitats within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Project area for bald eagle nests prior to construction. If a bald eagle nest is found within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Project area, PGD will coordinate with FWS to secure any and all approvals regarding this species.

6.2. CRITICAL HABITAT

The BSA was also evaluated for the occurrence of listed species critical habitat designated by Congress in 50 CFR 424. No designated critical habitat for any federally listed species occurs within the BSA. Based on this information, it has been determined that the Proposed Project will have “no effect” on any critical habitat.

7.0 COMMITMENTS

To minimize potential impacts to listed species discussed in this BA, PGD will commit to the following as part of this project:

1. Prior to and during construction, PGD will implement the FWS-approved Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (updated August 2013) (see Appendix B);

2. During the permitting phase of the Proposed Projects, PGD will provide appropriate compensation for the loss of wetland functions and values;

3. Prior to construction, PGD will commit to resurvey appropriate habitats within the project area to confirm the presence or absence of crested caracara nests, Florida bonneted bat, gopher tortoises, Florida burrowing owl, southeastern American kestrel nests, and Florida sandhill crane nests. If any of these federally or state listed species or their nests are present, PGD will coordinate with the FWC and FWS to minimize the Proposed Project impacts and obtain the necessary permits; and

4. Prior to construction, PGD will resurvey appropriate habitats within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Project area for bald eagle nests prior to construction. If a bald eagle nest is found within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Project, PGD will coordinate with the FWS to secure any and all approvals regarding this species.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 32 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

8.0 SUMMARY

The Proposed Project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 80 acres of existing terrestrial and wetland habitats. The Proposed BSA has been previously affected by anthropogenic activities at the Airport, including regular mowing of the grassed infield areas and cattle grazing. No federally listed species or designated critical habitat are expected to be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. Table 8-1 provides the project impact determination for federally and state listed species. Based on the findings and commitments of this BA, a determination has been made that the Proposed Project is not likely to adversely affect any state or federally listed plant or animal species.

Table 8-1: Project Impact Determination on Listed Species

Project Impact Determination Federally Listed Species

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii) “May affect, not likely to adversely Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) affect” Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) Federally listed plant species “No effect” Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)

Project Impact Determination State Listed Species

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) “May affect, not likely to adversely Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) affect” Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor) Roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis) State listed plant species “No effect” Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 33 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

9.0 REFERENCES

Cowardin, et al., 1979. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131pp.

FDACS, 2010. Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants. Botany Section Contribution No. 38, 5th edition. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, 2010.

FDOT, 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Handbook, 3rd Edition, Florida Department of Transportation, 1999.

FNAI, 2017. Database, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, updated July 2017. Accessed September 2017 from http://www.fnai.org.

FWC, 2008. Bald Eagle Management Plan, Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Adopted April 9, 2008.

FWC, 2017. Eagle Nest Locator website, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Database, Access September 2017 from https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx.

FWC, 2017. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission pursuant to Rules 68A-27.003 through 68A-27.005, FAC (http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/), updated May 2017.

FWS, 2015. 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 17, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from http://www.fws.gov/endangered/, updated February 2015.

FWS, 2016. GIS wood stork data for active colonies. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Hurt, 2007. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, 4th Edition, Florida Association of Soil Scientists, March 2007.

NRCS, 2017. Web Soil Survey of the Charlotte County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

SWFWMD, 2016. Land Use/Land Cover GIS Database. South Florida Water Management District.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 34 Punta Gorda Airport Biological Assessment

USACE, 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USGS, 1987. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Topographical Quadrangle Map, Cleveland, Florida.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 35 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendix A

Agency Coordination This Page Intentionally Left Blank AECOM 813.675.6843 tel 7650 West Courtney Campbell 813.636.2400 fax Causeway Tampa, FL 33607 www.aecom.com

December 11, 2017

Florida State Clearinghouse Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 47 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

RE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AT PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT (PGD), CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Dear Sir or Madam:

• Construct access from Challenger Road to new GA facilities and close access from Henry Street (Project #60); and • Relocate self-serve fuel facility (Project #61).

Sincerely,

Paul Sanford AECOM Project Manager 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, FL 33607 813.675.6843 [email protected]

Enclosure (1)

Copy: EPS, FAA Ron Ridenour, CCAA File 2

2 I

21 60

53 7 54

20 F

H 20 4

35 32

61 12 20

C 3 20

21 1 B2 B3

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIVE-YEAR CIP PROJECTS FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 Phone: (772) 562-3909 Fax: (772) 562-4288 http://fws.gov/verobeach

In Reply Refer To: November 21, 2017 Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2018-SLI-0135 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 Project Name: Punta Gorda Airport EA

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

Attachment(s):

Official Species List 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 1

This species list is provided by:

South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559 (772) 562-3909 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 2

Project Summary Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2018-SLI-0135

Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449

Project Name: Punta Gorda Airport EA

Project Type: DEVELOPMENT

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/26.91770680258439N81.99173377565097W

Counties: Charlotte, FL 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 3

Mammals

NAME STATUS Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8630

Florida Panther Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1763 Habitat assessment guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/assessment/population/8/office/41420.pdf

Puma (=mountain Lion) Puma (=Felis) concolor (all subsp. except Similarity of coryi) Appearance Population: FL (Threatened) No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6049

West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Birds

NAME STATUS Audubon's Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus audubonii Threatened Population: FL pop. No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8250

Everglade Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7713 Species survey guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/1221/office/41420.pdf

Florida Scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6174

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Campephilus principalis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8230

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039

Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1864

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614

Wood Stork Mycteria americana Threatened Population: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8477 Habitat assessment guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/assessment/population/124/office/41420.pdf

Reptiles

American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus Threatened Population: U.S.A. (FL) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6604

Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/646

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta Threatened Population: Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1110

Fishes

NAME STATUS Atlantic Sturgeon (gulf Subspecies) Acipenser oxyrinchus Threatened (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/651 11/21/2017 Event Code: 04EF2000-2018-E-00449 6

Insects

NAME STATUS Miami Blue Butterfly Cyclargus (=Hemiargus) thomasi bethunebakeri Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3797

Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS Aboriginal Prickly-apple Harrisia (=Cereus) aboriginum (=gracilis) Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2833

Beautiful Pawpaw Deeringothamnus pulchellus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4069

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendix B

Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake

This Page Intentionally Left Blank STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 12, 2013

The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below (North Florida Field Office: [email protected]; South Florida Field Office: [email protected]; Panama City Field Office: [email protected]). As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the applicant may move forward with the project.

If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e- mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements.

The Plan materials should consist of: 1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster Information section below); and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated (see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below).

POSTER INFORMATION

Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11” x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached):

DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled.

SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled.

LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands

1 and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below- and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October.

PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted.

Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so.

IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE:

• Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference; • Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume.

IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE:

• Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake.

Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered:

North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909

2 PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached.

2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites.

3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the referenced posters and brochures.

DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may be utilized to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows).

2. If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance which may result in further project consultation.

3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen.

POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed on page one of this Plan.

3 IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 • Cease clearing activities and allow • Cease clearing activities and feet in length. They derive their name from the the eastern indigo snake sufficient immediately notify supervisor or the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they time to move away from the site applicant’s designated agent, and the have orange to coral reddish coloration in the without interference. appropriate USFWS office, with the throat area, yet some specimens have been • Personnel must NOT attempt to location information and condition of reported to only have cream coloration on the touch or handle snake due to the snake. throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should possible, for identification and documentation purposes. NOT be handled. documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in • Immediately notify supervisor or the water and then freeze the specimen. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the applicant’s designated agent, and the The appropriate wildlife agency will only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife retrieve the dead snake. have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and Service (USFWS) office, with the WILL BITE if handled. location information and condition of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be the snake. contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake • If the snake is located in a vicinity snake is encountered: occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat where continuation of the clearing or types throughout Florida. Although they have a construction activities will cause North Florida ES Office – (904) 731-3336 preference for uplands, they also utilize some harm to the snake, the activities must Panama City ES Office – (850) 769-0552 wetlands and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo halt until such time that a South Florida ES Office – (772) 562-3909 snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher representative of the USFWS returns tortoise burrows and other below- and above- the call (within one day) with further ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, guidance as to when activities may stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through resume. June, with young hatching in late July through October. Killing, harming, or harassing indigo snakes is strictly prohibited and punishable under State and Federal Law. ATTENTION: THREATENED EASTERN INDIGO

Only individuals currently authorized SNAKES MAY BE PRESENT ON through an issued Incidental Take Statement THIS SITE!!! in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so.

LEGAL STATUS: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the Photo: Dirk Stevenson USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to Please read the following $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal information provided by the offenses, if convicted. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to become familiar with standard protection measures August 12, 2013 for the eastern indigo snake. This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX B.2 UMAM Score Sheets This Page Intentionally Left Blank PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland B1 Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

643 PEM1J Impact 3.6 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Charlotte Harbor III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland B1 is located within the boundaries of PGD approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4. Adjacent land use consists of pasture that is regularly grazed by cattle. Assessment area description

Wetland B1 is an intermittently flooded, wet prairie dominated by torpedo grass, pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Provides foraging and nesting area for wildlife; downstream food chain support; water storage and flood attenuation; and water quality None improvement. Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found ) assessment area)

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

During the WHA in November 2012-December 2013, wood storks, roseate spoonbills, great egrets, snowy egrets, and white ibis were observed foraging within Wetland B1.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland B2 Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

643 PEM1J Impact 3.1 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Charlotte Harbor III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland B2 is located within the boundaries of PGD approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4. Adjacent land use consists of pasture that is regularly grazed by cattle. Assessment area description

Wetland B2 is an intermittently flooded, wet prairie dominated by torpedo grass, pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

During the WHA in November 2012-December 2013, wood storks, roseate spoonbills, great egrets, snowy egrets, and white ibis were observed foraging within Wetland B2.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland B3 Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

641 PEM1C Impact 11.7 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Charlotte Harbor III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland B3 is located within the boundaries of PGD approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4. Adjacent land use consists of pasture that is regularly grazed by cattle. Assessment area description

Wetland B3 is a seasonally flooded, freshwater marsh with a littoral edge that is dominated by torpedo grass, pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons, fish. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

During the WHA in November 2012-December 2013 and the 2016 field review, wood storks, roseate spoonbills, great egrets, great blue heron, snowy egrets, white ibis, green teal, mallards, and black-bellied whistling ducks were observed foraging within Wetland B3.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland C Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

641 / 643 PEM1C / PEM1J Impact 6.8 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Charlotte Harbor III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland B2 is located within the boundaries of PGD approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the paved portion of Runway 33. Adjacent land use consists of upland shrub, unpaved and mowed airport operations area, and pine flatwoods. Assessment area description

Wetland C is a freshwater marsh with a wet prairie perimeter that is dominated by torpedo grass, primrose willow, pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons, fish. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

No wildlife utilization was observed during the field reviews.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland F Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

631 / 641 PSS1C / PEM1J Impact 3.7 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Peace River III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland F is located within the infield area of PGD. Adjacent land use consists of the mowed and maintained unpaved airport operations area.

Assessment area description

Wetland F is a wet prairie with a seasonally flooded, scrub-shrub wetland in the center that is dominated by Brazilian pepper, Carolina willow, and cattail. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

During the WHA in November 2012-December 2013 and the 2016 field review, little blue heron, tricolored heron, cattle egrets, snowy egrets, white ibis, red-winged blackbirds, anhinga, and cormorants were observed foraging and roosting within Wetland F.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland H Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

643 PEM1J Impact 0.2 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Peace River III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland H is located within the infield area of PGD. Adjacent land use consists of the mowed and maintained unpaved airport operations area.

Assessment area description

Wetland H is an intermittently flooded, wet prairie dominated by torpedo grass, pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

During the WHA in November 2012-December 2013, great egrets and snowy egrets were observed foraging within Wetland H.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Wetland I Environmental Assessment

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

643 PEM1J Impact 8.0 ac

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) Peace River III None

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Wetland I is located within the infield area of PGD. Adjacent land use consists of the mowed and maintained unpaved airport operations area.

Assessment area description

Wetland I is an intermittently flooded, wet prairie dominated by torpedo grass, pennywort, beakrush, and bushy broomsedge. This wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways.

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.)

Interstate 75 to the west, Charlotte Harbor to the north and northwest, and Herbaceous wetlands are not unique in this region the Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area to the east.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), roseate Snakes, turtles, wading birds, raccoons. spoonbill (T), wood storks (T, foraging)

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

During the WHA in November 2012-December 2013, great egrets and snowy egrets were observed foraging within Wetland I.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland B1 Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0) The scoring of each Condition is less than Condition is optimal and indicator is based on optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports what would be suitable maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water for the type of wetland or wetland/surface water functions water functions functions surface water assessed functions

This wetland is located within the boundaries of a commercial airport approximately 0.2 mile .500(6)(a) Location and southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4. It is surrounded on all sides by improved pasture Landscape Support that is regularly grazed by cattle. Adjacent to the wetland is also a similarly-sized wet prairie and a large freshwater marsh . This area is also fenced to prevent illegal intrusions onto the airport property and pasture, as well as to prevent hazardous wildlife from accessing these areas. Birds can access this wetland, but airport operations actively haze birds to minimize w/o pres or the chances of bird/plane interactions. current with 4 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands) This wetland has sufficient hydrology to maintain it as a wet prairie. The wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways. w/o pres or current with 6 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

This wetland consists of herbaceous plant species suited for growth in saturated soil conditions such as water pennywort, beakrush, and busy broom grass. Nuisance and exotic 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community species include torpedo grass. In addition, this vegetation is regularly grazed by cattle. w/o pres or current with 4 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 3.6 ac x 0.47 = 1.7 with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.47 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.47 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland B2 Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

.500(6)(c)Community structure

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 3.1 ac x 0.47 = 1.4 with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.47 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.47 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland B3 Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

This wetland is located within the boundaries of a commercial airport approximately 0.2 mile .500(6)(a) Location and southwest of the paved portion of Runway 4. It is surrounded on all sides by improved pasture Landscape Support that is regularly grazed by cattle. Adjacent to the wetland is also a similarly-sized wet prairie. This area is also fenced to prevent illegal intrusions onto the airport property and pasture, as well as to prevent hazardous wildlife from accessing these areas. Birds can access this wetland, but airport operations actively haze birds to minimize the chances of bird/plane w/o pres or interactions. current with 4 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 11.7 ac x 0.47 = with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 5.5 0.47 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.47 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland C Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

This wetland is located within the boundaries of a commercial airport approximately 0.2 mile .500(6)(a) Location and southwest of the paved portion of Runway 33. It consists of a wetland prairie and a freshwater Landscape Support marsh and is bounded by upland shrub on the north side, mowed and maintained unpaved airport operations area on the west side, and pine flatwoods on the south and east sides. This area is also fenced to prevent illegal intrusions onto the airport property and pasture, as well as to prevent hazardous wildlife from accessing these areas. Birds can access this wetland, w/o pres or but airport operations actively haze birds to minimize the chances of bird/plane interactions. current with 4 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands) This wetland has sufficient hydrology to maintain it as a freshwater herbaceous wetland. The wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways. w/o pres or current with 5 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

This wetland consists of herbaceous plant species suited for growth in saturated soil conditions such as water pennywort, beakrush, and busy broom grass. Nuisance and exotic 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community species include torpedo grass, primrose willow, and cattails. w/o pres or current with 4 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 6.8 ac x 0.43 = 2.9 with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.43 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.43 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland F Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

This wetland is located within the boundaries of a commercial airport within the infield area. It .500(6)(a) Location and consists of a wetland prairie with a scrub-shrub wetland in the center and is bounded by Landscape Support mowed and maintained unpaved airport operations area. The airport is also fenced to prevent illegal intrusions onto the airport property, as well as to prevent hazardous wildlife from accessing these areas. Birds can access this wetland, but airport operations actively haze w/o pres or birds to minimize the chances of bird/plane interactions. current with 3 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands) This wetland has sufficient hydrology to maintain it as a freshwater herbaceous wetland. The wetland receives and treats water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways. w/o pres or current with 4 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

This wetland consists of mostly Brazilian pepper and cattail with some Caroina willow. 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community w/o pres or current with 3 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 3.7 ac x 0.33 = with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 1.21 0.33 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.33 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland H Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

.500(6)(a) Location and This wetland is located within the boundaries of a commercial airport within the infield area. It Landscape Support is bounded by mowed and maintained unpaved airport operations area. The airport is also fenced to prevent illegal intrusions onto the airport property, as well as to prevent hazardous wildlife from accessing these areas. Birds can access this wetland, but airport operations actively haze birds to minimize the chances of bird/plane interactions. w/o pres or current with 3 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

This wetland consists of herbaceous plant species suited for growth in saturated soil conditions such as water pennywort, beakrush, and busy broom grass. Nuisance and exotic 1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community species include torpedo grass. In addition, this vegetation is routinely mowed and maintained. w/o pres or current with 3 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 0.2 ac x 0.33 = with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.06 0.33 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.33 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number PGD 5-Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Wetland I Assessment Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Direct Impact Tia Norman 21-Dec-16

This wetland is located within the boundaries of a commercial airport approximately 0.2 mile .500(6)(a) Location and northeast of the paved portion of Runway 22. It is bounded on all sides by mowed and Landscape Support maintained unpaved airport operations area. This area is also fenced to prevent illegal intrusions onto the airport property and pasture, as well as to prevent hazardous wildlife from accessing these areas. The area of direct impact is located within the mowed and maintained area of the unpaved portion of the runway. Birds can access this wetland, but airport w/o pres or operations actively haze birds to minimize the chances of bird/plane interactions. current with 3 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands) This wetland has sufficient hydrology to maintain it as a freshwater marsh. The wetland receives water from overland flow from the mowed infield areas as well as the paved runways and taxiways. w/o pres or current with 5 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

This wetland consists of herbaceous plant species suited for growth in saturated soil conditions such as water pennywort, beakrush, and busy broom grass. Nuisance and exotic 1. Vegetation and/or species include torpedo grass. In addition, this vegetation is routinely mowed and maintained 2. Benthic Community within the area of direct impact. w/o pres or current with 3 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current FL = delta x acres = 8.0 ac x 0.37 = 3.0 with or w/o pres Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.37 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.37 Risk factor =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. APPENDIX C Cultural Resources Assessment Survey This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Punta Gorda Airport Five–Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Assessment

Phase 1B Cultural Resources Assessment Survey

Prepared for:

Charlotte County Airport Authority

Prepared by:

AECOM

February, 2018 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ABSTRACT

This Phase IB cultural resources assessment survey (CRAS) was conducted for the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the Punta Gorda Airport (i.e., PGD, or the Airport) in Charlotte County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project. The area of potential effect (APE) of the Proposed Project consists of 10 discrete parcels totaling 122.89 acres (30.8 hectares). The objectives of the CRAS were to identify previously unrecorded cultural resources within the APE and evaluate their potential for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

This CRAS was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), in compliance with the regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 800). All work conforms to professional guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 CFR 44716, as amended and annotated). All work also conforms to the Florida Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual of the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR 2003).

Field work was conducted on December 13 and 14, 2017, and included the excavation of 19 shovel test pits (STPs). No new archaeological sites were identified. One masonry vernacular structure, a former World War II (WWII) bunker known as EAA 565, is located in the APE but is not recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP. Based on the results of the current survey, no further archaeological or historical structures work is recommended for the APE. No Historic Properties will be affected by the Proposed Project.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW ...... 1 2.1 Physiography and Geology ...... 1 2.2 Hydrology ...... 4 2.3 Paleoenvironment ...... 4 2.4 Project Area Soils ...... 4 2.5 Flora and Fauna ...... 7 2.6 Current Conditions and Land use ...... 7

3. CULTURAL CONTEXT ...... 8 3.1 Paleoindian Period (12,000-7,900 B.C.) ...... 8 3.2 Archaic Period (8,000-500 B.C.) ...... 10 3.2.1 Early Archaic Period (8,000-6,000 B.C.) ...... 10 3.2.2 Middle Archaic Period (6,000-3,000 B.C.) ...... 11 3.2.3 Late Archaic Period (3,000-500 B.C.) ...... 11 3.3 Woodland Period (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000) ...... 12 3.3.1 Weeden Island Culture (Manasota Culture) (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000) ...... 13 3.4 Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000-1500) ...... 13 3.5 Historic Context ...... 13 3.5.1 Contact Period (A.D. 1500-1565) ...... 14 3.5.2 First Spanish Period (A.D. 1559-1763) ...... 15 3.5.3 British Period (A.D. 1763-1781) ...... 16 3.5.4 Second Spanish Period (A.D. 1781-1821) ...... 17 3.5.5 Territorial Period (1821-1845) ...... 18 3.5.6 American Statehood and Civil War Period (A.D. 1845-1865) ...... 18 3.5.7 Reconstruction and Industrialization (A.D. 1865-1940) ...... 19 3.5.8 1941-Present Day ...... 20 3.6 Literature Search and Florida Master Site File Review ...... 24

4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS...... 25 4.1 Research ...... 25 4.2 Archaeological Field Methods ...... 25 4.3 Archaeoligical Probability Model ...... 27 4.4 Shovel Testing ...... 27

5. SURVEY AREA RESULTS ...... 27 5.1 Archaeological Results ...... 27 5.1.1 Area A ...... 27 5.1.2 Area B ...... 30 5.1.3 Area C ...... 30 5.1.4 Area D ...... 30 5.1.5 Area E ...... 30 5.1.6 Area F ...... 30 5.1.7 Area G ...... 31 5.1.8 Area H ...... 35

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey ii 5.1.9 Area I ...... 35 5.1.10 Area J ...... 35 5.2 Architectural History Results ...... 37

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 38 6.1 Unanticipated finds ...... 38

7. REFERENCES ...... 38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location ...... 2 Figure 1-2 Survey Area and Areas of Potential Effect ...... 3 Figure 2-1 Florida Shorelines: Pleistocene to Present ...... 5 Figure 2-2 Project Area Soils ...... 6 Figure 3-1 No-longer-extant tent barracks or “hutments” at left, and air tower at right, 1944 ...... 20 Figure 3-2 Airfield from tower with bunker, likely, at center top of photograph, 1944 ...... 22 Figure 3-3 Enlargement of figure with bunker at top, thatched hut at center, and tower at right...... 22 Figure 3-4 Images of abandoned bunker taken after EAA Chapter 566 purchase, ca.1980 22 Figure 3-5 EAA Chapter 566 working on repurposing exterior of former bunker, ca.1980 ...23 Figure 3-6 EAA Chapter 566 working on repurposing interior of former bunker, ca.1980 ....23 Figure 3-7 Front elevation and interior of former bunker, April 2017 ...... 24 Figure 3-8 North front elevation of former bunker at left, and west side and north rear...... 24 Figure 3-9 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within One Mile of APE ...... 26 Figure 4-1 Archaeological Probability Model ...... 28 Figure 5-1 Field Testing Map ...... 29 Figure 5-2 Area A ...... 31 Figure 5-3 Area B ...... 32 Figure 5-4 Area B ...... 32 Figure 5-5 Area C ...... 33 Figure 5-6 Area D ...... 33 Figure 5-7 Area E ...... 34 Figure 5-8 Area F ...... 34 Figure 5-9 Area G ...... 35 Figure 5-10 Area H ...... 36 Figure 5-11 Area I ...... 36 Figure 5-12 Area J ...... 37

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Qualifications of Investigators Appendix B: Shovel Test Log Appendix C: Cultural Resources within One Mile of Punta Gorda Airport Appendix D: 8CH2058 Resource Group Update Form

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey iii 1. INTRODUCTION

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM), under contract with the Charlotte County Airport Authority (CCAA), is working to provide cultural resources management (CRM) services for the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is located at the Punta Gorda Airport (PGD) in Charlotte County, Florida (Figure 1-1).

