MR-MICCI Section 4(F)

Home , Homestead Subdivision, Miami Intermodal Center, Miami River (Florida)

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration

and

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority

In cooperation with:

Florida Department of Transportation

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

From North of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station (Milepost 1035.96) to

Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station (Milepost 1037.21)

Miami-Dade County, Florida

The proposed Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project included evaluation of additional mainline track(s) within the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC), evaluated bridge alternatives (replace or rehabilitate the existing National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge over the Miami River) and evaluated upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. Except for the no-build alternative and the rehabilitation alternative, the alternatives will directly impact the historical value of the existing railroad bridge.

Submitted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 303 and § 23 U.S.C. § 138.

Based upon considerations herein, it is determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the CSXT Railroad Bridge and that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property resulting from such use.

Ql_j20 Q_; \i Date Region 4 Admimstrat0r Federal Transit Administration Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Background ...... 4 1.2 Proposed Action ...... 4 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 6 1.3.1 Purpose ...... 6 1.3.2 Need ...... 6 2 Description of Proposed Action ...... 10 3 Section 4(f) Resources ...... 10 3.1 Miami Canal (8DA6525) ...... 10 3.2 CSX Railroad (8DA10753) ...... 11 3.3 CXST Railroad Bridge (FMFS No. 8DA5910) ...... 12 4 Description of Use and Impacts on the Section 4(f) Resources – Proposed Action ...... 13 4.1 Miami Canal ...... 13 4.2 CSX Railroad ...... 13 4.3 CSXT Railroad Bridge ...... 14 4.3.1 Purpose and Need ...... 14 4.3.2 Structural and Functional ...... 14 4.3.3 Safety ...... 15 4.3.4 Financial Considerations ...... 15 5 Description of Use and Impacts on the Section 4(f) Resource - Avoidance Alternatives .....17 5.1 No Build Alternative ...... 17 5.1.1 Purpose and Need ...... 17 5.1.2 Structural and Functional ...... 17 5.1.3 Safety ...... 18 5.1.4 Financial Considerations ...... 18 5.2 Rehabilitation Alternatives ...... 18 5.2.1 Rehabilitate and ‘Lock-Down’ Existing Bridge...... 18 5.2.2 Rehabilitate Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge ...... 20 5.2.3 Additional Avoidance Alternatives ...... 23 6 Minimization and Mitigation of Harm ...... 24 7 Agency Consultation and Coordination ...... 24 8 Section 4(f) Determinations ...... 25

LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1: NRHP Eligible or Listed Sites within the Area of Potential Effect ...... 1 Table 2: Summary of Prudent Alternatives Criteria ...... 27 Table 3: Section 4(f) Determination Summary ...... 28

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1: NRHP Listed and Eligible Resources ...... 2 Figure 2: Project Location Map ...... 5 Figure 3: Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station Aerial ...... 6 Figure 4: Regional Transportation Facilities Map ...... 9 Figure 5: Proposed Action – Remove Existing Railroad Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge ..... 10 Figure 6: National Register–Eligible Miami Canal (8DA6525) ...... 11 Figure 7: National Register-Eligible CSX Railway (8DA10753) ...... 12 Figure 8: National Register – Eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) ...... 13 Figure 9: Rehabilitate Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge ...... 21

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – State Historic Preservation Officer Determination of Effects Letter Appendix B – Agency Coordination Documentation Appendix C – Letters to Native American Tribes Appendix D – Cultural Resource Committee Meetings – Presentations and Minutes

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

1 INTRODUCTION

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (now codified in 49 U.S.C. § 303 and § 23 U.S.C. § 138) refers to the temporary and/or permanent use or constructive use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site. There are no significant parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges affected by the proposed project. There are five resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the project area that are subject to Section 4(f) protection. Table 1 and Figure 1 identify the five NRHP-eligible and NRHP-listed resources within the project area.

Table 1: NRHP Eligible or Listed Sites within the Area of Potential Effect Construction FMSF No. Site Name/ Address Style NRHP Status Date Hialeah Seaboard Air Mission Spanish 8DA103 Line Railway Station/ 1927 Listed in 1995 Colonial Revival 1200 SE 10th Court 8DA6525 Miami Canal 1912 Canal Eligible 8DA5910 CSXT Railroad Bridge 1926 Bridge Eligible 8DA10753 CSX Railroad 1925 Railway Eligible Miami Central Station 8DA11868 1938 Railway Eligible Railroad Spur FMSF – Florida Master Site File; NRHP – National Register of Historic Places Source: Janus Research, 2013

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Figure 1: NRHP Listed and Eligible Resources

The individual Section 4(f) evaluation requires two findings, which will be discussed in turn1:

1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative that completely avoids the use of Section 4(f) property; and 2) The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property resulting from the transportation use (see 23 CFR 774.3(a) (1) and (2)).

Under 23 CFR 774.17, a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative is defined as an alternative that:

▪ Avoids the use of the Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of protection of the Section 4(f) property.

An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgement.

An alternative is not prudent if:

1 Section 4(f) Policy Paper, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Planning, Environment and Realty, July 20, 2012.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

▪ It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed in light of the project's stated purpose and need (i.e., the alternative does not address the purpose and need of the project); ▪ It results in unacceptable safety or operation problems; ▪ Reasonable mitigation does not effectively address impacts; ▪ It results in additional construction, maintenance or operational costs of extraordinary magnitude; ▪ It causes other unique or unusual factors; or ▪ It involves multiple factors listed above that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude.

The Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project will provide additional mainline track(s) within the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) from just north of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station (Milepost 1035.96) to the Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station (Milepost 1037.21) located within the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). The proposed action includes the removal of the CSXT bridge and construction of a new fixed bridge with two mainline tracks to cross the Miami River. The proposed action also includes upgrades to the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station to accommodate the additional mainline track. The proposed action results in an adverse effect to the NRHP-eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge and the NRHP-eligible CSX Railroad because of the removal of the bridge. The proposed action does not result in an adverse effect to any of the other NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible resources. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the determination of effects on these resources (see SHPO letter, dated April 10, 2017, in Appendix A).

For the resources not adversely affected by the proposed action, a determination of whether there is a use of the Section 4(f) resource has been made. The Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station is currently vacant, but was most recently used as a commercial shopping center. The proposed action would not change the use of the NRHP-eligible resource. There is no right-of-way (R/W) required, there are no direct or indirect impacts to this structure, and its use will not be modified to a transportation use. The Miami Central Railroad Spur currently serves a transportation use. These existing rail facilities will remain within the same existing R/W and will continue to function for transportation use. Thus, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has determined that there is no Section 4(f) use of the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station or the Miami Central Station Railroad Spur. Therefore, these resources are not discussed further in this document.

The Miami Canal is an open water, steep sided, maintained waterbody. The proposed action includes a new two-track railroad bridge that will span the existing canal, and will be designed to match the existing railroad bridge’s piers. The Miami Canal has many bridge crossings throughout its 85-mile length, which have not affected this resource’s eligibility as a historic resource. There is no change in the route, direction, or shape of the canal. However, the proposed action will replace the existing moveable bridge with a low-level, fixed bridge (6-foot vertical clearance). The Miami River (i.e. Miami Canal) is a navigable, federal project channel maintained by the local sponsor, Miami-Dade County. The navigable limits of the Miami River were determined based on consultation with the US Coast Guard (USCG) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Bridge clearance over the Miami River is the primary navigation impact of the proposed action. The navigable federal project channel limits extend approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the project crossing to a South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) salinity and flood

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) control structure. Although there is no adverse effect under Section 106, there is a change in navigation use; thus, FTA has determined that there is a use under Section 4(f).

1.1 Project Background

The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) operates the Tri-Rail regional commuter rail system within the SFRC from Miami to Mangonia Park, through Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. The roughly 72-mile Tri-Rail system has 18 stations along its length and presently has an average weekday ridership of approximately 15,000. As part of the Segment 5 Double Track Corridor Improvement Program completed in 2006, SFRTA reconstructed and added a second mainline track to all but the southernmost 1.25 miles of the Tri- Rail corridor. Municipal jurisdictions within proximity of this portion the of Tri-Rail corridor include Hialeah, Miami, Miami Springs and unincorporated Miami-Dade County. Within this remaining single-track section of the corridor, there is an existing bascule railroad bridge (a bridge that is moveable and opens for boats to pass through) across the Miami River. Figure 2 presents a project location map.

1.2 Proposed Action

The proposed action will provide additional mainline track(s) within the SFRC from just north of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station (Milepost 1035.96) to the Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station (Milepost 1037.21) located within the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). The MIC is a ground transportation hub that accommodates and provides connectivity among several transportation modes in one facility, serving as a main transfer point in the South Florida region. The additional mainline track(s) will address an existing capacity deficiency along the system which negatively impacts travel time and schedule adherence. These deficiencies will be further exacerbated in the future with the extension and expansion of Amtrak service (intercity rail) along this segment of the SFRC and into the MIC2.

The MR-MICCI project included an evaluation of several railroad bridge alternatives (replace or rehabilitate the existing bascule bridge) over the Miami River and upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station.

2 Amtrak service is scheduled to be extended into the MIC in the winter of 2017.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Figure 2: Project Location Map

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

The Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station is located adjacent to (just southeast of) the NRHP-listed Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station resource (see Figure 3). The Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station resource is located to the west of the proposed improvements to the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. The facilities associated with the Tri-Rail station are not connected to or considered part of the features that make the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station building historic. Improvements to the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station do not adversely affect any of the NRHP-listed or NRHP- eligible resources, including the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station and thus is not discussed further in this document.

Figure 3: Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station Aerial

The MR-MICCI project is listed in the SFRTA’s Transit Development Plan (TDP) and programmed in the SFRTA’s Capital Budget and Five Year Plan. The project is consistent with the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization’s (TPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which includes the double tracking of the remaining single-track section of the Tri- Rail system. The project is also included in the Miami-Dade TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 Purpose

The primary purpose of this project is to increase the rail capacity within the SFRC to better accommodate Tri-Rail, Amtrak and freight rail. The addition of a mainline track will require passenger platform modifications and upgrades at the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station to provide access to the new track. Thus, alternatives for upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station were also considered.

1.3.2 Need The need of the project is based upon the following.

Improve System Linkage: The purpose of the MR-MICCI project is to complete the final link of the SFRC reconstruction project, providing a second mainline track across the only remaining

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) single-track section of the existing 72-mile Tri-Rail system to enhance connectivity with the MIC. The project is integral to the success of the MIC and the sustained development of an intermodal transportation hub at the MIC.

Address Existing and Future Transportation Demand and Operational Constraints: After the completion of the Segment 5 Project of the SFRC Double Track Corridor Improvement Program in 2006, the SFRTA increased Tri-Rail’s service from 30 to 50 trains per day.

Currently, Amtrak service ends at the Miami Amtrak Station approximately four miles to the north of the MIC. Two Amtrak routes (Silver Meteor and Silver Star) serve the Miami Amtrak Station daily, traveling between New York and Miami. The MIC includes facilities for Amtrak service, and the Amtrak service will be extended to the MIC in the first quarter of calendar year 2018. The Amtrak service will operate within the SFRC on the same single-track segment as Tri-Rail. These Amtrak trains will also travel regularly in non-revenue service between the MIC and the Amtrak Hialeah Preventative Maintenance Facility to undergo routine maintenance and cleaning.

Approximately four CSXT freight trains also travel through the project area daily. Both the Downtown Distributor and Homestead Subdivision spurs located on the north and south sides of the Miami River, respectively, accommodate active freight service.

The new Amtrak service and the anticipated freight rail growth within this single-track segment of the SFRC will further exacerbate an existing rail capacity constraint and can result in unreliable Tri-Rail and Amtrak passenger rail service. This project will remove a capacity constraint at the southern end of the SFRC and enhance access into the MIC for Tri-Rail and Amtrak.

Support Economic Development: This project enhances access to the MIC, which has been designated a Federal Empowerment Zone, State Enterprise Zone, and Miami-Dade County Enterprise Zone. These designations encourage economic growth and investment through incentives around the MIC. An estimated 22,000 permanent jobs will be created to operate the facilities associated with the MIC and new employment opportunities surrounding the MIC3. A joint development component of the MIC Program consists of up to 1.4 million square feet of mixed-use development (development that includes any combination of residential, retail, commercial, or industrial uses) that will further encourage ridership on public transportation serving the MIC. Redevelopment of the area immediately to the east of the MIC offers the potential for another 4.5 million square feet of mixed-use development.

Improve Modal Interrelationships: The Tri-Rail system provides connections to the South Florida region’s three international airports: Miami International Airport (MIA), Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport (FLL), and Palm Beach International Airport (PBI). The MIC provides intermodal connectivity among Tri-Rail, the Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) (formerly Miami-Dade Transit (MDT)) Metrorail and Metrobus, MIA

3 Information on projected job creation for the operation of facilities associated with and surrounding the MIC can be found at http://micdot.com/economic_development.html

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) via the MIA Mover, Amtrak, Greyhound (intercity bus), shuttles, rental cars, and taxis. The proposed project enhances the connection between the Tri-Rail system and the MIC, which will result in reduced transit travel times and passengers may require fewer transfers to access destinations throughout South Florida. See Figure 4 for location of regional transportation facilities.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Source: FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Atlas, October 2015

Figure 4: Regional Transportation Facilities Map

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is to add a second mainline track to the SFRC and replace the existing railroad bridge with a new fixed-span bridge that will accommodate two mainline railroad tracks (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Proposed Action – Remove Existing Railroad Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge

3 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

3.1 Miami Canal (8DA6525)

Constructed in 1912, the Miami Canal crosses the SFRC railroad tracks in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Section 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988) in Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 6). The NRHP-eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge spans the canal. The canal is 85- miles long, beginning at Lake Okeechobee and ending in Biscayne Bay. This approximately 100- foot wide earthen canal winds through residential and commercial areas. The Miami Canal is one of the six primary canals of the Everglades Drainage Project the State began in 1906. Originally engineered to provide agricultural lands and transportation in South Florida, the canals eventually were used to control flooding to provide residential land. Control of the canals was given to the USACE in the 1940s.

As an example of an early water management system and as one of six primary canals of the Everglades Drainage District, the Miami Canal maintains engineering significance. In addition, the canal maintains historical significance for its role in the development of South Florida. This

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) resource was determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places on September 17, 2013, in the areas of Agriculture, Community Planning and Development, and Engineering.

Figure 6: National Register–Eligible Miami Canal (8DA6525) Image taken from the Airport Expressway, facing southeast

3.2 CSX Railroad (8DA10753)

The portion of the NRHP-eligible CSX Railroad within the project APE consists of standard gauge railroad tracks over gravel ballast, located in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Sections 20 and 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988), Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 7). The CSX Railroad was originally part of the extensive Seaboard Air Line Railroad, started in the 1880s, which consisted of numerous branches in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. In 1923, the President of Seaboard Air Line Railroads, Mr. S. Davies Warfield, initiated a move to extend a line from the existing Coleman Station in Sumter County, Florida, to West Palm Beach, with the ultimate goal of connecting the line to Miami. After Warfield organized the quick purchase of over 160,000 acres of right-of-way, construction began on the West Palm Beach branch in the summer of 1924. Immediately following this expeditious construction, work on the line connecting West Palm Beach and Miami was initiated, and by the end of the year the line was extended from Miami to Homestead. This portion of the railroad was constructed circa-1925 and is part of the Miami to Homestead line. As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) prepared for this project, the CSX Railroad was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Places by SHPO in 2010 due to its significance in Transportation, Community Planning and Development, and Commerce.

Figure 7: National Register-Eligible CSX Railway (8DA10753)

Image taken from NW 38th Avenue, facing northwest

3.3 CXST Railroad Bridge (FMFS No. 8DA5910)

Erected circa-1926, this railroad bridge (8DA5910) is located west of Northwest 37th Avenue and crosses the Miami Canal in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Section 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988) in the southeast corner of Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida. This steel bridge on timber piles is movable, and features two approach spans and one main span. The bridge is an example of the Scherzer rolling lift type and is in good structural condition (see Figure 8). A non-historic Frame Vernacular tender house is located adjacent to the bridge. As a bridge, this resource is significant to railroad engineering that allowed the transportation of people and goods across all types of terrain. This historic structure is significant in the areas of Transportation and Engineering, and was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 1995.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Figure 8: National Register – Eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910)

4 DESCRIPTION OF USE AND IMPACTS ON THE SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES – PROPOSED ACTION

4.1 Miami Canal

The Miami Canal was determined NRHP-eligible. There are structures that cross over this waterway or that are located within the waterway throughout the length of this historic linear resource; these include historic and non-historic structures. The addition of a fixed bridge would reduce the length of this federally navigable waterway by approximately 1,000 feet or 3.5% of the total navigable length of the Miami River. As long as the basic location and features of this linear resource are maintained, a fixed bridge crossing the Miami River will not affect the features that make it NRHP-eligible. The construction of the new bridge will not result in an adverse effect to the historic canal due to the low percentage of the canal’s navigable length that would be effected and the historic linear resource will still convey its significance in the areas of Agriculture, Community Planning and Development, and Engineering. FTA has determined that this minor loss in navigation, although permanent, is a de minimis impact to the resource.

