SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study From SR 93/I-75 to the Golden Glades Interchange FM #: 418423-1-22-01 FAP #: 4751 146 P ETDM #: 11241
ENDANGERED SPECIES BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Submitted by:
RS&H, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 OCTOBER 2014 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
SR 826/PALMETTO EXPRESSWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT STUDY FROM SR 93/I‐75 TO GOLDEN GLADES INTERCHANGE
ENDANGERED SPECIES BIOLOGOCAL ASSESSMENT
Financial Project ID: 418423‐1‐22‐01 FAP No.: 4751 146 P / ETDM No.: 11241 Miami‐Dade County
Prepared For: FDOT District Six 1000 NW 111th Avenue Miami, Florida 33172
Prepared by: RS&H, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126
October 2014
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Objectives ...... 4 1.3 Need for the Project ...... 5
2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...... 6 2.1 No Build Alternative ...... 6 2.2 Recommended Alternative ...... 6
3.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ...... 11 3.1 Existing Land Use ...... 12 3.2 Soils ...... 14
4.0 METHODS ...... 16 4.1 Data Collection ...... 16 4.2 Field Survey Methodology ...... 17
5.0 LISTED SPECIES OCCURRENCES ...... 18 5.1 Federally Listed Species ...... 20 5.1.1 Florida Bonneted Bat ...... 20 5.1.2 West Indian Manatee ...... 20 5.1.3 Red Knot ...... 21 5.1.4 Piping Plover ...... 21 5.1.5 Wood Stork ...... 22 5.1.6 Everglade Snail Kite ...... 22 5.1.7 Kirtland's Warbler ...... 22 5.1.8 American Crocodile ...... 23 5.1.9 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... 23
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study i FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
5.1.10 Florida Leafwing Butterfly ...... 24 5.1.11 Miami Blue Butterfly ...... 24 5.1.12 Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly ...... 25 5.1.13 Bartram's Hairstreak Butterfly ...... 25 5.2 State-Listed and Other Species ...... 25 5.2.1 Bald Eagle ...... 25 5.2.2 Burrowing Owl ...... 26 5.2.3 Gopher Tortoise ...... 27 5.2.4 Wading Birds ...... 27
6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ...... 28 6.1 ETAT Member Reviews ...... 28 6.2 Direct Effects ...... 33 6.2.1 Florida Bonneted Bat ...... 33 6.2.2 West Indian Manatee ...... 33 6.2.3 Wood Stork ...... 34 6.2.4 Eastern Indigo Snake ...... 35 6.2.5 State Listed/Other Species ...... 36 6.3 Indirect Effects ...... 37 6.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 38 6.5 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts ...... 38
7.0 CONCLUSION ...... 39
8.0 REFERENCES ...... 40
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study ii FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1-1 Project Study Area ...... 2 2-1 Proposed Typical Section – SR 826 ...... 8 2-2 GGI Ultimate Improvements ...... 10 3-1 Waterways Map ...... 12 3-2 Land Use Map ...... 13 3-3 Soils Map ...... 15
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3-1 Soils within the Project Corridor ...... 14 5-1 Federal and State-Listed Species That Could Potentially Occur ...... 19
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study iii FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A USFWS Concurrence Letter, dated June 14th, 2013 Appendix B USFWS Official Species List for SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements, dated October 7th 2014. Appendix C FNAI Tracking List for Miami-Dade County, dated June 2014. Appendix D ETDM Summary Report for SR 826 PD&E Study (Project #11241) Appendix E ETDM Summary Report for GGI PD&E Study (Project # 11300) Appendix F Standard Protection Measures for Eastern Indigo Snake (February 12, 2004) Appendix G Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (2011)
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study iv FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Six is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to evaluate alternatives for the improvement of the State Road (SR) 826/Palmetto Expressway and the Golden Glades Interchange (GGI) in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
On June 5, 2013, the FDOT, on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), sent an Endangered Species Biological Assessment (ESBA) to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the GGI Interim Improvements (FPID: 428358-1-22- 01). On June 14, 2013, the USFWS sent a letter to the FDOT stating the USFWS concurred with the FDOT determinations that the project “may affect, but not adversely affect” the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), and wood stork (Mycteria americana). A copy of the USFWS concurrence letter is provided in Appendix A. A copy of the 2013 ESBA for the GGI Interim Improvements is available for review at the FDOT District Six office.
The purpose of this 2014 ESBA is to document potential involvement with protected species for the SR 826 PD&E Study (FPID: 418423-1-22-01) in compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following information is provided to determine the anticipated effects that the proposed SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements will have on federal and state endangered or threatened species. State designated species of special concern were also considered.
1.1 Project Description
The Palmetto Expressway is one of the most traveled transportation corridors in Miami- Dade County. This multi-lane expressway extends from US-1 to the GGI for a distance of approximately 25 miles. The project is located along a segment of SR 826 in northern Miami-Dade County, Florida. The overall Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study limits extend from the SR 93/I-75 Interchange (Mile Post 15.354) to the GGI (Mile Post
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 1 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
24.572) a distance of approximately 9.2 miles. Project limits on I-95 extend from NW 135th Street (Mile Post 10.90) to NW 183rd Street/Miami Gardens Drive (Mile Post 14.30) for a distance of 3.4 miles; and Florida’s Turnpike from SR 826 (Mile Post 0.000) to the existing toll plaza (Mile Post 0.584) a distance of 0.6 miles. Figure 1-1 illustrates the location and limits of the project. The project study corridor passes through or lies immediately adjacent to six governmental jurisdictions: Hialeah Gardens, Miami Lakes, Miami Gardens, North Miami Beach, North Miami and Unincorporated Miami-Dade County. Figure 1‐1 Project Study Area
Within the project study limits, the Palmetto Expressway is a six-lane divided limited access facility from I-75 to NW 27th Avenue; and, from NW 27th Avenue to the GGI this corridor widens to an eight-lane divided expressway. From I-75 to NW 67th Avenue, a
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 2 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
one-way northbound/eastbound frontage road (NW 167th Street) runs along the east/south side of the corridor; and from NW 67th Avenue to the GGI, a one-way frontage road (NW 167th Street) runs along each side of the facility, providing access to businesses located along the corridor. The Palmetto Expressway provides system-level connections to I-75, Florida’s Turnpike, and I-95. In addition to the interchanges with I-75 and the GGI, there are eight service interchanges along the corridor at the following crossroads: NW 154th Street, NW 67th Avenue, NW 57th Avenue, NW 47th Avenue, NW 37th Avenue, NW 27th Avenue, NW 17th Avenue, and NW 12th Avenue.
The Golden Glades Interchange is of regional importance providing connectivity to six major principal arterials and/or limited access expressway facilities including Palmetto Expressway, I-95, Florida’s Turnpike, SR 9, SR 7/US 441 and NW 167th Street. The GGI also supports the I-95 Express Lanes System and the future Golden Glades Multimodal Facility, which provides access to inter-county transit service including the existing GGI to Downtown Miami express bus service. The GGI has a direct impact on inter-county travel between Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties and is the backbone for the transportation of goods and services, as well as passenger trips in the northeast region of Miami-Dade County. This interchange is bordered by the City of Miami Gardens to the north and west, the City of North Miami Beach to the east and the Golden Glades Census Designated Place (CDP) and City of North Miami to the south. The South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) also traverses the interchange area.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 3 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
This Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study focused on the development and evaluation of Active Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies, lane additions, express lanes, interchange modifications, express bus transit, as well as the Ultimate GGI Master Plan improvements developed as part of the GGI PD&E Study (FPID: 428358-1-22-01). The detailed examination of these issues through the PD&E process assures that the FDOT has identified the most cost-feasible, constructible improvements in the final recommended package.