AECOM conducted a Phase IB Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) of the area of potential effect (APE) for the Proposed Project which consists of ten parcels totaling 122.89 acres (Figure 1-2). This work was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended) and conforms to the professional guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 44716, as amended and annotated). The work was also conducted pursuant to the following:

 Chapter 1A-46 of the Florida Administrative Code,

 Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual of the Florida Division of Historical Resources (FDHR 2003), and

 Chapter 267, Florida Statutes (F.S.).

The background research conducted within one-mile of the APE revealed that there are four previously recorded archaeological sites, 12 cultural resource studies, 13 standing resources, eight resource groups, one cemetery, and one bridge adjacent to the APE. The Punta Gorda Army Airfield (8CH2058) is the only cultural resource recorded within the Airport property.

Regarding the current study, AECOM’s Phase I CRAS included a Florida Master Site File (FMSF) check, background research, and linear pedestrian and subsurface shovel testing survey within the APE. Mark Martinkovic served as Principal Investigator for the cultural resources survey on this project and authored this report, which adheres to the FDHR CRAS format. Archaeological fieldwork was conducted by Peter Sittig and Jeffrey Jones on December 13 and December 14, 2017 and included the excavation of 19 shovel test pits (STPs) and photographic documentation. No archaeological sites were identified within the APE. Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the APE. No Historic Properties will be affected by the Proposed Project.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

The APE is located within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic region approximately eight miles east of the confluence of the Peace River and the Myakka River. This region consists of level to nearly level plains and is characterized by poor drainage (USDA 1981).

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 1 !Ä

!Ä

LEGEND Property Boundary !Ä Punta Gorda

Feet º 0 6,600

Sources: ESRI, 2017.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT LOCATION 1-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Path: Co AirportAuthority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Cultural Resources\180108_CRAS Figure 1-1Project Location_rev0.mxd, Date Saved: 1/8/2018 10:45:36 AM Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Co Airport Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Cultural Resources\180108_CRAS Figure 1-2 Survey Area and APE_rev0.mxd, Date Saved: 1/8/2018 11:33:18 AM 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL 5-YEAR PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT GORDA PUNTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS OF AREAS POTENTIAL OF SURVEY AND SURVEY AREA EFFECT º Potential Effect Potential of Area Historic Architecture Effect Potential of Area Archaeological 0 LEGEND Sources:2017. USGS, 2,400 FIGURE Feet 1-2 The geology of this region consists of Pleistocene sands and muck underlain by Plio- Pleistocene age limestone and shelly sediments (Scott et. al. 2001).

The topography of the APE includes the Pamlico Terrace, with an elevation between 2.4 and 7.6 meters (m) above mean sea level (AMSL). The Pamlico Terrace was formed in the Pleistocene, likely during the Sangamon interglacial period (130,000 – 110,000 before present (B.P.)) (Otvos 2005).

2.2 HYDROLOGY

The Punta Gorda region is drained by several named and unnamed streams emptying into Charlotte Harbor. There are two drainages in the vicinity of the APE. The North Fork of Alligator Creek is located 750 m (2,460 feet) west of the APE, and Alligator Creek is located 900 m (2,952 feet) to the south of the APE. Both of these drainages are too far from the APE to affect archaeological probability.

2.3 PALEOENVIRONMENT

During the late Pleistocene, sea levels were more than 70 m lower than they are today, and the coastline of Florida extended many miles beyond its current location. From approximately 11,000 B.P. to 9000 B.P., sea levels rose dramatically as the continental ice sheets retreated and melted, bringing sea levels to within a few meters of current levels (Figure 2-1). Around 14,000 B.P., the vegetational community in the area of western Florida mostly consisted of oak, hickory, and southern pine forests, with mixed hardwood forests along major drainages from the Appalachian highlands toward the Gulf of Mexico. The oak, hickory, and southern pine forests persisted in the area until circa (ca.) 10,000 B.P., while communities from the Appalachians north from 33 degrees latitude and the Florida peninsula experienced a variety of changes as the climate warmed and sea levels rose. The Hypsithermal interval around 8000 to 4000 B.P. led to the emergence of southern pine communities in inter-riverine uplands and large riverine swamps in the lowlands (Anderson et al. 1996:3-7; Delcourt and Delcourt 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987).

2.4 PROJECT AREA SOILS

Soils on the PGD property include 17 different types (Figure 2-2). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS) lists one soil series in the APE, the Malabar-Oldsmar-Immokalee soil association. These soils are described as nearly level, poorly drained, deep sandy soils of the flatwoods and sloughs (USDA 1981).

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 4 !Ä

LEGEND !Ä Punta Gorda Airport Approximate Pleistocene Shoreline Boundary

Miles º 0 100 Sources: ESRI, 2017; Adovasio and Hemmings, 2011.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FLORIDA SHORELINES: FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLEISTOCENE TO PRESENT 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Path: Co AirportAuthority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Cultural Resources\180108_CRAS Figure 2-1Florida Shorelines_rev0.mxd, Date Saved: 1/8/2018 11:27:27 AM 28 14 13 28 14

28 12 28 28 27 12 26 35 14 63 14 28 13 14 53 13 26 28 26 28 28

14 53 14 28 28 28 10 10 28 28

14 27 11

53 14 14 27 28 14 33

LEGEND 10 28 28 Property Boundary 33 27 Archaeological APE 14 Map Unit 10, 27: Pompano fine sand 11, 53: Myakka fine sand 12: Felda fine sand 13: Boca fine sand 14: Valkaria fine sand 26: Pineda fine sand 28: Immokalee sand 33: Oldsmar sand 35: Wabasso sand 63: Malabar fine sand Feet 0 2,400 º Sources: USDA NRCS, 2016; FDOT APLUS, 2014.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT AREA SOILS 2-2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\CharlottePath: Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 Co Airport GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Cultural Figure Resources\180108_CRAS 2-2 Area Soils_rev0.mxd,Date Project Saved: 1/8/2018 AM 11:10:52 2.5 FLORA AND FAUNA

The natural vegetation for this location based on the soil type consists of three pine species (longleaf pine [Pinus palustris], slash pine [Pinus elliottii], and pond pine [Pinus serotina]), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), gallberry (Ilex glabra), and pineland threeawn (Astrida stricta).

Based on the relatively rural setting of the APE some wildlife is likely, especially on adjacent waterways and wooded properties. Tree dwelling and larger mammals present on and around the APE include white tail deer (Odocoileos virginianus), river otter (Lontra canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and squirrels (Sciurus ssp.). Avian species located in the area include local species, migratory species, and water fowl. Reptiles are also present and include several species of snakes, turtles, lizards, and alligators (Snyder 2008).

2.6 CURRENT CONDITIONS AND LAND USE

The PGD has been in operation since the 1940s and many ground-disturbing operations have occurred during its time of operation. The current study revealed that areas of disturbed soil, airport dumping, reclaimed land, re-deposited fill, and drainage ditches are present throughout the Airport property, mainly within and adjacent to the runways and hangars. The main Airport property has been cleared of vegetation; however, there are areas containing naturally forested areas, located mainly in the eastern portion of the Airport property. The built environment mainly includes the runways and access roads. Within the boundaries of the modern Airport, the current study revealed the presence of three World War II (WWII)-era resources, consisting of one masonry vernacular structure, one concrete pad with iron ring airplane tie downs, and one concrete pad. There is also a WWII-era canal paralleling the southeastern runway. Only one of these resources, the masonry vernacular structure, is within the APE. This masonry vernacular structure, known as EAA 565, is a former bunker and is described in Chapters 3 and 5 of this document.

The APE is located in the south half of Section 10 and 11 and the north half of Section 15, Township 41 South, Range 23 East on the Cleveland and Punta Gorda U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps. PGD is located immediately east of the Interstate 75 corridor. The west side of PGD is bounded by Piper Road. The north side of PGDis bounded by an unnamed paved road. The east side of PGD is bounded by open pine flatwoods. The south side of PGD is bounded by Woodlawn Road. The current setting of the APE is mostly cleared of vegetation, with either manicured runway borders or improved cow pastures. Areas with any remnant vegetation displayed slash pine saplings, water oak (Quercus nigra), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). Mr. Ben Duke, the PGD Airside Operations Manager, was interviewed regarding land use and property conditions.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 7 3. CULTURAL CONTEXT

The FDHR has developed cultural contexts that provide a necessary framework for the description and analysis of known and anticipated cultural resources. The contexts are organized by geographic region, time/developmental period, and theme, and are the basis for evaluating the significance of resources within the APE. The sections that follow summarize the relevant information for each time period in the region. The FDHR divides the prehistory of the State of Florida into four general periods (Payne and Milanich 1992):

 Paleoindian (12,000-7,900 Before Christ (B.C.)),

 Archaic (7,900-500 B.C.),

 Woodland (500 B.C.-Anno Domini (A.D.) 1500), and

 Mississippian (A.D. 1000-1500).

3.1 PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (12,000-7,900 B.C.)

The earliest human occupation in Florida dates to the Paleoindian period. These people were the descendants of populations that had previously crossed the Bering Strait from Asia into the New World during the Late Pleistocene. Although the timing of this migration is subject to considerable debate, by ca. 12,000 B.C. these early colonists had spread across most of North and South America (Adovasio and Pedler 2005; Milanich 1994).

The earliest human occupants in Florida occupied a landscape different from that which is present today. During the Ice Age at the end of the Pleistocene epoch (ca. 12,000 years ago), sea levels were approximately 60 to 100 m lower than today. As a result, large portions of the continental shelf to the east, west, and south of Florida would have been exposed and the Florida Peninsula was twice as large as it is today (Faught 2004; Milanich 1994). The subsequent inundation of these areas skews the available data on Paleoindian occupations in Florida, as sites that would have been located on the Coastal Plain are now under water (Borremans 1992; Faught 2004; Milanich 1994).

Paleoecological data suggest Florida was cooler and drier during the Paleoindian period compared to modern conditions (Borremans 1992). The now submerged Coastal Plain appears to have been crisscrossed by numerous river drainage systems, while the interior prairies were dotted by lakes and sinkholes created by upland springs. These wetter environments would have provided more hospitable conditions for flora, fauna, and the earliest human occupants of interior Florida (Borremans 1992; Milanich 1994).

The majority of information related to the material culture of the Paleoindians of Florida comes from lithic assemblages. Paleoindian assemblages contain a mixture of formal and expedient stone tools (Borremans 1992). Formal tools include large, lanceolate projectile point/knives (PPKs), unifacial scrapers, gravers, and bifacial knives. Expedient tool types include flake

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 8 knives, retouched flakes, and hammerstones used in tool manufacture. The majority of both formal and expedient Paleoindian tools were manufactured from high quality cherts (Borremans 1992; Milanich 1994). Ground stone tools were also manufactured, including adzes and egg- shaped weights interpreted as parts of bolas used in bird hunting (Milanich 1994).

Diagnostic stone tools dated to the first half of the Paleoindian period (i.e., Early and Middle Paleoindian periods [12,000-8,500 B.C.]) include the Suwannee, Simpson, and Clovis PPKs (Borremans 1992; Milanich 1994). Diagnostic stone tools dated to the latter part of the Paleoindian period (Late Paleoindian [8,500-8,000 B.C.]) include Dalton PPKs that represent a transitional form between the earlier Paleoindian and Early Archaic forms (Borremans 1992; Milanich 1994).

Although the Paleoindian occupants of Florida likely used a host of organic materials such as wood, bone, shell, and plant fibers to manufacture tools, shelters, ornaments, and clothing, the acidic soil conditions found across most of the state have resulted in the decomposition of most these organic artifacts (Borremans 1992). A small sample of non-lithic tools have been recovered across the state, including ivory spear foreshafts, bone and antler PPKs, bone needles, and worked fossil shark teeth (Dunbar and Webb 1996; Milanich 1994).

Paleoindians in Florida exploited a wide variety of animals and plants for food. Evidence for megafauna exploitation in Florida include a mammoth vertebra with visible butchering marks on its surface recovered from the Santa Fe River in north central Florida and the partial skeleton of an extinct species of bison (Bison antiquus) with a stone PPK still lodged in the skull found in the Wacissa River in northwest Florida (Milanich 1994). Faunal remains from the Little Salt Spring and sites on the Aucilla River demonstrate the wide breadth of species consumed by Paleoindian groups, including sloth, tapir, horse, camelids, mammoth, deer, fish, turtles, shellfish, opossum, rabbit, and muskrat. Evidence suggests that Paleoindian groups consumed plant foods as well. At the Little Salt Springs site, located just north of Charlotte Bay on the Gulf Coast, archaeologists recovered botanical remains including berries, roots, seeds, and nuts (Borremans 1992; Milanich 1994).

Throughout the period, Paleoindian sites are interpreted as the remains of small, mobile bands of hunter-gatherer groups. The small size of most Paleoindian sites suggests these bands consisted of nuclear families or extended families, although larger group aggregations may have occurred at quarry sites (Milanich 1994). Sites located near fresh water sources are interpreted as seasonally reoccupied base camps; small lithic scatters are interpreted as short-term camps that represent brief stays for resource procurement (Milanich 1994). The location of high-quality chert for stone tool production also played a significant role in Paleoindian settlement systems. Quarry sites were likely visited on a regular basis to obtain raw materials for tool production and numerous sites have been found in association with chert outcrops. Cores, flakes, and other evidence of initial tool reduction are typically found at these sites (Borremans 1992).

Archaeological research conducted on the now submerged Coastal Plain suggests Paleoindian settlement was focused on riverine environments. Geological studies of inundated riverine,

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 9 lagoon, and marsh deposits along the Florida coast suggest estuarine resources in these areas were utilized by Paleoindian groups (Borremans 1992). A survey conducted along the drowned channel of the Aucilla River in northwest Florida identified nine submerged Paleoindian sites. Diagnostic Paleoindian PPKs were recovered from these sites, including Suwannee PPKs as well as later Early and Middle Archaic PPKs (Faught 2004). These sites varied in size and artifact diversity suggesting the presence of base camps and short-term, resource procurement camps similar to those found in the interior.

3.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8,000-500 B.C.)

The Archaic period is typically divided into three subperiods based predominantly on the changes in PPK morphology through time: Early Archaic (8,000–5,000 B.C.); Middle Archaic (5,000–3,000 B.C.); and Late Archaic (3,000–500 B.C.). The general trend was toward increasing sedentism throughout the period, culminating in the appearance of the first fully sedentary villages during the Late Archaic period. Ceramic technology appeared during the Late Archaic. The end of the Archaic period is marked by the appearance of regional cultures in different parts of the peninsula. These regional cultures are primarily defined based on technological and stylistic differences in ceramic assemblages.

Sea-level rise and increasingly wetter climatic conditions constitute the largest changes to the environment along the Florida Peninsula during the Archaic period. Although the general climactic trend was towards increasingly wetter conditions, there were marked fluctuations in climate (Milanich 1994). The period from 8,000 to 6,000 B.C. was markedly wetter than the preceding Paleoindian period, while the period from 6,000 to 3,000 B.C. was drier than the previous 2,000 years. By 3,000 B.C., the climate of Florida was similar to that of today (Milanich 1994).

The wetter climate brought about changes in both the hydrology and flora on the Florida Peninsula. Pollen data suggest that during this period, mixed forests gradually replaced the xerophytic oak-pine forest that had dominated the landscape during the Paleoindian period (Pelletier et al. 2004). The moister climate also resulted in an increase in surface water across the state, expanding the number of pond, lake, marsh, and swamp environments across the peninsula.

Sea-level rise, which began during the Paleoindian period as the glaciers associated with the last glacial maximum began to melt, continued during the Archaic period. As a result of rising sea levels, a large number of Archaic period sites have been inundated. The inundation of these sites has created a bias in our understanding of Archaic period lifeways as the majority of the available data are from interior sites in upland settings.

3.2.1 EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD (8,000-6,000 B.C.) Diagnostic PPKs from the Early Archaic consist of a variety of side-notched and stemmed varieties including the Bolen, Dalton, Hamilton, Kirk Serrated, Nuckolls, Santa Fe, Suwannee, and Wacissa types (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992). PPKs with side notches and bifurcated bases,

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 10 such as the Hamilton and Arredondo types, also date to this period (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992).

Early Archaic settlement and subsistence patterns appear to be similar to the preceding Paleoindian period. Early Archaic components are commonly found at sites with earlier Paleoindian occupations. This is most common at base camp sites (Milanich 1994). Types of Early Archaic sites include base camps, short-term camps, and quarry sites similar to those dated to the Paleoindian period (Russo 1992). The continuity in both site location and site types suggests Paleoindian lifeways generally continued into the Early Archaic period. Although the similarities in settlement pattern between the Early Archaic and Paleoindian periods are numerous, significant changes did occur. Early Archaic occupations are found in a more diverse set of locations and environments compared to early Paleoindian sites. The wetter conditions of the Early Archaic period resulted in an increase in available surface water, and Early Archaic populations appear to have expanded their occupation across the landscape as a result (Milanich 1994).

The second major development associated with Early Archaic populations was the appearance of a new type of site, the cemetery, which is not known for the preceding Paleoindian period. These sites are typically encountered in wet, marshy environments and shallow ponds, although later examples include internments in shell middens (Russo 1992). The practice of burying the dead in cemeteries located in low, wet, marshy environments persisted into the Middle Archaic period at sites such as Little Salt Spring in Sarasota County as well as sites in southern Florida (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992).

3.2.2 MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD (6,000-3,000 B.C.) Middle Archaic PPKs are typified by the stemmed PPK with a Christmas tree shaped blade such as the Levy, Marion, Newman, and Putnam types (Russo 1992). A hallmark of the Middle Archaic was the appearance and development of a blade industry (Milanich 1994). In addition to the PPKs, the Middle Archaic toolkit included a variety of specialized tools such as burins, microliths, and expedient forms.

While terrestrial animal and plant food resources continued to be exploited, the proliferation of shell middens in both riverine and coastal settings during the Middle through Late Archaic period demonstrate the importance of both freshwater and saltwater species of shellfish to these populations. At sites along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, marine shellfish such as quahogs, whelks, conchs, oysters, and scallops were common food items. At riverine sites, mystery and apple snails, as well as freshwater mussels were harvested (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992). The focus on riverine and coastal resources helped to establish a more sedentary settlement pattern, with increasing population sizes at base camps (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992).

3.2.3 LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (3,000-500 B.C.) Late Archaic PPKs are typically smaller, stemmed and corner-notched forms that include the Clay, Culbreath, Destin, Lafayette, Marion, Putnam, and Savannah types (Campbell et al. 2012;

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 11 Morehead et al. 2013). The Late Archaic tool kit also included a variety of temporally nondiagnostic formal and expedient stone tools such as scrapers, gravers, adzes, knives, drills, choppers, gouges, and hammerstones (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992).

One of the most significant technological developments of the Late Archaic period was the appearance of ceramic technology. The earliest ceramic ware found in Florida is fiber-tempered Orange ware ceramics, which appeared along the northeast coast of Florida ca. 2200 B.C. Shortly after the appearance of ceramic technology in northeast Florida, fiber-tempered ceramics appeared at sites in the southern portion of the state, as well as along the Gulf Coast and Florida Panhandle. Along the Gulf Coast, the earliest, fiber-tempered ceramics are defined as the Norwood series (Saunders and Hays 2004). Norwood series ceramics are similar in morphology and exterior surface decoration but have a greater amount of sand content in their paste compared to Orange wares (Russo 1992; Saunders and Hays 2004).