4.2 CSX Railroad

The improvements to the NRHP-eligible CSX Railroad in the current project APE include the addition of a second mainline track and alignment adjustments to the CSX Railroad and the NRHP- eligible Miami Central Railroad Spur to accommodate a second mainline track. The historic

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) railroad corridor will continue normal operations throughout this project’s construction and the resources’ importance in the areas of Transportation, Community Planning and Development, and Commerce will not be compromised by these changes. In a letter dated April 10, 2017 (see Appendix A), the SHPO indicated that the removal of the NRHP-eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge will result in an adverse effect to the CSX Railroad, but the replacement of the bridge will act as mitigation for the impacts to the CSX Railroad. The proposed action would construct the new bridge prior to removal of the existing bridge to continuously maintain operations along the railroad corridor and to avoid truncating the CSX Railroad for any period. Thus, the proposed action and any avoidance alternatives would have the same impact on this Section 4(f) resource, as mitigation (construction of a new bridge) would occur prior to any adverse impact to the railroad corridor (demolition of the old bridge).

The proposed action is a permanent use of this Section 4(f) resource. Because the use of the CSX Railroad is closely associated with the use of the CSXT Railroad Bridge, the analysis and evaluation of use and impacts for the CSX Railroad was combined with the analysis for the CSXT Railroad Bridge, which is described in Section 4.1.3.

4.3 CSXT Railroad Bridge

The Proposed Action would result in the removal of the CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910), which would be replaced with a new two-track, fixed span bridge structure. The proposed action is considered a permanent use of this Section 4(f) resource. The proposed new bridge would be placed immediately west (up river) of the existing movable bridge and would tie into the existing and new tracks north and south of the Miami River (see Figure 5). This action would preserve connections with the existing freight spurs (Downtown Distributor to the north of the Miami River and Homestead Subdivision to the south of the Miami River) within the SFRC. This action would also tie into the newly constructed four-track configuration at the MIC that includes separate center platform boarding areas for Tri-Rail passengers and for Amtrak passengers.

Several factors were considered in the evaluation of the bridge alternatives, including:

▪ Does the action meet the purpose and need? ▪ What are the structural and functional considerations? ▪ What are the safety features/considerations? ▪ What are the financial considerations?

The following information provides the analysis for these factors:

4.3.1 Purpose and Need This alternative meets the purpose and need by increasing the rail capacity within the SFRC to better accommodate Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and freight rail.

4.3.2 Structural and Functional The proposed bridge meets the structural and functional needs of the current and future transportation use of this corridor, including:

▪ Designed to accommodate heavy loads;

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

▪ Concrete/steel pilings, not susceptible to marine borer; ▪ Provides greater vertical clearance to meet the FDOT’s SFRC Clearance Policy for 25 kV service design requirements; ▪ Track alignment overlaid on the existing alignment minimizes changes in curvature, which would be required to accommodate any avoidance alternative with a new bridge thus resulting in reduced operating speeds, increased maintenance costs, and increased risk of derailment; ▪ Improved structural design would accommodate all rail traffic (no need to restrict certain types of vehicles to a specific bridge); and ▪ Reduced impact to flood control compared to the avoidance alternatives. The new concrete pilings would be designed to be less susceptible to scour. The proposed action would reduce the size and/or number of piers in the water compared to the avoidance alternatives.

4.3.3 Safety The proposed bridge will be designed to provide upgraded safety features as follows:

▪ New bridge will include American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)4 compliant catwalk, allowing for emergency egress from commuter trains, currently not provided on the existing bridge; ▪ Catwalk will also provide improved conditions for inspecting bridge and rail, resulting in reduced maintenance costs; and ▪ Additional safety features currently missing from existing bridge, such as a dedicated walkway/grating, handrails, ballast curbs, signage, and lighting would be incorporated into new bridge design.

4.3.4 Financial Considerations This alternative significantly lowers the life cycle costs in comparison to the avoidance alternatives, because of the special maintenance required for the existing movable bridge that would not be required for a fixed bridge. The approximate life cycle costs were developed for this alternative as follows:

4 The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) is an organization whose mission is “the development and advancement of both technical and practical knowledge and recommended practices pertaining to the design, construction and maintenance of railway infrastructure. Source: www.armea.org

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Capital Cost:

▪ Remove Existing Bridge $0.3 Million ▪ Construct New Bridge $2.6 Million ▪ R/W Acquisition/ Business Damages $13.1 Million Total Capital Costs $16.0 Million

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Life-Cycle Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs (over 75 years):

▪ Recurring Maintenance and Inspection $0.30 Million Total O&M Costs over 75 years $0.30 Million

5 DESCRIPTION OF USE AND IMPACTS ON THE SECTION 4(f) RESOURCE - AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES

Avoidance alternatives must also be evaluated as part of the Section 4(f) process. The avoidance alternatives evaluated in the following sections include the No Build, a rehabilitation of the existing bridge, and the construction of a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge. The three avoidance alternatives provided below were discussed with the project’s Cultural Resources Committee, which included representatives of FTA and the SHPO, and aided in the determination of effects of the proposed action (see Cultural Resource Committee Meetings – Presentations and Minutes in Appendix D)

5.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative will allow for the CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) to remain in place with no improvements and thus results in no adverse effect to this resource. This alternative is evaluated using the same criteria as the Proposed Action.

5.1.1 Purpose and Need This alternative does not meet the purpose and need. Without the capacity improvements, continued delays and capacity constraints will remain in the rail corridor.

5.1.2 Structural and Functional SFRTA completed a bridge inspection and the results were summarized in the Structural, Mechanical & Electrical Inspection Report (June 2011). The existing timber fender system has shown signs of deterioration and this weakening is expected to continue. The timber piles had significant section loss; this deterioration likely has diminished the fender systems ability to absorb a ship impact. Some repair has occurred, including bolting new timber whalers to the existing piles; however, this repair does not appear sufficient to restore the capacity of the fender system and additional repair is needed.

The existing bridge is functionally substandard:

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

▪ The rehabilitation of mechanical and electrical components, as well as the structural members, will be required every 20 years for maintenance, negatively impacting rail service, as the rehabilitation would temporarily halt rail operations to/from the MIC and the Homestead Subdivision spur. ▪ The bridge is susceptible to scour due to the flood control structure located upstream. Any additional scour protection would limit the channel depth and impact flood control. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) maintains and operates the flood control structure just upstream of the bridge, and flood control is an important function of this portion of the Miami River.

5.1.3 Safety There are existing safety deficiencies with the existing bridge (resource) associated with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency access, as well as deficiencies with the bridge lifting mechanism. The existing bridge lacks ADA access and emergency access to and from the railroad track. The AREMA Manual requires emergency access on all bridges. Based on the current cross section, the existing bridge does not provide adequate clearances for emergency egress should a passenger train stall along the bridge. The bridge lifting mechanism is poor, resulting in the possibility of the bridge being stuck in the open position or not closing properly.

5.1.4 Financial Considerations Specialized maintenance is required and costly work would be required every 20 years to keep the existing bridge operational.

Life-Cycle Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs (over 75 years):

▪ Recurring Maintenance and Inspection (over 75 years) $0.75 Million ▪ Operating Costs (over 75 years) $8.00 Million ▪ Initial Maintenance Costs (year 0) $4.20 Million ▪ Major Maintenance Cost (year 20) $13.1 Million ▪ Additional Maintenance Costs (year 40 & year 60) $11.5 Million Total O&M Costs over 75 years $37.5 Million

5.2 Rehabilitation Alternatives

5.2.1 Rehabilitate and ‘Lock-Down’ Existing Bridge

This Rehabilitation Alternative differs from the No Build Alternative in that the existing bridge would be rehabilitated and “locked-down” to reduce O&M costs associated with the movable function of the bridge. Overall, this Rehabilitation Alternative provides minor benefits over the No Build Alternative.

5.2.1.1 Purpose and Need This alternative does not meet the purpose and need. Without the capacity improvements, continued delays and capacity constraints will remain in the rail corridor.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

5.2.1.2 Structural and Functional SFRTA completed a bridge inspection and the results were summarized in the Structural, Mechanical & Electrical Inspection Report (June 2011). The existing timber fender system has shown signs of deterioration and this weakening is expected to continue. The timber piles had significant section loss; this deterioration likely has diminished the fender systems ability to absorb a ship impact. Some repair has occurred including bolting new timber whalers to the existing piles; however, this repair does not appear sufficient to restore the capacity of the fender system and additional repair is needed.

The existing bridge is functionally substandard:

▪ A 22’6” vertical clearance is provided above the bridge and a nearby 25kV (high-voltage) electrical power service. A 24’3” minimum vertical clearance is required in FDOT’s South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) Policy for 25 kV Service (Topic No. 000-725-003). ▪ The minimum 18’ horizontal clearance is not provided. ▪ The bridge cannot be widened to provide a second track to meet the future capacity needs of the corridor. The existing cross section is 17’, whereas a 30’ minimum cross-section is required for two tracks. ▪ The flooring system/decking loads cannot be reduced to increase live load capacity. ▪ The rehabilitation of the structural members will be required every 20 years for maintenance, negatively impacting rail service, as the rehabilitation would temporarily halt rail operations to/from the MIC and the Homestead Subdivision spur. ▪ The bridge is susceptible to scour due to the flood control structure upstream. Any additional scour protection would limit the channel depth and could impact flood control. The SFWMD maintains and operates the flood control structure just upstream of the bridge, and flood control is an important function of this portion of the Miami River.

5.2.1.3 Safety There are safety deficiencies associated with the ADA and emergency access. The existing bridge lacks ADA access and emergency access to and from the railroad track. The AREMA Manual requires emergency access on all bridges. Based on the current cross section, the existing bridge does not provide adequate clearances for emergency egress should a passenger train stall along the bridge. Additional platforms would be required to retrofit the existing bridge to accommodate emergency access. These platforms would need to be installed on the outside of the existing trusses, which could be accomplished with outriggers attached to the structure. Additional analysis of the existing bridge would be required to determine the structure’s design adequacy. The addition of outriggers to accommodate AREMA egress requirements could affect the historical integrity and significance of the bridge. The outriggers would have to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for rehabilitation of NRHP properties

5.2.1.4 Financial Considerations Specialized maintenance is required and costly work would be required every 20 years to keep this bridge operational. This Rehabilitation Alternative reduces O&M costs in comparison to the No Build Alternative, but this Rehabilitation Alternative does have additional capital costs associated with the retrofitting necessary for ‘locking down’ the bridge. Furthermore, locking down the bridge would result in business damages to properties located upstream of the bridge on the Miami River, which would no longer have river access.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Capital Costs:

▪ Rehabilitation of Structural Components $1.70 Million ▪ Removal of Lifting Components (Mechanical/Electrical) $0.20 Million ▪ R/W Acquisition/ Business Damages $13.1 Million Total Capital Costs $15.0 Million

Life-Cycle Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs (over 75 years):

▪ Recurring Maintenance and Inspection (over 75 years) $0.75 Million ▪ Major Maintenance of Existing Bridge (over 75 years) $15.3 Million Total O&M Costs over 75 years $31.05 Million

5.2.2 Rehabilitate Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge

This alternative includes the addition of a second mainline track to the SFRC by adding a new two-track fixed bridge adjacent to/west of the existing bridge, which will be locked down and rehabilitated (see Figure 9). The historic railroad bridge will remain in its current location and will be maintained; however, this bridge will be “locked in place” and will no longer be movable. Although a new two-track bridge will be constructed in the immediate vicinity of the historic bridge, the presence of the new bridge will not result in an adverse effect to the historic bridge or its setting. The existing historic Scherzer rolling lift type bridge is in an industrial area, and the existing bridge will continue to convey its Engineering and Transportation significance with the new bridge located in proximity. The existing bridge will no longer be operable, but the major physical characteristics that contribute to its significance will remain, such as the girder, track, and forward leaf. This alternative will not result in an adverse effect to the historic bridge, and this resource’s significance in the areas of Engineering and Transportation will continue to be conveyed following the implementation of the proposed improvements.

5.2.2.1 Purpose and Need This alternative meets the purpose and need of increasing rail capacity through construction of a second track.

5.2.2.2 Structural and Functional SFRTA completed a bridge inspection and the results were summarized in the Structural, Mechanical & Electrical Inspection Report (June 2011). The existing timber fender system has shown signs of deterioration and this weakening is expected to continue. The timber piles had significant section loss; this deterioration likely has diminished the fender systems ability to absorb a ship impact. Some repair has occurred including bolting new timber whalers to the existing piles; however, this repair does not appear sufficient to restore the capacity of the fender system. Thus, the fender system would need to be repaired and replaced.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Figure 9: Rehabilitate Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge

The existing bridge is functionally substandard:

As stated in the description of this alternative, a second bridge would be constructed adjacent to the existing bridge. This new bridge would have to be placed adjacent to the existing bridge to reduce right-of-way impacts and potential impacts to the spur system (Downtown Distributor to the north of the Miami River and Homestead Subdivision to the south of the Miami River). The addition of the second bridge would increase horizontal curvature for both the SFRC mainline and the Homestead Subdivision to the south of the Miami River. The SFRC mainline north of the MIC would require curvature to meet minimum horizontal clearance standards when passing between the existing Metrorail Airport Link columns to the south of NW South River Drive. The increased curvature would require reducing operating speed from about 40-45 miles per hour to approximately 20-25 miles per hour. The decrease in operating speed would adversely impact rail operations, as travel times would increase potentially requiring additional rolling stock to maintain schedule adherence. Furthermore, the increased curvature may raise rail and truck maintenance costs due to additional friction and wear, which could introduce greater risk of derailment.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

As previously mentioned, the existing railroad bridge is functionally substandard, as the bridge does not meet the vertical and horizontal clearance design standards established for the SFRC. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge would not be able to meet the design standards. Additionally, railroad bridges used for Class I freight are required to meet Cooper E805 loading criteria. Whether the existing bridge is designed to accommodate the loading criteria is unknown. Freight rail traffic would be restricted to the new bridge, as the existing bridge would no longer provide a connection to the Homestead Subdivision spur.

The construction of a second bridge would result in additional piers in the Miami River, which would impact flood control – an important function of the Miami River/Miami Canal. Additionally, rehabilitating the existing bridge’s timber pilings and the provision of scour protection, as previously discussed, would exacerbate impacts on flood control. The SFWMD has expressed concerns with regard to adding any obstructions that would impede water flow. The SFWMD has stated that any changes to the flow of the channel cannot result in head loss by more than 0.1 foot.

Other historic bridges in South Florida have been affected by immediately adjacent construction activities. Pile driving activities for the construction of new bridges have resulted in settling of the adjacent existing bridges. This situation occurred for the CSX Railroad Bridge over the New River in Broward County and for the Flagler Memorial Bridge over the Lake Worth Lagoon in Palm Beach County. The impacts of construction adjacent to the Flagler Memorial Bridge required this bridge to be closed to traffic and necessitated a temporary halt in construction. Therefore, while the presence of a new bridge would not have adverse impacts, construction activities in the vicinity of the existing bridge may result in adverse impacts to the NRHP-eligible resource (CSXT Railroad Bridge for this project).

5.2.2.3 Safety As with the No Build Alternative, the existing bridge currently lacks egress to/from the railroad track. The AREMA Manual requires emergency access on all bridges. Based on the current cross section, the existing bridge does not provide adequate clearances for emergency egress should a passenger train stall along the bridge. Additional platforms would be required to retrofit the existing bridge to accommodate emergency access. These platforms would need to be installed on the outside of the existing trusses, which could be accomplished with outriggers attached to the structure. Additional analysis of the existing bridge would be required to determine the structure’s design adequacy. The addition of outriggers to accommodate AREMA egress requirements could affect the historical integrity and significance of the bridge. The outriggers would have to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for rehabilitation of NRHP properties.

This safety concern can be addressed by restricting all passenger rail service to the new AREMA- compliant bridge.

5 Cooper E80 is the standard design criteria for railroad bridges, requiring these bridges to be designed to accommodate up to 80,000 lbs. per driving axle.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

5.2.2.4 Financial Considerations With the addition of a new fixed bridge, the existing bridge would be “locked down,” resulting in reduced bridge operation and maintenance costs. The costs for this alternative were developed as follows:

Capital Costs:

▪ Initial Maintenance of Existing Bridge $1.90 Million ▪ Construct New Bridge $2.60 Million ▪ R/W Acquisition/ Business Damages $13.1 Million Total Capital Costs $17.6 Million

Life-Cycle Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs (over 75 years):

▪ Recurring Maintenance and Inspection o Existing Bridge $0.75 Million o New Bridge $0.30 Million ▪ Major Maintenance of Existing Bridge (over 75 years) $4.10 Million Total* O&M Costs over 75 years $5.15 Million

*Excludes costs for maintenance of tracks due to increased wear resulting from additional curvature.

As previously mentioned, the addition of the new bridge would introduce additional costs associated with the maintenance of the mainline track and connecting spurs.

Additionally, freight and passenger rail service is likely to be restricted to the new bridge due to the functional and safety considerations previously mentioned. Therefore, maintenance of the existing bridge would not be a prudent use of public funds. Leaving the existing bridge in place but not in regular use creates the potential for this bridge to become an attractive nuisance, resulting in increased liability.

Therefore, for SFRTA to invest public funds to maintain an existing bridge that is unlikely to be used by any form of rail service would not be fiscally prudent.