1.2 Purpose and Objectives
The primary purpose of this project is to relieve congestion on the SR 826 corridor by increasing capacity, enhance safety by addressing operational, structural and functional deficiencies, and provide additional travel options by improving system connectivity. The improvements consist of the addition of two express lanes and auxiliary lanes, enhanced access to the adjacent frontage roads and improvements to the existing interchanges. One or two lanes would be added in each direction within the existing right-of-way and function as express lanes with a system-to-system connection to the northbound I-95 express lane system at the GGI. The project also includes a direct connection from southbound Florida’s Turnpike to the southbound I-95 express lane system. As part of the SR 826 North-South Express Lanes PD&E Study (FPID: 418423-3-22-01), express lanes would be added to SR 826 between SR 836 and I-75 with a direct connection to/from I-75. On I-75, express lanes would be added from SR 826 in Miami-Dade County to I-595 in Broward County. The existing I-95 express lane system (95 Express) is being extended to Broward Boulevard in Broward County with planned future extensions through Palm Beach County. This project would provide continuity with the planned express lanes on SR 826 south of I-75 and 95 Express as envisioned in the emerging Southeast Florida Express Lanes Network.
The overall objectives of this project include the following elements:
Enhance safety, mobility and circulation Improve critical access to the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Facilities,
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 4 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Freight Activity Centers, Local and Regional Businesses/Hubs of Economic Importance Support and provide an east-west connection for the emerging Southeast Florida Express Lanes Network Incorporate express bus service and multimodal options Address Transportation Systems Management and Operations concerns Address operational and physical deficiencies of the existing interchanges Minimize environmental impacts
In obtaining these objectives, the Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study would satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. These measures are a prerequisite for receiving Location Design Concept Acceptance (LDCA) from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an essential step in qualifying for the federal funds needed to implement the proposed improvements. The PD&E phase also assures that federal, state and local input have been incorporated into its recommendations. The same is true of the design standards and technologies considered for application or implementation in the corridor. The detailed examination of these issues through the PD&E process assures that the FDOT has identified the most cost-feasible, constructible improvements in the final recommended package.
1.3 Need for the Project
The need for improvements along the Palmetto Expressway relates to traffic congestion, systems continuity/connectivity, safety and existing design criteria deficiencies. The proposed improvements would be designed to meet current FDOT criteria, provide system continuity with adjoining segments of SR 826 and new/improved system-to-system connectivity to adjacent facilities (I-95, I-75 and Florida’s Turnpike). The Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study evaluated Active Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies, lane additions, express lanes, major interchange modifications, and express bus transit. The study determined the number and type of travel lanes and interchange improvements required to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes and improve safety conditions throughout the project corridor.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 5 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
2.1 No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative assumes no proposed improvements and serves as a baseline for comparison against the other alternatives. This is consistent with requirements of the NEPA and FHWA guidelines. The No Build Alternative includes on-going construction projects and all funded or programmed improvements scheduled to be opened to traffic during the analysis years being considered. These improvements are part of the Department's adopted Five-Year Work Program, Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) cost feasible Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), transportation elements of Local Government Comprehensive Plans (LGCP), or developer-funded transportation improvements specified in approved development orders.
The advantage of the No Build Alternative is that it requires no expenditure of public funds for design, right-of-way acquisition, construction or utility relocation. In addition, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the environment or socio-economic characteristics from project. However, the No Build Alternative does not alleviate the chronic congestion, operational, safety and mobility issues currently experienced on SR 826 and within the Golden Glades Interchange and along the adjoining roadways during the peak hours. In addition, the No Build Alternative provides no opportunity for noise abatement from increased traffic noise along the SR 826 corridor. If no improvements are made, these conditions will continue to deteriorate. Consequently, the No Build Alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need for this project.
2.2 Recommended Alternative
Based on the results of the alternatives analysis as well as input received from the public, the FDOT identified a Recommended Alternative for the mainline of SR 826 and
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 6 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment for each interchange. The Recommended Alternative includes:
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway
Three general purpose lanes in each direction. Reconstruct and widen the SR 826 mainline to include three 12-ft. general purpose lanes in each direction.
One auxiliary lane in each direction. To improve traffic safety and operations, one 12-ft. auxiliary lane would be added in each direction between interchanges. The auxiliary lane is typically introduced as a lane add at an upstream interchange followed by a lane drop at the adjacent downstream interchange.
Two express lanes in each direction. The express lanes would be separated from the general purpose lanes by a 4-ft. buffer (Figure 2.1). At the western and eastern project limits, the express lanes transition from two lanes to one with a connection to the planned SR 826 North-South Express Lane System and a direct connect ramp to 95 Express at the Golden Glades Interchange.
Express lane connections. The recommended alternative for the express lanes access points includes one ingress and two egress points in the northbound/eastbound direction and two ingress and one egress points in the westbound/southbound direction. Access to and from the express lanes would typically be via slip ramps to/from the general purpose lanes. Direct connect ramps would be provided at the Golden Glades Interchange.
Interchange improvements. Several existing interchanges are proposed to be modified including the Golden Glades Interchange. In addition, interchange modifications are proposed for NW 154th Street, NW 67th Avenue, NW 57th Avenue, NW 47th Avenue, NW 37th Avenue, NW 27th Avenue, NW 17th Avenue, and NW 12th Avenue. With the exception of NW 154th Street, all SR 826 overpass bridges would be replaced and the SR 826 mainline would be raised to satisfy current FHWA standards for vertical clearance over cross streets.
New stormwater drainage system. The project would include a new stormwater drainage system to satisfy South Florida Water Management District
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 7 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
water quantity and quality requirements. The project drainage system will include an off-site drainage pond just north of Opa Locka Airport.
Figure 2‐1 Proposed Typical Section ‐ SR 826
Golden Glades Interchange
The GGI Ultimate Build Alternative represents the master plan to improve operations, safety and mobility within the GGI and provide a system-to-system connection between the new SR 826 express lanes and the I-95 express lanes. The following improvements are included in the GGI Ultimate Build Alternative (See Figure 2-2):
1. Provide express lane connections between SR 826 and I-95 to and from the north only with modifications to SR 826 mainline between GGI and NW 17th Avenue to accommodate four general use lanes in each direction
2. Provide direct express lane connections between Florida’s Turnpike and I-95 express southbound lanes and reconstruct I-95 southbound to accommodate new ramp
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 8 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
3. Provide a new ramp for the SR 9/SR 7/US 441 northbound to I-95 northbound movement that merges with the SR 826 eastbound to I-95 northbound flyover ramp before joining I-95 as a two lane on-ramp
4. Provide an auxiliary lane along I-95 northbound between Golden Glades Interchange and Miami Gardens Drive to increase capacity along mainline
5. Widen the existing I-95 express flyover ramps from one to two lanes in each direction north of the merge/diverge locations with the new SR 826 express lanes flyover ramps
6. Widen SR 826 connector to NW 167th Street to accommodate two lanes from SR 826 eastbound to NW 167th Street eastbound
7. Combine and realign the I-95 northbound to SR 7/US 441 northbound and NW 167th Street eastbound exit ramps
8. Provide NW 2nd Avenue and NW 167th Street intersection improvements
The proposed GGI Ultimate improvements are shown in Figures 2-2. The total proposed improvements are shown in the PD&E Conceptual Design Plans provided under separate cover.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 9 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Figure 2‐2 GGI Ultimate Improvements
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 10 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
3.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The SR 826 Project lies within the designated boundaries of the Biscayne Aquifer. Land use throughout the project area is urbanized, with no undisturbed habitats. Potential habitat for terrestrial or avian wildlife in the project study area consists of stormwater treatment areas located within, and adjacent to, the interchange (i.e., maintained and unmaintained drainage ditches, swales and wet retention pond), an area of upland mixed conifers on the campus of St. Thomas University, and vacant lots (which are generally paved or disturbed and invaded by exotic vegetation).