The increased exploitation of shellfish and coastal resources during the Late Archaic led to large shell midden sites covering several acres (Milanich 1994; Russo 1992). These shell midden sites consist of large, extensive sheet midden deposits or deep, ring-shaped mounds of shell arranged around open, circular areas. These interior spaces within shell-ring sites may have functioned as central plazas or living areas (Russo 1992; Sassaman 2005).

The variety of faunal and botanical remains at Late Archaic sites demonstrates continued reliance on a hunting and gathering subsistence strategy (Milanich 1994). Plant and animal resources available during different seasons have been recovered from sites, suggesting occupation year round. The larger size, increased depth, and evidence of year-round occupation based on faunal and botanical remains recovered from these sites indicates they represent occupations by semi-sedentary, and possibly even fully sedentary, hunter-gatherer groups (Russo 1992).

The larger sites appear to have been surrounded by a network of small, short-term resource procurement sites similar to those encountered during earlier periods. Russo (1992) has interpreted the relationship between large shell midden sites and these smaller, short-term camps as reflecting an integrated settlement system of large, centralized villages articulated with outlying habitation areas and resource processing stations.

3.3 WOODLAND PERIOD (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000)

The Woodland period in Florida is generally divided into three periods: the Early Woodland, represented by the Deptford culture (500 B.C.–A.D. 100); the Middle Woodland, represented by the Santa Rosa and Swift Creek cultures (A.D. 100–300); and the Late Woodland, represented by the Weeden Island culture (A.D. 300–900/1000). However, the Woodland Culture is poorly defined in the Central Florida Gulf Coast. Changes in pottery and technology beginning in the Late Archaic period are generally described as the Formative period. This culture gave rise to the later Weeden Island cultures.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 12 Climactic conditions during the Woodland period were similar to those of today across the Southeast. Sea levels continued to rise, but at a slower rate than in earlier periods, with sea levels rising approximately 2 m over the last 2,000 years (Avery 1992).

3.3.1 WEEDEN ISLAND CULTURE (MANASOTA CULTURE) (500 B.C.-A.D. 1000) Weeden Island cultures are generally distributed from Mobile Bay to the Atlantic Ocean and south through north and central Florida. Common Weeden Island cultural traits include distinctive decorated pottery, mound building and burial ceremonialism, and village sites. Gulf Coast sites are found as far south as Sarasota. There are several regional variations of the culture, based on regional adaptations to Florida’s varied environments. The southern manifestation of the Weeden Island culture is known as the Manasota Culture. Despite the distances between them, all Weeden Island cultures are thought to have shared a common belief system. The Manasota culture focused on fishing, hunting, and shell fish gathering. Burial practices include primary flexed mound burials. Dense shell middens (oysters, quahog, and scallops) are often found along the coast in elevated hammocks. Early Manasota pottery was sand-tempered and undecorated but later pottery was decorated with check and complicated stamping. This decorated pottery is often discovered in a funerary context within burial mounds (Milanich 1994).

3.4 MISSISSIPPIAN PERIOD (A.D. 1000-1500)

The Mississippian culture in southwest Florida is known as Safety Harbor and grew out of the earlier Manasota cultures. According to Willey (1949) and White (1982), the key aspects of the culture include large sites with a temple mound (or mounds); plazas along streams, coastal areas, inland lakes, and ponds; and typical Mississippian architecture (Lewis and Stout 1998; Payne 2002). Structural remains include daub, postholes/molds, wall trenches, hearths, and storage and refuse pits. There is little evidence of defensive constructions, such as palisades or embankments, around mound or other sites (Gardner 1971; Tesar 2006). Other features of these sites include cemeteries; an apparently reduced number of ceremonial sites as compared to the preceding periods; and a subsistence regime including evidence of maize agriculture, horticulture, and wild collected plants, as well as a wide range of fauna such as deer, small mammals, turtle, fish, and shellfish. Safety Harbor sites relied less on traditional Mississippian agriculture and focused on shellfish gathering (Milanich 1994).

3.5 HISTORIC CONTEXT

The historic period of Florida began with Spanish contact in 1513. The scope of Florida history is distilled here into a series of periods that capture the historical themes and topics that define the general region. Within the APE, primary early settlement centered on Charlotte Harbor and consisted of scattered Cuban fishing camps and pirates frequenting islands on the coast. The area known as Charlotte County was originally part of St. Johns County, then later separated through a series of county subdivisions including Hillsborough County, Manatee County, and DeSoto County. Charlotte County was divided from DeSoto County 1921 Cattle grazing, truck farming, and citrus were the primary economic pursuits in the area until the early 20th century,

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 13 but home and business development dominated the area from the 1950s and continue to be important economic factors. Small roads connected Charlotte County to larger population centers, and the closest of these to the APE was Interstate 75.

3.5.1 CONTACT PERIOD (A.D. 1500-1565) Spain made several attempts to colonize Florida in the early sixteenth century. The North American continent was first sighted by Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de Leon in March of 1513. He claimed the land for the Spanish crown and named it La Florida, meaning “Land of Flowers.” Spain launched multiple expeditions to settle their new discovery between 1513 and 1563, but Native Americans and the inhospitable wilderness prevented permanent settlement (Gannon 1996).

At the time that the first Spanish explorers, Juan Ponce de Leon, Panfilo de Narvaez, and Hernan de Soto, were making the first recorded European forays into Florida in the early 1500s, the northwestern portion of the State was occupied by the Apalachee chiefdoms, agricultural descendants of the Fort Walton Culture (Hann and Mcewan 1998). The Apalachee settlements included small farming hamlets, as well as larger villages and ceremonial mound centers. Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, a member of Narvaez’s party, recorded fields of planted maize around the villages (Gannon 1996). Narvaez ventured into the Apalachee region in 1528 in an attempt to find treasure (Gannon 1996). After one month in the area, more than 60 of Narvaez’s men were dead, and the party retreated to the Gulf Coast. There, they constructed small craft and set sail for Mexico, but a storm capsized the small boats off the coast of Texas, and all but eight of the men drowned. Of these survivors, only four reached Mexico (Gannon 1996).

A deadly hurricane prevented Tristan de Luna’s efforts to establish a colony on Pensacola Bay in 1559 (Burns 2008). Florida became increasingly important to Spain because it was located along the return route followed by Spanish treasure fleets. The crown wanted to prevent foreign countries from establishing a base in Florida that would threaten Spain’s communications with the Caribbean and Mexico (Johnson 1982).

The early contact with Spanish explorers, while brief, resulted in significant deleterious effects to the Native Americans. The influx of European trade goods, usually acquired via down-the-line exchange from other indigenous traders, brought about great changes in lifestyle as Native Americans incorporated new technologies and reoriented their economies to participate in the European goods trade networks (Holland Braund 1993). However, European diseases introduced by the explorers and traders decimated the local populations (Ramenofsky 1987). By the time the Spanish Franciscans established missions in northwestern Florida during the mid-seventeenth century, the Apalachee were much reduced in population and social cohesion.

Florida became increasingly important to the European powers because of its location along the return route followed by Spanish treasure fleets. The first attempt to establish a permanent colony was in 1559, when Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano and 900 colonists from Mexico established a settlement in the Pensacola Bay area (Lyon 1996), but the colony was destroyed

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 14 by a hurricane on September 19, 1559 (Lyon 1996). Later attempts at colonization by the French and Spanish were focused on the St. John’s River area, near modern day St. Augustine, on the Atlantic coast (Johnson 1982). Conflicts between the French and Spanish in Florida resulted in the destruction of the French colonies in the 1560s and the establishment of a fixed Spanish foothold centered in the St. John’s River area (Burns 2008). While Spain emerged victorious over the French in Florida, conflict with the English continued intermittently for the next 200 years.

3.5.2 FIRST SPANISH PERIOD (A.D. 1559-1763) The First Spanish period is defined by an era in which Spain first claimed ownership of Florida over the English and the French (Handly et al. 2012). The French presence in Florida threatened Spain’s supply of gold and silver, which was carried in galleons along the coastline en route to Spain. King Phillip II named Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, a nobleman with extensive naval experience in Spain and the New World, as governor of Florida and instructed him to explore and further colonize the territory. St. Augustine was established as a permanent Spanish settlement in 1565 by Avilés.

Spanish settlement in northwestern Florida during this period appears to have been sparse. Fort Santa Maria de Galve was established by the Spanish in 1698 in Pensacola Bay in an attempt to thwart France’s presence in the area. San Jose was a military outpost established in 1702 at St. Joseph’s Bay (Handly et al. 2008). The French established Fort Crevecoeur at St. Joseph’s Bay in 1717, which was abandoned by 1718. The Spanish erected their own fort in the same location, but it was also eventually abandoned. In 1754, there appears to have been a Spanish settlement located somewhere on St. Andrews Bay, although evidence is anecdotal (Handly et al. 2008).

Spanish colonial rule in Florida had a significant impact on the local Native American populations. The principal instrument of Spanish influence and control was the establishment of the mission system along the Atlantic coast from the St. Augustine north through coastal Georgia (Saunders 1992). Franciscan missions in Florida were established in pre-existing Native American village areas. While Spanish governors held supreme authority, local native officials were allowed to retain a degree of cultural and political influence (Hann 1996). The missions’ primary goal was not of economic enterprise, as was the case in missions established in the Western U.S. While native peoples living at missions did work for the Spanish overlords, they often settled in the missions of their own accord for economic reasons (Hann 1996) and possibly to find refuge after their own homelands were devastated by disease and raiding (Ramenofsky 1987).

Missions among the Apalachee were established in the Tallahassee region in the 1630s and 1640s (Hann 1996). The mission on the Apalachicola River was the farthest west of the Franciscan churches in Florida prior to establishment of the Recollect Order’s missions in the 1670s (Hann 1996). Groups like the Tama from central Georgia and the Chine and Chacato from northeastern Florida migrated to the Apalachee missions throughout the mid-1600s.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 15 Estimates during the middle of the seventeenth century list 15,000 to 20,000 people living in the Apalachee area (Hann 1996). The local population of mixed Apalachee, Chacato, Chine, Amacano, Pacha, Tama-Yamasee, and others lived in 40 settlements, 11 of which were incorporated into the missions (Hann 1996). By the end of the seventeenth century, disease epidemics reduced local populations, and raids from native groups allied to the British in the Carolinas destroyed the mission settlements. Following the raids, the Spanish abandoned Apalachee in 1704. The remnant native population dispersed to Mobile, Pensacola, and St. Augustine (Hann 1996).

3.5.3 BRITISH PERIOD (A.D. 1763-1781) The Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) broke out between England and France in North America and later spread to Europe. Spain remained neutral until 1762 (Johnson 1982). Spain was allied with France and feared that a British victory in North America would destroy the balance of power. The British captured Havana in 1762, and Spain ceded Florida to England in the Treaty of Paris in 1763 (Johnson 1982).

After England gained control of Florida, the territory was divided into West Florida and East Florida. East Florida included the Florida Peninsula and ended at the Apalachicola River. West Florida included the Florida Panhandle and portions of southern Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Apart from the capitals at St. Augustine and Pensacola, the province was almost devoid of European settlement (Burns 2008).

To attract European settlers, the governors of West Florida offered small tracts of land in exchange for service in the Seven Years War (Fabel 1996). However, poor soils, lack of the trade that was expected with Mexico, and frequent disease epidemics kept the province poor and largely undeveloped. In 1770, West Florida was home to 3,700 white and 12,000 black settlers, along with approximately 30,000 people belonging to the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Creek nations (Fabel 1996:136). Most of the new settlers were concentrated in the Natchez Tract in Mississippi and around the towns of Mobile and Pensacola (Coker 1996; Fabel 1996). Small farmsteads were established in the rural areas of the Florida Panhandle, and the forests were harvested for lumber, but the area was mostly occupied by remnant Apalachee and Creek groups (Hudson 1976; Ramsey 1988).

Florida had become Britain’s informal fourteenth colony, but the protectorate did not send a delegate to Philadelphia when the Declaration of Independence was signed (Boatner 1992; Burns 2008). Florida was still a garrison colony and was dependent on English arms for protection (Johnson 1982). The majority of the European population consisted of soldiers and officers, officials, and dependents (Wright 1975). The region was also a haven for Loyalist refugees.

When France entered the American Revolutionary War, allied Spain also declared war on Britain. The Spanish Governor of Louisiana, Bernardo de Galvez, defeated the British garrisons at Baton Rouge, Natchez, and Mobile. Then, in 1781, he besieged and eventually occupied

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 16 Pensacola (Fabel 1996). Florida was returned to Spain at the Second Treaty of Paris in 1783 in thanks for assisting America during the war for independence (Morris et al. 2002). The transfer of flags took place in St. Augustine in July of 1784.

3.5.4 SECOND SPANISH PERIOD (A.D. 1781-1821) Spain retained the division of Florida’s eastern and western provinces after formally taking over the territory in 1784 (Coker and Parker 1996). Most British residents departed for other parts of the British Empire or settled in the U.S. following the return of Florida to the Spanish. Those that remained were required to take an oath of allegiance to Spain. The population during the Second Spanish period included British, Minorcans, Italians, Greeks, refugee slaves from the former English colonies, and Spanish residents from the First Spanish period (Johnson 1982).

The poor Spanish colony was not economically vital to Spain, and pieces of the territory were gradually ceded to the U.S. In addition to lumber products, the Panhandle region saw increased trapping of deer for the skin-trade, particularly with British, and later American trading companies (Coker and Parker 1996; Pavao-Zuckerman 2007). The Creek Nation was the ethnic majority group in the northern Panhandle during this period (Coker and Parker 1996). Formerly enslaved Africans who had escaped from Alabama, Georgia, and eastern Florida cohabitated with the Creeks in the Panhandle region (Coker and Parker 1996:156).

Spanish Florida continually felt pressure from its neighbors to the north. The Spanish territory was considered by President James Madison to be “at all times a source of irritation and ill blood with the U.S.” (Cusick 2003, quoted in Burns 2008:10). It was Madison’s hope that it be occupied and absorbed into the U.S. The Spanish government in St. Augustine offered freedom to runaway slaves from nearby states and territories to reinforce their presence in Florida (Burns 2008; Griffin 1983).

Good trade relations did not quench the U.S.’ desire to control Florida. The U.S. Army attempted to invade and occupy northeastern Florida between 1812 and 1813 in an effort to dominate the region. The Patriot War, as it is now known, resulted in no new land acquisitions for the U.S., but it did leave numerous plantations in ruin and intensified tensions between the U.S. and Spain (Burns 2008). During the War of 1812, the British, who were then allied with Spain, launched attacks on Mobile and New Orleans from Spanish-occupied Pensacola. After successfully defending both cities, American General Andrew Jackson attacked the British fortifications in Pensacola (Coker and Parker 1996:156).

The First Seminole War, which began when American troops attacked a Creek village in Georgia, was fought partly in northwestern Florida, specifically in areas of what is now Calhoun County. On December 13, 1817, a large force of Seminole and Creek attacked the Creek village, Blountstown, due to the political affiliation of its leader, Chief John Blount (Calhoun County Chamber of Commerce 2014). Later in December 1817, the same group attacked American supply boats on the Apalachicola near Ocheese Bluff, also in what is now northeastern Calhoun County (Missall and Missall 2004).

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 17 In 1818, Creek and African raiders from Negro Fort near the mouth of the Apalachicola River were attacking farmsteads in the region and up into southern Georgia and Alabama. General Jackson attacked the fort and then proceeded to attack Spanish troops in Pensacola on the pretext that they were collaborators with the Creek Nation (Coker and Parker 1996).

President James Monroe supported the acquisition of Florida during his 1821 inauguration speech by stating “it would provide neighboring states access to the ocean, its Gulf coast harbor could berth warships” (Waterbury 1983:151). Spain lost Florida when thousands of Americans settled there and made the country ungovernable. The U.S. Government seized the opportunity afforded by Spain’s lack of control and negotiated the purchase of the territory. Spain officially ceded all of Florida to the U.S. with the signing of the Adams-Onis Treaty in February of 1821 (Franklin and Morris 1996:51; Morris et al. 2002).

3.5.5 TERRITORIAL PERIOD (1821-1845) Tallahassee was chosen as the state capital in 1821 because of its central location, granting representatives from each part of the state equal access to a common meeting place (Schafer 1996). Florida’s economy grew and diversified under American rule. Growth was spurred by the production of citrus fruit and sugar, which led to land speculation and the improvement of transportation facilities. Merchant vessel traffic increased as trade between the U.S. and the Caribbean region flourished. Goods from New York, New Orleans, and Charleston were imported to St. Augustine, while oak, cedar, timber, pine, cotton, bricks, oranges, and other items were exported (Burns 2008). American merchant ships, predominantly coastal schooners, were the key to the commercial expansion and economic viability of the new territory (Morris et al. 2002).

3.5.6 AMERICAN STATEHOOD AND CIVIL WAR PERIOD (A.D. 1845-1865) Florida became the 27th State admitted to the Union in 1845. The northwestern portion of the State held 15 percent of the population, most of it rural. Pensacola was the largest city in the region, with 2,900 inhabitants (Brown 1996). The largely frontier-like conditions of northwestern (and eastern) Florida were the opposite of middle Florida’s wealthy cotton and citrus plantations, which contained two-thirds of the State’s enslaved population (Brown 1996). The disparate economies led to internal conflict on the subject of secession. As municipalities voted on slavery and secession, bands of armed regulators representing both sides of the issue rode about intimidating voters (Cox 2008). Despite abolitionist sympathizers in northwestern and parts of eastern Florida, the wealthy and politically connected land-owning class of middle Florida pushed for secession, and Florida became the third State to secede from the Union in 1861 (Brown 1996).

The Civil War began in Florida two days after the shelling of Fort Sumter. Union troop buildup began at Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island in Pensacola Bay in early 1861. On April 13, 1861, Confederate troops began shelling the Union position but were quickly defeated by the Union navy (Brown 1996). The Confederate forces under General Braxton Bragg attempted several more times to dislodge the fortified Federal forces, but abandoned Pensacola by March of 1862

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 18 (Brown 1996). Port cities like Apalachicola and other southern coastal cities found themselves at the mercy of Union blockades by the spring of 1862 (Burns 2009). Skirmishing continued throughout the state, but no major battles took place. Nevertheless, the Union blockade and forced conscription of a large percentage of able-bodied men left Florida impoverished by 1864 (Brown 1996).

3.5.7 RECONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION (A.D. 1865-1940) Much of Florida struggled after the conclusion of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Freed Blacks established homesteads or share-cropped much of the former plantation lands, leading to conflicts with former planters (Shofner 1996:250). On the other hand, migration of the wealthy planter class and northerners to peninsular Florida created a thriving citrus-growing and tourist economy (Burns 2008).

Things remained largely unchanged in the general region during the late 19th century. White yeoman and black farmers continued to grow cotton, corn, vegetables, sugar-cane, and tobacco as sharecroppers and tenant farmers (Proctor 1996). The timber industry also continued to operate.

Naval stores, also referred to as the turpentine industry, were a part of the timber industry in the southeastern U.S. Naval stores were produced through the industrial rendering of the sap or gum (oleoresin) gathered from pine trees, most notably the longleaf pine and slash pine. The naval stores industry, and its associated settlement patterns, were extractive systems closely linked with lumber and timber (Butler 1998). The naval stores industry supplied needed turpentine and rosin to the world market and provided employment for residents of Florida during the late 19th through middle 20th century. Turpentine and rosin were both used in many American household products including paints, medicines, hair spray, and cosmetics (Butler 1998).

Many of the families involved in the naval stores industry migrated to Florida in the decades following the Civil War from the Carolinas, as war and a long history of timbering negatively affected the industry in those states (Blount 1993). The influx of people from North and South Carolina helped exploit the vast timber resources of Florida. This business opportunity can be seen in contemporary advertisements proclaiming that ready fortunes were available in Florida for a hardy few. For example, in 1889 the New York Times described the timber and turpentine business in Florida as “A business that promises well for hardy men, money to be made in the cypress swamps and pine woods with honest, hard work” (New York Times 1889). The development of improved transportation systems during this period, such as improved roads, railroads, and narrow gauge tram railroads, allowed the naval stores industry to spread and utilize the resources farther from settled areas (Butler 1998). In 1850, Florida accounted for only 1.05 percent of naval stores production in the U.S. By 1900, Florida claimed 31.8 percent of the U.S. production, and became the national leader. Florida held the lead until 1924, when Georgia became the national leader and remained so until the demise of the industry after WWII (Martinkovic 2006).

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 19 3.5.8 1941-PRESENT DAY Punta Gorda Army Air Field

Within a year of its entry into WWII, the U.S. constructed more than 40 military airfields in Florida. Due to its flat terrain, climate, and access to large bodies of water, the state was well suited to building airfields and training pilots. In May 1942, the U.S. Army Air Corps acquired 225 acres of undeveloped cattle range lands located about three miles southeast of Punta Gorda. In October the Punta Gorda Army Air Field (PGAAF) was classified as an Operational Training Unit Station (Medium Bombardment) with a mission to train pilots for duty overseas. Construction began that same month. In December 1943, the airfield was activated and the air base completed (Charlotte County Historical Center n.d.; Charlotte County, Florida n.d.).

According to a County history of the airfield (Charlotte County Historical Center n.d.):

The base had 61 service buildings including two six-aircraft nose-dock maintenance hangars, training buildings, a Chapel-Theater Building, an Officer’s Club, Mess Hall, classrooms, fir[e] station, dispensary, and control tower. Housing for student offices and enlisted men included 268 hutments, commonly known as “Tent City” by its inhabitants. The first trainees arrived in February 1944. Training took 15 weeks.