5.2.3 Additional Avoidance Alternatives

Several additional avoidance alternatives were evaluated in the alternatives evaluation process for the project. These additional alternatives are minor variations of the Rehabilitate Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge Alternative, but would rehabilitate the existing bridge to be movable and/or would provide a new movable bridge adjacent to the existing bridge. These additional avoidance alternatives were omitted from this Section 4(f) Evaluation, as they would result in similar impacts to the NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible resources, but would not provide additional protection of the resources, safety improvements, or structural and functional benefits to the alternatives discussed in this document. Maintaining the existing bridge as a movable bridge would result in increased O&M costs. Additionally, the installation of a new movable bridge would result in greater R/W impacts and business damages due to the increased horizontal clearance required for a movable structure. The new movable structure would also increase both capital costs and O&M costs.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

6 MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION OF HARM

As part of the Section 106 process, appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse effect of the proposed action to the CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) and to the CSX Railroad (8DA10753) were developed among the FTA, the SHPO, SFRTA, and FDOT. These mitigation measures include the following: A. Prior to the demolition of the CSXT Railroad Bridge, SFRTA shall perform and submit the following documentation in accordance with the Historic American Engineering Records (HAER) Level II standards: 1. All documentation of the bridge shall be completed in accordance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation Level II” (48 FR 44730-38). For the bridge, the following documentation will be prepared by persons meeting the qualifications stated in Stipulation IV.A.: a. Drawings – Select available existing drawings with large-format negatives or images photographically reproduced on archival Mylar or vellum. b. Photographs – Photographs with large-format negatives of exterior views from all sides, deck views, and noteworthy features and details. All negatives and prints will be processed to meet archival standards. c. Written Data – A narrative description of the bridge, discussion of the significance, and historical context. 2. Archival paper copies and archival electronic copies of all documentation prepared, shall be filed by FTA with the National Park Service, SHPO, and a local repository, such as the main Miami-Dade County Public Library, the Gold Coast Railroad Museum, or History Miami Museum. B. SFRTA shall also apply for a Florida Historical Marker through the Florida Division of Historical Resources Marker Program. The Florida Historical Marker will include a narrative description of the history and significance of the bridge.

7 AGENCY CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Early project coordination was initiated with the regulatory and stakeholder agencies on December 10, 2010, through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) review of the project (see Appendix B). An agency/stakeholder kick-off meeting was conducted on January 31, 2013. A project website and project newsletters were developed, and a public hearing was held on November 6, 2013, at the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) auditorium near the project corridor; the purpose of this public meeting was to provide project information to the general public, property owners, and agency stakeholders. A public hearing was held on May 24, 2016, to provide the public an opportunity to review the project and to provide comments on the findings in the Environmental Assessment (EA), and to seek input from the public on the potential effect to the Section 4(f) resources. During the public hearings, the project team specifically asked for any input or comments regarding the Section 4(f) resources. The SFRTA did not receive any comments concerning the NRHP-eligible and NRHP-listed sites. The SFRTA will continue to

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) coordinate with individuals to address specific local concerns in the project corridor, as the project advances through design, permitting and construction.

A series of individual stakeholder and agency meetings have also been conducted. Below is a list of stakeholders:

▪ Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Four ▪ FDOT District Six ▪ Federal Transit Administration (FTA) ▪ Miami-Dade County Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) ▪ Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) ▪ Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) ▪ Miami-Dade Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) (formerly Miami- Dade Transit (MDT)) ▪ Miami River Commission (MRC) ▪ Miami River Marine Group (MRMG) ▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ▪ South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) ▪ United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ▪ United States Coast Guard (USCG)

In addition to the stakeholders listed above, FTA transmitted a letter describing the project and a map showing the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for historic and archeological resources to the Native American Tribes and the SHPO. FTA requested comments or concerns regarding the proposed project (see Appendix C). The Native American Tribes that were contacted include:

▪ Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida ▪ Muscogee Creek Nation ▪ Poarch Band of Creek Indians ▪ Seminole Nation of Oklahoma ▪ Seminole Tribe of Florida

As part of the Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act process, three Cultural Resources Committee (CRC) meetings were conducted to consult with the SHPO and interested parties on the alternatives and their effects on the NRHP listed and eligible properties. Each meeting included a presentation and open discussion with the attendees. Copies of the presentations and meeting minutes are included in Appendix D.

8 SECTION 4(f) DETERMINATIONS

The Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement project’s proposed action is to replace the existing CSXT Railroad Bridge over the Miami Canal with a new fixed bridge that would accommodate future capacity demands in the rail corridor. A Section 106 Determination of Effects analysis concluded that the proposed action would have an adverse effect on the CSXT Railroad Bridge, which is a NRHP-eligible resource. Furthermore, SHPO determined that the removal of the CSXT Railroad Bridge would also result in an adverse effect to the NHRP-eligible CSX Railroad, but the replacement bridge would serve as mitigation for this adverse effect. This

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Section 4(f) Evaluation includes an analysis of the proposed action, as well as several alternatives including the No Build Alternative. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether there is a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the proposed action.

Under 23 CFR 774.17, a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative is defined as an alternative that avoids the use of the Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of protection of the Section 4(f) property.

An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgement. Each of the alternatives evaluated for the project can be built using sound engineering judgement; thus, the proposed action and the avoidance build alternatives are feasible.

An alternative is not prudent if:

Table 2 provides a summary of the alternatives analyzed and how the alternatives meet or do not meet the prudent test.

The No Build Alternative and the Rehabilitate (Lock-Down) Existing Bridge Alternative (without adding a new fixed bridge) do not meet the purpose and need of the project. With regards to structural and functional criteria, the Rehabilitate (Lock-Down) Existing Bridge, Add New Fixed Bridge Alternative adds piers in the channel, resulting in loss of headway and negatively impacting flood control. In addition, the existing bridge could become an attractive nuisance if “locked down” and maintained in place. Finally, the Proposed Action meets the purpose and need of the project at a considerably lower cost in comparison to the Rehabilitate (Lock-Down) Existing Bridge, Add New Fixed Bridge Alternative and is safer, structurally sound and functional.

Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) – Eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) and the CSX Railroad (8DA10753). The proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the NRHP – Eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) and CSX Railroad (8DA10753), and the least overall harm in light of the statute's preservation purpose resulting from such use.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Table 2: Summary of Prudent Alternatives Criteria

Proposed Action: Remove Existing Bridge, Rehabilitate (Lock-Down) Existing Bridge, Evaluation Measure No-Build1 Rehabilitate (Lock-Down) Existing Bridge1 Add New Fixed Bridge Add New Fixed Bridge

PURPOSE AND NEED

Accommodates Two (2) Tracks Yes No No Yes

STRUCTURAL/FUNCTIONAL Timber piles for existing bridge prone to marine New concrete piles not susceptible to marine boring Timber piles prone to marine boring organisms and Timber piles prone to marine boring organisms and Foundations, Piles boring organisms and susceptible to deterioration organism susceptible to deterioration and failure susceptible to deterioration and failure and failure Existing Bridge: Unknown design load – may not Unknown design load – may not accommodate future Unknown design load – may not accommodate future accommodate future loads Loading Designed to meet Cooper E80 Loading criteria loads loads New Bridge: Designed to meet Cooper E80 Loading criteria

Mechanism in poor condition – resulting in service Bridge would be ‘locked down’ (mechanism to be Bridge would be ‘locked down’ (mechanism to be Bridge Lifting Mechanism None interruptions removed) removed)

Meets Required Horizontal Clearance (18’) No No Yes Yes & Vertical Clearance (24’3”) (neither) (neither) (new bridge only) Yes No No Minimize Flood Control Impacts Designed to minimize scour, minimizing loss of Yes Piles susceptible to scour – scour protection could Additional bridge results in more piers, resulting in headway affect flood control loss of headway and impacting flood control

SAFETY Yes/No Yes New bridge will meet ADA and emergency access ADA and Emergency Egress/Access Design will include AREMA-compliant catwalk, No No requirements; existing bridge will not meet ADA and dedicated ADA-compliant walkway/grating, etc. emergency access requirements Yes Locked down, existing bridge not in use has the Attractive Nuisance No No No potential to be an attractive nuisance, resulting in increased liability

FINANCIAL

Capital Costs $16.0 Million $0 $15.0 Million $17.6 Million

O&M Costs (75 years) $0.30 Million $37.55 Million $31.05 Million $5.15 Million2

Total Costs (75 years) $16.30 Million $37.55 Million $46.05 Million $22.75 Million

Additional Cost Compared to Proposed Action - $21.25 Million $29.75 Million $6.45 Million

OTHER Cumulative Impacts Resulting in Unique The effects as described above are not considered The effects as described above are not considered The effects as described above are not considered None Problems minor for these alternatives. minor for these alternatives. minor for these alternatives. Mitigation either not required or, if required, there Mitigation either not required or, if required, there Mitigation either not required or, if required, there Mitigation either not required or, if required, there Mitigation are available mitigation options. Not a factor in the are available mitigation options. Not a factor in the are available mitigation options. Not a factor in the are available mitigation options. Not a factor in the prudence test. prudence test. prudence test. prudence test. Note: 1 The No Build and Rehabilitation (‘Lock-Down’) Alternative do not meet purpose and need of the project, but are included for comparative purposes. 2 O&M Costs exclude maintenance of track due to increased wear resulting from additional curvature.

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

In conclusion, Table 3 provides an overall summary of the Section 4(f) use and determination.

Table 3: Section 4(f) Determination Summary Section 4(f) Section 4(f) Resource Section 4(f) Use Determination Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8DA103) No Not Applicable Miami Canal (8DA6525) Yes De Minimis Permanent use; no prudent CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) Yes or feasible alternative Permanent use; no prudent CSX Railroad (8DA10753) Yes or feasible alternative Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868) No Not Applicable

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Appendix A State Historic Preservation Officer Determination of Effects Letter

RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State

Yvette G. Taylor, Ph. D. April 10, 2017 Regional Administrator US Department of Transportation - Federal Transit Administration 230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30303

Attn.: Ms. Julia Carrie Walker

RE: DHR Project File No.: 2014-503/Received by DHR: March 31, 2017 Project: Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement County: Miami-Dade

Dear Ms. Taylor:

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the referenced project for possible effects on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The review was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties.

This office reviewed the Section 106 Determination of Effects document and concurs that the project will have no adverse effect on the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8DA103), Miami Canal (8DA6525), and Miami Central Railroad Spur (8DA11868). This office also concurs that the proposed project will result in an adverse effect for the CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910). This office tenders that the removal of the CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) also constitutes an adverse effect to the CSX Railroad (8DA10753). The replacement of the CSXT Railroad Bridge will act as mitigation for the impacts to the CSX Railroad. This office looks forward to the production of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to document the mitigation for the adverse impacts to the CSXT Railroad Bridge and the CSX Railroad.

If you have any questions, please contact Ginny Jones, Architectural Historian, by email [email protected], or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847.7278.

Sincerely,

Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D., RPA Director, Division of Historical Resources and State Historic Preservation Officer

Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399 850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) • FLHeritage.com

Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Appendix B Agency Coordination Documentation

800 NW 33rd Street ! Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 I P 954/ 942-7245 I F 954/ 788-7878 I www.sfrta .fl.gov

December 10, 2010

Florida State Clearinghouse Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 4 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Dear Ms. Lauren Milligan:

SUBJECT: Advance Notification Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement ETDM Number: 13082 Miami-Dade County, Florida

This project is being screened by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on behalf of the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA). SFRTA is sending this Advance Notification (AN) Package to your office for distribution to State agencies that conduct Federal consistency reviews (consistency reviewers) in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and Presidential Executive Order 12372. We are also distributing the AN Package to local and Federal agencies. Although we will request specific comments during the permitting process, we are asking that permitting and permit reviewing agencies ( consistency reviewers) review the attached information and provide us with their comments.

This is a Federal-aid action and the SFRTA, in consultation with the Federal Transit Administration, will determine what type of environmental documentation will be necessary. The determination will be based upon in-house environmental evaluations and comments from other agencies. Please provide a consistency review for this project in accordance with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program.

In addition, please review this project's consistency, to the maximum extent feasible, with the approved Comprehensive Plan of the local government to comply with Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes.

GOVERNING BOARD Commissioner Steven L. Abrams I Commissioner Bruno A. Barreiro James A Cummings Marie Horenburger Commissioner Kristin Jacobs I Felix M . Losarte, Esq. George Morgan, Jr . i Gus Pego, P.E. F. Martin Perry EXfCllllV~ DIRECTOR Joseph Giulietti Letter to: Ms. Lauren Milligan Page 2 of 2

Consistency reviewers have 45 days from the Programming Screening Notification to provide their comments. Once you have received their comments, you will supply a summary and consistency determination for your agency within 60 days of the Programming Screen Notification. If you need more review time, please send a written request for an extension to our office within the initial 60 day comment period.

Your comments should be addressed to:

Loraine Cargill, Transportation Planning Manager South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 800 NW 33rd Street, Suite 100 Pompano Beach, FL 33064 tel: (954) 788-7921 fax: (954) 942-3325 e-mail: [email protected]

Sincerely, /~( //0~,~ 1oseph Giulietti Executive Director

Attachment Advance Notification Package (abridged)

Project #13082 - Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Programming Screen - Published on 12/10/2010 Printed on: 12/10/2010

Table of Contents Location Maps ...... 1

Fact Sheet ...... 4

Disclaimer ...... 4

Project Description ...... 4

Community-Desired Features (No Data Available) ...... 5

Screening Summary Overview ...... 6

Environmental Information ...... 6

Additional Information ...... 10

Transmittal List ...... 10

Form SF-424: Application for Federal Assistance ...... 16 Location Maps

Page 1 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Page 2 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Page 3 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 DISCLAIMER: The Fact Sheet data consists of the most up-to-date information available at the time the Advance Notification Package is published. Updates to this information may be found on the ETDM website at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org

Special Note: Please be aware of the selected Milestone date when viewing project data on the ETDM website. Snapshots of project and analysis data have been taken for Project #13082 at various points throughout the project's life-cycle. On the website these Project Milestone Dates are listed in the the project header immediately after the project contact information. Click on any of the dates listed to view the information available on that date.

Project Description #13082 Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement District District 6 Phase Programming Screen County Miami-Dade From N of Tri-Rail Hialeah Market Planning Organization FDOT District 6 To N of Tri-Rail Miami Airport Plan ID Financial Management No. Federal Involvement Potential Future Federal Funding Federal Action Contact Information Name: Erica Collins Phone: (305) 470-5227 E-mail: [email protected]

Project Description Data Description Statement This project is being screened by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on behalf of the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA).

The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) operates the Tri-Rail regional commuter rail system in the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties,between Miami and Mangonia Park. The approximately 72-mile Tri-Rail system has 18 stations along its length and presently has an average weekday ridership of approximately 12,500. As part of the Segment 5 Double Track Corridor Improvement Program completed in 2007, SFRTA completed the reconstruction and addition of a second mainline track to all but 1.25 miles of the southernmost section of its corridor. Within this remaining single-track section of the corridor, there is an existing bascule bridge across the Miami River.

This project will provide additional mainline track(s) within the SFRC from just north of the Tri-Rail Hialeah Market Station (Milepost 1035.96) to just north of the Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station (Milepost 1037.21), which in the future will be accommodated within the Miami Intermodal Center's (MIC) Miami Central Station (MCS). The project will also include a new bridge across the Miami River to accommodate the additional mainline track(s). The additional mainline track(s) will address an existing capacity deficiency along the system which negatively impacts travel time and schedule adherence, and these deficiencies will be further exacerbated in the future with the extension and expansion of Amtrak service along this segment and into the MIC.

Purpose and Need Statement Transportation Plan Consistency

This project is programmed in the SFRTA's Transit Development Plan (TDP), described as the Southern Double Track Alternatives Analysis. The project is also consistent with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which includes the double tracking of the remaining single-track section of the Tri-Rail system.

System Linkage

The purpose of the Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement project is to complete the final link of the SFRC reconstruction project, providing a second mainline track across the only remaining single-track section of the existing Tri-Rail system. The project is integral to the success of the MCS and the development of an intermodal transportation hub at the MIC.

Transportation Demand

After the completion of the Segment 5 Project of the SFRC Double Track Corridor Improvement Program, the SFRTA increased Tri-Rail's service from 30 to 50 trains per day. Currently, Amtrak service truncates at the Miami Amtrak Station approximately four miles to the north of the future MCS. Two Amtrak routes (Silver Meteor and Silver Star) serve the Miami Amtrak Station daily, traveling between New York and Miami. The Florida East Coast Amtrak Service project proposes to add two daily round-trip trains that will run between Jacksonville and Miami. Approximately four (4) CSX freight trains also travel through the project area daily, and both the Homestead Subdivision and Downtown Distributor accommodate active freight service. This project will remove a capacity constraint at the southern end of the SFRC and enhance access into the future MCS for Tri-Rail, Amtrak, and possibly Phase 2 of Florida's High-Speed Rail program.

Economic Development

This project enhances access to the MIC which has been designated as a Federal Empowerment Zone, State Enterprise Zone, and Miami-Dade County Enterprise Zone. These designations encourage economic growth and investment through incentives around the MIC. An estimated 22,000 permanent jobs will be created to operate the facilities associated with the MIC and new employment opportunities surrounding the MIC. A joint development component of the MIC Program consists of up to 1.4 million square feet of mixed-use development which will further encourage ridership

Page 4 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 on public transportation serving the MIC. Redevelopment of the area immediately to the east of the MIC offers the potential for another 4.5 million square feet of mixed-use development.