Four canals exist within the study area: the C-8/Biscayne Canal, Graham’s Dairy Canal, Marco/NW 17th Avenue Canal and the Peter’s Pike Canal. The C-8 Canal is managed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and runs east-west, south of SR 826. The southbound Turnpike Connector/I-95 southbound system crosses the C-8 Canal approximately 600 feet south of NW 157th Street, south of the GGI, and SR 826 crosses the C-8 Canal approximately 1800 feet north of Miami Lakes Drive. The Marco Canal is managed by Miami-Dade County and runs north-south on the east side of NW 17th Avenue to a culvert under NW 167th Street and SR 826 (which is elevated and separates the east- and west- bound lanes of NW 167th Street). The Marco Canal connects with the C-8 Canal southwest of the GGI. The Graham’s Dairy Canal is managed by Miami-Dade County and runs north-south on the west side of SR 826. The Graham’s Dairy Canal connects to Peter’s Pike Canal on the south side of the Interstate I-75 Interchange. The Peter’s Pike Canal is also managed by Miami-Dade County and runs north-south on the west side of SR 826. These canals are depicted in Figure 3-1, Waterways Map. A SFWMD control structure (S-28) is located on the C-8/Biscayne Canal, approximately 3.7 miles east of the proposed project area. The S-28 is a gated spillway located in the vicinity of the Miami Shores golf course, between the Florida East Coast Railway and the US-1 bridges.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 11 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Figure 3‐1 Waterways Map
3.1 Existing Land Use
Land use descriptions provided for both uplands and wetlands were classified utilizing the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS, FDOT, 1999). Existing land use in the project area was determined utilizing the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, aerial photographs (2009, 2010 and 2014), land use mapping from SFWMD (2004-2005), and field verification. Field reviews generally confirmed the SFWMD’s land use mapping, with minor updates. Figure 3-2 shows the land use categories present within the project area. The majority of the project area is dominated by transportation land use (e.g., roads, parking lots and highways, FLUCCS 8100 and 8140). Areas adjacent to roads and highways consist mainly of the following land uses:
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 12 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
1210 Fixed Single Family 1820 Golf Course 1330 Multiple Dwelling 1900 Open Land 1340 Multiple Dwelling 4340 Upland Mixed Conifer 1400 Commercial and Services 5120 Channelized Waterway 1411 Shopping Centers 8100 Transportation 1550 Other Light Industrial 8140 Roads and Highways 1700 Institutional 8310 Electrical Power Facility 1710 Educational Facility
Figure 3‐2 Land Use Map
Two open land areas (FLUCCS 1900) are present within the project area: a four-acre area just north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension (part of a 16-acre vacant lot located between US 441 and Florida’s Turnpike), and a 3.9-acre vacant area located just north of the C-8/Biscayne Canal.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 13 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
3.2 Soils
The Miami Dade-County Soil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], 1996 and the NRCS Soil Web Survey) indicates seven soil types exist within the project area. The Margate Fine sand and Plantation Muck are considered hydric. Almost the entire project area is considered urban land. Recent studies have shown that the physical, chemical, and biological properties of urban soils are quite variable, with conditions ranging from highly modified to relatively natural (Hagan et al., 2010). Urban land within the project location consists of street, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings, and other structures in areas where the soil is covered and cannot be readily observed. Table 3-1 identifies the soils listed by the Soil Survey as occurring within the project corridor. Figure 3-3, Soils Map, depicts the locations of the soil types within the project area.
Table 3‐1 Soils within the Project Corridor
Map Unit Map Unit Name Hydric Drainage
631573 Udorthents-Water Complex No Well Drained
Udorthents, Limestone Substratum 631574 No Somewhat Poorly Drained -Urban Land Complex
631579 Urban Land Unranked
631595 Plantation Muck Yes Very Poorly Drained
631597 Margate Fine Sand Yes Poorly Drained
631601 Pomello Sand No Moderately Well Drained
Udorthents, Limestone Substratum, 631603 No Moderately Well Drained 0 To 5 Percent Slopes
750490 Water Unranked
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 14 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Figure 3‐3 Soils Map
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 15 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
4.0 METHODS
This project was evaluated for impacts to wildlife and habitat resources, including protected species in accordance with 50 CFR Part 402 of the ESA of 1973, as amended, and Part 2, Chapter 27 of the FDOT PD&E Manual.
4.1 Data Collection
Data collection through literature reviews, Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) review, agency database searches, agency coordination, Geographic Information System analyses, and field reviews of potential habitat areas were performed to identify state and federally protected species occurring or potentially occurring within the project area that may be impacted by the SR 826 or GGI Ultimate Improvements. Information sources and databases utilized for the wildlife analysis include the following:
ETDM Summary Report for SR 826 PD&E Study (Project #11241) and the GGI PD&E Study (Project # 11300) ETDM Environmental Screening Tool U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) FNAI listed species element occurrence database Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) databases Miami-Dade County Soil Survey National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps FWC Bald Eagle Nesting database FWC Waterbird Colony Locator FWC’s Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA) USFWS Wood Stork Rookeries (18.6 mile radius) (2012 data) USFWS South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 16 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
4.2 Field Survey Methodology
Biologists conducted seasonal field reviews between March 2011, and October 2014, to address the occurrence or potential occurrence of wildlife and plant species listed as Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern (SSC). Field reviews consisted of vehicular surveys, roadside observations and pedestrian (walking) surveys through areas with the potential to support listed plant and/or wildlife species. Potential species observations by pedestrian surveys were accomplished by visual observation of listed plant and wildlife species or indicators of their presence (e.g., vocalizations, tracks, scat, burrows, etc.). The surveys took place within the project’s right-of-way, and the 16-acre and 3.9-acre vacant areas on the north side of the NW 7th Avenue Extension and just north of the C- 8/Biscayne Canal, respectively. The reviews of these sites were conducted through pedestrian surveys and visual examination of the area.
The field surveys included a visual inspection performed specifically to identify potential roost sites for the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), including; snags, large trees with cavities or hollows, and abandoned buildings and bridges.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 17 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
5.0 LISTED SPECIES OCCURRENCES
Appendix B contains the USFWS Official Species List for the SR 826 PD&E Study, dated October 7th 2014. Appendix C contains the FNAI Tracking List for Miami-Dade County, dated June 2014. Through review of USFWS, FNAI and FWC wildlife databases, no evidence was found of use of the project area by listed species, nor was any critical habitat identified in the field. The FWC bald eagle nest locator was reviewed on September 7, 2014; there are no known bald eagle nests located within the vicinity of the project area. The FWC wading bird colony locator was also reviewed and did not indicate active or inactive wading bird rookeries on site. However, the project area lies within the 18.6-mile radius Core Foraging Area (CFA) of five active nesting colonies for the threatened wood stork (Mycteria americana) and within the USFWS Consultation Areas for the threatened American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) and the endangered Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus).