Figure 3-1 No-longer-extant tent barracks or “hutments” at left, and air tower at right, 1944

(Sources: http://ccflhistory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15007coll1/id/2688/rec/23 and http://ccflhistory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15007coll1/id/3883/rec/42)

After less than two years of operation, the airfield was deactivated on September 1, 1945. The Punta Gorda Herald praised the base and its soldiers and wrote, presciently, that “before long

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 20 the presence of the army here will be only a memory (republished in Fort Myers News-Press 1945).” In November 1946, the federal War Assets Administration approved transfer of the air field to Charlotte County. The transfer of the field had three provisos: the government could use a portion of the airfield at no costs and all of it in the event of a national emergency, and the County had to operate it as a public airport (Fort Myers News-Press 1946). Since 1946 the former base has housed the Charlotte County Airport.

Former PGAAF Bunker/EAA Chapter 565 Building

History

The Seminole Airforce Chapter 565 Experiment Aircraft Association (EAA), which repurposed and occupies the former PGAAF bunker, provides a brief history and description of the building (Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 565 n.d.):

[President Charles] Sarles and other founding members [of the EAA] had their eyes on an abandoned concrete bunker at the south end of the airfield. Built in October 1940 on the Punta Gorda air base - home of the 502nd fighter/bomber squadron and the 490th fighter squadron - this three-sided structure appeared virtually unusable, and it took some imagination to see its potential.

The bunker was used from 1941 to 1945 for sighting-in aircraft machine guns. Its concrete walls were 18 inches thick and filled with sand so bullets from the machine guns would not penetrate them. Wooden beams on the inside prevented rounds from ricocheting.

In 1978, the Chapter received permission to lease the building, and renovations began soon after.

(The dates are not entirely accurate: the bunker was not constructed until 1943 and put into service in 1944.)

In 1980 EAA Chapter 565 heavily altered the bunker, converting it into their clubhouse. They retained the rectangular building’s three concrete walls and monolithic front parapet (Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-4) However, they repaired and resurfaced all of the concrete, poured new concrete floors, built partition walls and otherwise reconfigured the once open interior, and added a wall, doors, and windows to the formerly open front elevation (Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-8). Only the building’s walls, beneath their surface changes, were left intact.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 21 Figure 3-2 Airfield from tower with bunker, likely, at center top of photograph, 1944

(Source: http://ccflhistory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15007coll1/id/5928/rec/19)

Figure 3-3 Enlargement of figure with bunker at top, thatched hut at center, and tower at right

(Source: http://ccflhistory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p15007coll1/id/5928/rec/19)

Figure 3-4 Images of abandoned bunker taken after EAA Chapter 566 purchase, ca.1980

(Source: http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=191981499 and http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=191981498)

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 22 Figure 3-5 EAA Chapter 566 working on repurposing exterior of former bunker, ca.1980

(Source: http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=191981481 and http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=191981479)

Figure 3-6 EAA Chapter 566 working on repurposing interior of former bunker, ca.1980

(Source: http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=191981486 and http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=191981483)

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 23 Figure 3-7 Front elevation and interior of former bunker, April 2017

(Source: http://www.565.eaachapter.org/apps/photos/photo?photoid=203954152)

Figure 3-8 North front elevation of former bunker at left, and west side and north rear

3.6 LITERATURE SEARCH AND FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE REVIEW

An archaeological and historical literature and background information search pertinent to the project APE was conducted to determine the types, chronology, and locations of previously recorded cultural resources and studies within the APE. This included a search of the FMSF, NHRP nomination forms, and cultural resource management reports on file at the FDHR in Tallahassee.

Examination of the FMSF indicated that no National Register-listed sites are present within the APE or within a one-mile (0.8 kilometers [km]) radius of the APE. The FMSF indicated that there are four archaeological sites, 13 standing resources, 12 cultural resource studies, eight

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 24 resource groups, one cemetery, and one bridge present within one mile (0.8 km). These resources and studies are depicted in Figure 3-9 and Appendix C.

PGD is recorded as a resource group (8CH2058) due to its role in WWII as the Punta Gorda Army Airfield. The property was classified as a designed historic landscape and has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The objective of the Phase IB archaeological survey of the current APE was to identify cultural resources, if present, and assess them, if possible, for NRHP significance.

4.1 RESEARCH

Prior to the start of the fieldwork, background research was conducted at a variety of institutions to characterize the general history of occupation and land use of the survey areas to identify previously documented archaeological sites and historic structures, and the potential locations of historic structures and occupations. Resources accessed included:

 FMSF,

 General Land Office Records of the Bureau of Land Management (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx),

 Land Boundary Information System of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (http://www.labins.org/),

 Aerial Photography: Florida of the University of Florida Digital Collections at the George A. Smathers Libraries (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/aerials),

 Map and Imagery Collections of the University of Florida Digital Collections at the George A. Smathers Libraries (http://ufdcweb1.uflib.ufl.edu/maps), and

 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer (http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/).

4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS

The property was investigated using a combination of visual surface inspection, photo documentation of existing field conditions, and subsurface shovel testing. The majority of the APE contained large portions of heavily disturbed soils and was subjected to visual surface inspection. Shovel testing was completed in areas where potential for intact deposits existed, and followed the proposed archaeological probability model. The archaeological probability model was adjusted based on field conditions.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 25 Path: S:\Projects\C\Charlotte Co Airport Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Cultural Resources\180108_CRAS Figure 3-9 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources_rev0.mxd, Date Saved: 2/5/2018 10:04:55 AM ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES DISCLOSURE OFLOCATIONS FIGURE REDACTEDTOAVOID 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL 5-YEAR PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT GORDA PUNTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PREVIOUSLY CULTURAL RESOURCES RESOURCES CULTURAL (WITHIN ONE MILE) (WITHIN ONE FIGURE 3-9 4.3 ARCHAEOLIGICAL PROBABILITY MODEL

Prior to the field survey, a probability model was developed to aid in determining the shovel testing intensity to be applied within a particular portion of the Airport property. Due to the poorly drained soils and lack of major drainages, the location was deemed to be low probability. However, in locations within the mapped boundaries of 8CH2058 (Punta Gorda Army Airfield), the probability was increased to moderate (Figure 4-1). The moderate probability areas were tested at 50-m intervals, and low probability areas were tested at 100-m intervals.

The intensity of testing was also adjusted to account for poorly drained areas with standing water and for areas of ground disturbance.

4.4 SHOVEL TESTING

STPs measured 50 centimeters (cm) in diameter and excavated to subsoil or 100 cm below ground surface (bgs). All soil excavation was performed with a long handled round (spade) shovel. STPs were excavated at 25-m intervals for high probability areas. STPs were excavated in 10-cm arbitrary levels, and soils were screened through a 0.635-millimeter (1/4-inch) mesh.

STP data were recorded on standardized forms, including information on depth of each individual STP, the number of artifacts, provenience, and soil conditions. Munsell soil charts were used to describe soil color. Standard soils nomenclature was used to describe soil textures. All of the STPs were backfilled.

5. SURVEY AREA RESULTS

The following section presents the results within the ten discrete parcels under study. These areas were labelled (A-J) for ease of discussion and data presentation (Figure 5-1). The first section describes the archaeology results, and the second section describes the historical architecture results in parcel J.

5.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS

5.1.1 AREA A Area A is a roughly 8.6-acre (3.5-hectare) parcel consisting of low-lying flat terrain with wetland vegetation (Figure 5-2). Brian Duke communicated that in a “good portion of the year this area is standing water.” The area has been impacted by soil disturbing activities within the last two years for the installation of new Federal Aviation Administration landing equipment. Two STPs were excavated on the northern and southern limits of this area where soils exhibited a mix of dark, hydric soils mixed with light grey soils beyond 50 cm bgs (Figure 5-1).

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 27 A

G H I J

LEGEND Property Boundary Archaeological APE Survey Areas Archeological Probability Low Moderate Feet º 0 2,400 Sources: USDA NRCS, 2016; FDOT APLUS, 2014.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT ARCHEOLOGICAL FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROBABILITY MODEL Path: S:\Projects\C\CharlottePath: Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 Co Airport GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Cultural Figure Resources\180108_CRAS 4-1 Probability Archeo Model_rev0.mxd, Date Saved:3:04:39 1/9/2018 PM A1 A !(

!(A2

B4 B3 !( !( B B2 B5 !( !( !(B1

C1 !( C !( C2 C3 !(

G H I I1 !( J1 !(J

D2 D !(

E1 D1 !( !( E2 !( E LEGEND F3 !( Property Boundary E3 !( F Archaeological !(!( F2 Survey Areas F1 !( Shovel Test Pit Locations Feet 0 1,800 º Sources: FDOT APLUS, 2014.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIELD TESTING FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM MAP 5-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\CharlottePath: Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 Co Airport GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\180205_CRAS 5-1 Figure Testing Map_rev0.mxd, Field Saved: 2/5/2018 AM Date 9:01:13 5.1.2 AREA B Area B is a roughly 33.3-acre (13.5-hectare) parcel consisting of previous ground disturbing activities. The southern limits of this area consist of a graded drainage ditch and flattened area north of Runway 9/27. Within the northern limits of this area, the southwestern quadrant consists of recently logged terrain with heavily disturbed soils throughout. The southeastern quadrant consists of flat terrain with evidence of previously planted orange groves with remnant furrows present in addition to a buried cable and associated drainage ditch. The northeastern quadrant consists of a, wide area previously known as a “FEMA Staging Area” where a thick mat of gravels have been laid down (Figure 5-3). Mr. Duke communicated this was the main Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staging area for Hurricane Charlie debris removal. No STPs were excavated in the gravel area. The northwestern quadrant consists of heavy palmetto and mixed pine scrub forest where orange grove and fallow forest existed. Despite this area being potentially the least-disturbed of all the property, the soils still indicate a low-lying, almost constantly wet conditions (Figure 5-4). A total of five STPs were excavated in Area B (Figure 5-1).

5.1.3 AREA C Area C, which measures 4.7 acres (1.9 hectares), consists of two low-lying wet areas with constantly inundated conditions with heavy vegetation within the central portion of the main runway area. Area C (Figure 5-4). Three STPs were excavated and revealed of multiple fill layers overlying hydric soils (Figure 5-1).

5.1.4 AREA D Area D consists of a 33.7-acre (13.6-hectare) swath of terrain immediately south of Runways 15-33 and 4-22. Because of busy air traffic, limited testing was completed nearest the runway areas as not to disrupt normal airport operations. Therefore, two STPs were excavated along the eastern and southern edges of an otherwise large wetland area with standing water. Here, soils exhibited constantly wet and hydric conditions (Figure 5-6). The area is an active cow pasture with a moderate amount of soil disturbance, due primarily to tree removal for the clearing of the southern runway flight approach area. A total of two STPs were excavated in Area D (Figure 5-1).

5.1.5 AREA E Area E, which measures 24 acres (9.72 hectares), is an active cow pasture which consists of a low-lying wetland (Figure 5-7). The soils exhibited constantly wet and hydric conditions. A total of three STPs were excavated along the edges of the standing water related to the wetland (Figure 5-1).

5.1.6 AREA F Area F consists of a graded low-lying basin immediately south of Woodlawn Drive where buried water utility lines exist in the western portion of this area. Area F measures 10 acres (4 hectares). Here soils exhibited constantly wet conditions consistent with hydric wetland areas.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 30 The central portion of this area contained heavy palmetto brush in otherwise standing water wetland (Figure 5-8). No STPs were excavated in the inundated areas. The far eastern portion of this area consisted of a small sliver of cow pasture where a drainage ditch for the wetland and a graded drainage ditch for the roadway existed. One STP was excavated in this portion. In total, three STPs were excavated in Area F and all exhibited wetland soils (Figure 5-1).

5.1.7 AREA G Area G exhibits heavily disturbed soils in an area which contains remnant asphalt parking lot and concrete pads associated with a destroyed structure (Figure 5-1; Figure 5-9). Area G measures 1.21 acres (0.49 hectares). No integrity exists at all in Area G due to the excessive ground disturbance. No STPs were excavated in Area G due to the disturbances and impenetrable ground cover.

Figure 5-2 Area A

Overview of Area A, facing S.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 31 Figure 5-3 Area B

FEMA staging area in Area B.

Figure 5-4 Area B

Conditions in NW quadrant, facing NW.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 32 Figure 5-5 Area C

Central wetland in Area C, facing S.

Figure 5-6 Area D

Conditions of Area D, facing SE.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 33 Figure 5-7 Area E

Overview of field conditions in Area E, facing N.

Figure 5-8 Area F

Field conditions in Area F, facing SE.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 34 Figure 5-9 Area G

Field conditions in Area G, facing W.

5.1.8 AREA H Area H consists of a multitude of ground disturbances where large portions of asphalt and concrete pads exist (Figure 5-1: Figure 5-10). Area H measures 1.83 acres (0.74 hectares). Heavy equipment and employee vehicles are parked across this area. No STPs were excavated here due to the heavy disturbances and areas of impenetrable ground cover.

5.1.9 AREA I Area I consists of an array of ground disturbances associated with paved parking lots, staging areas for equipment, and an existing structure associated with the airport facilities (Figure 5- 11). Area I measures 3.41 acres (1.38 hectares). One STP was excavated in the central portion of this area to confirm soil disturbances (Figure 5-1).

5.1.10 AREA J Area J consists of heavily disturbed area associated with the grading of soils for the runway (Figure 5-12). Area J measures 2.14 acres (0.87 hectares). One STP was excavated here and consisted of heavily disturbed soils (Figure 5-1). This location also contained one World War II era structure, which is described below in the Architectural History Results.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 35 Figure 5-10 Area H

General field conditions in Area H, facing NW.

Figure 5-11 Area I

General field conditions in Area I, facing S.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 36 Figure 5-12 Area J

General field conditions in Area J, facing W.

5.2 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY RESULTS

The former bunker in Area J is the only standing resource that survived the Airport’s WWII history (Figure 5-1). (According to the Museum of Florida History (n.d.), though, “Numerous iron tie-downs used to secure fighter planes are still visible and are used today for civilian aircraft.” Some of these—small ground-level rings—remain in place.) During its 18-month operation between 1943 and 1945, the PGAAF had 61 service buildings that included maintenance hangars, training buildings, a chapel/theater building, an officer’s club, a mess hall, classrooms, a fire station, a dispensary, and a control tower. It additionally had 268 “hutments” organized in a “tent city” (Charlotte County Historical Center n.d.). It is therefore recommended that the former Punta Gorda Army Air Field is not eligible for National Register listing as a historic district due to a virtual complete loss of integrity. Its exceedingly low level of integrity would not support significance under any of the National Register Criteria.

The former bunker is also recommended as not individually eligible for National Register listing. Due to its numerous alterations, it too is believed to have lost its integrity. As with the former PGAAF as a whole, it’s extremely low level of integrity would not support significance under any of the National Register Criteria.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 37 6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AECOM conducted a Phase I CRAS of ten discrete locations (122.89 acres) at PGD in Charlotte County, Florida. These efforts included background research and field survey. Background research identified one cultural resource within the APE, the Punta Gorda Army Airfield (8CH2058).

The archaeological survey was performed from December 13-14, 2017. The archaeological investigations included ground surface reconnaissance and subsurface testing in all areas of proposed ground disturbance, and resulted in the excavation of 19 STPs. During this time, no archaeological resources were encountered. One masonry vernacular structure, a former WWII bunker known as EAA 565, is located in the APE but is not recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. No Historic Properties will be affected by the Proposed Project.

Based on the results of current survey, no further archaeological work is recommended for the APE. No Historic Properties will be affected by the Proposed Project.

6.1 UNANTICIPATED FINDS

Should future construction activities uncover any archaeological remains, it is recommended that activity in the immediate area of the remains be stopped while a professional archaeologist evaluates the remains. In the event that human remains are found during construction or maintenance activities, the provisions of Chapter 872.05, F.S. will apply. Chapter 872.05, F.S. states that when human remains are encountered all activity that might disturb the remains shall cease and may not resume until authorized by the District Medical Examiner or the State Archaeologist. The District Medical Examiner has jurisdiction if the remains are less than 75 years old or if the remains are involved in a criminal investigation. The State Archaeologist has jurisdiction if the remains are over 75 years of age or more.

7. REFERENCES

Adovasio, James M. and David R. Pedler 2005 The Peopling of North America. In North American Archaeology. Edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, pp. 30-55. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O’Steen, and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 Environmental and Chronological Considerations. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 3-15. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Avery, George 1992 Northwest Florida, 2,500 B.P. to A.D. 1000. In Florida’s Cultural Heritage: A View of the Past (Draft), edited by Claudine Payne and Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 29-36. Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Bense, Judith A.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 38 1985 Hawkshaw: Prehistory and History in an Urban Neighborhood in Pensacola, Florida. Reports of Investigation No. 7. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Blount, R.S. 1993 Spirits of Turpentine: A History of Florida Naval Stores, 1528 to 1950. Florida Agricultural Museum, Tallahassee, Florida.

Boatner, Mark M. III. 1992 Landmarks of the American Revolution: People and Place Vital to the Quest for Independence. Stackpole Book, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Borremans, Nina T. 1992 The Paleoindian Period. In Florida’s Cultural Heritage: A View of the Past (Draft), edited by Claudine Payne and Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 14-21. Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Brown, Canter Jr. 1996 The Civil War 1861-1865. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 231-248. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Burns, Jason 2008 Historical and Archaeological Resources Survey of Matanzas Harbor, St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. Submitted to the City of St. Augustine. Copies available from the Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

2009 Historic Assessment and Remote Sensing Survey of the St. Johns County Beach Erosion Control Project, St. Johns County, Florida. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Copies available from the Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Butler, Carol B. 1998 Treasures of the Longleaf Pine Naval Stores. Tarkel Publishing, Shalimar, Florida.

Charlotte County, Florida n.d. “Punta Gorda Army Airfield.” Accessed January 2018 at https://www.charlottecountyfl.gov/services/historical/Pages/HM-Punta-Gorda-Army- Airfield.aspx?marker=PUNTA+GORDA+ARMY+AIRFIELD.

Charlotte County Historical Center n.d. “Punta Gorda Army Airfield, 1942-1945.” Accessed January 2018 at https://www.charlottecountyfl.gov/services/historical/Site%20Documents/PGAAF- Interactive-Web.pdf.

Coker, William S., and Susan R. Parker 1996 The Second Spanish Period in the Two Floridas. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 150-166. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Cox, Dale A.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 39 2008 Civil War Florida. The Calhoun County War of 1860. Electronic Document http://civilwarflorida.blogspot.com/2008/01/calhoun-county-war-of-1860.html. Accessed March 15, 2017.

Cusick, James G. 2003 The Other War of 1812: The Patriot War and the American Invasion of Spanish East Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Delcourt and Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 years B.P. to Present. In Geobotany. R. Romans (ed.). Plenum, New York. pp. 123-166.

1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered. Quaternary Research 19:265-271.

1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments. V. M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway (eds.). American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation, College Station, Texas. pp. 1-37.

1987 Long Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late Quaternary Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies No. 63, Springer Verlag, New York.

Dunbar, James S. and S. David Webb 1996 Bone and Ivory Tools from Submerged Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In, The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 331-353. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

ESRI 2015 ArcGIS Map Service, ArcMap 10.1. Esri, Redlands, California.

Experimental Aircraft Association Chapter 565 n.d. “A brief history of the EAA 565 building.” Accessed January 2018 at http://www.565.eaachapter.org/chapterhistory.htm.

Fabel, Robin F.A. 1996 British Rule in the Floridas. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 134-149. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Faught, Michael K. 2004 The Underwater Archaeology of Paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. American Antiquity. 69(2):275-289.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 2014 Land Boundary Information System. Electronic document, http://www.labins.org/, accessed March 15, 2017.

Florida Division of Historic Resources (FDHR) 2002 Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operational Manual. Tallahassee.

2011 Module Three: Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals. Tallahassee.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 40 2015 Florida Master Site File. Tallahassee.

Fort Myers News-Press 1945 “Punta Gorda Airbase Closed.” September 1, 1945.

1946 “Airport is Given to Punta Gorda.” November 15, 1946.

Franklin, Marianne and John W. Morris 1996 Southern Oceans Archaeological Research, Inc. Survey Report No. 1: A Remote Sensing Survey of St. Augustine, Florida. Southern Oceans Archaeological Research, Pensacola, Florida.

Gannon, Michael 1996 First European Contacts. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 16-39. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

2009 Operation Drumbeat: The Dramatic True Story of Germany’s First U-Boat Attacks Along the American Coast in World War II. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland.

Gardner, William M. 1971 Fort Walton in Inland Florida. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 10(2):48-50.

General Land Office (GLO) 2010 The Official Federal Land Records Site. Electronic document, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/default.aspx, accessed March 15, 2017.

Griffin, Patricia C. 1983 The Spanish Return: The People-Mix Period, 1784-1821. In The Oldest City, edited by Jean Parker Waterbury. St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida.

Hann, John H. 1996 The Missions of Spanish Florida. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 78-99. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Hann, John H. and Bonnie G. Mcewan 1998 The Apalachee Indians and Mission San Luis. Native Peoples, Cultures and Places of the Southeastern U.S. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.

Holland Braund, Kathryn E. 1993 Deerskins and Duffels: The Creek Indian Trade with Anglo-America, 1685-1815. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln, Nebraska.