Modal Interrelationships

The Tri-Rail system provides connections to the South Florida region's three international airports: Miami International Airport (MIA), Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport (FLL), and Palm Beach International Airport (PBI). The MCS provides Intermodal connectivity among Tri-Rail, Metrorail (AirportLink scheduled to open in April 2012), MIA via the MIA Mover (scheduled to be operational in 2012), Metrobus, Amtrak (intercity rail), Greyhound (intercity bus), shuttles, and taxis. Summary of Public Comments not available at this time

Consistency - Consistent with Air Quality Conformity. - Consistency information for Coastal Zone Management Program is not available. - Consistency with Local Government Comp Plan is unknown. - Consistent with MPO Goals and Objectives. Potential Lead Agencies - Federal Transit Administration Exempted Agencies No exemptions have been assigned for this project. Project Attachments Date Type Size Link / Description 11/16/2010 Form SF-424: 353 KB http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/servlet/blobViewer?blobID=10482 Application for Form SF-424: Application for Federal Assistance: Form SF-424: Application for Federal Federal Assistance Assistance 11/16/2010 Ancillary Project 887 KB http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/servlet/blobViewer?blobID=10481 Documentation Miami River - MIC Capacity Improvement Project Location Map: Miami River - MIC Capacity Improvement Project Location Map

Alternative #1 Alternative Description From: N of Tri-Rail Hialeah Market To: N of Tri-Rail Miami Airport Type: Widening Status: ETDM QA/QC Total Length: 1.25 mi. Cost: $30,000,000.00 Modes: Transit SIS: Y

Segment Description(s) Location and Length Segment No. Name Beginning Ending Location Length (mi.) Roadway Id BMP EMP Location Segment #1 1.263 Digitized Jurisdiction and Class Segment No. Jurisdiction Urban Service Area Functional Class Segment #1 Base Conditions Segment No. Year AADT Lanes Config Segment #1 Interim Plan Segment No. Year AADT Lanes Config Segment #1 Needs Plan Segment No. Year AADT Lanes Config Segment #1 Cost Feasible Plan Segment No. Year AADT Lanes Config Segment #1 Funding Sources No funding sources found.

Eliminated Alternatives No eliminated alternatives present.

Page 5 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Community-Desired Features No Data Available

Screening Summary Overview Not Applicable

Environmental Information The following tables show results of standard data analyses that compare the locations of the project alternatives with locations of various environmental resources, as recorded in the ETDM Geographic Information System database. This report provides results for various resources within 500 feet from the center of the planned corridor. Results for additional types of resources and buffer distances may be viewed on the ETDM Environmental Screening Tool web site, or may be requested from the project contact as indicated on the Advance Notification cover letter. Public access to the ETDM Environmental Screening Tool is provided by the Florida Department of Transportation at the following web address: http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org Coastal Zone Consistency Review Is Required? YES

Potential Navigable Waterway Crossing Features Found? YES Alternative #1

Alternative #1 Summary 0 ft. 500 ft. 1320 ft. Analysis Type Date Run Count Count Acres Count Acres Land Uses District 6 Generalized Landuse ------Wetlands National Wetlands Inventory 11/16/2010 -- 2 5.31 -- SFWMD Wetlands 2004 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Floodplains DFIRM FLOOD HAZARD ZONES 11/16/2010 -- 4 171.04 -- FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 1996 11/16/2010 -- 5 171.04 -- Wildlife and Habitat 2003 FFWCC Habitat and Landcover GRID 11/16/2010 -- -- 171.04 -- 2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover 11/16/2010 -- 15 171.04 -- Florida Managed Areas 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Florida Natural Areas Inventory Managed Lands ------Strategic Habitat and Conservation Areas 2000 ------Outstanding Florida Waters Other Outstanding Florida Waters 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Aquatic Preserves List of Aquatic Preserves 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Cultural Resources Field Survey Project Boundaries 11/16/2010 -- 10 818.91 -- Florida Site File Cemeteries 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Florida Site File Historic Bridges 11/16/2010 -- 1 0.0 -- Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures 11/16/2010 -- 7 0.0 -- Resource Groups 11/16/2010 -- 2 10.87 -- Coastal Barrier Resources Coastal Barrier Resource System 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Contamination Brownfield Location Boundaries 11/16/2010 -- 4 165.98 -- FDEP Off Site Contamination Notices 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- National Priority List Sites 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Solid Waste Facilities 11/16/2010 -- 6 0.0 --

Page 6 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Toxic Release Inventory Sites 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Sole Source Aquifer Sole Source Aquifers 11/16/2010 -- 1 171.04 -- Noise Sensitive Facilities Geocoded Health Care Facilities 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Geocoded Laser Facilities 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Geocoded Schools 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Essential Fish Habitat Potential Environmentally Sensitive Shorelines 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Florida Artificial Reefs 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Florida Reef Locations and Names 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Florida Sea Grass Bed Scar Damage 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Mangroves 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Seagrass Beds (Showing Continuous/Discontinuous) 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Submerged Lands Act 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Farmlands Generalized Agricultural Land Use 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Prime Farm Land 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Communities Census Data 11/16/2010 -- 41 171.04 -- Census data Block Groups - Indicators 11/16/2010 -- 7 171.04 -- County Demographics 11/16/2010 -- 1 171.04 -- Recreation Areas Existing Recreational Trails 2005 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Florida State Parks 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Geocoded Parks 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Parcel Derived Parks 11/16/2010 -- 0 0.0 -- Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers 11/16/2010 -- -- 0 0.0 Navigable Waterway Crossing? Potential Navigable Waterway Crossings 11/16/2010 1 -- --

National Wetlands Inventory http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/nwip.htm

Wetland areas from the National Wetlands Inventory summarized by wetland system type. - analysis run on 11/16/2010

100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. System Acr Pct Acr Pct Acr Pct PALUSTRINE 1.2 0.73% RIVERINE 0.8 2.6% 1.6 2.55% 4.1 2.38%

DFIRM FLOOD HAZARD ZONES http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/dfirm_fldhaz.htm

FLOOD HAZARD ZONES OF THE DIGITAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (DFIRM) - analysis run on 11/16/2010

100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. Flood Zone Acr Pct Acr Pct Acr Pct AE 17.9 57.11% 36.5 56.97% 96.9 56.66% AH 6.2 19.71% 13.1 20.39% 43.8 25.58% X 7.3 23.18% 14.5 22.64% 30.4 17.76%

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 1996 http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/fema96.htm

FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 1996 summarized by zone. See metadata for descriptions of zones. - analysis run on 11/16/2010

100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft.

Page 7 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Zone Acr Pct Acr Pct Acr Pct AE 30.1 96.24% 61.0 95.19% 158.3 92.57% X500 1.2 3.76% 3.1 4.81% 12.7 7.43%

2003 FFWCC Habitat and Landcover GRID http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/gfchab_03.htm

2003 Habitat and Landcover Grid from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission summarized by type. Data is currently not displayed in maps. - analysis run on 11/16/2010

100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. Description Acr Pct Acr Pct Acr Pct HARDWOOD SWAMP 0.2 0.13% HIGH IMPACT URBAN 30.4 97.16% 62.5 97.58% 165.5 96.76% LOW IMPACT URBAN 0.7 2.13% 1.1 1.73% 2.0 1.17% OPEN WATER 0.2 0.71% 0.4 0.69% 3.3 1.95%

2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/lu_sfwmd_2004.htm

2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover - analysis run on 11/16/2010

100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. Land Use Classification Acr Pct Acr Pct Acr Pct AIRPORTS 0.4 1.19% 1.4 2.25% 7.1 4.15% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS 0.8 2.55% 1.8 2.86% 4.2 2.44% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES 6.1 19.4% 12.6 19.66% 38.9 22.75% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER 6.8 21.55% 12.4 19.36% 22.9 13.41% CONSTRUCTION. LAKES 0.8 0.44% MELALEUCA 0.5 0.28% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY 13.6 43.45% 28.4 44.35% 76.3 44.59% PORT FACILITIES 2.9 9.27% 5.6 8.7% 14.4 8.44% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 0.8 2.59% 1.8 2.82% 6.0 3.51%

Field Survey Project Boundaries http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/shpo_surveys.htm

Field Survey Project Boundaries - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Title 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR THE MIAMI INTERMODAL CENTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PLUS [ADDENDUM] CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FOR MIAMI INTERMODAL CENTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DADE COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY INTERIM REPORT DADE COUNTY HISTORIC SURVEY, PHASE II: FINAL REPORT. TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY DOUBLE TRACK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR SEGMENT 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED NORTH MIAMI SPRINGS TOWER LOCATION, 3520 NW 46TH STREET, MIAMI, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED FFGH-BTS TOWER LOCATION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED PALMER LAKES TOWER LOCATION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED PALMER LAKE TOWER LOCATION IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE STUDY SOUTH FLORIDA EAST COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT ANALYSIS MIAMI- DADE, BROWARD AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES

Florida Site File Historic Bridges http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/shpo_bridges.htm

Page 8 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Historic Bridges recorded in the Florida State Historic Preservation Office Master Site File - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Site ID Bridge Name 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. DA05910 CSXT RAILROAD BRIDGE #M.P. 1036.7

Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/shpo_structures.htm

Historic Standing Structures recorded in the Florida State Historic Preservation Office Master Site File - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Site ID Structure Name 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. DA00103 HIALEAH PASSENGER STATION DA05844 RIGANA FOODS DA05982 ALL DADE CAB DA05984 LA PREMIUM TIRES & SERVICE CORPORATION DA05985 MIAMI DADE YELLOW CAB DA05989 3640 NORTHWEST 37TH AVENUE DA06526 4100 SE 11TH COURT

Resource Groups http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/shpo_res_groups.htm

Resource Groups - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Site Name 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. CSX RAILROAD MIAMI CANAL

Brownfield Location Boundaries http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/brownfields_areas.htm

Brownfield Location Boundaries - analysis run on 11/16/2010

100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. Area Name Acr Pct Acr Pct Acr Pct CENTRAL MIAMI AREA 13.3 42.44% 27.0 42.15% 69.8 40.83% CITY OF HIALEAH BROWNFIELD AREA 15.8 50.45% 31.6 49.31% 82.1 48.02% MIAMI EZ EXPANSION AREA 1.1 3.51% 2.7 4.17% 8.2 4.78% MODEL CITY\BROWNSVILLE AREA 1.1 3.55% 2.3 3.58% 5.8 3.41%

Solid Waste Facilities http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/sldwst.htm

Solid Waste Facilities - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Facility Name 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. J W DAWSON, INC. J W DAWSON, INC. WSI - HIALEAH TRANSFER STATION WSI - HIALEAH TRANSFER STATION FARMERS MARKET DEBRIS STAGING AREA FARMERS MARKET DEBRIS STAGING AREA

Sole Source Aquifers http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/ssaquifers.htm

Sole Source Aquifers - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Aquifer 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. Biscayne

Census Data http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/cenblk.htm

US Census Bureau data by block. Detailed information is for each of the entire blocks that intersect an analysis area. - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Males Female Native 2000 # # White # Black # Native # Asian # # Other

Page 9 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 s Hawaiia Populati Househ Americ Hispani Race n and on olds an c Other Pacific Islander Alone Totals 12 19 0 31 9 24 1 1 0 26 0

Census data Block Groups - Indicators http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/blkgrp.htm

Census data Block Groups - Indicators - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Speak Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing English "Not Units With Units With 1 Units With 2 Units With 3 Units With 4 Units With 5 At All" No Vehicle Vehicle Vehicles Vehicles vehicles or More Available Available Available Available Available Vehicles Available Totals 1036 243 842 695 143 88 21

County Demographics http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/cntdem.htm

2000 Census General Demographic Profile by County - analysis run on 11/16/2010

Description # Male # Female Median Age # White # Black or African American # American Indian, Eskimo, or ... # Asian # Native Hawaiian and Other P... # Some Other Race # Hispanic or Latino (of any r... Total Number of Households Average Household Size 100 Ft. 200 Ft. 500 Ft. 2253362 1088 1164 35.6 1570 4572 4365 3175 799 1032 1291 7767 2.84 895 467 558 14 3 51 737 74

Potential Navigable Waterway Crossings http://www.fla-etat.org/est/metadata/btsww.htm

Listing of Potential Navigable Waterways which intersect the project

This analysis is based on feature intersection instead of a buffer distance - analysis run on 11/16/2010 Description MIAMI RIVER

Additional Information More information about this project can be found on the Public ETDM website at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org

A hardcopy map series for this project is available on the Public ETDM Website. Please click on the link below (or copy this link into your Web Browser) in order to view a listing of the hardcopy maps available for this project:

http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?tpID=13082&startPageName=Hardcopy%20Maps

Special Note: Please be sure that when the Hardcopy Maps page loads, the Project Milestone Date corresponding to this Advance Notification is selected. Hardcopy map snapshots have been taken for Project #13082 at various points throughout the project's life-cycle, so it is important that you view the correct snapshot.

Transmittal List

Official Transmittal List

Page 10 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Organization Name 1. Bureau of Indian Affairs * Office of Trust Responsibilities - Environmental Services Staff 2. City of Hialeah * Caragol, Jose F. 3. City of Hialeah * Casals-Munoz, Vivian 4. City of Hialeah * Cue, Katharine 5. City of Hialeah * Garcia-Martinez, Isis 6. City of Hialeah * Gonzalez, Luis E. 7. City of Hialeah * Hernandez, Carlos 8. City of Hialeah * Hernandez, Jorge 9. City of Hialeah * Robaina, Julio 10. City of Hialeah * Storch, Debora 11. City of Hialeah * Vidal, P.E., Armando 12. City of Hialeah * Yedra, Jose 13. City of Miami * Adams, AICP, Alexander 14. City of Miami Beach Bettin, Christine 15. City of Miami * Bockweg, Pieter 16. City of Miami * Bravo, P.E., Alice N. 17. City of Miami * Burkeen, Ernest 18. City of Miami Commission * Carollo, Frank 19. City of Miami Commission * Dunn, Richard P. 20. City of Miami Commission * Gort, Wilfredo "Willy" 21. City of Miami Commission * Sarnoff, Marc D. 22. City of Miami Commission * Suarez, Francis 23. City of Miami * Crapp, Jr., Tony E. 24. City of Miami Department of Fire-Rescue * Kemp, Maurice 25. City of Miami * Garcia, Francisco J. 26. City of Miami * Gonzalez, P.E., Jose R. 27. City of Miami * Ihekwaba, P.E., Nzeribe 28. City of Miami * Migoya, Carlos A. 29. City of Miami Police Department * Exposito, Miguel A. 30. City of Miami * Regalado, Tomas P. 31. City of Miami Springs * Ator, Jennifer 32. City of Miami Springs * Bain, Billy 33. City of Miami Springs * Best, Robert A. 34. City of Miami Springs * Borgmann, James R. 35. City of Miami Springs * Espino, Dan 36. City of Miami Springs * Lob, George 37. City of Miami * Westall, Lynn 38. City of Miami * Wheeler, Haydee 39. City of Miami * Zayon, Angel 40. FDOT District 4 * Goddeau, Amie 41. FDOT District 6 Huynh, P.E., Dat 42. FDOT District 6 James, Steven C. 43. FDOT District 6 Rodriguez, Carlos 44. Federal Aviation Administration * Airports District Office 45. Federal Aviation Administration * Murphy, Douglas R. 46. Federal Aviation Administration * Stringer, Dean 47. Federal Emergency Management Agency * Loar, Brad 48. Federal Emergency Management Agency * Saucier, Clayton E.