During design of the previous Turnpike Connector Ramp Project (FPID: 415456-4), a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) was observed (on October 21, 2009) standing at the opening of a burrow located about 80 feet east of the Turnpike/I-95 Connector, and about 250 feet southeast of the intersection between the NW 7th Avenue Extension and the Turnpike Connector/I-95. This burrow was located in FDOT right-of-way in an area to be excavated for construction of a stormwater retention system. This area was systematically surveyed per FWC guidelines, and a FWC permit for the removal of the burrowing owl nest was obtained prior to construction. The burrow, however, was abandoned before construction of this project began on May 13, 2010.
During the field reviews, no wildlife species or indicators of wildlife species (e.g., burrows, nests, and scat) listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or the FWC, and those listed as SSC by the FWC were observed. During those field reviews, a great egret (Ardea alba) was observed on the 16-acre vacant parcel located just north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension, a green heron (Butorides virescens) was observed along the NW 17th Avenue Canal bank and American coots (Fulica americana) were observed in the C-8/Biscayne and the NW 17th Avenue Canals. These species are not
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 18 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment listed by the USFWS or the FWC. Table 5-1 below summarizes the Federal and State- listed species that could potentially occur within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. The species are listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS and/or the FWC, and SSC by the FWC. Note this species list does not preclude the existence of other wildlife, listed or not, from inhabiting or migrating through the project area. Detailed information on the morphology, life history, behavior and status of those listed species discussed in this biological assessment is provided in the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1999).
Table 5‐1 Federal and State‐Listed Species That Could Potentially Occur
Scientific Federal State Group Common Name Name* Status Status Mammal Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus Endangered Endangered Mammal West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered Endangered Bird Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened None Bird Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Threatened Bird Wood stork Mycteria americana Threatened Endangered Bird Everglade Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered Endangered Bird Kirtland's Warbler Setophaga Kirtlandii Endangered Endangered Reptile American Crocodile Crocodylus acutus Threatened Threatened Reptile Eastern Indigo Snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Threatened Insect Florida Leafwing Butterfly Anaea troglodyta floridalis Endangered None Insect Miami Blue Butterfly Hemiargus thomasi ethunebakeri Endangered Endangered Insect Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus Endangered Endangered Insect Bartram's Hairstreak Butterfly Strymon acis bartrami Endangered None Bird Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Not Listed Not Listed Bird Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Not Listed SSC** Bird White Ibis Eudocimus albus Not Listed SSC Bird Little blue heron Egretta caerulea Not Listed SSC Bird Snowy egret Egretta thula Not Listed SSC Bird Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor Not Listed SSC Reptile Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Candidate Threatened * These species could potentially occur in the project area, and are the subject of analysis in this biological assessment. ** SSC = Species of Special Concern
The following is a description of each of the listed species’ habitat and foraging habitat.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 19 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
5.1 Federally Listed Species
5.1.1 Florida Bonneted Bat
The Florida bonneted bat, also known as the Florida mastiff bat, was listed as an endangered species on October 2, 2013. It is a large bat (adults measure 4.9 - 6.5 inches) with a black, grey-brown, or cinnamon-brown upper side and greyish underside. Hair is short and glossy with light-colored bases. The tail extends beyond the membrane for half of its length.
Much about this bat is unknown. It is assumed to roost in snags, large trees with cavities or hollows, and abandoned buildings and bridges. On October 1st, 2014, the first roost documented in Southeast Florida was found tucked in between barrel tiles of a rundown vacant house near a golf course in Coral Gables. The colony has been observed foraging over the golf course for several years, and it took a large group of researchers several months to locate the roost site. It is known to forage high in air over natural as well as human-altered landscapes.
No individuals or roost sites for the Florida bonneted bat were observed during the wildlife surveys. The SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements are located within the Consultation Area, but not in the Focus Area for this species.
5.1.2 West Indian Manatee
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is listed as endangered by both the USFWS and the FWC. Manatees have minimal tolerance for cold weather and tend to inhabit warm water areas. They prefer large, slow-moving rivers, river mouths, and shallow coastal areas such as coves and bays. Manatee habitat includes coastal waters, bays, rivers, canals, and (occasionally) lakes. Manatees usually swim at depths of three to six feet, and very rarely below 25 feet. They may travel great distances as they migrate between winter and summer grounds. Today, the greatest threats to manatee survival are collisions with boats and, in Florida, loss of warm water habitat.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 20 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Habitat for the manatee includes all of the marine and freshwater areas of Miami-Dade Counties including the C-8/Biscayne Canal, Graham’s Dairy Canal, Marco/NW 17th Avenue Canal and the Peter’s Pike Canal. Portions of these canals are located within the project limits. Manatees were not observed within the four canals during the field visits. No portion of the project is located in the Consultation Area for this species but the C-8 Canal where it intersects I-95 is designated Critical Habitat.
5.1.3 Red Knot
The red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is a bird that was proposed for listing as federally threatened on May 14, 2014. In spring adults are finely mottled with grays, black and light ochre, running into stripes on crown above; with their throat, breast and sides of head cinnamon-brown; a dark gray line through eye; abdomen and undertail coverts white; uppertail coverts white, barred with black. In winter adults are pale ashy gray above, from crown to rump, with feathers on back narrowly edged with white; underparts white, the breast lightly streaked and speckled, and the flanks narrowly barred with gray. In autumn the underparts of some adult individuals show traces of the "red" of spring.
Each year red knots make one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom, traveling approximately 20,000 miles annually between wintering grounds in southern South America and breeding areas within the Canadian Arctic. In the southeastern United States, red knots forage along sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and peat banks. In Florida, the birds also use mangrove and brackish lagoons. An individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.1.4 Piping Plover
The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is a federally threatened small bird with a short, stout, black bill, yellow to greenish-olive legs, and very pale upperparts. In Florida, it is usually encountered in winter plumage. Black band across forehead and dark ring partly around neck, present in breeding birds, fade in winter birds and are not present in juveniles. It is found on open, sandy beaches and on tidal mudflats and sandflats along
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 21 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
both coasts, but could potentially fly through the project corridor. The Consultation Area for this species is located approximately 2½ southeast of the southern I-95 terminus. An individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.1.5 Wood Stork
The wood stork is listed as endangered by both the USFWS and FWC. The wood stork nests in a variety of inundated forested wetlands, including cypress strands and domes, mixed hardwood swamps, sloughs, and mangroves. It has also been increasingly nesting in artificial habitats (e.g., impoundments and dredged areas with native or exotic vegetation) in North and Central Florida. This bird forages mainly in shallow water, freshwater marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, tidal creeks, flooded pastures and ditches. Wood storks are attracted to falling water levels that concentrate food sources (mainly fish). The project lies within the CFA of five active nesting colonies (3B Mud East, Tamiami Trail East, Tamiami Trail East 1, Tamiami Trail East 2 and Tamiami Trail West). However, no active colonies occur within 0.47 miles of the project corridor. During the field reviews, wood storks were not observed within or adjacent to the project area. Areas of Suitable Foraging Habitat (SFH) for the wood stork include swales or stormwater ponds adjacent to, and within, the SR 826 or GGI Ultimate Improvements.