Hudson, Charles 1976 The Southeastern Indians. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Johnson, Mark 1982 The Military and Militia in Colonial Spanish America, St. Augustine Florida. Department of Military Affairs, Florida National Guard, St. Augustine, Florida.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 41 Lewis, R. Barry, and Charles Stout (editors) 1998 Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lyon, Eugene 1996 Settlement and Survival. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 40-61. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Martinkovic, Mark F. 2006 Patterns in the Piney Woods: Naval Stores Site Catchment Analysis and Predictive Model, Washington County, Florida. Master Thesis on File, University of West Florida Archaeology Institute, Pensacola, Florida. Copies also available from the Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Milanich, Jerald T. 1973 The Southeastern Deptford Culture: A Preliminary Definition. Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 3:51-63. Tallahassee.

1994 Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

1996 Original Inhabitants. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 1-15. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Missall, John and Mary Lou Missall 2004 The Seminole Wars: America’s Longest Indian Conflict. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Mormino, Gary R. 1996 World War II. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 323-343. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Morris, J. William, III, J.M. Burns and R.E. Moore 2002 St. Johns County Submerged Cultural Resources Inventory and Management Plan 2001- 2002 Phase I (Volumes I and II). Submitted to the St. Augustine Lighthouse and Museum, Inc., St. Augustine. Copies available from the Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Museum of Florida History website n.d. “Florida’s World War II Memorial, Punta Gorda Army Airfield.” Accessed January 2018 at http://www.museumoffloridahistory.com/exhibits/permanent/wwii/sites.cfm?PR_ID=34.

National Park Service (NPS) 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/, accessed March 15, 2017.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 2015a Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, accessed March 15, 2017.

2015b Official Soils Series Descriptions. Electronic resource, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detailfull/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053587, accessed March 15, 2017.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 42 New York Times 1889 Lumbering in Florida: A Business that Promises Well for Hardy Men, Money to be Made in the Cypress Swamps and Pines Woods with Honest, Hard Work. Advertisement. December 1, 1889.

Otvos, Ervin G. 1992 Quaternary evolution of the Apalachicola Coast, northeastern Gulf of Mexico. In Charles H. Fletcher, III, and John F. Wehmiller (editors), Quaternary Coasts of the United States: Marine and Lacustrine Systems. SEPM Special Publications No. 48, 221-232.

2005 Coastal Barriers, Gulf of Mexico: Holocene Evolution and Chronology. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 42:141-163.

Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet 2007 Deerskins and Domesticates: Creek Subsistence and Economic Strategies in the Historic Period. American Antiquity 72(1):5-33.

Payne, Claudine 2002 Architectural Reflections of Power and Authority in Mississippian Towns. In The Dynamics of Power, edited by Maria O’Donovan, pp. 188-213. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 30, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Pelletier, Jean B., Samuel Turner, Martha R. Williams, Anthony Randolph, and Gregg Brooks 2004 Historic Assessment and Remote Sensing Survey of the Duval County Shore Protection Sand Source, Duval County, Florida. R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Copies available from the Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Proctor, Samuel 1996 Prelude to the New Florida. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 266-286. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Ramenofsky, Ann R. 1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Ramsey, Andrew Boggs 1988 Harjo-Boggas-Parrot Written History. Volume IV. On file, University of West Florida University Archives and West Florida History Center, Pensacola, Florida.

Russo, Michael 1992 The Archaic. In Florida’s Cultural Heritage: A View of the Past (Draft), edited by Claudine Payne and Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 22-28. Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Sassaman Kenneth E.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 43 2005 Structure and Practice in the Archaic Southeast. In North American Archaeology. Edited by Timothy R. Pauketat and Diana DiPaolo Loren, pp. 79-107. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Saunders, Rebecca 1992 Spanish Missions. In Florida’s Cultural Heritage: A View of the Past (Draft), edited by Claudine Payne and Jerald T. Milanich, pp. 125-137. Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State, Tallahassee, Florida.

Saunders, Rebecca and Christopher T. Hays 2004 Introduction: Themes in Early Pottery Research. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher T. Hays, pp. 1-22. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Schafer, Daniel L. 1996 U.S. Territory and State. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 207-230. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Shofner, Jerrell H. 1996 Reconstruction and Renewal 1865-1877. In The New History of Florida. Edited by Michael Gannon, pp. 249-265. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

University of Florida 2016 George A. Smathers Libraries Map and Imagery Collection. Electronic document, http://ufdcweb1.uflib.ufl.edu/maps, accessed March 15, 2017.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1984 Soil Survey of Charlotte County, Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) 1979 The Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf, accessed March 15, 2017.

1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_NAGPRA.pdf, accessed March 15, 2017.

2004 Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. Electronic document, http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf, accessed March 15, 2017.

2012 36 CFR 60, National Register of Historic Places. Electronic document, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2012-title36-vol1/CFR-2012-title36-vol1-part60, accessed March 15, 2017.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2017 USGS Historical Topographic map explorer. Electronic document, accessed March 15, 2017.

Waterbury, Jean Parker (editor)

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 44 1983 The Oldest City St. Augustine: Saga of Survival. The St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida.

Wright, J. Leitch, Jr. 1975 British St. Augustine. Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St. Augustine.

Punta Gorda Airport Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Phase 1B Cultural Resource Assessment Survey 45 Appendix A: Qualifications of Investigators

Daniel Cassedy, PhD, is a Registered Professional Archaeologist who has over 35 years of experience as a supervisory archaeologist specializing in cultural resource management in eastern North America. He provides project management and technical direction on projects conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Dr. Cassedy is a Principal Archaeologist based in the Morrisville, NC office. He has extensive experience in all phases of archaeological surveys and excavations nationwide, and specializes in regulatory agency coordination, public outreach, and cultural resource management studies. He has been employed by AECOM for over 16 years. Notable projects include the Evaluation and Documentation of Navy Atlantic Fleet Photographic Laboratory at NAS Jacksonville; Environmental and Functional Program Reviews at Multiple NASA centers; Archaeological and Historical Services for Robbins Air Force Base, Warner Robbins, Georgia; and Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama.

Mark Martinkovic, M.A., is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with over 15 years of experience in the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) industry, and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61). Mr. Martinkovic is a Senior Archaeologist based in the Tallahassee, FL office. He has experience in the design, management, and technical execution of historic and archaeological investigations throughout the eastern US, primarily on the Gulf Coast. Since June 2006 he has been employed by AECOM and worked on Department of Transportation and private sector energy projects and also as a Historic Preservation Specialist (archaeologist) for FEMA in various roles on the Gulf Coast. Most recently he has successfully completed the Phase I investigation of 30 miles of proposed pipeline in South Carolina according to state and FERC guidelines. Mr. Martinkovic has also participated in surveys and studies of proposed energy corridors in Florida, primarily assessments of transmission line corridors and power station sites. He also has extensive experience in monitoring and overseeing the excavation of large-scale utility projects, including the installation of a sewer system on the Beauvoir Plantation in Biloxi, MS (2010) and the installation of a combined sewer and natural gas system in historic downtown Pensacola (2000).

Marvin Brown, M.A., has over 35 years of experience in historic and architectural studies, environmental compliance procedures, and project management. This experience includes performing historic architectural surveys in support of state and federal projects in compliance with Section 106 and other statutes and regulations; determination of effects and development of mitigation measures, including Memoranda of Agreement, Programmatic Agreements, Historic Preservation Plans, HABS/HAER-level recordation, and Section 4(f) documentation; environmental documentation including Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and Categorical Exclusions for airport, highway, and other projects; recordation of historic bridges; emergency and long-term response for FEMA projects; and drafting Multiple Property Documentation forms and National Register nominations for individual properties and historic districts. He has completed numerous projects in Florida associated with airports and other resources.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment Appendix B: Shovel Test Log

Depth STP # Munsell # Munsell Color Texture Artifacts Comments (cm) Sandy 0-16 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy A-1 16-32 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy Disturbed; Water 32-55 10YR5/4 Yellowish Brown Loam n/a at 45 cmbs A-2 Sandy Disturbed; Water 0-50 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Loam n/a at 45 cmbs Sandy Disturbed; Logged; B-1 0-25 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Loam n/a Hydric Very Dark Grayish Sandy Disturbed; Utilies B-2 0-45 10YR3/2 Brown Loam n/a in Area Sandy Disturbed; Water 45-55 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Loam n/a at 45 cmbs Sandy B-3 0-75 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Water at 55 cmbs Sandy B-4 0-60 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Water at 45 cmbs Mottled Yellowish 10YR58 with Brown/Light Yellowish Sandy Disturbed; Water B-5 0-50 10 YR 6/1 Brown Loam n/a at 40 cmbs Sandy 0-10 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Loam n/a Disturbed C-1 Sandy 10-26 10YR3/8 Dark Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy 26-48 10YR5/6 Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy 48-60 10YR7/1 Light Gray Loam n/a Water at 50 cmbs Sandy 0-10 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Loam n/a Disturbed C-2 Sandy 10-25 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy Disturbed; Water 25-50 7.5YR5/8 Reddish Yellow Loam n/a at 40 cmbs Sandy 0-15 10YR2/2 Very Dark Brown Loam n/a Disturbed C-3 Sandy 15-35 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy Disturbed; Water 35-50 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Loam n/a at 40 cmbs Sandy Disturbed; end of 0-15 10YR4/3 Brown Loam n/a runway D-1 Sandy 15-40 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Disturbed Sandy Disturbed; Water 40-50 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Loam n/a at 40 cmbs Disturbed; Logged; D-2 0-25 Fill Fill Fill n/a Hydric 25-50 10YR5/8 Yellowish Brown Sandy n/a Disturbed; Water

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment Depth STP # Munsell # Munsell Color Texture Artifacts Comments (cm) Loam at 40 cmbs Wetland; Water at E-1 0-50 10YR2/1 Black Muck n/a 35 cmbs Wetland; Water at E-2 0-50 10YR2/1 Black Muck n/a 35 cmbs Wetland; Water at E-3 0-50 10YR2/1 Black Muck n/a 35 cmbs Mottled Dark 10YR3/4 with Yellowish Brown, Sand, Fill soil near 10YR5/4+ Yellowish Brown, Light Clay, disturbed parking I-1 0-50 10YR6/4 Yellowish Brown Loam n/a lot Sandy Adjacent to F-1 0-61 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Loam n/a wetland Sandy 61-75 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Loam n/a Water at 50 cmbs multiple layers of fill near wetland F-2 0-50 Fill Fill Fill n/a berm Sandy Cow pasture near 0-12 10YR3/1 Very Dark Gray Loam n/a wetland F-3 Sandy 12-33 10YR6/6 Brownish Yellow Loam n/a Sandy 33-65 10YR6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Loam n/a Water at 50 cmbs

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment Appendix C: Cultural Resources within One Mile of Punta Gorda Airport

FMSF Temporal Category Site ID Name Description Affiliation NRHP Status Archaeological Sites 8CH0067 SOLANA Terrestrial Unknown Insufficient Info

8CH0634 Creekside Residence #1 Terrestrial Unknown Insufficient Info

8CH0637 Old Pecan Terrestrial Unknown Insufficient Info 8CH0644 Royal Scrub Site Terrestrial Unknown Not Eligible Standing 29005 Jones Loop Rd, 1945 Frame Structures 8CH0645 Bldg A Vernacular 1945 Not Eligible 29005 Jones Loop Rd, 1955 Frame 8CH0646 Bldg B Vernacular 1955 Not Eligible 1956 Frame 8CH0654 Wilder Barn Vernacular 1956 Not Eligible 1921 Frame 8CH0655 Martin Place Vernacular 1921 Not Eligible 1956 Masonry 8CH0656 26148 Glasgow Ave Vernacular 1956 Not Eligible 1924 Frame 8CH1627 4024 Taylor Rd Vernacular 1924 Insufficient Info 1926 Masonry 8CH1805 127 Peace Island Dr Vernacular 1926 Insufficient Info 1957 Masonry 8CH1806 3410 Country Club Ln Vernacular 1957 Insufficient Info 1956 Masonry 8CH1807 115 Peace Island Dr Vernacular 1956 Insufficient Info 1957 Masonry 8CH1808 113 Glenholm Ave Vernacular 1957 Insufficient Info 1930 Frame 8CH1970 26195 Airport Rd Vernacular 1930 Insufficient Info Doctor's House 1955 Masonry 8CH2718 Compound Vernacular 1955 Not Eligible Doctor's House 8CH2719 Compound 2 1955 No Style 1955 Not Eligible

Resource Groups 8CH0649 Seminole Gulf Railway Railroad Historic Insufficient Info

8CH1587 Red Fish Lodge R.G. Lodge Historic Not Eligible Linear 8CH2054 US 17 Resource Historic Insufficient Info

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment FMSF Temporal Category Site ID Name Description Affiliation NRHP Status Linear 8CH2056 Riverside Dr Resource Historic Not Eligible Punta Gorda Army World 8CH2058 Airfield Airport War II Insufficient Info Linear 8CH2059 Jones Loop Road Resource Historic Not Eligible Linear 8CH2061 US 41/Tamiami Trail Resource Historic Insufficient Info Linear 8CH2064 Taylor Road Resource Historic Insufficient Info

Cemetery 8CH1908 Indian Springs Cemetery Cemetery 1886 Insufficient Info

Bridge 8CH1903 Alligator Creek Bridge Bridge 1950 Insufficient Info

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment Appendix D: 8CH2058 Resource Group Update Form

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX D Air Quality Technical Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Punta Gorda Airport Five–Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Assessment

Air Quality Technical Report

Prepared for:

Charlotte County Airport Authority

Prepared by:

AECOM

January 2019 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1. Anaysis Methodology ...... 1-1 1.1.1. Construction Emissions ...... 1-1 1.1.2. Operational Emissions ...... 1-10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1-1: Estimated Annual Construction Activity ...... 1-2 Table 1.1-2a: 2019 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates ...... 1-5 Table 1.1-2b: 2020 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates ...... 1-6 Table 1.1-2c: 2021 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates ...... 1-7 Table 1.1-2d: 2022 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates ...... 1-8 Table 1.1-2e: On-Road Vehicle Emissions Rates ...... 1-9 Table 1.1-3 Existing and Future Taxi Times ...... 1-11

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment i Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AC Air Carrier ACEIT Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool AVMT Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel

BMP Best Management Practice

CIP Capital Improvement Program CO Carbon Monoxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

EF Emissions Rate EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

GA General Aviation GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographical Information Systems

HP Horsepower

MEP Multi-Engine Piston MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator mph miles-per-hour

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

PGD Punta Gorda Airport PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Particulate Matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PM10 Particulate Matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter

SEP Single-Engine Piston SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

TP Turbo Prop TPY Tons Per Year TSP Total Suspended Particulate

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment ii Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This Air Quality Technical Report details the assessment scope, calculation methodology, input data and other technical information used in the analysis of air quality impacts associated with the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the Punta Gorda Airport (i.e., PGD, or the Airport), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project.

1.1. ANAYSIS METHODOLOGY

1.1.1. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction period emission inventories of the following criteria pollutants and their precursors

were prepared for the Proposed Project: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur

dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions, expressed in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, were also computed. The inventories include annual emissions from the following construction emissions sources: off-road equipment, on-road vehicles, and fugitive sources including asphalt paving and dust generation from site-wide construction activities. Off-road equipment and on- road vehicle emissions were computed using Equations 1 and 2, respectively.

Annual hours of off-road equipment operation and on-road annual vehicle miles of travel (AVMT) were derived using an engineering estimate of probable materials quantities and construction cost developed for the proposed runway extension and related improvements. This information was input to the Airport Cooperative Research Program Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACRP ACEIT), which then estimates the number and types of equipment to be used on the project and the deployment schedule (monthly and annually). ). Annual construction equipment and vehicle activity is summarized on Table 1.1-1.

Equation 1: n hours days Emissions( )= EF × HP × × ÷ 2,000 ÷ 453.59 tpy v v day year v=i � Where:

Emissions(tpy)= annual emissions (tons per year) EFv= emissions rate for equipment v(i)…v(n) (grams per horsepower-hour of operation) HPv= rated horsepower for equipment v(i)…v(n) 2,000 = pounds per ton 453.59 = grams per pound

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-1 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Equation 2: miles days Emissions( )= 𝑛𝑛 EF × × ÷ 2,000 ÷ 453.59 tpy v day year � 𝑣𝑣=𝑖𝑖 Where:

Emissions(tpy)= annual emissions (tons per year) EFv = emissions rate for vehicle v(i)…v(n) (grams per mile) 2,000 = pounds per ton 453.59 = grams per pound

Table 1.1-1: Estimated Annual Construction Activity Annual Operating Hours Off-road Equipment Fuel 2019 2020 2021 2022 40 ton crane Diesel 109.6 380.6 301.1 0.0 Air compressor Gasoline 88.2 266.8 54.0 7.7 Asphalt paver Diesel 161.2 257.4 25.7 10.7 Backhoe Diesel 146.2 507.4 401.5 0.0 Bob cat Diesel 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 Chain saw Gasoline 200.3 216.8 26.9 18.0 Chipper/stump grinder Diesel 200.3 216.8 26.9 18.0 Cold planer Diesel 190.7 128.7 0.0 0.0 Concrete ready mix trucks Diesel 27.4 95.1 75.3 0.0 Concrete saws Gasoline 145.0 1425.1 54.0 7.7 Concrete truck Diesel 546.2 1160.8 251.6 32.1 Crack cleaner Gasoline 16.3 20.6 0.0 0.0 Crack filler (trailer mounted) Gasoline 16.3 20.6 0.0 0.0 Crane Diesel 1.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 Curb/gutter paver Gasoline 36.6 16.4 9.3 0.0 Distributing tanker Diesel 15.0 204.7 1.1 0.0 Dozer Diesel 1399.8 2765.8 179.0 615.8 Dump truck Diesel 1537.8 2686.0 397.9 116.2 Dump truck (12 cy) Diesel 3489.2 7345.7 461.8 1124.1 Excavator Diesel 485.8 2015.1 46.6 349.8 Excavator with bucket Diesel 0.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Flatbed truck Diesel 2450.0 3811.5 9.5 116.6 Fork Truck Diesel 749.2 2600.6 2057.5 0.0 Generator sets Gasoline 0.0 0.0 120.0 0.0 Grader Diesel 73.6 151.6 10.5 29.0 High lift Diesel 201.0 697.8 552.0 0.0 Hydraulic hammer Diesel 56.8 1158.3 0.0 0.0 Hydroseeder Gasoline 10.5 0.1 0.2 17.9 Loader Diesel 327.8 356.8 47.5 72.8 Man lift Diesel 548.2 1902.8 1505.5 0.0 Man lift (fascia construction) Diesel 54.8 190.3 150.5 0.0 Material deliveries Diesel 3.7 12.7 10.0 0.0 Off-road truck Diesel 10.5 0.1 0.2 17.9 Other general equipment Diesel 3732.0 6772.3 236.2 250.2 Pickup truck Diesel 5271.2 9651.1 595.1 773.5 Pumps Gasoline 66.7 125.4 9.0 24.0 Roller Diesel 1110.0 2271.8 150.1 411.3 Rubber tired loader Diesel 88.2 266.8 54.0 7.7

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-2 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Annual Operating Hours Off-road Equipment Fuel 2019 2020 2021 2022 Scraper Diesel 417.3 739.9 38.5 336.0 Skid steer loader Diesel 638.3 433.8 32.0 34.5 Slip form paver Diesel 88.2 266.8 54.0 7.7 Surfacing equipment (grooving) Gasoline 294.3 596.3 86.9 21.4 Survey crew trucks Diesel 4.6 15.9 12.5 0.0 Sweepers Diesel 190.7 128.7 0.0 0.0 Tool truck Diesel 182.8 634.3 501.8 0.0 Tractor trailer - material delivery Diesel 78.6 272.8 215.8 0.0 Tractor trailer - steel deliveries Diesel 7.3 25.4 20.1 0.0 Tractor trailers temp fac. Diesel 1.8 6.4 5.0 0.0 Tractors/loader/backhoe Diesel 658.3 401.7 58.0 58.4 Vibratory compactor Gasoline 73.1 21.3 17.1 0.0 Water truck Diesel 3484.7 2589.3 5.5 1440.0 Total, Off-road Equipment 29,687.2 55,834.9 9,227.7 5,919.0 Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) On-road Vehicles Fuel 2019 2020 2021 2022 Asphalt 18 wheeler Diesel 16778.5 25991.9 1271.6 740.0 Cement mixer Diesel 268301.7 417390.6 23162.7 11792.0 Dump truck Diesel 0.0 0.0 9259.0 3294.0 Dump truck - asphalt Diesel 23768.6 36822.1 1801.4 1048.0 Dump struck subbase material Diesel 143094.5 222608.1 12353.3 6289.0 Passenger car Gasoline 2014503.7 3070718.1 574682.2 626772.0 Tractor Trailer Diesel 61.8 217.4 200.7 0.0 Total, On-road Vehicles 2,466,508.8 3,773,748.3 622,730.9 649,935.0

Because construction equipment and vehicle emissions rates contained in ACEIT are not sufficiently representative of local conditions, equipment and vehicle emissions rates were instead generated using the current version of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (EPA MOVES2014a). MOVES2014a was invoked at the project- level using input databases specific to Charlotte County, Florida. Input databases were adapted from EPA’s most recent National Emissions Inventory, which incorporates Charlotte County- specific information to the extent it was submitted to the EPA by state and local air quality and transportation agencies.