Page 11 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 49. Federal Highway Administration Anderson, Linda 50. Federal Highway Administration DeTizio, Andrew 51. Federal Highway Administration Kendall, Cathy 52. Federal Highway Administration * Knopp, Martin 53. Federal Highway Administration Rentch, Ruth 54. Federal Rail Administration * Barkley, Timothy 55. Federal Rail Administration * Plumb, Patrick 56. Federal Transit Administration Youngkin, Dale 57. FIHS Central Office Powell, Dusty 58. FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Hardin, Dennis 59. FL Department of Community Affairs Donaldson, Gary 60. FL Department of Community Affairs Penrose, Jo 61. FL Department of Environmental Protection * Long, Jack 62. FL Department of Environmental Protection * Mann, Sally B. 63. FL Department of Environmental Protection Milligan, Lauren P. 64. FL Department of Environmental Protection Schatzman, Jillian 65. FL Department of Environmental Protection Stahl, Chris 66. FL Department of State Jones, Ginny L. 67. FL Department of State Kammerer, Laura 68. FL Department of State McManus, Alyssa 69. FL Department of State * Stroh, Scott 70. FL Department of Transportation Bixby, Marjorie 71. FL Department of Transportation Jobe, James B. 72. FL Department of Transportation * Thibault, Kevin 73. FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gilbert, Terry 74. FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Poole, MaryAnn 75. FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Sanders, Scott 76. FL House * Fresen, Erik 77. FL House * Lopez-Cantera, Carlos 78. FL Senate * Diaz de la Portilla, Miguel 79. FL Senate * Garcia, Rene 80. FL Senate * Wilson, Frederica S. 81. Florida Highway Patrol * Brierton, James 82. Florida Inland Navigation District * Mr. David Roach 83. Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce * Johnson, Barry E. 84. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Barreiro, Bruno A. 85. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Bell, Lynda 86. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Diaz, Jose "Pepe" 87. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Edmonson, Audrey 88. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Gimenez, Carlos A. 89. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Heyman, Sally A. 90. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Jordan, Barbara J. 91. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Martinez, Joe A. 92. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Monestime, Jean 93. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Moss, Dennis C. 94. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Seijas, Natacha 95. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Sosa, Rebeca 96. Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners * Souto, Javier 97. Miami-Dade Community Council * Brown, Richard

Page 12 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 98. Miami-Dade Community Council * Cure, Patrick 99. Miami-Dade Community Council * Davis, Joy J. 100. Miami-Dade Community Council * Johnson, Arthemon 101. Miami-Dade Community Council * Kinchens, VonCarol Y. 102. Miami-Dade Community Council * Morley, Fredericke A. 103. Miami-Dade County * Abreu, P.E., Jose 104. Miami-Dade County * Alvarez, Carlos 105. Miami-Dade County * Burgess, George M. 106. Miami-Dade County * Calas, P.E., Esther L. 107. Miami-Dade County * Cohen, P.E., Jeff 108. Miami-Dade County * Espinosa, P.E., Carlos 109. Miami-Dade County * Guerra, Cynthia 110. Miami-Dade County * Kardys, Jack 111. Miami-Dade County * Kauffman, Kathleen 112. Miami-Dade County * LaFerrier, Marc C. 113. Miami-Dade County * Llort, Ysela 114. Miami-Dade County * Loftus, James 115. Miami-Dade County * Lorenzo, Herminio 116. Miami-Dade County * Ona, P.E., Leandro J. 117. Miami-Dade County Public Schools * Carvalho, Alberto M. 118. Miami-Dade County * Renfrow, John 119. Miami-Dade County School Board * Bendross-Mindingall, Dorothy 120. Miami-Dade County School Board * Curbelo, Carlos L. 121. Miami-Dade County School Board * Diaz de la Portilla, Renier 122. Miami-Dade County School Board * Feldman, Lawrence S. 123. Miami-Dade County School Board * Hantman, Perla T. 124. Miami-Dade County School Board * Holloway, Wilbert "Tee" 125. Miami-Dade County School Board * Karp, Martin S. 126. Miami-Dade County School Board * Perez, Marta 127. Miami-Dade County School Board * Regalado, Raquel A. 128. Miami-Dade County * Silva, Eric 129. Miami-Dade County * Woerner, Mark 130. Miami-Dade County * Woods-Richardson, Kathleen 131. Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Diaz, Mayra 132. Miami-Dade Expressway Authority * Rodriguez, P.E., Javier 133. Miami-Dade Transit * Kapoor, Harpal 134. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * Bibeau, Brett 135. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * Crespi, Juan 136. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * Foutz, Larry 137. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * Henderson, David 138. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO Roa, Carlos 139. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO Rockwell, Elizabeth 140. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * San Roman, Irma 141. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * Schreiber, Susan 142. Miami-Dade Urbanized Area MPO * Tannehill, Douglas 143. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Terry, Steve 144. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida * The Honorable Mr. Colley Billie, Chairman 145. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians * Carleton, Kenneth H. 146. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians * The Honorable Miko Mr. Beasley Denson

Page 13 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 147. Muscogee (Creek) Nation * Bear, Joyce A. 148. Muscogee (Creek) Nation * The Honorable Mr. A.D. Ellis, Principal Chief 149. National Marine Fisheries Service Howard, Brandon 150. National Marine Fisheries Service * Karazsia, Jocelyn 151. National Marine Fisheries Service * Schwaab, Eric C. 152. National Marine Fisheries Service * Thompson, Mark 153. National Park Service Barnett, Anita 154. Natural Resources Conservation Service Robbins, Rick A. 155. Poarch Band of Creek Indians * The Honorable Mr. Buford Rolin, Chairman 156. Poarch Band of Creek Indians * Thrower, Robert 157. Seminole Nation of Oklahoma * Deere, Natalie 158. Seminole Nation of Oklahoma * The Honorable Mr. Leonard M. Harjo, Principal Chief 159. Seminole Tribe of Florida Steele, Willard S. 160. Seminole Tribe of Florida * The Honorable Mr. Mitchell Cypress, Chairman 161. Seminole Tribe of Florida York, Elliott 162. South Florida Regional Planning Council * Dekle, Carolyn A. 163. South Florida Regional Planning Council Hamilton, Karen 164. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority * Giulietti, Joe 165. South Florida Water Management District Carter, Hugo 166. South Florida Water Management District Dickson, Kevin 167. South Florida Water Management District Golden, Jim 168. South Florida Water Management District Stone, Trisha 169. South Florida Water Management District Waterhouse, Tony 170. South Florida Water Management District * Wehle, Carol Ann 171. US Army Corps of Engineers Barron, Robert B. 172. US Army Corps of Engineers * Kinard, Donnie 173. US Army Corps of Engineers Lips, Garett 174. US Coast Guard * Baumgartner, William D. 175. US Coast Guard Rich, Brodie E. 176. US Coast Guard Smart, Evelyn 177. US Department of Health and Human Services * Frieden, Thomas R. 178. US Department of Health and Human Services * National Center for Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 179. US Department of Housing and Urban Development * Jennings, Jr., Edward 180. US Department of Housing and Urban Development * Regional Environmental Officer 181. US Department of Interior * Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office 182. US Department of Interior * Dawson, Bruce 183. US Department of Interior Director, USGS-FISC 184. US Department of Interior * Vela, David 185. US Department of Interior * Weaver, Jess D. 186. US Environmental Protection Agency Budeir, Maher 187. US Environmental Protection Agency * Giattina, James 188. US Environmental Protection Agency * Mueller, Heinz 189. US Fish and Wildlife Service * Souza, Paul 190. US Fish and Wildlife Service Wrublik, John 191. US House * Diaz-Balart, Lincoln 192. US House * Meek, Kendrick 193. US House * Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana 194. US Senate * LeMieux, George

Page 14 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 195. US Senate * Nelson, Bill

* Hardcopy recipient

Page 15 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Page 16 of 16 Advance Notification Package for ETDM Project #13082: Miami River - Mi... Printed on: 12/10/2010 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Appendix C Letters to Native American Tribes

0 U.S. Department REGION IV 230 Peachtree St., of Transportation Alabama, Florida, Georgia, N.W., Suite 800 Kentucky, Mississippi, Atlanta, GA 30303 Federal Transit North Carolina, Puerto 404-865-5600 Administration Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, VirQin Islands

March 3, 2014

Mr. Colley Billie Chairman Miccosukee Tribe ofindians of Florida Tamiami Station P.O. Box 440021 Miami, FL 33144

Re: Section 106 Coordination - Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Dear Mr. Billie:

In accordance with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Prope1iies, effective January 2001), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposes to begin Section 106 consultation for the Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A project (MR-MICCI). Accordingly, FTA wishes to advise the Native American historic communities of the proposed undertaking and invite the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida to be a consulting paiiy under Section 106 of the NHPA.

The project is located in highly urbanized areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the cities of Miami and Hialeah in the state of Florida. This project is being conducted by the South Florida Regional Transp01iation Authority (SFRTA) on behalf of the FTA. A map showing the proposed improvements is included as an attachment to this letter.

The SFRTA, which operates a 72-mile Tri-Rail system within Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, is proposing to increase capacity for a section of the Tri-Rail system in Miami Dade County. The proposed improvements in Miami-Dade County include a single-track section, approximately 1.25 miles in length, from 1101ih of the Hialeah Market Station to the Miami Intermodal Center in Miami. Under consideration are two-(2) track and three-(3) track options. In conjunction with these track expansion options, SFRTA is also considering modifications to the passenger platform at the Hialeah Market Station which may include an additional platform and an overhead pedestrian bridge. In order to accommodate the additional track(s), potential impacts must be identified along the entire length of the 1.25 mile single-track corridor. The project will also include a new bridge across the Miami River to accommodate the additional mainline track(s). Initial investigations identified no previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the archaeological area of potential effects (APE), which is defined as the footprint where subsurface consh·uction activity will take place. The urban nature of the project area suggests extensive disturbance and the presence of pavement, buried utilities, and current railroad right of way (ROW) prevents subsurface testing. Should construction uncover any sensitive cultural material, all activity that may disturb the material will stop and an Unanticipated Finds Plan will be implemented.

The FTA would appreciate any comments or concerns the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida may have concerning any historic properties with cultural or religious significance that may be impacted by this project. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Stan Mitchell of my staff at (404)-865-5643 or [email protected]. v~i~Sincerely, (v, tte G. Taylor, Ph.D. R: gional Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Fred Dayhoff, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Section I 06 Coordinator Barbara Handrahan, SFRTA Lorraine Cargill, SFRTA Lynn Kiefer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Greg Kyle, KHA Ken Hardin, Janus Research

2 0 U.S. Department REGION IV 230 Peachtree St., of Transportation Alabama, Florida, Georgia, N.W., Suite 800 Kentucky, Mississippi, Atlanta, GA 30303 Federal Transit North Carolina, Puerto 404-865-5600 Administration Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands

March 3, 2014

Mr. Emman Spain Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Muscogee (Creek) Nation Cultural Preservation Office PO Box 580 Ocmulgee, Oklahoma 74447

Re: Section 106 Coordination - Miami River-Miami Intermoclal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dacie County, Florida

Dear Mr. Spain:

In accordance with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties, effective January 2001), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposes to begin Section 106 consultation for the Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A project (MR-MICCI). Accordingly, FTA wishes to advise the Native American historic communities of the proposed unde1iaking and invite the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to be a consulting patty under Section 106 of the NHPA.

The project is located in highly urbanized areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the cities of Miami and Hialeah in the state of Florida. This project is being conducted by the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) on behalf of the FTA. A map showing the proposed improvements is included as an attaclnnent to this letter.

The SFRTA, which operates a 72-mile Tri-Rail system within Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, is proposing to increase capacity for a section of the Tri-Rail system in Miami Dade County. The proposed improvements in Miami-Dade County include a single-track section, approximately 1.25 miles in length, from north of the Hialeah Market Station to the Miami Intermodal Center in Miami. Under consideration are two-(2) track and three-(3) track options. In conjunction with these·track expansion options, SFRTA is also considering modifications to the passenger platform at the Hialeah Market Station which may include an additional platform and an overhead pedestrian bridge. In order to accommodate the additional track(s), potential impacts must be identified along the entire length of the 1.25 mile single-track corridor. The project will also include a new bridge across the Miami River to accommodate the additional mainline track(s). Initial investigations identified no previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the archaeological area of potential effects (APE), which is defined as the footprint where subsurface construction activity will take place. The urban nature of the project area suggests extensive disturbance and the presence of pavement, buried utilities, and current railroad right of way (ROW) prevents subsurface testing. Should construction uncover any sensitive cultural material, all activity that may disturb the material will stop and an Unanticipated Finds Plan will be implemented.

The PTA would appreciate any comments or concerns the Muscogee (Creek) Nation may have concerning any historic properties with cultural or religious significance that may be impacted by this project. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Stan Mitchell of my staff at (404)-865-5643 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

ette G. Taylor, Ph.D. gional Administrator

Enclosure cc: Barbara Handrahan, SFRTA Lorraine Cargill, SFRTA Lynn Kiefer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Greg Kyle, KHA Ken Hardin, Janus Research

March 3, 2014

Mr. Robert Thrower Acting Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Poarch Band of Creek Indians 5811 Jack Springs Road Atmore, Alabama 36502

Re: Section 106 Coordination - Miami River-Miami lntermoclal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Dear Mr. Thrower:

In accordance with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties, effective January 2001), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposes to begin Section 106 consultation for the Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A project (MR-MICCI). Accordingly, FTA wishes to advise the Native American historic communities of the proposed undetiaking and invite the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to be a consulting patiy under Section 106 of the NHP A.

The project is located in highly urbanized areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the cities of Miami and Hialeah in the state of Florida. This project is being conducted by the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) on behalf of the FTA. A map showing the proposed improvements is included as an attachment to this letter.

Initial investigations identified no previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the archaeological area of potential effects (APE), which is defined as the footprint where subsurface construction activity will take place. The urban nature of the project area suggests extensive disturbance and the presence of pavement, buried utilities, and current railroad right of way (ROW) prevents subsurface testing. Should construction uncover any sensitive cultural material, all activity that may disturb the material will stop and an Unanticipated Finds Plan will be implemented.

The FTA would appreciate any comments or concerns the Poarch Band of Creek Indians may have concerning any historic properties with cultural or religious significance that may be impacted by this project. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Stan Mitchell of my staff at (404)-865-5643 or [email protected].

Sincerely, ')}\-W)h~~ ~

O:tte G. Taylor, Ph.D. Regional Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Barbara Handrahan, SFRTA Lorraine Cargill, SFRTA Lynn Kiefer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Greg Kyle, KHA Ken Hardin, Janus Research

March 3, 2014

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

Re: Section 106 Coordination - Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Dear Ms. Haijo:

In accordance with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation . Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and itsimplementing regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Propetiies, effective January 2001), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposes to begin Section 106 consultation for the Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A project (MR-MICCI). Accordingly, FTA wishes to advise the Native American historic communities of the proposed undetiaking and invite the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma to be a consulting party under Section 106 of the NHP A.

The project is located in highly urbanized areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the cities of Miami and Hialeah in the state of Florida. This project is being conducted by the South Florida Regional Transpotiation Authority (SFRTA) on behalf of the FTA. A map showing the proposed improvements is included as an attaclunent to this letter.

The PTA would appreciate any comments or concerns the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma may have concerning any historic properties with cultural or religious significance that may be impacted by this project. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Stan Mitchell of my staff at (404)-865-5643 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Y ette G. Taylor, Ph.D. egional Administrator

Enclosure cc: Barbara Handrahan, SFRTA Lorraine Cargill, SFRTA Lynn Kiefer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Greg Kyle, KHA . Ken Hardin, Janus Research

March 3, 2014

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

Re: Section 106 Coordination - Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Dear Mr. Backhouse:

In accordance with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties, effective January 2001), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) proposes to begin Section 106 consultation for the Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A project (MR-MICCI). Accordingly, FTA wishes to advise the Native American historic communities of the proposed undertaking and invite the Seminole Tribe of Florida to be a consulting party under Section 106 of the NHPA.

The project is located in highly urbanized areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the cities of Miami and Hialeah in the state of Florida. This project is being conducted by the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) on behalf of the FTA. A map showing the proposed improvements is included as an attachment to this letter.

The SFRTA, which operates a 72-mile Tri-Rail system within Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, is proposing to increase capacity for a section of the Tri-Rail system in Miami Dade County. The proposed improvements in Miami-Dade County include a single-track section, approximately 1.25 miles in length, from north of the Hialeah Market Station to the Miami Intermodal Center in Miami. Under consideration are two-(2) track and three-(3) track options. In cmtjunction with these track expansion options, SFRTA is also considering modifications to the passenger platform at the Hialeah Market Station which may include an additional platform and an overhead pedestrian bridge. In order to accommodate the additional track(s), potential impacts must be identified along the entire length of the 1.25 mile single-track corridor. The project will also include a new bridge across the Miami River to accommodate the additional mainline track(s). Initial investigations identified no previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the archaeological area of potential effects (APE), which is defined as the footprint where subsurface construction activity will take place. The urban nature of the.project area suggests extensive disturbance and the presence of pavement, buried utilities, and current railroad right of way (ROW) prevents subsurface testing. Should construction uncover any sensitive cultural material, all activity that may disturb the material will stop and an Unanticipated Finds Plan will be implemented.

The FTA would appreciate any comments or concerns the Seminole Tribe of Florida may have concerning any historic properties with cultural or religious significance that may be impacted by this project. If you need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Stan Mitchell of my staff at (404)-865-5643 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

ette G. Taylor, Ph.D. gional Administrator

Enclosure cc: Barbara Handrahan, SFRTA Lorraine Cargill, SFRTA Lynn Kiefer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Greg Kyle, KHA Ken Hardin, Janus Research

2 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Section 4(f) Evaluation Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

Appendix D Cultural Resource Committee Meetings – Presentations and Minutes

CRC Meeting Kick-Off Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Phase 2A Miami, Florida FDOT District 6 – ROW Conference Room Call-In Number: 386-961-7555 Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Attendees: A meeting for the Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project was held on January 21, 2015, at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) – District 6 offices to kick-off the Section 106 process. A list of meeting attendees is attached.

Comments and Discussion on Presentation:

Vertical Clearance Requirements:

Randall Overton (USCG): Vertical clearances for a bridge spanning the Miami River are guide clearances not required clearances. Actual required clearance for a fixed bridge is 40' due to the exiting vertical constraints.

Summary of Impacts, Bridge Alternatives Matrix:

Alternatives 1 and 2 (Keep Existing Bridge) result in a total of three (3) tracks, as the construction of any new structure would be a two (2) track bridge.

Ginny Jones (SHPO): A cost analysis should be done for a one (1) track structure paralleling the existing bridge for a 'fair comparison' between Alt. 1 & 2 and Alt. 3 & 4.

Dan McClarnon (SHPO): Clarification of significant difference in costs for fixed vs. moveable bridge options.

Randall Overton (USCG): A fixed bridge requires the USACE to declare the section of the river upstream as non-navigable. However, for the USCG the change in federal channel does not remove the navigability of the river for upstream properties.