5.1.6 Everglade Snail Kite
The Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) is listed as Endangered by both the USFWS and FWC. Snail kite habitat includes large, open, shallow freshwater marshes and lakes. This bird is dependent upon apple snails (Pomacea paludosa) caught at the water surface. Nests are over water in low trees or shrubs. The project is located within the USFWS Consultation Area for this species. Snail kites or their habitat were not observed within, or adjacent to, the project corridor during the field reviews; however, an individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.1.7 Kirtland's Warbler
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 22 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
The Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) is a federally endangered songbird that nests in young jack pine stands. Until 1995 Kirtland’s warblers had only been known to nest in the northern part of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Today, they also nest in the Upper Peninsula, and since 2007, have nested in Wisconsin and Canada. They migrate from their nesting grounds to the southeastern coast of the United States on their way to wintering grounds in the Bahamas. The male Kirtland's warblers' summer plumage is composed of a distinctive bright yellow colored breast streaked in black and bluish gray back feathers, a dark mask over its face with white eye rings, and bobbing tail. The female's plumage coloration is less bright; her facial area is devoid of a mask. An individual could potentially fly through the project corridor. An individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.1.8 American Crocodile
The American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) is listed as Threatened by both the USFWS and the FWC. Crocodile habitat includes coastal estuarine marshes, tidal swamps and creeks along mainland edges and islands. The southeastern portion of this project, where I-95 intersects the C-8 Canal, intersects the USFWS Consultation Area for this species. Crocodiles or their habitat were not observed within, or adjacent to, the project corridor during the field reviews; however, an individual could potentially swim through one of the canals that intersect the project corridor.
5.1.9 Eastern Indigo Snake
The eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) is listed as threatened by both the USFWS and FWC. The eastern indigo snake frequents several habitat types, including forested uplands and wetlands as well as wet and dry prairies. The snake also occurs in human-altered habitats. Generally, in xeric habitats, the presence of indigo snakes is associated with gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) occurrences, as the burrows provide shelter during the winter (Bogert and Cowles 1947, Speake et al. 1978, Layne and Steiner 1996). During the field reviews, no eastern indigo snakes were observed within or adjacent to the project area. Habitat within the project limits considered to be xeric is limited to portions of the 16-acre vacant lot located to the north
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 23 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
of the NW 7th Avenue Extension and the vacant lots north of the C-8/Biscayne Canal, east of NW 7th Avenue. No gopher tortoise burrows were found within those areas or any other portion of the project study area.
5.1.10 Florida Leafwing Butterfly
The Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodyta floridalis) was federally listed as endangered on August 12, 2014. It is a medium-sized butterfly approximately 2.75 to 3 inches in length. The upper-wing (or open wing) surface color is red to red-brown, the underside (closed wings) is gray to tan, with a tapered outline, cryptically looking like a dead leaf when the butterfly is at rest. The Florida leafwing exhibits sexual dimorphism, with females being slightly larger and with darker coloring along the wing margins than the males. The Florida leafwing occurs only within pine rocklands that retain its hostplant, pineland croton. Pineland croton, a subtropical species of Antillean origin, is the only known host plant for the leafwing. Though it is restricted to pine rocklands that contain pineland croton, and no portion of the project corridor is located in its Critical Habitat, an individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.1.11 Miami Blue Butterfly
The Miami blue butterfly (Hemiargus thomasi bethunebakeri) was federally listed as an endangered species on April 6, 2012. It is a small, coastal, non-migratory butterfly endemic to south Florida. Its geographic range, which once extended from the Dry Tortugas north along the Florida coasts to about St. Petersburg and Daytona, has been severely reduced and undergone a substantial reduction in its historical range, with an estimated greater than 99 percent decline, and is now restricted to a few, small, remote islands within the Florida Keys. The Miami blue butterfly is imminently threatened by the combined influences of habitat destruction or modification, herbivory of host plants by exotic green iguanas (Iguana iguana), illegal collection, accidental harm from humans, restricted range, small population size, loss of genetic heterogeneity, and catastrophic environmental events. An individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 24 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
5.1.12 Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly
The Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) is a large brownblack federally endangered butterfly with yellow markings. Markings across the center of the forewing and hindwing appear as a pale yellow band that bifurcates toward the tip of the forewing. Markings along the trailing edge of both the forewing and hindwing appear as a series of crescents, with those on the hind wing larger and generally a deeper yellow. Underside of the hind wing has a large burnt orange patch; tails are black, trimmed with yellow. It inhabits tropical hardwood hammocks (rockland hammocks). Its host plant is torchwood (Amyris elemifera) and rarely wild lime (Zanthoxylum fagara). Though the project corridor does not contain habitat for this species, and is not located in the Consultation Area for this species, an individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.1.13 Bartram's Hairstreak Butterfly
The Bartram's hairstreak butterfly (Strymon acis bartrami) was federally listed as endangered on August 12, 2014. It is a small butterfly approximately 1 inch in length with a forewing length of 0.4 to 0.5 inches and has an appearance characteristic of the genus. Despite its rapid flight, this hairstreak is easily observed if present at any density as it alights often, and the brilliance of its grey underside marked with bold white postdiscal lines beneath both wings provides an instant flash of color against the foliage of its hostplant, pineland croton (Croton linearis). Though it is restricted to pine rocklands that contain pineland croton, and no portion of the project corridor is located in its Critical Habitat, an individual could potentially fly through the project corridor.
5.2 State‐Listed and Other Species
5.2.1 Bald Eagle
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 25 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is no longer listed by the USFWS or FWC, but is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagle habitat includes areas close to coastal areas, bays, rivers, lakes, or other bodies of water that provide concentrations of food sources, including fish, waterfowl, and wading birds. Throughout their range, bald eagles use forested habitats (that are isolated from human disturbance) for nesting and roosting, and expanses of shallow fresh or salt water for foraging. There are no documented eagle nests or rookeries within or near the project area. The nearest documented eagle nest (DA0003), located approximately 3½ miles southwest of the I-75 Interchange, was last surveyed in 2013 and was last known active in 2010. No suitable foraging habitat was identified during the field surveys, and no eagles were observed.
5.2.2 Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is listed as a SSC. Its habitat includes high, sparsely vegetated, sandy ground, with dry prairie and sandhill as its natural habitat. In urban settings, burrowing owls also make extensive use of ball fields, parks, school grounds, university campuses, road right-of-ways, and vacant spaces in residential areas. Owls use burrows year-round; for roosting during the winter and for raising young during the breeding season (February - July) and typically dig their own burrows. Owls, however, will use gopher tortoise or armadillo burrows and tend to nest on vacant lots in rapidly developing urban areas as they are attracted to disturbed soil conditions associated with early construction activities. Hence, residential and commercial construction subsequently can be a major cause of burrow destruction in these areas (FWC, 2009).
As previously stated, in October 2009 a burrowing owl was observed within the project area, approximately 250 feet southeast of the intersection between the NW 7th Avenue Extension and the Turnpike Connector/I-95. This area where the owl and burrow were discovered was subsequently turned into a stormwater retention system as part of the Turnpike Connector Ramp Project. Although a permit for removal of the burrow was obtained, the burrow was abandoned before project construction began in May 2010. This area is still used for stormwater retention purposes and no other burrow or
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 26 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment burrowing owl has been observed at this location. No burrowing owls or burrows were observed in the vicinity of the project area during the field surveys.
5.2.3 Gopher Tortoise
The gopher tortoise is a state-listed Threatened species and listed as a Candidate species by the USFWS. The gopher tortoise generally lives in dry upland habits, including sandhills, scrub, xeric oak hammock, and dry pine flatwoods. Tortoises also use disturbed habitat such as pastures, old fields, and road shoulders. They excavate deep burrows in soil for shelter and egg laying. Potential suitable habitat for gopher tortoises within the project area is limited to portions of the 16-acre vacant lot located to the north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension and the vacant lots north of the C-8/Biscayne Canal, east of NW 7th Avenue. No burrows or gopher tortoises were observed within the project limits during the field reviews.