Vehicle age distributions, inspection and maintenance programs (to the extent applied), fuel supply and other data were held constant for future years; that is, projections or adjustments were not applied unless available from locally-developed data. A summer design hour representative of an August weekday in Charlotte County from 2100 to 2200 was selected for emissions rate modeling based on the worst-case temperature/humidity hourly condition, according to the MOVES ‘ZoneMonthHour’ input database. Emissions rates for on-road vehicles were generated for five mile-per-hour (mph) increments ranging from 5 to 65 mph. For the purposes of emissions calculation it was assumed that all on-road vehicles would travel at an average speed of 35 miles per hour. Tables 1.1-2a through 1.1-2e specify the annual off-road equipment and on-road vehicle emissions rates applied in the analysis.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-3 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Equation 3 was used to estimate dust emissions from site-wide construction activities, adapted from EPA’s AP-42 methodology1. EPA studies have concluded that ten percent of the dust 2 emissions in the PM10 or less size fractions are PM2.5. Therefore, uncontrolled PM10 dust

emissions were factored by 0.10 to derive the PM2.5 component. Further, dust suppression and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction, such as site watering and track-out prevention measures, will ensure that PM impacts from construction activities are minimized. According to EPA, adherence to these BMPs can result in a dust control efficiency of 75 percent, which was applied to the calculation to represent controlled PM emissions.3

Estimation of annual evaporative VOC emissions from asphalt curing is based upon the EPA methods outlined in AP-424 as well as the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program5. Equation 4 outlines this method. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Standard Specifications indicate that a prime coat asphalt application rate should be no less than 0.15 gallons per square yard (or 0.679 liters per square meter). Because the asphalt characterization is not known, assuming that 35 percent of liquefied asphalt is diluent that can evaporate as VOC, 95 percent of this diluent would evaporate during asphalt curing, and that the density of the diluent is 1.98 pounds per liter of diluent applied.

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42). Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources. 1995. 2 Pace, Thompson G. Examination of the Multiplier Used to Estimate PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions From PM10. Presented at the Environmental Protection Agency 14th International Emission Inventory Conference. Las Vegas, NV, 2005 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures. OAQPS, EPA-450/2-92-004. 1992. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). Fifth Edition Volume I Chapter 4.5: Asphalt Paving Operations. 1995. 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), Volume III: Chapter 17, “Asphalt Paving”. 2001.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-4 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Table 1.1-2a: 2019 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates 2019 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Equipment Fuel Type Load Horsepower CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Aerial lifts Diesel 0.21 60.46 4.192 4.900 0.573 0.556 0.004 0.878 693.978 Air compressors Gasoline 0.56 5.19 209.273 2.109 0.378 0.348 0.007 9.969 1247.402 Chain saws < 6 HP (com) Gasoline 0.70 3.92 266.029 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 73.348 710.950 Chippers/stump grinders Diesel 0.43 84.47 1.797 3.214 0.309 0.300 0.004 0.389 589.588 (com) Commercial turf equipment Gasoline 0.60 5.22 205.354 1.974 0.316 0.291 0.007 7.617 1247.903 (com) Concrete/industrial saws Gasoline 0.78 4.53 266.030 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 63.542 710.951 Cranes Diesel 0.43 237.70 0.265 1.212 0.051 0.049 0.003 0.177 530.857 Crawler tractor/dozers Diesel 0.59 136.10 0.380 0.923 0.078 0.076 0.003 0.171 536.664 Crushing/proc. equipment Diesel 0.43 60.74 1.237 3.251 0.140 0.136 0.003 0.204 590.119 Excavators Diesel 0.59 137.60 0.271 0.711 0.048 0.046 0.003 0.163 536.673 Generator sets Gasoline 0.68 8.82 276.309 1.665 0.113 0.104 0.006 8.691 1060.863 Graders Diesel 0.59 231.20 0.230 0.796 0.034 0.033 0.003 0.164 536.671 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 244.30 0.126 0.365 0.012 0.011 0.003 0.156 536.681 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 419.90 0.225 0.662 0.026 0.026 0.003 0.158 536.679 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 688.10 0.348 0.663 0.026 0.026 0.003 0.158 536.679 Other construction Diesel 0.59 442.60 1.059 2.484 0.145 0.141 0.003 0.212 536.515 equipment Pavers Diesel 0.59 134.60 0.477 1.120 0.105 0.102 0.003 0.180 536.650 Paving equipment Gasoline 0.59 8.54 276.387 1.642 0.115 0.105 0.006 7.416 1060.722 Plate compactors Gasoline 0.55 4.41 205.769 1.988 0.323 0.297 0.007 8.725 1247.849 Pumps Gasoline 0.69 4.63 207.331 2.042 0.348 0.320 0.007 10.550 1247.650 Rollers Diesel 0.59 84.76 1.462 1.471 0.181 0.176 0.003 0.199 595.934 Rubber tire loaders Diesel 0.59 136.30 0.537 1.248 0.121 0.118 0.003 0.185 536.639 Scrapers Diesel 0.59 422.50 0.611 1.491 0.091 0.088 0.003 0.172 536.650 Skid steer loaders Diesel 0.21 57.67 4.578 4.811 0.670 0.650 0.004 0.936 693.812 Surfacing equipment Gasoline 0.49 8.92 279.149 1.688 0.124 0.114 0.006 6.579 1060.503 Sweepers/scrubbers Diesel 0.43 134.30 0.273 0.974 0.060 0.059 0.003 0.172 530.873 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 0.21 87.17 4.239 3.325 0.587 0.570 0.004 0.708 694.619 Source: EPA MOVES2014a

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-5 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Table 1.1-2b: 2020 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates 2020 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Equipment Fuel Type Load Horsepower CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Aerial lifts Diesel 0.21 60.46 3.915 4.727 0.526 0.510 0.004 0.809 694.173 Air compressors Gasoline 0.56 5.19 209.273 2.109 0.378 0.348 0.007 9.969 1247.401 Chain saws < 6 HP (com) Gasoline 0.70 3.92 266.029 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 73.348 710.949 Chippers/stump grinders Diesel 0.43 84.47 1.670 2.974 0.283 0.274 0.003 0.363 589.667 (com) Commercial turf equipment Gasoline 0.60 5.22 205.354 1.974 0.316 0.291 0.007 7.618 1247.903 (com) Concrete/industrial saws Gasoline 0.78 4.53 266.030 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 63.542 710.952 Cranes Diesel 0.43 237.70 0.216 1.016 0.040 0.039 0.003 0.171 530.868 Crawler tractor/dozers Diesel 0.59 136.10 0.282 0.719 0.050 0.049 0.003 0.165 536.670 Crushing/proc. equipment Diesel 0.43 60.74 1.072 3.191 0.119 0.116 0.003 0.191 590.145 Excavators Diesel 0.59 137.60 0.228 0.558 0.036 0.035 0.003 0.160 536.676 Generator sets Gasoline 0.68 8.82 275.895 1.637 0.113 0.104 0.006 8.587 1060.780 Graders Diesel 0.59 231.20 0.196 0.649 0.027 0.026 0.003 0.161 536.674 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 244.30 0.121 0.322 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.156 536.681 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 419.90 0.195 0.524 0.021 0.020 0.003 0.157 536.680 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 688.10 0.302 0.526 0.021 0.020 0.003 0.157 536.680 Other construction Diesel 0.59 442.60 0.955 2.244 0.131 0.127 0.003 0.204 536.542 equipment Pavers Diesel 0.59 134.60 0.379 0.911 0.077 0.075 0.003 0.172 536.660 Paving equipment Gasoline 0.59 8.54 276.291 1.636 0.115 0.105 0.006 7.398 1060.705 Plate compactors Gasoline 0.55 4.41 205.769 1.988 0.323 0.297 0.007 8.725 1247.848 Pumps Gasoline 0.69 4.63 207.332 2.042 0.348 0.320 0.007 10.550 1247.650 Rollers Diesel 0.59 84.76 1.208 1.216 0.140 0.136 0.003 0.187 595.956 Rubber tire loaders Diesel 0.59 136.30 0.442 1.042 0.095 0.092 0.003 0.178 536.651 Scrapers Diesel 0.59 422.50 0.525 1.294 0.077 0.075 0.003 0.168 536.659 Skid steer loaders Diesel 0.21 57.67 4.264 4.652 0.616 0.598 0.004 0.861 694.027 Surfacing equipment Gasoline 0.49 8.92 279.149 1.688 0.124 0.114 0.006 6.579 1060.501 Sweepers/scrubbers Diesel 0.43 134.30 0.207 0.771 0.042 0.040 0.003 0.166 530.881 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 0.21 87.17 3.935 3.037 0.535 0.519 0.004 0.647 694.777 Source: EPA MOVES2014a

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-6 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Table 1.1-2c: 2021 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates 2021 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Equipment Fuel Type Load Horsepower CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Aerial lifts Diesel 0.21 60.46 3.648 4.562 0.481 0.466 0.004 0.743 694.359 Air compressors Gasoline 0.56 5.19 209.274 2.109 0.378 0.348 0.007 9.969 1247.403 Chain saws < 6 HP (com) Gasoline 0.70 3.92 266.029 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 73.348 710.949 Chippers/stump grinders Diesel 0.43 84.47 1.550 2.746 0.258 0.250 0.003 0.339 589.739 (com) Commercial turf equipment Gasoline 0.60 5.22 205.355 1.974 0.316 0.291 0.007 7.618 1247.903 (com) Concrete/industrial saws Gasoline 0.78 4.53 266.028 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 63.541 710.948 Cranes Diesel 0.43 237.70 0.170 0.840 0.030 0.030 0.003 0.166 530.876 Crawler tractor/dozers Diesel 0.59 136.10 0.241 0.578 0.039 0.038 0.003 0.162 536.675 Crushing/proc. equipment Diesel 0.43 60.74 0.914 3.144 0.099 0.096 0.003 0.180 590.165 Excavators Diesel 0.59 137.60 0.198 0.438 0.027 0.026 0.003 0.158 536.678 Generator sets Gasoline 0.68 8.82 275.759 1.628 0.113 0.104 0.006 8.554 1060.752 Graders Diesel 0.59 231.20 0.173 0.525 0.022 0.021 0.003 0.159 536.677 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 244.30 0.121 0.299 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.156 536.681 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 419.90 0.174 0.416 0.017 0.016 0.003 0.157 536.680 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 688.10 0.269 0.416 0.017 0.016 0.003 0.157 536.680 Other construction Diesel 0.59 442.60 0.864 2.031 0.119 0.116 0.003 0.197 536.563 equipment Pavers Diesel 0.59 134.60 0.290 0.725 0.052 0.051 0.003 0.166 536.668 Paving equipment Gasoline 0.59 8.54 276.249 1.633 0.115 0.105 0.006 7.390 1060.696 Plate compactors Gasoline 0.55 4.41 205.769 1.988 0.323 0.297 0.007 8.725 1247.849 Pumps Gasoline 0.69 4.63 207.332 2.042 0.348 0.320 0.007 10.550 1247.649 Rollers Diesel 0.59 84.76 0.969 0.989 0.102 0.099 0.003 0.178 595.972 Rubber tire loaders Diesel 0.59 136.30 0.354 0.855 0.070 0.068 0.003 0.171 536.661 Scrapers Diesel 0.59 422.50 0.445 1.116 0.064 0.062 0.003 0.165 536.665 Skid steer loaders Diesel 0.21 57.67 3.961 4.499 0.564 0.547 0.004 0.788 694.231 Surfacing equipment Gasoline 0.49 8.92 279.148 1.688 0.124 0.114 0.006 6.579 1060.499 Sweepers/scrubbers Diesel 0.43 134.30 0.174 0.621 0.032 0.031 0.003 0.162 530.886 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 0.21 87.17 3.642 2.761 0.485 0.470 0.004 0.589 694.926 Source: EPA MOVES2014a

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-7 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Table 1.1-2d: 2022 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Rates 2022 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Equipment Fuel Type Load Horsepower CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Aerial lifts Diesel 0.21 60.46 3.389 4.406 0.437 0.424 0.004 0.680 694.536 Air compressors Gasoline 0.56 5.19 209.274 2.109 0.378 0.348 0.007 9.969 1247.402 Chain saws < 6 HP (com) Gasoline 0.70 3.92 266.029 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 73.348 710.951 Chippers/stump grinders Diesel 0.43 84.47 1.447 2.537 0.237 0.230 0.003 0.320 589.795 (com) Commercial turf equipment Gasoline 0.60 5.22 205.356 1.974 0.316 0.291 0.007 7.618 1247.904 (com) Concrete/industrial saws Gasoline 0.78 4.53 266.029 1.528 9.748 8.968 0.004 63.542 710.950 Cranes Diesel 0.43 237.70 0.144 0.703 0.025 0.024 0.003 0.163 530.881 Crawler tractor/dozers Diesel 0.59 136.10 0.211 0.464 0.031 0.030 0.003 0.159 536.677 Crushing/proc. equipment Diesel 0.43 60.74 0.763 3.111 0.081 0.079 0.003 0.172 590.179 Excavators Diesel 0.59 137.60 0.176 0.382 0.020 0.020 0.003 0.157 536.680 Generator sets Gasoline 0.68 8.82 275.700 1.624 0.113 0.104 0.006 8.540 1060.740 Graders Diesel 0.59 231.20 0.155 0.425 0.018 0.018 0.003 0.158 536.679 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 244.30 0.121 0.286 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.156 536.681 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 419.90 0.159 0.367 0.014 0.013 0.003 0.156 536.680 Off-highway trucks Diesel 0.59 688.10 0.246 0.367 0.014 0.013 0.003 0.156 536.681 Other construction Diesel 0.59 442.60 0.780 1.830 0.108 0.105 0.003 0.191 536.582 equipment Pavers Diesel 0.59 134.60 0.249 0.594 0.041 0.040 0.003 0.163 536.673 Paving equipment Gasoline 0.59 8.54 276.234 1.632 0.115 0.105 0.006 7.386 1060.693 Plate compactors Gasoline 0.55 4.41 205.769 1.988 0.323 0.297 0.007 8.725 1247.851 Pumps Gasoline 0.69 4.63 207.333 2.042 0.348 0.320 0.007 10.550 1247.648 Rollers Diesel 0.59 84.76 0.761 0.787 0.068 0.066 0.003 0.171 595.984 Rubber tire loaders Diesel 0.59 136.30 0.278 0.689 0.048 0.047 0.003 0.166 536.668 Scrapers Diesel 0.59 422.50 0.372 0.954 0.051 0.049 0.003 0.163 536.670 Skid steer loaders Diesel 0.21 57.67 3.670 4.353 0.514 0.499 0.004 0.720 694.424 Surfacing equipment Gasoline 0.49 8.92 279.149 1.688 0.124 0.114 0.006 6.579 1060.502 Sweepers/scrubbers Diesel 0.43 134.30 0.152 0.501 0.026 0.025 0.003 0.160 530.889 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 0.21 87.17 3.360 2.497 0.436 0.423 0.004 0.534 695.064 Source: EPA MOVES2014a

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-8 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Table 1.1-2e: On-Road Vehicle Emissions Rates Fuel 2019 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Vehicle Type Type CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Light commercial truck Diesel 3.568 1.247 0.100 0.056 0.006 0.224 647.879 Single unit short-haul truck Diesel 1.622 3.434 0.409 0.255 0.010 0.499 1163.419 Passenger car Gasoline 4.338 0.258 0.045 0.010 0.007 0.210 343.225 Passenger truck Gasoline 6.238 0.435 0.049 0.011 0.009 0.237 453.784 Fuel 2020 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Vehicle Type Type CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Light commercial truck Diesel 3.202 1.107 0.093 0.049 0.005 0.187 636.067 Single unit short-haul truck Diesel 1.507 3.133 0.386 0.235 0.010 0.460 1157.126 Passenger car Gasoline 4.051 0.233 0.045 0.010 0.007 0.188 336.064 Passenger truck Gasoline 5.841 0.385 0.049 0.011 0.009 0.214 442.047 Fuel 2021 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Vehicle Type Type CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Light commercial truck Diesel 2.970 0.995 0.086 0.043 0.005 0.159 623.650 Single unit short-haul truck Diesel 1.383 2.885 0.361 0.213 0.010 0.417 1150.863 Passenger car Gasoline 3.901 0.210 0.045 0.010 0.007 0.178 327.683 Passenger truck Gasoline 5.508 0.337 0.049 0.011 0.009 0.196 428.889 Fuel 2022 Emission Rate (grams per horsepower-hour at operating load) Vehicle Type Type CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO2e Light commercial truck Diesel 2.851 0.859 0.078 0.035 0.005 0.132 610.779 Single unit short-haul truck Diesel 1.259 2.648 0.339 0.192 0.010 0.372 1144.712 Passenger car Gasoline 3.769 0.191 0.045 0.009 0.006 0.169 319.396 Passenger truck Gasoline 5.221 0.298 0.049 0.011 0.008 0.180 415.387 Source: EPA MOVES2014a

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-9 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

Equation 3:** days acres PM = EF × × × 0.45 ÷ 2,000 10(tpy) TSP year day Where: PM10(tpy)= annual PM10 dust emissions (tons per year)

EFTSP= total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions rate (80 pounds per acre-day) 0.45 = estimated ratio of PM10 to TSP 2,000 = pounds per ton ** Represents uncontrolled emissions of PM10. Controlled emissions are derived by applying a 75% control factor. PM2.5 = PM10 x 0.10

Equation 4:

VOC(tpy)= A × AR × VD × EF × D ÷ 2,000 Where: VOC(tpy)= annual VOC paving emissions (tons per year) A = area of pavement in square meters(m2) AR = asphalt application rate (0.679 liter/m2) VD = volume fraction of diluent (0.35) AF = mass fraction of diluent which evaporates as VOC (0.95) D = solvent density (1.98 pounds/liter) 2,000 = pounds per ton

1.1.2. OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Operations of aircraft Auxiliary Power Unit, Ground Support Equipment, stationary combustion sources and on-airport motor vehicles would not change as a result of the EA Proposed Project. Therefore, operational emissions estimates for the baseline and future year conditions in the EA, with and without the Proposed Project, were constrained to aircraft only. The changes principally relate to: 1) increased flight training operations due to the northern general aviation development; and 2) changes in ground-based taxi emissions due to changes in taxi patterns on the airfield. Refer to the Noise Technical Report prepared for the EA for detailed aircraft operational information utilized in FAA’s Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) version 2d to compute both noise and emissions associated with the No-Action and Proposed Project alternatives in the EA for all years considered.

As stated above, changes in aircraft taxi patterns would occur with the Proposed Project compared to the No-Action alternative due to changes in aircraft apron locations and the extension of Runway 15-33. To estimate potential air quality impacts, taxi times were estimated for all conditions and are summarized on Table 1.1-3. Taxi distances were measured using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and converted to taxi times using a variety of taxi segment-dependent traveling speeds. Weighted average taxi times were formulated using

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-10 Punta Gorda Airport Air Quality Technical Report

runway end point utilization (see Noise Technical Report) for General Aviation Single-Engine Piston aircraft (GA SEP), GA Jets, GA Multi-engine Piston (MEP) aircraft and Turboprop (TP) aircraft, and air carrier/commuter aircraft, and applied in AEDT 2d.

Table 1.1-3 Existing and Future Taxi Times Taxi Out (minutes) Taxi In (minutes) Category Existing Future Change Category Existing Future Change GA (SEP) 5.40 8.08 +2.68 GA (SEP) 6.10 10.09 3.99 GA GA 4.50 9.85 +5.14 5.40 11.66 +6.26 (Jet, MEP, TP) (Jet, MEP, TP) AC, Commuter, AC, Commuter, 5.22 5.27 -0.05 5.19 5.22 -0.03 and Jet and Jet GA = general aviation; SEP = single engine piston; MEP = multi-engine piston; TP = turbo prop; AC = air carrier

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-11 This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX E Hazardous Materials Records Review (available electronically as part of EA Administrative Record) This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX F Noise Analysis Technical Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank Punta Gorda Airport Five–Year Capital Improvement Program Environmental Assessment

Noise Technical Report

Prepared for:

Charlotte County Airport Authority

Prepared by:

AECOM

January 2019 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1. Aircraft Noise Descriptors ...... 1-1 1.2. Effects of Aircraft Noise on People ...... 1-5 1.3. Noise Analysis ...... 1-8 1.3.1. Existing Condition Noise Modeling Assumptions ...... 1-8 1.3.2. Future Conditions Noise Modeling Assumptions ...... 1-19 1.4. References ...... 1-26

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.3-1 Existing Condition Average Annual Daily Commercial Aircraft Operations ...... 1-10 Table 1.3-2 Existing Condition Average Annual Daily Military Aircraft Operations ...... 1-11 Table 1.3-3 Existing Condition Average Annual Daily General Aviation Aircraft Operations .. 1-11 Table 1.3-4 Existing Condition Arrival Operations Runway Utilization ...... 1-12 Table 1.3-5 Existing Condition Departure Operations Runway Utilization ...... 1-13 Table 1.3-6 Existing Condition Flight Track Utilization ...... 1-17 Table 1.3-7 Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels ...... 1-18 Table 1.3-8 2021 Condition Average Annual Daily Commercial Aircraft Operations ...... 1-20 Table 1.3-9 2021 Condition Average Annual Daily General Aviation Aircraft Operations ...... 1-20 Table 1.3-10 2021 Condition Average Annual Daily Military Aircraft Operations ...... 1-21 Table 1.3-11 2026 Condition Average Annual Daily Commercial Aircraft Operations ...... 1-22 Table 1.3-12 2026 Condition Average Annual Daily General Aviation Aircraft Operations ..... 1-22 Table 1.3-13 2026 Condition Average Annual Daily Military Aircraft Operations ...... 1-23 Table 1.3-14 2026 Condition: Additional Average Annual Daily Flight School Operations ..... 1-24 Table 1.3-15 Existing Condition Arrival Operations Runway Utilization ...... 1-24 Table 1.3-16 Existing Condition Departure Operations Runway Utilization ...... 1-25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1-1 Common Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels ...... 1-3

Figure 1.1-2 Comparison of Maximum Sound Level (LMAX) and Sound Exposure Level (SEL) 1-4 Figure 1.1-3 Typical Range of Outdoor Community Day-Night Average Sound Levels ...... 1-6 Figure 1.2-1 Relationship between Annoyance and Day-Night Average Sound Level ...... 1-7 Figure 1.2-2 Percent Sentence Intelligibility for Indoor Speech ...... 1-8 Figure 1.3-2 Flight Tracks ...... 1-13

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment i Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool

CFR Code of Federal Regulation CIP Capital Improvement Program dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Decibel DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level

FAA Federal Aviation Administration FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FICUN Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise

GA General Aviation

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development Hz Hertz

INM Integrated Noise Model

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

Lmax Maximum Sound Level

NLR Noise Level Reduction

PGD Punta Gorda Airport

SEL Sound Exposure Level SPL Sound Pressure Level

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment ii Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This Noise Technical Report details the assessment scope, calculation methodology, input data and other technical information used in the analysis of noise impacts associated with the proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the Punta Gorda Airport (i.e., PGD, or the Airport), hereinafter referred to as the Proposed Project.