Discussion on whether an operational analysis was conducted to determine the effects of providing double-tracks along the entire corridor except at the bridge (single track). Ginny Jones (SHPO) also interested in this "hybrid" alternative.

Discussion on Historic Resources and Section 106 Adverse Effects determination:

Stan Mitchell (FTA): Determination of Section 106 cannot be delegated and must be done by FTA.

The Muskogee Creek Nation requested to be involved in the review of the CRAS. FTA will coordinate with the tribe for future Section 106 consultation meetings.

Ginny Jones (SHPO): Would like to see more information on improvements that will be conducted 1 around and at the Hialeah Market Station.

SHPO has a high bar to prove the bridge must be demolished as they are worried about losing historic bridges.

Discussion on Section 106 and Section 4(f) Processes:

Overview of the process for Section 106 was provided by Ken Hardin. Ms. Carrie (Julia) Walker, FTA was introduced. She has a lot of experience in Section 106 consultation and will assist Stan Mitchell in the process. .

Stan Mitchel (FTA): FTA has its own Section 4(f) analysis that differs from FHWA's process. If there is a non-use or least-use option, it must be chosen as the preferred alternative. FTA will provide application/checklist for more details; however FTA Section 4(f) specialists need to be consulted before more details can be provided.

Section 4(f) process can be done concurrently with Section 106.

The Class of Action – Environmental Assessment was discussed. Stan Mitichell clarified that an EA will be conducted and following the public hearing a decision on whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be issued or if the project will require an Environmental Impact Statement. .

Discussion on Involvement of FDOT Environmental

The Tri-rail corridor is under D4's jurisdiction. Funding has been provided by D4 through the Rail Enterprise. However, project is located in D6.

Though the Environmental Assessment was forwarded to both D4 and D6 Project Managers, it has not necessarily been passed on to their respective Environmental Departments.

Coordination is needed between D4 and D6 should get together to discuss how to proceed with regards to which District will take the lead for the Environmental reviews and the Section 106 consultation process. .

Action Items:

Ø Develop a cost estimate for a one-track structure alternative for Alternatives 1 & 2 Ø Develop additional information regarding improvements at and around the Hialeah Market Station. Ø Provide an operational analysis for a two-track corridor except at the Miami River Crossing (keep exiting bridge as is). Ø FTA to provide Section 4(f) determination requirements. (Note: FTA provided the FHWA policy paper, which has been adopted by FTA, following the meeting) Ø Follow-up with FDOT to identify which District will take the lead on participating in the Section 106 process and Environmental document review. Ø Provide FTA a minimum of two (2) weeks advance notice for any further meetings to allow for coordination with Muskogee Creek Nation.

2 Attendees:

Name Organization E-mail Call- In Barbara Handrahan South Florida Regional Transportation [email protected] Authority (SFRTA) Jessica Vargas Astaiza SFRTA [email protected] Loraine Cargill SFRTA x Stan Mitchell Federal Transit Administration (FTA) [email protected] x Keith Melton FTA [email protected] x Carrie (Julia) Walker FTA [email protected] x Ginny Jones State Historic Preservation Office [email protected] x (SHPO) Dan McClarnon SHPO Randall Overton United States Coast Guard (USCG) [email protected] x Greg Kyle Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [email protected] (KHA) Lynn Kiefer KHA [email protected] x Adriano Rothschild KHA [email protected] John Lafferty Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) [email protected] Ken Hardin Janus-Research [email protected] Amy Strilman Janus-Research x Maurice Borrows Florida Department of Transportation [email protected] (FDOT) Barbara Culhane FDOT [email protected] Javier Hurtado FDOT [email protected] Marco Incer FDOT [email protected] Steven James FDOT [email protected] Ana Quero FDOT [email protected] Dionne Richardson FDOT [email protected] Aileen Varela- FDOT [email protected] Margolles Craig James FDOT [email protected]

3 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Project CRC Meeting Kick-Off January 2015

Presented by: Agenda 2

• Project Introduction • Conceptual Alternatives • Historic Resources • Significance of Historic Resources • Section 106 Process • Questions/Discussion Project Introduction 3

• Federal Transit Authority – Lead Agency • US Coast Guard – Cooperating Agency • Florida Department of Transportation – Cooperating Agency • South Florida Regional Transportation Authority – Local Sponsor • NEPA Class of Action – Environmental Assessment – Draft submitted November 2014 • Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) – SHPO Concurrence – February 24, 2014 • Tribal coordination – March 5, 2014 – Request from Muscogee Tribe to be a consulting party Project Purpose and Need 4

• Complete missing double-track section of Tri-Rail system (SFRC). – Improve Tri-Rail travel time and schedule adherence. • Improve system connection into the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). – Address operational bottleneck (Tri- Rail/Amtrak/Freight). – Project is included in Miami-Dade’s Long Range Transportation Plan. Existing Conditions: 5 Corridor

• Single-Track Section – Rail corridor right-of-way is ~60 ft. – Hialeah Market Station • Temporary end of Tri-Rail System while new MIC/MIA Station is under construction • Single platform on the west side • Adjacent Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station building is NRHP listed – Miami International Airport Station • Currently under construction at the MIC • Expected to re-open in early 2015 • Will be end of the Tri-Rail System Existing Conditions: 6 Miami River Bridge

• Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge – Constructed in 1920s. – NRHP eligible historic structure. – Limited Bridge Openings • On-Call bridge tender. • 48 hour notice required. • AirportLink Metrorail Extension – New fixed bridge with 40-foot vertical clearance in close proximity to SFRC. • Navigable Section of Miami River – Extends approximately 1,000 feet upstream of SFRC to the Flood Control Structure. 7 Existing Conditions: Miami River Bridge

§ Completed Bridge Inspection o Structural – structure in fair to good condition with localized areas of deterioration

o Mechanical – machinery is in fair to poor condition

o Electrical – systems are in poor condition Physical Constraints 8

• Vertical Constraints – SR 112 (Airport Expressway) Overpass to the north – Metrorail AirportLink to the south – At-Grade crossings at North River Drive and South River Drive

• Horizontal Constraints – SFRC Right-of-Way (~60 ft.) – SR 112 (Airport Expressway) Piers – Metrorail AirportLink Piers – Downtown Distributor and Homestead Subdivision Rail Spurs Bridge Clearances 9

No. Waterway Bridge Type Horizontal Vertical Reference Clearance Clearance Plane Miami River, FL Fixed or 90 ft. 75 ft. MHW vertical lift 43 Mouth to mile 5.5 Swing or 90 ft. 25 ft. (closed) MHW bascule

• AirportLink is the limiting vertical clearance for this portion of the Miami River – 40-foot fixed bridge • Existing horizontal clearance is ~60 feet • Existing vertical clearance is ~6 - 8 feet Historic Resources 10 National Register Eligible and 11 Listed Sites

• Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (a.k.a. Hialeah Market Station) – National Register Listed – No impacts proposed • CSXT Railroad Bridge – Constructed in 1920s – National Register eligible historic structure – Adverse effect likely if bridge removed – Section 106 consultation required • Other National Register Eligible Resources – Miami Canal, CSX Railroad, and Miami Central Station Railroad Spur – No adverse effects proposed Conceptual Alternatives 12 Evaluation

• Rail Corridor Options – Two-track – Three-track – Four-track • Operational Analysis determined that 2-Track Alternative will accommodate future demand • Miami River Crossing Options – Rehabilitate/Maintain existing Moveable Bridge • Add New Movable Bridge • Add New Fixed Bridge – Remove Existing Moveable Bridge • Construct New Fixed Bridge • Construct New Movable Bridge Bridge Alternatives: 13 (1) Rehab Existing, New Moveable Bridge Alternatives: 14 (2) Rehab Existing, New Fixed Bridge Alternatives: 15 (3) Remove Existing, New Fixed Bridge Alternatives: 16 (4) Remove Existing, New Moveable Bridge Alternatives 17

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS No-Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Rehabilitate Rehabilitate Rehabilitate Remove Existing Remove Existing Evaluation Measure Existing Existing Bridge Existing Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge and Add Movable Add Fixed Add Fixed Add Movable Track Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge ENGINEERING No. of Tracks 1 2 Min. Train Design Speed 45 mph 30 mph 45 mph 40 mph 20 mph Existing Miami River Bridge Rehab Rehab Rehab Remove Remove ENVIRONMENTAL Floodplains None Low Wetlands None Low (0.3 acres) Essential Fish Habitat None Low (sand bottom, no HAPC) Water Quality Low Low Threatened/Endangered Species None Low (West Indian Manatee) Air Quality None Low Hazardous Materials None Moderate Moderate Low Low Noise and Vibration None None SOCIO-CULTURAL Historical and Archaeological High High None Low Low Resources (Adverse effect) (Adverse effects) Section 4(f) Resources None None None High High Parks and Recreation Lands None None Other Sociocultural Impacts None Low Bridge Alternatives 18

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OTHER Right-of-Way Impacts None Moderate Low Low Moderate Utility Impacts (FPL) None High High Low Low Navigation (Miami River Properties) None Low High High Low FINANCIAL Bridge Capital Cost $4,200,000 $30,400,000 $6,400,000 $2,600,000 $26,300,000 Other Capital Costs None $18,300,000 $15,400,000 $14,200,000 $20,300,000 $1,400,000 to $10,100,000 to $10,100,000 to $1,400,000 to ROW Acquisition/Business Impacts None $1,600,000 $13,100,000 $13,100,000 $1,600,000 $50,100,000 to $31,900,000 to $26,900,000 to $48,000,000 to Total Capital Costs (Current Year) $4,200,000 $50,300,000 $33,900,000 $29,900,000 $48,200,000 O&M Costs (Annual) $180,000 $200,000 $36,000 $4,000 $180,000 O&M Costs (Life Cycle - 75 years) $32,650,000 $61,160,000 $37,300,000 $2,700,000 $32,650,000 Hialeah Market Station – Preferred 19 Alternative Center Platform At-Grade Access Section 106 Regulations Flow Chart 20

Initiate Section 106 Process No Undertaking/No Establish Identify Appropriate Plan to involve the Identify other Potential to Cause Undertaking SHPO/THPO public consulting parties Effects

Undertaking is type that might affect historic properties

Identify Historic Properties No Historic Determine scope of efforts Identify impacts to historic properties Evaluate historic significance Properties Affected

Historic properties are affected

Assess Adverse Effects No Historic Properties Apply criteria of adverse effect Adversely Affected

Historic properties are adversely affected

Resolve Adverse Effects Memorandum of Continue consultation Agreement

Failure to Agree Council Comment Project Schedule 21

• FTA Approval of EA for March 2015 Public Availability • Public Hearing May 2015 • Section 106 and Section 4(f) May 2016 • FTA Approval of EA/FONSI June 2016 • Complete 30% Design End of 2016 Miami River Bridge 22 Adjacent Property Owners

1. Eugene Eisenberg TRS • Vacant Marina 3 2. SFWMD • Flood Control Structure 2 3. MDX 4 1 4. River Properties Inc. • Red Coach Bus 7 5. BRACUSA LLC 5 8 • SuperMix Concrete Batch 7 Plant 6. MDT 7. FPT Florida Land LLC 8. Miami-Dade County GSA 6 Agency Coordination 23

• FDOT District Four • FDOT District Six • Federal Transit Administration • Miami-Dade County Regulatory & Economic Resources • Miami-Dade Expressway Authority • Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization • Miami-Dade Transit • Miami River Commission • Miami River Marine Group • South Florida Water Management District • US Army Corps of Engineers • US Coast Guard CRC Meeting #2 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Phase 2A Miami, Florida Miami Dade Express Authority (MDX) Offices 3790 NW 21st Street Miami, Florida 33142 Call-In Number: 1-888-305-2064 Access Code: 5656# Wednesday, July 1, 2015

The 2nd Cultural Resources Committee Meeting for the Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project was held on July 1, 2015, at the Miami Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) in Miami, FL. A list of meeting attendees is provided below:

Attendees: Attended Name Agency E-mail via phone South Florida Regional Handrahan, Barbara Transportation Authority [email protected] (SFRTA) Hardin, Ken Janus-Research (Janus) [email protected] State Historian Jones, Ginny Preservation Office [email protected] (SHPO) Florida Department of Kelly, Lynn [email protected] Transportation (FDOT) Kimley-Horn and Kiefer, Lynn [email protected] Associates (KHA) Kyle, Greg KHA [email protected] Parsons Brinckerhoff Lafferty, John [email protected] x (PB) Mitchell, Joseph (Todd) PB [email protected] x Mitchell, Stanley FTA [email protected] x Olkuch, Birgit FDOT [email protected] x United States Coast Overton, Randall [email protected] x Guard (USCG) Rairden, Ian KHA [email protected] Rothschild, Adriano KHA [email protected] Schmitt, Megan City of Miami [email protected] x Vargas Astaiza, Jessica SFRTA [email protected] Federal Transit Walker, Julia (Carrie) [email protected] x Administration (FTA)

Page 1 of 5 Note: In the discussion that follows, reference is made to the Miami River and the Miami Canal. For the purpose of discussion, both terms refer to the same body of water and distinction between them is not made.

Introductions:

· Brief introduction of all attending parties (see attached sign-in sheet). · Invitees that could not attend or did not participate include Kathleen Kauffman from Miami-Dade County – Historic Preservation and David Proctor from Muscogee Creek Nation. Copies of the presentation were provided to them and meeting minutes will be forwarded. · Jessica Vargas, SFRTA Project Manager, provided a brief introduction to the project.

Presentation:

· A PowerPoint presentation was prepared and used as the basis of discussion. This presentation was provided to the attendees in advance prior to the meeting (copy attached). · Greg Kyle began the presentation discussing the overall project, the purpose and need, existing conditions, project description and the status of the NEPA documentation. · Ken Hardin reviewed the Section 106 process and the five sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). · Ken discussed that the project team had begun work on the Determination of Effects (DOE) and preliminary effects for each resource would be presented at this meeting. These effects are preliminary for discussion and use in completing the DOE. · Each site was discussed along with the preliminary effects determination. For the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station, the CSX Railway, the Miami Central Station Railroad Spur and the Miami Canal, the preliminary effects determination is No Adverse Effect. · There was no comment or concerns mentioned by attendees on these preliminary effects determinations with the exception of the Miami Canal. · Randy Overton, USCG, indicated that a low-level fixed bridge could be considered an adverse effect to canal navigation upstream for about 1,000 feet. Randy questioned if a change in navigability would affect the eligibility and thus be considered an adverse effect. · Greg Kyle explained that currently a fixed structure for the Metrorail Airport Link exists downstream from the railroad bridge with approximately 40 feet of clearance over the Miami River. The new railroad bridge structure would provide approximately 6-8 feet of clearance. The former marina west of the CSXT Railroad Bridge has been relocated downstream, and the property of the former marina site is for sale. There have been discussions with FDOT regarding advanced acquisition of the property since there is a willing seller. Based on discussions with the other two private property owners upstream of the salinity barrier, which is the current limit of navigation, there are no current plans for use of their river access. However, all properties upstream of the bridge may have to be compensated for loss of river access if a fixed bridge option is pursued. Previous meetings and discussions with US Army Corps of Engineers and the USCG have indicated that SFRTA could pursue congressional change of the federal limits of navigable waterway for that section of the river. USACE has indicated that this could be approved if there were no marine interests upstream. · Ken indicated that other portions of the Miami Canal upstream of the project and the salinity barrier, maintain their eligibility for listing even though the navigability has been affected by the construction of the salinity barrier. · FTA indicated that there are several factors that contribute to the canal’s historic eligibility including navigation. There are other modern intrusions in the area and the loss of 1,000 feet of

Page 2 of 5 navigability for some vessels is not considered adverse to its historic eligibility. It was discussed that the Miami Canal is over 5 miles in length and when considering the entire length of the canal, the navigation effects to the 1,000 feet would not be considered adverse to its historic eligibility. · Ken also explained that the canal has been used for drainage, navigation, flood control, etc., and those uses will remain, so the canal will continue to serve several of its historic functions. This information will be explained and addressed further in the DOE. · USCG continued to question if the loss of the canal’s historic use for navigation is adverse. · FTA indicated that historic effects to linear resources are based on the entire length, so this effect is not considered significant. USCG asked if there was a threshold for length. FTA explained there is not a threshold for length, because the criteria depends on the resource. This canal has modern intrusions and changing one aspect of the canal (e.g. size of boats that can traverse the canal) does not necessarily result in an adverse effect to its historic eligibility. The fact that the canal will still be used for flood control, drainage, etc. are all considered when making the effects determination. · Stan Mitchell also mentioned that use of nearby properties (upstream of the bridge) may be economically reduced, but they are currently not a destination for navigation; therefore, limiting river access to these properties would not be considered a significant impact. · It was stated that there is an effect to the canal from a low level fixed bridge that limits navigation, but the limitation would not be considered adverse to historic eligibility. The USCG asked if the effect to the historic resource was beneficial. It was explained that effects are not considered to be either beneficial or adverse. From a historic perspective, the classifications are as follows: “No adverse effect,” “adverse effect,” or “no historic properties present.” · Megan Schmitt asked for clarification on location and current navigation limitations. Do container ships currently use the section of the river in the area of the railroad bridge? USCG indicated that ships under 40-feet in height could use this section of the river. Greg Kyle explained that there are no container ships that currently use this section of the river and there have not been in recent years. The marina use was previously in this section of the river, but container ships did not serve the marina. In addition to the 40-foot vertical clearance limitation, this portion of the river is narrow and the existing railroad provides horizontal constraints. · Greg and Ken then began the discussion of the CSXT railroad bridge. Slides 16-27 discuss each of the Build and No-Build alternatives and the considerations used for evaluating the effects of these alternatives. The evaluation criteria falls into 3 major categories: 1) Structural, Functional, and Safety; 2) Historic and Environmental; and 3) Financial. · Greg mentioned that in April 2015 SFRTA/State of Florida took over maintenance of the CSXT Railroad Bridge from CSX. There have been issues with the bridge locking back into place properly when opened, and railroad traffic has been delayed to ensure that the bridge has locked in place. The USCG indicated that there are civil penalties for failure to maintain a structure over a navigable channel.