5.2.4 Wading Birds
The tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), snowy egret (Egretta thula), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) are state listed SSC. These wading birds utilize similar habitat and food resources and feed in permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands, creeks, streams, swales, ditches, lakes, marshes and swamps. They are generally year-round residents and nest in low woody vegetation including willow, cypress, and woody thickets.
There are no documented rookeries within or near the project area. No individuals or nesting areas were observed during the field surveys. The tricolored heron, snowy egret, white ibis and little blue heron may occur in, or fly over, the project limits as they may use the existing ditches and swales for foraging.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 27 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
The subject area is urbanized and contains minimal wildlife habitat. Most of the environmental features within the project area are stormwater systems including maintained and unmaintained ditches, swales, a wet retention pond, and managed impoundments; some of which contain wetland vegetation. Although no listed animal species were observed during the field reviews, and no nests, burrows or habitat were identified, avian and reptile species may temporarily occur in, or fly over, the project limits. The following is a summary of the ETAT reviews and description of the potential effects of the Ultimate Build Alternative on the listed species that could potentially inhabit the project area. There will be no impacts associated with the No Build Alternative.
6.1 ETAT Member Reviews
The USFWS and FWC commented on the potential impacts to listed species through the ETDM process. A copy of the ETDM Programming Screen for the SR 826 PD&E Study (ETDM #11241) (published on February 19, 2013) is included in Appendix D, and a copy of the ETDM Programming Screen for the GGI PD&E Study (ETDM # 11300) (published on November 18, 2011) is included in Appendix E.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study (ETDM #11241)
On August 31st, 2011, the USFWS provided a “Minimal” Degree of Effect for Wildlife and Habitat and commented;
“Federally-listed species - The Service has reviewed our Geographic Information System database for recorded locations of federally-listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the project study area. The Geographic Information System database is a compilation of data received from several sources.
The project corridor is located in the Core Foraging Areas (within 18.6 miles) of two active nesting colonies of the threatened wood stork (Mycteria americana). The
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 28 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Service believes that the loss of wetlands within a Core Foraging Area due to an action could result in the loss of foraging habitat for the wood stork. To minimize adverse effects to the wood stork, we recommend that any lost foraging habitat resulting from the project be replaced within the Core Foraging Area of the affected nesting colony. Moreover, wetlands provided as mitigation should adequately replace the wetland functions lost as a result of the action. The Service does not consider the preservation of wetlands, by itself, as adequate compensation for impacts to wood stork foraging habitat, because the habitat lost is not replaced. Accordingly, any wetland mitigation plan proposed should include a restoration, enhancement, or creation component. In some cases, the Service accepts wetlands compensation located outside the Core Foraging Area of the affected wood stork nesting colony. Specifically, wetland credits purchased from a "Service Approved" mitigation bank located outside of the Core Foraging Area would be acceptable to the Service, provided that the impacted wetlands occur within the permitted service area of the bank.
For projects that impact 5 or more acres of wood stork foraging habitat, the Service requires a functional assessment be conducted using our "Wood Stork Foraging Analysis Methodology"(Methodology) on the foraging habitat to be impacted and the foraging habitat provided as mitigation. The Methodology can found in the Service's November 9, 2007, Eastern Indigo Snake and Wood Stork Key (Service Federal Activity Code Number 41420-2007-FA-1494) provided to the Corps to guide their effect determinations for these two species (available upon request).
The Service believes that the following federally listed species have the potential to occur in or near the project site: wood stork, and the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Accordingly, the Service recommends that the Florida Department of Transportation prepare a Biological Assessment for the project (as required by 50 CFR 402.12) during the Florida Department of Transportation's Project Development and Environment process.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 29 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. Data in the environmental screening tool indicate that wetlands may occur within the project area. We recommend that the project be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland resources to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, we recommend that the Florida Department of Transportation provides mitigation that fully compensates for the loss of wetland resources.”
On September 23rd, 2011, the United States Army Corps of Engineers provided a “Minimal” Degree of Effect for Wetlands and commented; “the EST identified less than 10 acres of palustrine wetlands within 200 feet of the corridor. However, the full extent of all jurisdictional waters onsite was not determined so the Corps recommends the study to include identification of all aquatic features within the project area that may be affected by the project. The Corps requests Florida Department of Transportation to verify the absence of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Projects along the corridor or project related activities which may affect adjacent Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project activities. Furthermore, the Corps recommends a review of the adjacent properties includes verification that no compensatory mitigation sites authorized by the Department of the Army sites will be directly or indirectly affected.
The Corps recommends avoidance of wetlands, and minimization of impacts to jurisdictional waters to the extent practical. If impacts are unavoidable the Corps will require mitigation bank credits to be purchased as opposed to other types of mitigation.”
On September 28th, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service provided a “None” Degree of Effect for Coastal and Marine, and commented;
“Magnuson-Stevens Act: Comments were provided for the Planning Screen on May 4th, 2009. Our comments remain the same. The proposed expansion will be within Florida Department of Transportation's right-of-way. The project is in an urban area and there appear to be no wetlands adjacent to the roadway. The project corridor
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 30 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
crosses and is adjacent to several canals. These canals are upstream of South Florida Water Management District water control structures and inaccessible by federally managed fishery species. Based on the project location, information provided in the Efficient Transportation Decision Making website, and Geographic Information System-based analysis of impacts, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service concludes the proposed work would not directly impact areas that support Essential Fish Habitat or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration trust fishery resources. National Marine Fisheries Service has no comments or recommendations to provide pursuant to the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 104-297); and this project will not require an Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. Further consultation on this matter is not necessary unless future modifications are proposed and you believe that the proposed action may result in adverse impacts to Essential Fish Habitat.
Endangered Species Act: We are not aware of any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the purview of NMFS that occur within the project area. However, it should be noted that a "no effect" determination must be made by the action agency and the reasoning underlying the determination should be documented in a project file. Please coordinate closely with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for other species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may require consultation.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: No impacts to wetlands are proposed; hence the National Marine Fisheries Service offers no comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.”
On October 4th, 2011, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission provided a “Minimal” Degree of Effect for Wildlife and Habitat and commented; “No significant wildlife resources were identified in the project area. Minimal impacts to wildlife resources are anticipated to result from this project.”
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 31 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
On October 4th, 2011, the South Florida Water Management District provided a “None” Degree of Effect for Wetlands and commented; “Based on a review of the information describing the proposed project, it appears that no wetlands exist on the proposed site; however, it appears that surface waters may be impacted. As such, the proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit from the District, which must address both surface water management as well as any work in wetlands and/or other surface waters, including any impacts to wetlands/other surface waters, and mitigation to offset those impacts not addressed in the submittal. Additionally, the surface waters being impacted may be accessible by manatees and a review by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may be required as part of the review process. As part of an Environmental Resource Permit application submitted for the proposed project, the applicant must demonstrate reasonable assurances that the project meets all applicable conditions for issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit, such as demonstrating that the project will not cause secondary impacts to the water resources, and will not violate applicable water quality standards. Please refer to Rule 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, Florida Administrative Code and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit applications.
On October 6th, 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency provided a “None” Degree of Effect for Wetlands and commented; “None found.”
On October 6th, 2011, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection provided a “None” Degree of Effect for Wetlands and commented; “Although wetlands are not likely to be affected, an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida Water Management District may be required for the proposed highway widening project.