1.1. AIRCRAFT NOISE DESCRIPTORS

A variety of noise metrics are used to assess airport noise impacts in different ways. Noise metrics are used to describe individual noise events (such as a single operation of an aircraft taking off overhead) or groups of events (such as the cumulative effect of numerous aircraft operations, the collection of which creates a general noise environment or overall exposure level). Both types of descriptors are helpful in explaining how people tend to respond to a given noise condition. Descriptions of these metrics are provided below.

Decibel, dB – Sound is a complex physical phenomenon consisting of complex minute vibrations traveling through a medium, such as air. These vibrations are sensed by the human ear as sound pressure. Because of the vast range of sound pressure or intensity detectable by the human ear, sound pressure level (SPL) is represented on a logarithmic scale known as decibels (dB). A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet (laboratory-type) listening conditions. A SPL of 120 dB begins to be felt inside the ear as discomfort and pain at approximately 140 dB. Most environmental sounds have SPLs ranging from 30 to 100 dB.

Because dB are logarithmic, they cannot be added or subtracted directly like other (linear) numbers. For example, if two sound sources each produce 100 dB, when they are operated together they will produce 103 dB, not 200 dB. Four 100 dB sources operating together again double the sound energy, resulting in a total SPL of 106 dB, and so on. In addition, if one source is much louder than another, the two sources operating together will produce the same SPL as if the louder source were operating alone. For example, a 100 dB source plus an 80 dB source produce 100 dB when operating together. The louder source masks the quieter one.

Two useful rules to remember when comparing SPLs are: (1) most people perceive a 6 to 10 dB increase in SPL between two noise events to be about a doubling of loudness, and (2) changes in SPL of less than about 3 dB between two events are not easily detected outside of a laboratory.

A-Weighted Decibel, dBA – Frequency, or pitch, is a basic physical characteristic of sound and is expressed in units of cycles per second or hertz (Hz). The normal frequency range of hearing for most people extends from about 20 to 15,000 Hz. Because the human ear is more sensitive to middle and high frequencies (i.e., 1000 to 4000 Hz), a frequency weighting called “A” weighting is applied to the measurement of sound. The internationally standardized "A" filter

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-1 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

approximates the sensitivity of the human ear and helps in assessing the perceived loudness of various sounds. In this document all sound levels are A-weighted sound levels and the adjective "A-weighted" has been omitted.

Figure 1.1-1 charts common indoor and outdoor sound levels. A quiet rural area at nighttime may be 30 A-weighted decibels (dBA) or lower while the operator of a typical gas lawn mower may experience a level of 90 dBA. Similarly, the level in a library may be 30 dBA or lower while the listener at a rock band concert may experience levels near 110 dBA.

Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, Lmax – Sound levels vary with time. For example, the sound increases as an aircraft approaches, then falls and blends into the ambient or background as the aircraft recedes into the distance. Because of this variation, it is often

convenient to describe a particular noise "event" by its highest or maximum sound level (Lmax).

Note Lmax describes only one dimension of an event; it provides no information on the cumulative noise exposure generated by a sound source. In fact, two events with identical Lmax may produce very different total exposures. One may be of very short duration, while the other may be much longer.

Sound Exposure Level, SEL – The most common measure of noise exposure for a single aircraft flyover is the sound exposure level (SEL). SEL is a summation of the A-weighted sound energy at a particular location over the true duration of a noise event normalized to a fictional duration of one second. The true duration is defined as the amount of time the noise event exceeds background levels. For events lasting more than one second, SEL does not directly represent the sound level heard at any given time, but rather provides a measure of the net impact of the entire acoustic event.

The normalization to the fictional duration of one second enables the comparison of noise events with differing true duration and/or maximum level. Because the SEL is normalized to

one second, it will almost always be larger in magnitude than the Lmax for the event. In fact, for most aircraft events, the SEL is about 7 to 12 dB higher than the Lmax. Additionally, since it is a cumulative measure, a higher SEL can result from either a louder or longer event, or some combination.

As SEL combines an event’s overall sound level along with its duration, SEL provides a comprehensive way to describe noise events for use in modeling and comparing noise environments. Computer noise models, such as the one employed for this document, base their computations on these SELs.

Figure 1.1-2 shows an event’s “time history,” the variation of sound level with time. For typical sound events experienced by a fixed listener, like a person experiencing an aircraft flying by, the sound level rises as the source (or aircraft) approaches the listener, peaks and then diminishes as the aircraft flies away from the listener. The area under the time history curve represents the overall sound energy of the noise event. The Lmax for the event shown in the figure was 93.5

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-2 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report dBA. Compressing the event’s total sound energy into one second to compute its SEL yields 102.7 dBA.

Figure 1.1-1 Common Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-3 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Figure 1.1-2 Comparison of Maximum Sound Level (LMAX) and Sound Exposure Level (SEL)

SEL = 102.7 dBA 100

Lmax = 93.5 dBA 90

80 A-weightedSound Level (decibels re 20 microPascals)

0 10 20 30 Time (seconds)

Source: URS Corporation, 2007.

Equivalent Sound Level, Leq – Equivalent sound level (Leq) is a measure of the exposure resulting from the accumulation of A-weighted sound levels over a particular period of interest (e.g., an hour, an 8-hour school day, nighttime, or a full 24-hour day). However, because the length of the period can be different depending on the time frame of interest, the applicable period should always be identified or clearly understood when discussing the metric. Such

durations are often identified through a subscript, for example Leq(8) or Leq(24).

Conceptually, Leq may be thought of as a constant sound level over the period of interest that contains as much sound energy as the actual time-varying sound level with its normal “peaks” and “dips.” In the context of noise from typical aircraft flight events and as noted earlier for SEL,

Leq does not represent the sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure for the period of interest. Also, it should be noted that the “average” sound level suggested by Leq is not an arithmetic value, but a logarithmic, or “energy-averaged,” sound level. Thus, loud events tend to dominate the noise environment described by the Leq metric.

Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL - Time-averaged sound levels are measurements of sound levels averaged over a specified length of time. These levels provide a measure of the average sound energy during the measurement period. For the evaluation of community noise effects, and particularly aircraft noise effects, the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). This metrics are similar to the Leq except that it compensates for the widely assumed increase in people’s sensitivity to noise during nighttime hours. Each aircraft operation occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is treated as if it were 10 operations. Logarithmically, this multiplier is the equivalent of adding 10 dB to the noise level of each nighttime operation. These noise level penalties are intended to correspond to the drop in background noise level which studies have

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-4 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

found takes place from daytime to nighttime in a typical community. The nighttime decrease in ambient sound levels—from both outdoor and indoor sources—is commonly considered to be the principal explanation for people’s heightened sensitivity to noises during these periods.

DNL is the primary noise descriptor of this study. DNL is a 24-hour time-weighted-average noise metric expressed in dBA which accounts for the noise levels (in terms of SEL) of all individual aircraft events, the number of times those events occur, and the time of day at which they occur. Values of DNL can be measured with standard monitoring equipment or predicted with computer models. This document utilizes estimates of DNL with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-approved computer-based noise model.

Typical DNL values for a variety of noise environments are shown in Figure 1.1-3. DNL values can be approximately 85 dBA outdoors under a flight path within a mile of a major airport and 40 dBA or less outdoors in a rural residential area.

Due to the DNL descriptor’s close correlation with the degree of community annoyance from aircraft noise, DNL have been formally adopted by most Federal agencies for measuring and evaluating aircraft noise for land use planning and noise impact assessment. Federal committees such as the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN) and the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) which include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FAA, Department of Defense, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Administration, found DNL to be the best metric for land use planning. They also found no new cumulative sound descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for DNL. Other cumulative metrics could be used only to supplement, not replace DNL. Furthermore, FAA Order 1050.1F for environmental impact studies, requires DNL be used in describing cumulative noise exposure and in identifying aircraft noise/land use compatibility issues (EPA, 1974; FICUN, 1980; FICON, 1992; 14 CFR part 150, 2007; FAA, 2006).

1.2. EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ON PEOPLE

This section addresses three ways humans can be affected by aircraft noise: annoyance, speech interference and sleep disturbance.

Annoyance – The primary potential effect of aircraft noise on exposed communities is one of annoyance. Noise annoyance is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as any negative subjective reaction on the part of an individual or group (EPA, 1974). Scientific studies and a large number of social/attitudinal surveys have been conducted to appraise people’s annoyance to all types of environmental noise, especially aircraft events. These studies and surveys have found the DNL to be the best measure of this annoyance (EPA, 1974; FICUN, 1980; FICON, 1992; ANSI, 2007; ANSI, 2003; Schultz, 1978; Fidell, et. al., 1991).

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-5 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Figure 1.1-3 Typical Range of Outdoor Community Day-Night Average Sound Levels

Under Flight Path at Major Airport, ½ to 1 Mile From Runway

80 Downtown in Major Metropolis

Dense Urban Area with Heavy Traffic 70

Urban Area

Suburban and Low Density Urban

50 Day-NightAverage Sound Level(DNL, A-weighted decibels) Small Town and Quiet Suburban

Rural

Source: FICON, 1992

The relationship between annoyance and DNL determined by the scientific community and endorsed by many Federal agencies, including the FAA, is shown in Figure 1.2-1. For a DNL of 65 dBA, approximately 13 percent of the exposed population would be highly-annoyed. The figure also shows at very low values of DNL, such as 45 dB or less, one percent or less of the exposed population would be highly annoyed. At very high values of DNL, such as 90 dBA, more than 80 percent of the exposed population would be highly annoyed.

It is often suggested a lower DNL, such as 60 or 55 dB, be adopted as the threshold of community noise annoyance for FAA environmental analysis documents. While there is no technical reason why a lower level cannot be measured or calculated for comparison purposes, a DNL of 65 dB:

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-6 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

 Provides a valid basis for comparing and assessing community noise effects.

 Represents a noise exposure level normally dominated by aircraft noise and not other community or nearby highway noise sources.

 Reflects the FAA’s threshold for grant-in-aid funding of airport noise mitigation projects.

 HUD also established a DNL standard of 65 dBA for eligibility for Federally-guaranteed home loans.

Figure 1.2-1 Relationship between Annoyance and Day-Night Average Sound Level

100

% Highly Annoyed = 100 / [1 + e(11.13 - 0.141 × DNL)]

40 PercentHighly Annoyed 20

40 50 60 70 80 90 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL, A-weighted decibels)

Source: FICON, 1992

Speech Interference – A primary effect of aircraft noise is its tendency to drown out or "mask" speech, making it difficult to carry on a normal conversation. As an aircraft approaches and its sound level increases, speech becomes harder to hear. As the ambient level increases, the talker must raise his/her voice, or the individuals must get closer together to continue talking.

For typical communication distances of three or four feet (one to 1.5 meters), acceptable outdoor conversations can be carried on in a normal voice as long as the ambient noise outdoors is less than about 65 dBA (FICON, 1992). If the noise exceeds this level, intelligibility would be lost unless vocal effort was increased or communication distance was decreased.

Indoor speech interference can be expressed as a percentage of sentence intelligibility between two average adults with normal hearing speaking fluently in relaxed conversation approximately one meter apart in a typical living room or bedroom (EPA, 1974). As shown in Figure 1.2-2, the percentage of sentence intelligibility is a non-linear function of the (steady) indoor ambient or

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-7 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

background sound level (24-hour energy-average Leq(24)). Steady ambient indoor sound levels

of up to 45 dBA Leq(24) are expected to allow 100 percent intelligibility of sentences. The curve shows 99 percent sentence intelligibility for Leq(24) at or below 54 dBA and less than 10 percent

intelligibility for Leq(24) greater than 73 dBA. In the same document from which Figure 1.2-2 was taken, the EPA established an indoor criterion of 45 dBA DNL as requisite to protect against speech interference indoors (EPA, 1974).

Figure 1.2-2 Percent Sentence Intelligibility for Indoor Speech

100

20 Percent Sentence Intelligibility

45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Steady Indoor A-Weighted Sound Level (dB re: 20 micropascals)

Source: EPA, 1974

1.3. NOISE ANALYSIS

1.3.1. EXISTING CONDITION NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

Airport Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)

The FAA has required the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) since May 29, 2015 for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. Statutory requirements for AEDT use are defined in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions; and Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. AEDT Version 2C, released September 12, 2016, was the version used for this document (https:// aedt.faa.gov/2c_information.aspx).

The AEDT incorporates the number of annual average daily daytime and nighttime flight and run-up operations, flight paths, and flight profiles of the aircraft along with its extensive internal database of aircraft noise and performance information, to calculate the DNL at many points on

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-8 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

the ground around an airport. From a grid of points, the AEDT contouring program draws contours of equal DNL to be superimposed onto land use maps. For this document, DNL contours of 65, 70, and 75 dBA were developed. DNL contours are a graphical representation of how the noise from the airport’s average annual daily aircraft operations is distributed over the surrounding area. The AEDT can calculate sound levels at any specified point so that noise exposure at representative locations around an airport can be obtained.

The results of the AEDT analysis provide a relative measure of noise levels around airfield facilities. When the calculations are made in a consistent manner, the AEDT is most accurate for comparing before and after noise effects resulting from forecast changes or alternative noise control actions. It allows noise levels to be predicted for such Proposed Projects without the actual implementation and noise monitoring of those actions.

Title 14 CFR part 150, Appendix A, provides Federal compatible land use guidelines for several land uses as a function of DNL values. Compatible or non-compatible land use is determined by comparing the predicted or measured DNL values at a site to the established thresholds.

Examples of detailed local acoustical variables include:

 Temperature profiles;

 Wind gradients;

 Humidity effects;

 Ground absorption;

 Individual aircraft directivity patterns; and

 Sound diffraction caused by terrain, buildings, barriers, etc.

The results of the AEDT analysis provide a relative measure of noise levels around airfield facilities. When the calculations are made in a consistent manner, the AEDT is most accurate for comparing before and after noise effects resulting from forecast changes or alternative noise control actions. It allows noise levels to be predicted for such proposed projects without the actual implementation and noise monitoring of those actions.

Modeled Aircraft Operations

This section describes in detail the sources and derivation of the AEDT input data for the existing conditions including airport layout, weather, flight operations, runway use, flight tracks, track use, and flight profiles.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-9 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Airport Layout

PGD has three runways, designated as Runway 04/22, 9/27 and 15/33. Runway 04/22 is 7,193 feet long by 150 feet wide. Runway 15/33 is 5,688 feet long by 15 feet wide. Runway 9/27 is 2,636 feet long by 60 feet wide. The field elevation at PGD is approximately 25 feet. Apron and hangar facilities are available for both based and transient aircraft.

Flight Operations

As shown in Tables 1.3-1 to 1.3-3, AEDT-modeled annual operations for the Existing Conditions totaled 65,474 operations, an average of approximately 179 daily operations. Jet operations accounted for approximately 21 percent of the total operations. Nighttime operations accounted for approximately five percent of the total operations. Civilian and military helicopters operations accounted for approximately four percent of the total aircraft operations at PGD.

Table 1.3-1 Existing Condition Average Annual Daily Commercial Aircraft Operations AEDT 2016 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local Airbus A321* A321-232 0 0.0000 0.0000 Airbus A320 / A320neo A320-232 5062 13.8685 0.0000 Air Carrier Boeing (Douglas) MD 83 MD83 569 1.5589 0.0000 Airbus A319 / A319neo A319-131 696 1.9068 0.0000 CL600 CL600 90 0.2466 0.0000 CL601 CL601 22 0.0603 0.0000 CNA500 CNA500 477 1.3068 0.0000 CNA55B CNA55B 200 0.5479 0.0000 CNA680 CNA680 29 0.0795 0.0000 CNA750 CNA750 34 0.0932 0.0000 Commuter EMB145 EMB145 4 0.0110 0.0000 EMB190 EMB190 3 0.0082 0.0000 GIV GIV 1 0.0027 0.0000 GV GV 2 0.0055 0.0000 LEAR25 LEAR25 6 0.0164 0.0000 LEAR35 LEAR35 351 0.9616 0.0000 MU3001 MU3001 47 0.1288 0.0000 Total Commercial 7,593 0 20.8027 0.0000 Day = 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. INM = Integrated Noise Model Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-10 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-2 Existing Condition Average Annual Daily Military Aircraft Operations AEDT 2016 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local T34 T34 72 0.1973 0.0000 F16PW9 F16A 26 0.0712 0.0000 A10A A10 2 0.0055 0.0000 Military C17 C17 5 0.0137 0.0000 C130HP C130HP 72 0.1973 0.0000 JPATS JPATS 58 0.1589 0.0000 Total Military 235 0 0.6438 0.0000 Total Operations 45298 20176 124.1041 55.2767 Day = 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. INM = Integrated Noise Model Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016

Table 1.3-3 Existing Condition Average Annual Daily General Aviation Aircraft Operations AEDT 2016 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local 737400 737400 47 0.1288 0.0000 737800 737800 637 1.7452 0.0000 A7D A7D 2 0.0055 0.0000 CIT3 CIT3 538 1.4740 0.0000 CL600 CL600 272 0.7452 0.0000 CL601 CL601 176 0.4822 0.0000 CNA500 CNA500 1948 5.3370 0.0000 CNA55B CNA55B 761 2.0849 0.0000 CNA680 CNA680 121 0.3315 0.0000 CNA750 CNA750 5 0.0137 0.0000 GA Jet ECLIPSE500 ECLIPSE500 567 1.5534 0.0000 EMB145 EMB145 7 0.0192 0.0000 F10062 F10062 231 0.6329 0.0000 GII GII 6 0.0164 0.0000 GIIB GIIB 13 0.0356 0.0000 GIV GIV 87 0.2384 0.0000 GV GV 90 0.2466 0.0000 IA1125 IA1125 619 1.6959 0.0000 LEAR35 LEAR35 9 0.0247 0.0000 MU3001 MU3001 234 0.6411 0.0000 1900D 1900D 6 0.0164 0.0000 DHC6 DHC6 300 0.8219 0.0000 GA DHC8 DHC8 130 0.3562 0.0000 Turboprop DO228 DO228 191 0.5233 0.0000 SF340 SF340 123 0.3370 0.0000 BEC58P BEC58P 4367 3647 11.9644 9.9927 CNA441 CNA441 1192 996 3.2658 2.7277 GA Multi- DC3 DC3 25 0.0685 0.0000 Engine DC6 DC6 3 0.0082 0.0000 Piston PA30 PA30 155 0.4247 0.0000 PA31 PA31 840 2.3014 0.0000 SD330 SD330 162 136 0.4438 0.3715

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-11 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

AEDT 2016 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local CNA172 CNA172 5606 4520 15.3589 12.3827 CNA182 CNA182 2286 1843 6.2630 5.0496 CNA206 CNA206 874 704 2.3945 1.9299 GA Single CNA208 CNA208 748 603 2.0493 1.6525 Engine CNA20T CNA20T 25 20 0.0685 0.0557 Piston GASEPF GASEPF 1574 1269 4.3123 3.4780 GASEPV GASEPV 7984 6437 21.8740 17.6365 PA28 PA28 2636 7.2219 0.0000 B206L B206L 157 0.4301 0.0000 B407 B407 256 0.7014 0.0000 R44 R44 78 0.2137 0.0000 HELO S70 S70 1122 3.0740 0.0000 S76 S76 157 0.4301 0.0000 SA365N SA365N 103 0.2822 0.0000 Total General Aviation 37470 20176 102.6575 55.2767 Day = 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. GA = General Aviation; INM = Integrated Noise Model Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016

Runway Use

A summary of the modeled annual average daily utilization of PGD’s runways is presented in Tables 1.3-4 and 1.3-5 for arrivals and departures respectively. The airport Air Traffic Control Tower confirmed these percentages. The percentages provided in Table 1.3-4 are applicable to both day time and nighttime operations. Helicopter operations do not operate directly off the runways.