The following is a summary of discussions on the slides 16-27 for the bridge alternatives.

· USCG had previously asked about providing the no-build alternative over the river only. Greg Kyle indicated that providing double-track everywhere except for across the river would result in the same outcome as the No-Build alternative for the entire project. Due to capacity limitations crossing the river, trains would be held at either the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) or at the Hialeah Market Station. Thus, the no-build alternative over the river only would result in the same operational limitations present today and would not accomplish the Purpose and Need of the project. · Lynn Kelley, FDOT, asked for clarification on Alternative 1 (Keep existing bridge, Add new

Page 3 of 5 bridge). Would this new bridge be a two-track bridge? Would the existing bridge continue to be used? SFRTA would construct a new two-track bridge as the cost would only be marginally higher than a single track bridge, and this would allow greater operational flexibility in the future. The new bridge would accommodate all capacity demands and the existing bridge would likely be used only for special needs or emergencies. · There was a discussion about “locking down” the existing bridge. What does it mean? Would it be possible to rehabilitate the lifting mechanism in the future? Barbara Handrahan indicated that currently, a major issue with the existing bridge is the lifting mechanism. The motor and copper used for the lifting mechanism have been stolen in the past. · Further discussion on options for locking bridge down occurred. Would this mean welding the bridge shut? Removing counter weight? What options would be feasible and not result in significant impact to the historic eligibility? Locking the bridge in place would reduce operational and maintenance (O&M) costs. · There was discussion of possibly relocating the bridge. FTA indicated that relocating the existing bridge would be an adverse effect, and is a form of mitigation, not an avoidance alternative.

Open Discussion:

Following the slide presentation there was general questions and discussions. A summary of this discussion is below.

· Ginny Jones - With regards to Slide 24, replacing pilings on existing bridge may not be considered an adverse effects. As far as concerns over “future loads,” please provide details as to what is expected and how far in the future. Considering a distant future may not be a realistic argument. · Greg Kyle indicated we have a good idea of future loads from a passenger rail perspective (50 Tri- Rail revenue movements per day plus non-revenue movements when trains are being transitioned into and out of service, 4 Amtrak revenue and 4 Amtrak non-revenue movements across bridge per day). Freight is harder to judge. It is expected that with a strong economy freight movement could increase in the future resulting in heavier trains or longer trains. The freight industry emphasizes efficiency. · Ginny asked if a super-column could be used to support both the new and existing bridge? (to reduce impact of additional pilings in the river). Greg indicated that there is a need to maintain freight service throughout construction; therefore, providing one column for two bridges would not be a realistic alternative, as it would likely require service to be stopped during construction. · Ginny asked who is requiring ADA access across the existing bridge? The bridge is currently quite short, would there still be a need for emergency access/egress? ADA emergency access is part of the design criteria required for the SFRC. A variance would be required if ADA access was to be omitted from future improvements. Obtaining a variance for ADA facilities may be difficult to get approved. FTA concurred that a variance for ADA requirements may not be looked upon favorably. · Lynn Kelley asked if “locking down” the bridge is an adverse effect? Ginny indicated that the bridge is NRHP-eligible because of the unique lifting mechanism. However, as long as locking down the bridge is reversible and does not permanently impact the lifting mechanism this may not be considered adverse. Ken indicated that there are bridges that have maintained their NRHP eligibility despite limited functionality as lift bridges. For example, there is a lift bridge spanning the Miami Canal in Miami Springs that can be opened using a crane, allowing it to remain NRHP- eligible. · Adriano asked why would there be a need to open the existing bridge in the future if a new low- level fixed bridge is to be placed adjacent to it? From a practical and functional standpoint, what is

Page 4 of 5 the purpose of maintaining the lifting mechanism? Navigability is an impact on the canal, not on the bridge. It was discussed that as long as the existing bridge can open in the future, locking it down would not be considered an adverse effect. · Carrie commented that if the railroad bridge were to remain in place but not be used for rail service, the structure could be an attract nuisance activities. People may try to climb on the bridge (trespassing). SFRTA should discuss this concern with their insurance and risk manager. Lynn Kelley mentioned that the CSX bridge crossing the New River in Broward County had to deal with this consideration (attractive nuisance). This concern was mitigated by relocating the existing bridge. · Ginny asked about the statement that the existing bridge “would require major maintenance every 25 years.” Wouldn’t the new bridge also require maintenance? The new bridge would require maintenance, but cost of such maintenance would be considerably less than for a movable bridge. · USCG commented that as long as navigational interests exist upstream, a new fixed bridge will have permitting challenges. A moveable bridge such as a lift bridge would be preferable. Greg mentioned that a lift bridge was considered early on in the alternatives evaluations process. However, a lift bridge would conflict with the glide slopes for Miami International Airport (MIA). Therefore, a lift bridge would not be able to match the existing 40-foot vertical clearance of the Metrorail Airport Link bridge downstream. · Ken asked what FTA would be looking to see in the DOE? FTA makes the determination on adverse effects, and SHPO will decide to concur or not concur. If existing bridge is left in place, FTA would likely consider this to be “no adverse effect” regardless of method of locking down the bridge.

FTA would like to see the following information: · A summary of items discussed today in memorandum format. · More information regarding track geometry for different options. · Documentation of the last time a container ship went up the canal and required bridge opening. This would help determine if there is a navigability issue. · Further discussion on what USCG needs/what SHPO needs. Future meetings should have an open format.

· Ken asked FTA how they would like to see us move forward with the Section 106 Process. o Carrie suggested another face-to-face meeting would be ideal. FTA can come down to Miami for a meeting, but would need sufficient time to request travel. o The consulting party should start thinking about mitigation possibilities: both extreme “pie in the sky” and realistic options. These options should be discussed at the next meeting.

Page 5 of 5 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Project CRC Meeting 2 July 1, 2015

Presented by: 2 Introduction

§South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) o ~ 72-mile corridor in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties o Accommodates Tri-Rail service o All but the southernmost 1.25 miles are double- tracked Project Purpose & Need 3 § Purpose o Increase rail capacity within the southernmost 1.25 miles of SFRC § Need o Improve System Linkage o Address Existing and Future Transportation Demands & Operational Constraints o Support Economic Development o Improve Modal Interrelationships

3 4 Existing Conditions: Corridor

§ Single-Track Section o Rail corridor right-of-way is ~60 ft. § Hialeah Market Station o Single platform on the west side of track. o Adjacent Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station building is NRHP listed. § Miami Airport Station o End of the Tri-Rail System. o Recently reopened – April 5, 2015. o Connects to Miami Intermodal Center. Project Description 5

§ Add additional mainline track(s) to the SFRC from the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) to just north of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. § Will address capacity deficiency for current and future needs § A total of two (2) tracks are necessary to meet capacity demands § A new platform is necessary at the Hialeah Market Station to serve the additional track NEPA: 6 Environmental Assessment (EA) § FTA Lead Federal Agency § USCG as Cooperating Agency § Completed Support Documents § Cultural Resource Assessment (CRAS) § Wetland Evaluation § Contamination Screening Evaluation § Noise Report § Air Quality § Endangered Species Biological Assessment (ESBA)

§ Schedule/Submittals: ü Final Draft EA (to FTA) – November 2014 ü FTA Comments Received – March 2015 Ø Public Hearing – Targeting September 2015 Section 106 Regulations Flow Chart 7

Initiate Section 106 Process No Undertaking/No Establish Identify Appropriate Plan to involve the Identify other Potential to Cause Undertaking SHPO/THPO public consulting parties Effects

Undertaking is type that might affect historic properties

Identify Historic Properties No Historic Determine scope of efforts Identify impacts to historic properties Evaluate historic significance Properties Affected

Historic properties are affected

Assess Adverse Effects No Historic Properties Apply criteria of adverse effect Adversely Affected

Historic properties are adversely affected

Resolve Adverse Effects Memorandum of Continue consultation Agreement

Failure to Agree Council Comment Section 106 Process 8

Cultural Completed and Resources SHPO/FHWA Assessment Concurrence Survey Received

Section 106 Determination of Effects In Progress Documentation

2nd Cultural Resource Commitment Today Meeting

Development of To be developed in Minimization/ consultation with Mitigation agencies and Measures affected parties 9 Historical Significance § Five (5) sites are eligible and/or listed on the National Register for Historic Significance: 1. Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station 2. CSX Railroad 3. Miami Central Station Railroad Spur 4. Miami Canal 5. CSXT Railroad Bridge 10 Historic Resources

Miami Central Hialeah Seaboard Station Railroad CSX Railroad Air Line Railway Spur (8DA11868) (8DA10753) Station (8DA103)

1 2 3 5

CSXT Railroad Bridge 4 (8DA5910)

Miami Canal (8DA6525) Historical Significance 11

1. Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8DA103)

• National Register-listed under Criterion A in the areas of Community Planning and Development and Transportation, in addition to Criterion C in the area of Architecture • Proposed Center Platform does not affect historic resource

• No adverse effect Hialeah Market Station – 12 Preferred Alternative: Center Platform with At-Grade Access

Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station Historical Significance 13

2. CSX Railway (8DA10753)

• Determined National Register-eligible under Criterion A in the areas of Community Planning and Development and Transportation

• No adverse effect Historical Significance 14

3. Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868)

• Determined National Register-eligible under Criterion A in the areas of Community Planning and Development and Transportation

• No adverse effect Historical Significance 15

4. Miami Canal (8DA6525) • Determined National Register-eligible under Criterion A in the area of Community Planning and Development, in addition to Criterion C in the area of Engineering

• No adverse effect Historical Significance 16

5. CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910)

• Determined National Register-eligible under Criterion C in the area of Engineering Bridge Information 17

§ CSXT Railroad Bridge § Scherzer Rolling Lift Bridge o Constructed in 1920s. o NRHP eligible historic structure. § Limited Bridge Openings o On-Call bridge tender. o 48 hour notice required. § AirportLink Metrorail Extension o New fixed bridge with 40-foot vertical clearance in close proximity to SFRC. § Navigable Section of Miami River o Extends approximately 1,000 feet upstream of SFRC to the Flood Control Structure. 18 Previous CRC Meeting § January 21st – Kick-Off Meeting o Provided Project Overview • No Build Alternative o Presented bridge alternatives for adding capacity over Miami River: 1. Keep existing bridge and add a double-track fixed bridge 2. Remove existing bridge and add a double-track fixed bridge (Preferred Alternative) • CRC requested analyzing an option that would keep existing bridge and add a single-track bridge • USCG requested analyzing option that would add second track except for the Miami River crossing (does not provide additional capacity over Miami River) 19 Bridge Alternatives

§No Build Alternative §Build Alternative 1: Keep existing, add a new fixed 20 Bridge Alternatives

§Build Alternative 2: Remove existing, add a new fixed Evaluation Consideration 21

Considerations fall into three (3) major categories:

§ Super/substructure including scour and waterway adequacy Structural, § Geometry and Safety Functional, § Load carrying capacity and Safety § Flood Control

Historic and § Historic Significance Environmental

§ Life Cycle Costs Financial § Capital Costs 22 Impacts and Findings - Bridge No Build Alternative § Structural and Functional Considerations § Existing bridge foundations have timber pilings § Susceptible to scour due to nearby water control structure § Prone to impact and destruction by marine boring organisms § Old timber pilings are susceptible to deterioration and failure § May not designed to carry future loads

Structural § Flooring system/decking loads cannot be reduced to increase live load capacity

§ Does not provide 24’3” minimum vertical clearance § Does not provide 18’ minimum horizontal clearance § Does not meet future capacity needs of corridor (cannot accommodate a second track) § Major work will be required every 25 years for maintenance impacting rail service

Functional § Scour protection could limit channel depth § Impacts flood control

§ Lacks ADA access & emergency access to/from railroad track § Bridge lifting mechanism poor § Bridge could malfunction and stick in open position, or not close properly Safety 23 Impacts and Findings - Bridge No Build Alternative § Historic and Environmental Considerations

§ Modifying bridge to provide ADA access & emergency access may affect historical integrity and significance of bridge structure Historic

§ Financial Considerations

§ Specialized maintenance required § Limited funding for rehabilitation of bridge results in substandard functional conditions § Major costly work will be required every 25 years for maintenance § Life cycle costs are high (up to 10x that of a new bridge)

Financial § May compromise project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed in light of its stated purpose and need 24 Impacts and Findings - Bridge Build Alternative 1: Rehab existing, add new fixed bridge § Structural and Functional Considerations

§ Existing bridge foundations have timber pilings § Susceptible to scour due to nearby water control structure § Prone to marine boring organisms § Old timber pilings are susceptible to deterioration and failure

Structural § Construction of new bridge may result in structural damage of existing bridge

§ Existing bridge may not designed to carry today’s/future loads § May need to restrict traffic to specific tracks (i.e. all heavy loads to utilize only new bridge), adversely impacting logistics/operations § Adding new bridge next to existing bridge restricts alignment possibilities (reduced operating speeds, increased wear on rail and wheels) § Scour protection could limit channel depth and impact flood control Functional § Impact on flood control from additional piers in water due to two bridges adjacent to each other

§ Existing bridge lacks ADA access & emergency access for evacuation § For ADA and emergency access, would restrict all commuter trains to new bridge only

Safety § New bridge will include ADA-compliant catwalk, allowing for emergency egress from commuter trains 25 Impacts and Findings - Bridge Build Alternative 1 – Rehab existing, add new fixed bridge

§ Historic and Environmental Considerations

§ Adding a new fixed bridge would result in existing bridge being locked down § “Locking” bridge down may affect historical function and significance of bridge (Scherzer Rolling Lift mechanism makes this bridge unique) Historic

§ Financial Considerations

§ Existing bridge requires specialized maintenance § Limited funding for rehabilitation of existing bridge results in functional limitations § Existing bridge will require major costly work within 25 years for maintenance § High life cycle costs for existing bridge § May compromise project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed in light of its stated purpose and need

Financial § Due to functional and safety restrictions described previously, SFRTA is unlikely to dispatch trains to use the existing bridge. Therefore, maintenance of the bridge would not be a prudent use of public funds. 26 Impacts and Findings - Bridge Build Alternative 2: Remove existing, add new fixed bridge § Structural and Functional Considerations

§ Designed to accommodate heavy loads § Designed to have a life span of 75+ years § Designed to mitigate potential for scour

Structural § Concrete/steel pilings, not susceptible to marine borer

§ Greater vertical clearance would permit operational flexibility for future freight rail movements § Greater flexibility with alignment may provide operational benefits § Improved structural design would accommodate all rail traffic (no need to restrict certain types of vehicles to a specific bridge) § Design will incorporate a catwalk for evacuation and maintenance Functional § Minimal or no impact to flood control compared to No Build Alternative § Benefits over Build Alternative 1

§ New bridge will include ADA-compliant catwalk, allowing for emergency egress from commuter trains § Catwalk will also provide improved conditions for inspecting bridge and rail

Safety § Additional safety features (currently missing from existing bridge) may be incorporated into new bridge design 27 Impacts and Findings - Bridge

Build Alternative 2 – Remove existing, add new fixed bridge

§ Historic and Environmental Considerations

§ Removing existing bridge will have adverse impact on this historic resource Historic

§ Financial Considerations

§ Significantly lower life cycle costs in comparison to maintaining existing bridge § Standard maintenance (versus specialized maintenance required by existing bridge) Financial Preferred Action 28

Ø Hialeah Market Station – Add center platform with at-grade crossing

Ø CSX Railway – Add a second track within the existing right- of-way alignment

Ø Miami Central Station Railroad Spur – Add a second track within existing right-of-way alignment

Ø Miami Canal – No action

Ø Bridge – Remove existing bridge, add new fixed bridge Section 106 Process 29

Cultural Completed and Resources SHPO/FHWA Assessment Concurrence Survey Received

Section 106 Determination of Effects In Progress Documentation

2nd Cultural Resource Commitment Today Meeting

Development of To be developed in Minimization/ consultation with Mitigation agencies and Measures affected parties 30

Open Discussion

CRC Meeting #3 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Phase 2A Miami, Florida Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. 1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, FL 33131 Wednesday, September 16, 2015

The 3rd Cultural Resources Committee Meeting for the Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project was held on September 16, 2015, at the Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. office in Miami, FL. A list of meeting attendees is provided below:

Attendees: Name Agency E-mail South Florida Regional Handrahan, Barbara [email protected] Transportation Authority (SFRTA) Hardin, Ken Janus-Research (Janus) [email protected] State Historian Preservation Office Jones, Ginny [email protected] (SHPO) Florida Department of Kelly, Lynn [email protected] Transportation (FDOT) Kimley-Horn and Associates Kiefer, Lynn [email protected] (Kimley-Horn) Kyle, Greg Kimley-Horn [email protected] Lafferty, John Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) [email protected] South Florida Regional Planning Murley, James Council (SFRPC) // [email protected] Miami River Commission (MRC) Olkuch, Birgit FDOT [email protected] Quero, Anna FDOT [email protected] Rairden, Ian Kimley-Horn [email protected] Rothschild, Adriano Kimley Horn [email protected] Vargas Astaiza, Jessica SFRTA [email protected] Federal Transit Administration Walker, Julia (Carrie) [email protected] (FTA)

Page 1 of 5

Note: In the discussion that follows, reference is made to the Miami River and the Miami Canal. For the purpose of discussion, both terms refer to the same body of water and distinction between them is not made.