On October 30th, 2012, the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Summary Report was re-published.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 32 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Golden Glades Interchange (ETDM # 11300)
The FWC stated (on July 22, 2011) that minimal fish or wildlife resources were identified in the proposed project area. The USFWS stated (on July 15, 2011) that the wood stork and eastern indigo snake could possibly inhabit or migrate through the subject area. They advised that the project is located within the CFA of active wood stork nesting colonies and the loss of SFH within a CFA could result in the loss of foraging habitat for the wood stork. To minimize adverse effects to the wood stork, USFWS recommended any lost foraging habitat resulting from the project be replaced within the CFA of the affected nesting colony. Accordingly, any wetland mitigation plan proposed should include a restoration, enhancement, or creation component. For projects that impact five or more acres of SFH, the USFWS requires a functional assessment be conducted using their Wood Stork Foraging Analysis Methodology on the impacted foraging habitat and the foraging habitat provided as mitigation. The USFWS indicated that a Biological Assessment should be prepared for this project. Both agencies rated the project’s effects on wildlife and habitat as Minimal.
6.2 Direct Effects
6.2.1 Florida Bonneted Bat
No individuals or roost sites for the Florida bonneted bat were observed during the wildlife surveys. However, this species could fly through the project corridor. Therefore, the FDOT and FHWA have determined that the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements may affect, but not likely to adversely affect, the Florida bonneted bat.
6.2.2 West Indian Manatee
As noted previously, four canals exist within the study area: the C-8/Biscayne Canal, Graham’s Dairy Canal, Marco/NW 17th Avenue Canal and the Peter’s Pike Canal. The proposed improvements will result in construction within, or over each of these canals.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 33 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
The FWC Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (Appendix G) will be adhered to during construction to account for potential encounters with manatees during canal work.
The FDOT and FHWA have determined that the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements may affect, but not likely to adversely affect, the West Indian manatee.
6.2.3 Wood Stork
SFH for the wood stork within the project limits include swales or stormwater ponds within and adjacent to the project limits. During the field reviews, wetland vegetation was identified within these man-made drainage features. All of these features are elements of the existing stormwater management system and do not typically constitute jurisdictional wetlands, but are instead usually categorized as Other Surface Waters (OSW). Some of these man-made drainage features will be impacted by the proposed project and new man-made drainage features will be constructed. The net loss of man- made drainage features will not be known until the design phase, but the net impacts are anticipated to be less than half an acre.
There are no wood stork colonies located within the project area. However, construction activities associated with the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements may directly impact existing swales, ditches, and retention ponds located throughout the project limits that may constitute wood stork SFH. Regulatory agencies do not typically require mitigation for impacts to OSW, unless areas qualify as SFH. As such, the loss of wood stork SFH in the stormwater features affected by piles or filling the wet ditch will be mitigated through the construction of new stormwater features within the project area and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for road and bridge construction projects. In the event on-site replacement swales and/or ditches are not possible, mitigation for wood stork SFH impact will be addressed through the purchase of credits from an appropriate mitigation bank. Thus, no net loss of wood stork SFH is anticipated as a result of the construction of the Project. The impacts to wood stork SFH and the corresponding mitigation measures associated with the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements were identified in accordance with the Wood Stork Effect
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 34 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Determination Key (USFWS, May 2010). Consequently, no direct impacts to wood storks and their critical habitat are anticipated with the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements. The FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have determined that the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements may affect, but not likely to adversely affect, the wood stork.
6.2.4 Eastern Indigo Snake
The eastern indigo snake habitat within the project limits is limited to portions of the 16- acre vacant lot located to the north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension and the vacant lots north of the C-8/Biscayne Canal, east of NW 7th Avenue. No gopher tortoise burrows or snakes of any species were observed in these areas during the field reviews.
Because of the lack of suitable refugia and the developed/maintained nature, the eastern indigo snake is unlikely to occur within or adjacent to the project area. In addition, none of the construction activities associated with the GGI Ultimate Improvements will occur near or adjacent to the 16-acre vacant lot north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension corridor. However, the vacant lots north of the C-8/Biscayne Canal, east of NW 7th Avenue will be used for drainage. During field surveys, gopher tortoise burrows, holes, cavities, or other refugia where a snake could be buried, trapped or injured were not observed. To help ensure the protection of the eastern indigo snake during construction, the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Appendix F) will be included in the project documents and implemented during construction.
The FDOT and FHWA have determined that the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements is anticipated to have no effect on the eastern indigo snake. The USFWS Effect Determination Key (USFWS, January 2010) for the eastern indigo snake was applied to the project conditions to identify the project effect on this species.
The SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements are also expected to have no effect on any other federal species.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 35 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
6.2.5 State Listed/Other Species
Bald eagles typically nest in tall trees (mostly live pines) that provide clear views of the surrounding area. The primary prey of bald eagles in Florida includes various fish and waterfowl species. The project area lacks suitable foraging habitat for bald eagles, as well as mature pines or tall trees suitable for nesting. No eagle sightings or nests have been documented within or near the project area. In addition, no eagles were observed during the field surveys.
Gopher tortoises and burrowing owls utilize similar habitats. Habitat within the project area favorable to these species is limited to portions of the 16-acre vacant lot located to the north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension corridor and the vacant lots north of the C- 8/Biscayne Canal, east of NW 7th Avenue. None of the proposed activities associated with the GGI Ultimate Build Alternative, will occur near or adjacent to the 16-acre vacant lot north of the NW 7th Avenue Extension corridor. However, the vacant lots, north of the C-8/Biscayne Canal, will be used for drainage. No gopher tortoises, burrowing owls, or their burrows were observed within those areas during the field reviews.
The tricolored heron, snowy egret, white ibis, and little blue heron utilize similar habitat and food resources, feeding in permanently and seasonally flooded wetlands, swales, and ditches. There are no documented rookeries within or near the project area, and no nesting areas were observed during the field surveys. Although no listed avian species were observed, these species may occur in, or fly over, the project and use existing ditches within the project limits for foraging. Thus, construction activities associated with the GGI Ultimate Build Alternative, which directly impact the existing swales, ditches and wet retention pond within the project limits may result in minor impacts to the foraging areas of these species.
However, no adverse effects to the gopher tortoise, burrowing owl, bald eagle, tricolored heron, snowy egret, white ibis, or little blue heron are anticipated as a result of the GGI Ultimate Build Alternative. No adverse impacts to those non-listed species discussed in Section 5 (great egret, green heron and American coot) are anticipated, as open water
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 36 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment will remain both upstream and downstream of the proposed canal crossings; allowing continuous use of these waters by these species.
6.3 Indirect Effects
Indirect (or secondary) effects are those impacts that are linked and causally related to the proposed action. They include temporary and permanent indirect effects. For transportation projects, indirect impacts typically include disturbance to areas adjacent to the project area. These impacts include short-term impacts associated with road construction activities as well as long-term impacts.
Possible short-term indirect impacts for any of the alternatives include: turbidity associated with construction activities, the use of heavy equipment, staging or stockpiling of equipment and materials, and sedimentation resulting from increased erosion associated with soil disturbance. BMPs typically associated with road and bridge construction projects will be implemented and maintained throughout construction activities. Staging and stockpiling locations will be coordinated with the construction project manager, and field reviews will be performed to check for environmental issues within staging areas. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared during design to minimize impacts to water quality during construction.