Table 1.3-4 Existing Condition Arrival Operations Runway Utilization Single & Multi Runway Jet Turboprop Engine Piston 04 50.6% 50.6% 49.54% 22 46.1% 46.1% 19.8% 15 2.4% 2.4% 19.0% 33 0.9% 0.9% 8.8% 09 1.4% 27 1.6% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: PGD ATCT, 2016

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-12 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-5 Existing Condition Departure Operations Runway Utilization Single & Multi Runway Jet Turboprop Engine Piston 04 73.3% 73.3% 46.0% 22 19.5% 19.5% 21.1% 15 3.4% 3.4% 20.5% 33 3.8% 3.8% 9.4% 09 1.4% 27 1.6% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: PGD ATCT, 2016

Flight Tracks

Flight tracks are the aircraft’s actual path through the air projected vertically onto the ground. Modeled flight tracks reflect a reasonable representation of the actual flight track recognizing that pilot technique and weather conditions will affect the actual track of individual flights. Figure 1.3-1 depict modeled arrival and departure tracks.

Track Use

Utilization percentages of the flight tracks are tabulated in Table 1.3-6 for arrivals and departures.

Flight Profiles

Flight profiles model the vertical paths of aircraft during departure and arrival to determine the altitude, speed, and engine thrust or power of an aircraft at any point along a flight track. AEDT uses this information to calculate noise exposure on the ground. Profiles are unique to each aircraft type and vary with temperature, barometric pressure, headwind, and aircraft weight. Standard AEDT default profiles were used for all aircraft operations.

FAA Part 150 Compatible Land Use Criteria

Title 14 CFR part 150, Appendix A, Table 1 (Title 14 CFR part 150, 2007), provides Federal compatible land use guidelines for several land uses as a function of DNL values. Compatible or non-compatible land use is determined by comparing the predicted or measured DNL or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) values at a site to the values listed in Table 1. This table is provided as Table 1.3-7.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-13 S_A1

15A2 04D3

33D4

N_D1

15A3 04A2 04D2

33D3

15A1

04A1 22A4

09T1

15T1 22A3

33D5

22A1

33D2 27T1

27D3

22A2 27A1 27D2 09A1 09D1 09D2 E_A1 W_D1 W_A1 E_D1 09D3

N_A1 15D4 27D1

33D1 04D1

S_D1 15D2

22D1

15D1 04A4 33A3

22D2 15D5

15D3

22D3 LEGEND Track Type Approach Departure 33T1 Touch and Go 33A1 Feet 0 7,000 º 04A2 Sources: FAA AEDT2d, 2017; FDOT APLUS, 2014.

PUNTA GORDA AIRPORT FIGURE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FLIGHT TRACKS 1.3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Path: S:\Projects\C\CharlottePath: Authority\60516837_MPUeALP\Planning\900-CAD-GIS\920 Co Airport GIS-Graphics\Environmental Assessment\mxd\Noise\180223_Appx Tracks_rev0.mxd, FigFlight 1-3-2 Date Saved: 2/23/2018 PM 3:48:09 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-6 Existing Condition Flight Track Utilization ARRIVAL Runway Track Jets/Turbo Prop Piston Helo 04A1 25 % 25 % 04A2 25 % 25 % 04 04A3 25 % 25 % 04A4 25 % 25 % 22A1 25 % 25 % 22A2 25 % 25 % 22 22A3 25 % 25 % 22A4 25 % 25 % 15A1 33 % 33 % 15 15A2 33 % 33 % 15A3 34 % 34 % 33A1 33 % 33 % 33 33A2 33 % 33 % 33A3 34 % 34 % 09 09A1 100 % 100 % 27 27A1 100 % 100 % E_A1 25 % N_A1 25 % Helo Pad S_A1 25 % W_A1 25 % DEPARTURE Runway Track Jets/Turbo Prop Piston Helo 04D1 27 % 27 % 04 04D2 51 % 51 % 04D3 22 % 22 % 22D1 27 % 27 % 22 22D2 51 % 51 % 22D3 22 % 22 % 15D1 20 % 20 % 15D2 20 % 20 % 15 15D3 20 % 20 % 15D4 20 % 20 % 15D5 20 % 20 % 33D1 20 % 20 % 33D2 20 % 20 % 33D3 33 33D3 20 % 20 % 33D4 20 % 20 % 33D5 20 % 20 % 09D1 27 % 27 % 09 09D2 51 % 51 % 09D3 22 % 22 % 27D1 27 % 27 % 27 27D2 51 % 51 % 27D3 22 % 22 % E_D1 25 % N_D1 25 % Helo Pad S_D1 25 % W_D1 25 % Source: AECOM, 2016.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-17 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-7 Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85 Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Decibels Residential Residential (Other than mobile 1 1 Y N N N N N homes & transient lodges) Mobile Home Parks Y N N N N N Transient Lodging Y N1 N1 N1 N N Public Use Schools Y N1 N1 N N N Hospitals, Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, Auditoriums, Concert Y 25 30 N N N Halls Governmental Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 Y4 Parking Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Commercial Use Offices, Business & Professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale & Retail Building Materials, Hardware & Farm Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Equipment Retail Trade - General Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Communications Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing & Production Manufacturing, General Y Y Y2 Y3 Y4 N Photographic and Optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (Except Livestock) & 6 7 8 8 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Forestry Livestock Farming & Breeding Y Y6 Y7 N N N Mining & Fishing, Resource Y Y Y Y Y Y Production & Extraction Recreational Outdoor Sports Arenas, Spectator 5 5 Y Y Y N N N Sports Outdoor Music Shells, Y N N N N N Amphitheaters Nature Exhibits & Zoos Y Y N N N N Amusement, Parks, Resorts, Camps Y Y Y N N N Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Y Y 25 30 N N Recreation NOTE: The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties remains with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land use for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise-compatible land uses.

Y (Yes) Land Use and related structures are compatible without restrictions. N (No) Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) are to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of structure. 25, 30, or 35 Land use and related structures are generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated in design and construction of structure.

1 Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor NLR of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-18 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems.

2 Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.

3 Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.

4 Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of the buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.

5 Land use compatibility provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.

6 Residential buildings require an NLR of 25 dB.

7 Residential buildings require an NLR of 30 dB.

8 Residential buildings not permitted.

Noncompatible land use

Source: Title 14 CFR part 150, 2007.

1.3.2. FUTURE CONDITIONS NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

Flight Operations

As shown in Tables 1.3-8 through 1.3-10, AEDT-modeled annual operations for the 2021 study year totaled 67,599 operations, an average of approximately 185 daily operations. The day/night split did not change from the existing condition.

As shown in Tables 1.3-11 through 1.3-13, AEDT-modeled annual operations for the 2026 study year totaled 69,788 operations, an average of approximately 191 daily operations. As with the 2021 forecast, the day /night split did not change from the existing condition.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-19 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-8 2021 Condition Average Annual Daily Commercial Aircraft Operations AEDT 2021 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local Airbus A321* A321-232 351 0.9616 0.0000 Airbus A320 / A320neo A320-232 5958 16.3233 0.0000 Air Carrier Boeing (Douglas) MD 83 MD83 0 0.0000 0.0000 Airbus A319 / A319neo A319-131 701 1.9205 0.0000 CL600 CL600 95 0.2603 0.0000 CL601 CL601 23 0.0630 0.0000 CNA500 CNA500 500 1.3699 0.0000 CNA55B CNA55B 210 0.5753 0.0000 CNA680 CNA680 30 0.0822 0.0000 CNA750 CNA750 36 0.0986 0.0000 Commuter EMB145 EMB145 4 0.0110 0.0000 EMB190 EMB190 3 0.0082 0.0000 GIV GIV 1 0.0027 0.0000 GV GV 2 0.0055 0.0000 LEAR25 LEAR25 7 0.0192 0.0000 LEAR35 LEAR35 368 1.0082 0.0000 MU3001 MU3001 49 0.1342 0.0000 Total Commercial 8338 0 22.8438 0.0000 Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Table 1.3-9 2021 Condition Average Annual Daily General Aviation Aircraft Operations AEDT 2021 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local 737400 737400 48 0.1315 0.0000 737800 737800 653 1.7890 0.0000 A7D A7D 3 0.0082 0.0000 CIT3 CIT3 552 1.5123 0.0000 CL600 CL600 279 0.7644 0.0000 CL601 CL601 180 0.4932 0.0000 CNA500 CNA500 1997 5.4712 0.0000 CNA55B CNA55B 781 2.1397 0.0000 CNA680 CNA680 124 0.3397 0.0000 CNA750 CNA750 5 0.0137 0.0000 GA Jet ECLIPSE500 ECLIPSE500 581 1.5918 0.0000 EMB145 EMB145 7 0.0192 0.0000 F10062 F10062 236 0.6466 0.0000 GII GII 6 0.0164 0.0000 GIIB GIIB 14 0.0384 0.0000 GIV GIV 89 0.2438 0.0000 GV GV 92 0.2521 0.0000 IA1125 IA1125 635 1.7397 0.0000 LEAR35 LEAR35 9 0.0247 0.0000 MU3001 MU3001 240 0.6575 0.0000 1900D 1900D 6 0.0164 0.0000 DHC6 DHC6 307 0.8411 0.0000 GA Turboprop DHC8 DHC8 133 0.3644 0.0000 DO228 DO228 196 0.5370 0.0000

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-20 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

AEDT 2021 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local SF340 SF340 126 0.3452 0.0000 BEC58P BEC58P 4477 3739 12.2658 10.2449 CNA441 CNA441 1222 1021 3.3479 2.7965 DC3 DC3 26 0.0712 0.0000 GA Multi-Engine DC6 DC6 3 0.0082 0.0000 Piston PA30 PA30 159 0.4356 0.0000 PA31 PA31 861 2.3589 0.0000 SD330 SD330 167 139 0.4575 0.3809 CNA172 CNA172 5747 4634 15.7452 12.6953 CNA182 CNA182 2344 1890 6.4219 5.1771 CNA206 CNA206 896 722 2.4548 1.9786 GA Single Engine CNA208 CNA208 767 618 2.1014 1.6942 Piston CNA20T CNA20T 26 21 0.0712 0.0571 GASEPF GASEPF 1614 1302 4.4219 3.5658 GASEPV GASEPV 8185 6600 22.4247 18.0818 PA28 PA28 2702 7.4027 0.0000 B206L B206L 161 0.4411 0.0000 B407 B407 263 0.7205 0.0000 R44 R44 80 0.2192 0.0000 HELO S70 S70 1150 3.1507 0.0000 S76 S76 161 0.4411 0.0000 SA365N SA365N 106 0.2904 0.0000 Total General Aviation 38416 20685 105.2493 56.6722 GA = General Aviation; Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Table 1.3-10 2021 Condition Average Annual Daily Military Aircraft Operations AEDT 2021 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local T34 T34 49 0.1342 0.0000 F16PW9 F16A 18 0.0493 0.0000 A10A A10 1 0.0027 0.0000 Military C17 C17 3 0.0082 0.0000 C130HP C130HP 49 0.1342 0.0000 JPATS JPATS 40 0.1096 0.0000 Total Military 160 0 0.4384 0.0000 Total Annual Operations 46914 20685 128.5315 56.6722 Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-21 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-11 2026 Condition Average Annual Daily Commercial Aircraft Operations AEDT 2026 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local Airbus A321* A321-232 535 1.4658 0.0000 Airbus A320 / A320neo A320-232 6727 18.4301 0.0000 Air Carrier Boeing (Douglas) MD 83 MD83 0 0.0000 0.0000 Airbus A319 / A319neo A319-131 382 1.0466 0.0000 CL600 CL600 100 0.2740 0.0000 CL601 CL601 24 0.0658 0.0000 CNA500 CNA500 525 1.4384 0.0000 CNA55B CNA55B 220 0.6027 0.0000 CNA680 CNA680 32 0.0877 0.0000 CNA750 CNA750 37 0.1014 0.0000 Commuter EMB145 EMB145 4 0.0110 0.0000 EMB190 EMB190 3 0.0082 0.0000 GIV GIV 1 0.0027 0.0000 GV GV 2 0.0055 0.0000 LEAR25 LEAR25 7 0.0192 0.0000 LEAR35 LEAR35 386 1.0575 0.0000 MU3001 MU3001 52 0.1425 0.0000 Total Commercial 9037 0 24.7589 0.0000 Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Table 1.3-12 2026 Condition Average Annual Daily General Aviation Aircraft Operations AEDT 2026 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local 737400 737400 50 0.1370 0.0000 737800 737800 669 1.8329 0.0000 A7D A7D 3 0.0082 0.0000 CIT3 CIT3 566 1.5507 0.0000 CL600 CL600 286 0.7836 0.0000 CL601 CL601 185 0.5068 0.0000 CNA500 CNA500 2047 5.6082 0.0000 CNA55B CNA55B 800 2.1918 0.0000 CNA680 CNA680 127 0.3479 0.0000 CNA750 CNA750 6 0.0164 0.0000 GA Jet ECLIPSE500 ECLIPSE500 595 1.6301 0.0000 EMB145 EMB145 8 0.0219 0.0000 F10062 F10062 242 0.6630 0.0000 GII GII 6 0.0164 0.0000 GIIB GIIB 14 0.0384 0.0000 GIV GIV 91 0.2493 0.0000 GV GV 94 0.2575 0.0000 IA1125 IA1125 651 1.7836 0.0000 LEAR35 LEAR35 9 0.0247 0.0000 MU3001 MU3001 246 0.6740 0.0000 1900D 1900D 7 0.0192 0.0000 DHC6 DHC6 315 0.8630 0.0000 GA Turboprop DHC8 DHC8 136 0.3726 0.0000 DO228 DO228 201 0.5507 0.0000

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-22 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

AEDT 2026 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local SF340 SF340 129 0.3534 0.0000 BEC58P BEC58P 4590 3834 12.5753 10.5032 CNA441 CNA441 1253 1046 3.4329 2.8670 DC3 DC3 26 0.0712 0.0000 GA Multi- DC6 DC6 3 0.0082 0.0000 Engine Piston PA30 PA30 163 0.4466 0.0000 PA31 PA31 883 2.4192 0.0000 SD330 SD330 171 143 0.4685 0.3905 CNA172 CNA172 5892 4751 16.1425 13.0154 CNA182 CNA182 2403 1937 6.5836 5.3076 CNA206 CNA206 918 740 2.5151 2.0285 GA Single CNA208 CNA208 786 634 2.1534 1.7369 Engine Piston CNA20T CNA20T 27 21 0.0740 0.0586 GASEPF GASEPF 1655 1334 4.5342 3.6557 GASEPV GASEPV 8392 6766 22.9918 18.5377 PA28 PA28 2770 7.5890 0.0000 B206L B206L 165 0.4521 0.0000 B407 B407 269 0.7370 0.0000 R44 R44 82 0.2247 0.0000 HELO S70 S70 1179 3.2301 0.0000 S76 S76 165 0.4521 0.0000 SA365N SA365N 109 0.2986 0.0000 Total General Aviation 39384 21207 107.9014 58.1010 GA = General Aviation; Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Table 1.3-13 2026 Condition Average Annual Daily Military Aircraft Operations AEDT 2026 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local T34 T34 49 0.1342 0.0000 F16PW9 F16A 18 0.0493 0.0000 A10A A10 1 0.0027 0.0000 Military C17 C17 3 0.0082 0.0000 C130HP C130HP 49 0.1342 0.0000 JPATS JPATS 40 0.1096 0.0000 Total Military 160 0 0.4384 0.0000 Total Annual Operations 48,581 21,207 133.0986 58.1010 Note: Numbers may not add, due to rounding. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Increased Flight School Operations with the Proposed Project

The Proposed Project includes relocation of GA facilities to the north side of the PGD airfield, inclusive of additional apron and facility space for additional tenants. Within the Five-Year Program, Western Michigan University will be provided with an expanded flight school operation due to the Proposed Project, which will induce additional flight school activity above and beyond what is occurring currently. Therefore, the 2026 Proposed Project scenario accounts for the

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-23 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

addition of approximately 20,800 annual flight training operations by Western Michigan University made possible by construction of GA facilities on the northside of PGD.

Whereas Table 1.3-12 summarizes daily operations expected to occur irrespective of the Proposed Project, Table 1.3-14 below shows the additional GA local flight school operations that would occur with the Proposed Project, based on information provided by Western Michigan University. For this analysis, it was assumed that all flight school operations would be local circuit pattern flights, and that these would occur exclusively on Runway 9-27, using the same runway utilization information provided in this report

Table 1.3-14 2026 Condition: Additional Average Annual Daily Flight School Operations AEDT 2026 Category Aircraft Type AIRCRAFT Annual Operations Average Daily TYPE Itinerant Local Itinerant Local GA Multi- CNA441 CNA441 0 13,600 0 37.2603 Engine Piston GA Single CNA206 CNA206 0 7,200 0 19.7260 Engine Piston Total 0 20,800 0 59.9863 GA = General Aviation Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. CNA441 was chosen as modeling surrogate to Western Michigan University’s Piper Seminole training aircraft. CNA206 was chosen as a surrogate for their Cirrus SR-20 aircraft. Source: AECOM, 2016.

Runway Use

Runway utilization for the Proposed Project remains unchanged from the Existing Condition. However, runway utilization for the Interim Condition with Runway 04-22 closed is shown in Tables 1.3-15 and 1.3-16.

Table 1.3-15 Existing Condition Arrival Operations Runway Utilization Single & Multi Runway Jet Turboprop Engine Piston 04 22 15 48.5% 40.0% 38.8% 33 51.5% 60.0% 58.2% 09 1.4% 27 1.6% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: PGD ATCT, 2016

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-24 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Table 1.3-16 Existing Condition Departure Operations Runway Utilization Single & Multi Runway Jet Turboprop Engine Piston 04 22 15 22.9% 42.9% 41.6% 33 77.1% 57.1% 55.4% 09 1.4% 27 1.6% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: PGD ATCT, 2016.

Flight Tracks

Flight tracks remain unchanged from the Existing Condition.

Track Use

Flight track utilization remains unchanged from the Existing Condition.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-25 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

1.4. REFERENCES

American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI), 2007. American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound - Part 5: Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of Compatible Land Use, ANSI/ASA S12.9- 2007/Part 5, November 14, 2007.

ANSI, 2003. American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound, Part 1, ANSI S12.9-1988 (R 2003).

ANSI, 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools, ANSI S12.60-2002, June 26, 2002.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), 2005. Guidelines for Addressing Acoustics in Educational Settings. On-line. Available from Internet, www.asha.org/policy.

Bradley J.S., 1985. Uniform Derivation of Optimum Conditions for Speech in Rooms, National Research Council, Building Research Note, BRN 239, Ottawa, Canada, November 1985.

Department of Defense, 1978. Planning in the Noise Environment, AFM 19-10. TM 5-803-2, and NAVFAC P-970. Washington, D.C. June, 1978.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, Report 550/9-74-004, March 1974.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Request for Operations Specifications Amendment by Horizon Air to Provide Scheduled Air Service to Mammoth Yosemite Airport, March, 2008.

FAA, 2015. Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, FAA Order 1050.1F, July 15, 2015.

Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN), 1997. Effects of Aviation Noise on Awakenings from Sleep, June 1997.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992.

Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN), 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control, June 1980.

Fidell et.al., 1991. Fidell, S., Barger, D.S., Schultz, T.J., Updating a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation Noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89, pgs. 221-233, January 1991.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-26 Punta Gorda Airport Noise Technical Report

Fidell et.al., 2000. Fidell, S., Pearsons, K, Tabachnick, B.G., Howes, R., Effects on Sleep Disturbance of Changes in Aircraft Noise Near Three Airports, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(5) Pt.1, pgs. 2535-2547, May 2000.

Lazarus H., 1990. New Methods for Describing and Assessing Direct Speech Communication Under Disturbing Conditions, Environment International, 16 (4-6), pp. 373-392, 1990.

Lind S.J., Pearsons K., and Fidell S., 1998. Sound Insulation Requirements for Mitigation of Aircraft Noise Impact on Highline School District Facilities Volume I. BBN Systems and Technologies, BBN Report No. 8240, December, 1998.

Schultz, 1978. Schultz, T.J., Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 377-405, August, 1978.

Sharp, B.S., Plotkin, K. J., 1984. Selection of Noise Criteria for School Classrooms, Wyle Research Technical Note TN84-2 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October 1986.

Title 14 CFR part 150, 2007. Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, Doc. No. 18691, 49 FR 49269, Dec. 18, 1984; 50 FR 5063, Feb. 6, 1985; Amdt. 150–2, 54 FR 39295, Sept. 25, 1989; 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004; Amdt. 150–4, 69 FR 57626, Sept. 24, 2004; 72 FR 68475, Dec. 5, 2007.

Wesler, J.E., 1977. Concorde Operations At Dulles International Airport, NOISEXPO ’77, Chicago, IL, March, 1977.

Wesler, J.E., 1986. Priority Selection of Schools for Soundproofing, Wyle Research Technical Note TN96-8 for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, October, 1986.

World Health Organization (WHO), 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. On-line. Available from Internet, http://www.who.int/peh/noise/guidelines2.html.

Five-Year CIP Environmental Assessment 1-27 This Page Intentionally Left Blank APPENDIX G Draft EA Public Involvement This Page Intentionally Left Blank LIST OF DRAFT EA RECIPIENTS

Federal Agencies Local Agencies

Mr. John Wrublik Mr. Josh Overmyer Biologist Floodplain Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Charlotte County Community Development 1339 20th Street Department Vero Beach, Florida 32960 18400 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 Mr. Israel Vega-Marrero District Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 6942 Professional Parkway East Sarasota, Florida 34240

State Agencies

Mr. Chris Stahl Coordinator Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Blvd, MS 47 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Mr. Jason Hight Biologist Administrator II Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Office of Conservation Planning Services Division of Habitat and Species Conservation 620 South Meridian Street, MS 5B5 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600

Mr. Jason Aldridge Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Florida Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street, Rm 305 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 This Page Intentionally Left Blank