Introductions:

• Brief introduction of all attending parties (see attached sign-in sheet). • Invitees that could not attend or did not participate include Randall Overton from the United States Coast Guard, Kathleen Kauffman from Miami-Dade County – Historic Preservation, Megan Cross Schmitt from the City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department, and David Proctor from Muscogee Creek Nation. Copies of the presentation were provided at the meeting and meeting minutes will be forwarded. • Jessica Vargas, SFRTA Project Manager, explained that Randall Overton would not be able to attend the meeting, but had indicated that USCG would accept the decision made by FTA and the SHPO regarding the effects on the historic resources. • Jessica Vargas, SFRTA Project Manager, provided a brief introduction to the project.

Presentation: • A PowerPoint presentation was prepared and used as the basis of discussion. This presentation was provided to the attendees during the meeting (copy attached). The following is a summary of discussions on the presentation, particularly with regards to Determination of Effects and Mitigation Measures. • Slide 18 – Effects on Historic Resources: Avoidance Alternative o Carrie Walker (FTA) – removing the mechanical and electrical components of the bridge, which make the bridge unique, would result in an adverse effect. o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – there are several bridges that have been locked down but were able to retain eligibility by maintaining the potential to open, even if it is through the use of other means (e.g. a crane). o Ginny Jones (SHPO) – there is precedence in Florida for no adverse effect determination for bridges that have been locked down but the mechanical components remained in place. However, SHPO would concur with FTA’s determination. • Slide 22 – Effects on Historic Resources: Preferred Alternative o Demolition of the bridge would be an adverse effect. However, there is some gray area for relocation of the bridge. o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – there is precedent in Florida to relocate bridges and have a no adverse effect determination. This has been viewed differently over the years but with so many historic bridges being removed in South Florida, it may need to be considered. o Ginny Jones (SHPO) – if bridge were to be relocated on the same waterway (Miami River/Miami Canal), there is precedence for SHPO to consider this to be no adverse

Page 2 of 5

effect. o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – the City of Miami Springs has a few historic bridges already (photos provided). The City is very supportive of historic preservation. . Adriano Rothschild (Kimley-Horn) – an active Miami-Dade MPO Study identified a need for a pedestrian bridge crossing the Miami Canal at northern end of the City of Miami Springs to provide connectivity to Okeechobee Metrorail Station. • Miami Springs Greenway trails are located on South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) property. o Greg Kyle (Kimley-Horn) – discussed bridge relocation alternatives with Brett Bibeau (Staff Director of the Miami River Commission). Most tributaries are too narrow to accommodate the bridge, and placing locked bridge downstream (over navigable section of the Miami River) is not an option. One possibility could be to relocate it slightly upstream, near the flood control structure. . There is a need to discuss bridge relocation with SFWMD as it may impact flood control and they own the right-of-way where the bridge could be placed. o Jim Murley (SFRPC) – if bridge is kept closer to existing location, the Riverwalk project could be extended west to connect to the bridge. Miami River Commission would be in support of this. However, relocating the bridge to Miami Springs may be beyond Riverwalk access. o Jim Murley (SFRPC) – the Miami River Commission is a big proponent of relocating the bridge on the waterway, as it provides opportunities for marine related uses under the bridge. • Slide 34 – Section 106 Process / Slide 35 – Open Discussion o Ginny Jones (SHPO) and Carrie Walker (FTA) – agreed that the preferred alternative would have no adverse effect if the bridge can be relocated along the Miami River. . The conditions for no adverse effect could be memorialized in the FONSI . No need for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a Section 4(f) Individual Statement would not be required. . Need to find locations for bridge relocation. • Talk to potential recipients. o Outline an agreement for transfer of bridge maintenance. o Lynn Kiefer (Kimley-Horn) – How much detail will be required regarding the relocation? . Carrie Walker (FTA) – agreement with property owners agreeing to the specifics of when and where the bridge would be moved, and outlining logistics of what needs to happen for bridge to be transferred to new ownership. . SHPO would need to be involved in reviewing bridge relocation plans. o Ginny Jones (SHPO) – for the Tamiami Swing Bridge, a ‘Bridge Relocation Agreement’ was established between the County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

Page 3 of 5

o Lynn Kelly (FDOT) – an agreement was created with the City of Fort Lauderdale for the relocation of the CSX New River Bridge . Ken Harding (Janus Research) – could use these agreements as a model. . Lynn Kelly (FDOT) – will send a copy of the agreement with Fort Lauderdale, used for the CSX New River Bridge. Note: this information was provided after the meeting. o Lynn Kiefer (KHA) – what would FTA want to see from SFWMD? . A letter of no objection . Greg Kyle (KHA) – have contact with SFWMD headquarters for this project and can reach out to them. o Lynn Kelly (FDOT) – who would be drafting the agreement? Who will be signing? . Birgit Olkuch (FDOT) – FDOT is the owner of the bridge and would be one of the signatories. . Lynn Kiefer (KHA) – would FTA be a signatory on the agreement? • Carrie Walker (FTA) – will have to determine. o Carrie Walker (FTA) – is there any public opposition to the project? . Jessica Vargas (SFRTA) & Greg Kyle (KHA) – no opposition that the team is aware of. Have been coordinating with the Miami River Commission (MRC) and the Miami River Marine Group (MRMG), and have conducted public meetings and met individually with property owners. . Ken Harding (Janus Research) – have been coordinating with Kathleen Kauffman (Historian Preservation Officer for Miami-Dade County), she is aware of the project and asked to be kept updated. o Birgit Olkuch (FDOT) – will the removal of the bridge result in any downtime along the corridor? . John Lafferty (PB) – no downtime. Would construct one track, then remove the existing bridge. Confident that it can be sequenced. • Carrie Walker (FTA) – will sequencing result in damage to existing bridge? • John Lafferty (PB) – the concern for damage is specific to settling (piers, substructure), not to the bridge itself. o Carrie Walker (FTA) – next step is to come up with an absolute list of conditions to be met for the no adverse effect determination. o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – should include converting the rail deck to a pedestrian deck. The SHPO has experience in doing this. . Lynn Kelly (FDOT) – will provide specs for converting decking that have been approved by SHPO. Note: this has been provided. o Carrie Walker (FTA) – Who would be responsible for maintaining the bridge once it is relocated?

Page 4 of 5

. Birget Olkuch (FDOT) – FDOT will need to be involved in the decision. . Ken Harding (Janus Research) – the recipient would need to be willing to maintain the bridge. . Lynn Kelly (FDOT) – for the CSX New River Bridge, FDOT provided a cost estimate for maintenance of property “in perpetuity” (over 30 years). • Gave the City of Fort Lauderdale $100,000 for maintenance.

Page 5 of 5

9/16/2015

Miami RivMiami River –er –MiamiMiami Intermodal CCenterenter Capacity ImprovImprovementement ProjectProject CRC MeetCRC Meeting 3ing 3 SeptemSeptemberber 16, 2015

Presented by:

1 9/16/2015

2 Introduction

§South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) o ~ 72-mile corridor in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties o Accommodates Tri-Rail service o All but the southernmost 1.25 miles are double- tracked

2 9/16/2015

Project Purpose & Need 3 § Purpose o Increase rail capacity within the southernmost 1.25 miles of SFRC § Need o Improve System Linkage o Address Existing and Future Transportation Demands & Operational Constraints o Support Economic Development o Improve Modal Interrelationships

3 9/16/2015

Project Description 4

4 9/16/2015

5 Historic Resources

Miami Central Hialeah Seaboard Station Railroad CSX Railroad Air Line Railway Spur (8DA11868) (8DA10753) Station (8DA103)

1 2 3 5

CSXT Railroad Bridge 4 (8DA5910)

Miami Canal (8DA6525)

5 9/16/2015

Section 106 Regulations Flow Chart 6

Initiate Section 106 Process No Undertaking/No Establish Identify Appropriate Plan to involve the Identify other Potential to Cause Undertaking SHPO/THPO public consulting parties Effects

Undertaking is type that might affect historic properties

Identify Historic Properties No Historic Determine scope of efforts Identify impacts to historic properties Evaluate historic significance Properties Affected

Historic properties are affected

Assess Adverse Effects No Historic Properties Apply criteria of adverse effect Adversely Affected

Historic properties are adversely affected

Resolve Adverse Effects Memorandum of Continue consultation Agreement

Failure to Agree Council Comment

6 9/16/2015

7 Section 106 Status

§ January 21st – Kick-Off Meeting o Provided Project Overview o Presented bridge alternatives: 1. No Build 2. Avoidance Alternative: » Keep existing bridge and add a double-track fixed bridge 3. Preferred Alternative: » Remove existing bridge and add a double-track fixed bridge

7 9/16/2015

8 Section 106 Status

§ July 1st – CRC Meeting #2 o Provided overview of Historic Resources o Provided overview of impacts each bridge alternative would have on: » Structural, Functional, and Safety » Historic and Environmental » Financial o CRC asked to provide more detailed analysis for alternatives and begin identifying possible mitigation measures

8 9/16/2015

10 Bridge Alternatives

§No Build Alternative §Avoidance Alternative: Keep existing, add a new fixed

9 9/16/2015

11 Bridge Alternatives

§Preferred Alternative: Remove existing, add a new fixed

10 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 12

No Build Alternative:

•Operational Considerations: – Existing Bridge cannot accommodate two tracks • 17’ cross-section • 30’ minimum cross-section required for two tracks – Does not meet purpose and need of project (increase capacity)

11 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 13 No Build Alternative:

•Financial Considerations:

– Life-cycle O&M Costs (75 years): •Recurring Maintenance & Inspection (over 75 years): $0.75 Million •Operating Costs (over 75 years): $8.00 Million •Initial Maintenance Costs (year 0): $4.2 Million •Major Maintenance Cost (year 20): $13.0 Million •Additional Maintenance Costs (year 40 & year 60) $11.5 Million •Total O&M Cost Over 75 years: $37.5 Million

12 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 14 Avoidance Alternative: Keep existing, add a new fixed

• Existing Structure is Functionally Obsolete: – 24’3” minimum vertical clearance (FDOT) •Vertical clearance provided 22’6” – Does not provide emergency egress from/to railroad track (AREMA requirement)

• Existing structure may be damaged by construction activities – Examples: CSX New River Bridge; Flagler Memorial Bridge (Palm Beach County)

• Functional Considerations of New Bridge: – Additional curvature to both SFRC mainline and Homestead Subdivision •Required to meet minimum horizontal clearance

13 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 15 Avoidance Alternative: Keep existing, add a new fixed

• Flood Control (SFWMD): – New bridge will require additional piers in the Miami River – Additional piers will adversely impact flood control •Capacity of channel reduced due to new bridge – Increased resistance (friction) to water flow •Water level increases upstream of structure •SFWMD would only accept up to 0.1 foot increase in head loss

14 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 16 Avoidance Alternative: Keep existing, add a new fixed

• Operational Considerations: – Functionality: freight traffic would be restricted to new bridge – Safety: passenger traffic would be restricted to new bridge – Alignment: •Adversely impacts operating speeds: 40-45 mph à 20-25 mph •Increases wear of both rail and train trucks •Potentially increased risk of derailment – Speed differential required by curvature introduces increased opportunity for operator error

• Additional Considerations: – Existing bridge would not be used regularly due to operational considerations •Potential to become an Attractive Nuisance

15 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 17 Avoidance Alternative: Keep existing, add a new fixed

• Financial Consideration – Capital Cost: •Initial Maintenance of Existing Bridge: $1.9 Million •Construct New Bridge: $2.6 Million •ROW Acquisition / Business Damages: $13.1 Million •Total Capital Cost: $17.6 Million

– Life-cycle O&M Costs (75 years): •Recurring Maintenance and Inspection (over 75 years): – Existing Bridge $0.75 Million – New Bridge $0.21 Million •Maintenance of Existing Bridge (Every 20 years): $5.1 Million •Total* O&M Cost Over 75 Years: $6.1 Million

* Excludes maintenance of track due to increased wear as a result of curvature.

16 9/16/2015

Effects on Historic Resources 18 Avoidance Alternative: Keep existing, add a new fixed

ü Indicates no adverse effect, ? Indicates potential adverse effect, × Indicates adverse effect

New Fixed Bridge, Lock Down Existing Bridge Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station ü CSX Railroad ü Miami Central Station Railroad Spur ü Miami Canal ü CSXT Railroad Bridge ?

17 9/16/2015

Advantages of Preferred 19 Alternative Preferred Alternative: Remove existing, add a new fixed

• Functional Considerations: – Designed to meet vertical clearance requirements – Designed to meet load criteria (Cooper E80 loading) – Concrete/steel pilings – Flood Control •Reduced impact compared to Avoidance Alternative due to no additional piers

• Safety Considerations: – Emergency access/egress provided •Improved bridge inspection conditions

18 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 20 Preferred Alternative: Remove existing add a new fixed

• Operational Considerations: – Reduced curvature in alignment compared to Avoidance Alternative: •Higher Speeds (maintain 40-45 mph operating speed) •Reduced wear on rail and train trucks •Reduced potential for risk of derailment – Reduced opportunities for operator error compared to Avoidance Alternative

19 9/16/2015

Impacts and Findings - Bridge 21 Preferred Alternative: Remove existing add a new fixed

• Financial Considerations – Capital Cost: •Remove Existing: $0.3 Million •Construct New Bridge: $2.6 Million •ROW Acquisition / Business Damages: $13.1 Million •Total Capital Cost: $16.0 Million

– Life-cycle O&M Costs (75 years): •Recurring Maintenance and Inspection (over 75 years) $0.21 Million •Total O&M Cost Over 75 years: $0.21 Million

20 9/16/2015

Effects on Historic Resources 22

Preferred Alternative: Remove existing add a new fixed

ü Indicates no adverse effect, ? Indicates potential adverse effect, × Indicates adverse effect

New Fixed Bridge, Remove Existing Bridge Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station ü CSX Railroad ü Miami Central Station Railroad Spur ü Miami Canal ü CSXT Railroad Bridge ×

21 9/16/2015

Summary of Considerations 23

No Build Avoidance Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Purpose & Need × ü ü Design & Safety Requirements × ü ü Flood Control ü × ü Operations × × ü Effects on Historic Resources ü ? ×

22 9/16/2015

Capital and Life-Cycle Costs 24

Capital and Life-cycle Costs $40.0 $37.5 $35.0 Total Capital Cost Total O&M Costs (75 years) $30.0

$25.0

$20.0 $17.6 $16.0 $15.0

$10.0

Total Cost (Millions) $6.1 $5.0 $0.0 $0.2 $0.0 No Build Alternative Avoidance Alternative Preferred Alternative

23 9/16/2015

Anticipated Effects to 25 Historic Resources

ü Indicates no adverse effect, ? Indicates potential adverse effect, × Indicates adverse effect

No Build Avoidance Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station ü ü ü CSX Railroad ü ü ü Miami Central Station Railroad Spur ü ü ü Miami Canal ü ü ü CSXT Railroad Bridge ü ? ×

24 9/16/2015

Mitigation Measures 27

• Provide Information (~$2,500 - $50,000) – Plaque – Model – Video – QR Code / Website

• Relocate bridge to alternate location (~$1.75 Million to $2 Million) – Miami River Tributary – Miami Canal in Miami Springs – Along Other Canal/ Bike Path • Black Creek Trail – at 122nd Avenue • Snake Creek Trail – west of NW 27th Avenue • Snake Creek Trail – east of W Dixie Highway – Gold Coast Railroad Museum

25 9/16/2015

Relocation Locations 28

Current Location

26 9/16/2015

Mitigation Measures 29 Mitigation Costs

$2,500

$1,750 - $2,000,000 $2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500 $2.5 -$5,000 $2.5 -$5,000 $10 -$20,000 $25 - $50 $0 Plaque QR Code/ Model Video Bridge Cost Estimate (Thousands) Website Relocation & Installation

27 9/16/2015

Total Project Costs 30

Total Project Costs $40.0 $37.5

$35.0 Total Capital Cost

$30.0 Total O&M Costs (75 years)

$25.0 Mitigation Costs

$20.0 $17.6 $16.0 $15.0

$10.0 Total Cost (Millions) $6.1 $5.0 $2.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 No Build Alternative Avoidance Alternative Preferred Alternative

28 9/16/2015

Section 106 Process 34

Cultural Completed and Resources SHPO/FHWA Assessment Concurrence Survey Received

Section 106 Determination of Effects In Progress Documentation

Development of Minimization/ Mitigation Today Measures

Submit Section Execute Memorandum of 106 DOE Agreement

29 9/16/2015

Open Discussion