Possible long-term indirect impacts could include water quality degradation in adjacent waters. However, the stormwater treatment system will be designed in accordance with the Miami-Dade County Code and SFWMD permitting criteria. Thus, no long-term impacts to water quality from stormwater runoff after project completion are anticipated.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 37 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
6.4 Cumulative Effects
A “cumulative impact”, according to the definition in the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1508.7), is “the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non- federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” Based on the proposed scope of work, no cumulative impacts are anticipated for this project.
6.5 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures are intended to minimize or avoid environmental impacts to listed species or critical habitat. The proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to native habitats, as well as threatened and endangered species to the maximum extent practical while still accomplishing the objectives of the project.
Minimal impacts to potential foraging areas for wood storks and other wetland- dependent avian species are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Any impacts to wood stork SFH located within the GGI from proposed construction activities will be minimized and then mitigated through the construction of new stormwater features that replace SFH or the purchase of wetland credits at an approved mitigation bank.
To assure protection of the eastern indigo snake and manatee during construction the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake and the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work will be implemented. These construction guidelines will be a part of the final project design and are provided in Appendices F and G.
Minimal impacts to the canals and water quality are anticipated as a result of the Recommended Build Alternative, as BMPs for road and bridge construction will be implemented during construction to prevent water pollution. The implementation of BMPs for the control of construction debris will also be included in the construction
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 38 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
plans. BMPs and construction guidelines will be a part of the final project design and incorporated in the SWPPP and the project’s Erosion Control Plan. The drainage system will be designed to meet current water quality regulatory criteria, so post- construction impacts to water quality are not anticipated.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements were evaluated for impacts to protected wildlife species using a review of existing literature, GIS resources and field reviews. After careful analysis of the species’ preferred habitats and accounting for the protective measures to be implemented during construction, the FDOT and FHWA have determined that minimal impacts to Federal or State-listed species are anticipated to occur in association with the proposed project.
The FDOT and FHWA made the following determinations for the project:
Florida bonneted bat: may affect, not likely to adversely affect West Indian manatee: may affect, not likely to adversely affect Wood stork: may affect, not likely to adversely affect Eastern indigo snake: no effect
In addition, no adverse effect to the gopher tortoise, burrowing owl, bald eagle, or any other protected species is anticipated as a result of the SR 826 and GGI Ultimate Improvements. There will be no impacts to Federal or State listed species associated with the No Build Alternative.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 39 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
8.0 REFERENCES
Bogert, C.M., and R.B. Cowles. 1947. Results of the Archbold expeditions. No. 58. Moisture loss in relation to habitat selection in some Floridian reptiles. American Museum Novitates 1358:1-55.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1995. "The Florida Wetlands Delineation Manual." Tallahassee,
Florida Department of Transportation. 1991. “Project Development and Environment Manual,” Part 2, Chapter 27. Tallahassee.
Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification, Procedure No. 550-010-001- A, State Topographic Bureau Thematic Mapping Section, Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2009. Burrowing Owl Nest Protection Guidelines and Procedures in Urban Areas. Retrieved on May 17, 2012 from http://myfwc.com/media/290095/buowguidelines2009.pdf
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2014. “Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species.” Tallahassee.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2000. “Field Guide to Rare Plants and Animals of Florida.” Tallahassee.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2014. “Tracking List for Miami-Dade County.” Tallahassee.
Hagan, D., F. Escobedo, G. Toor, H. Mayer, J. Klein and C. Dobbs. 2010. Soil Bulk Density and Organic Matter in Urban Miami-Dade County, Florida. Soil and Water Science Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Layne, J.N., and T.M. Steiner. 1996. Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi): summary of research conducted on Archbold Biological Station. Report prepared under Order 43910-6-0134 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jackson, Mississippi.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Soil Survey of Dade County, Florida. In cooperation with University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Stations, and Soil Science Department; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; and Florida Department of Transportation.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. Web Soil Survey.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 40 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Speake, D.W., J.A. McGlincy, and T.R. Colvin. 1978. Ecology and management of the eastern indigo snake in Georgia: A progress report. Pages 64-73 in R.R. Odum and L. Landers, editors. Proceedings of rare and endangered wildlife symposium, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Technical Bulletin WL 4
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. “Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.” Washington, DC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. “Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.” Washington, DC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2010. North and South Florida Ecological Services Field Offices Programmatic Concurrence for Use of Original Eastern Indigo Snake Key (eastern indigo snake key). Vero Beach, Florida.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2010. South Florida Programmatic Concurrence Letter (wood stork key). Vero Beach, Florida.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. “Official Species List.” Vero Beach.
SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 41 FM #: 418423‐1‐22‐01 / FAP #: 4751 146 P / ETDM #: 11241 Appendix A
USFWS Concurrence Letter us. FlSJf AWILDUFE United States Depa rtment of the Interior SERVICE
FISH AND WILDLI FE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Omce th 1339 10 Street ~ . ·('...... l Vero Beach. Florid a 32960 ~D~ '~ .illli~ 14.2013 RECEIVED Stewn James Florida Department of Transportation
100 Northwest 111'h Avenue DISTRICT 6 Miami, Florida 33172-5800 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL L_ _~AGEME - _.-.., N ...T - .OFFICE------1 Sen'icc CPA Activity Code: 2009-CPA-0397 Service Consultation Code: 2009-1-0276 Dat..: Received: June 12.2013 Project: Golden Glades Interchange from State Road 826 to Interstate 95 County: Miami-Dade
Dear Mr. James:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter dated June 5,2013. and the Endangered Species Biological Ass,-,ssment (ESBA) suhmitted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOl). on behalf "rthe Federal Highway Administration. for th..: projcct rcferenced above. This letter is sllhm;th:d in acc,'rdance with section 7 of the Endangered Specics Act of 1973. as amclJdcd ( I\Ct) (87 Stat. 884: j 6 \i.S.C'. 1531 ('I seq.). and the Mnrine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) oj" 1972. as amended (16 I).S.C'. 1461 el seq.).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The FOOT proposes to construct a new three-l ane ramp connecting State Road 826, Interstate 95. Florida's Turnpike Connector Road, and U.S. Highway 441. The project includes reconstruction of Florida's Turnpike Connector Road and th..: remoyul and reconstruction of existing access ramps. The purpose ofthe project is to improve traffic 110w :md relieve tramc congestion in the project area. The project \\ill not afTect wetland:;. 1 Ih .' project site is located at the Golden Glades Interchange in Miami-Dade County. Florida.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
West Indian manatee
The project occurs within the geographic range oftht' endangered West Indian manatee (hichechlls monolUs). Sengrasses. :1 source of jC )r,lge t()r the manatee. will not be affected by construction activities. To provide protection for manatees during construction of the project. the FDOT has agreed to follow the Slul/dard Alan{(lce I'roll!clio;] Conslruction ('ondilions./iJr In Waler Work (FWC 20 II). Thc I·DOT d" termincd the project "may affect, but is not likdy to Steven James Page 2 adversely affect" the manatee. Based on the information provided. the Service concurs with this determination.
Eastern indigo snake
The project occurs within the geographic range ortbe threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) . To minimize adverse eff~cts to this species during construction. the FOOT has agreed to follow the Service's Standard Protection Measures/or the Eastern Indif!,o Snake (Service 2004a) during construction of thc project. The FDOT determined the project "may affect. hut is not likely to adversely affect" the eastern indigo snake. Based on the adherence to the indigo snake protection measures. the Service concurs with this determination.
Wood stork
The project site is located within the core fo ragi ng area (CFA) (within 18.6 miles) of two active hreeding colonies of the endangered wood stork (Myctcria americana). The loss of wetlands within a eFA may reduce foraging llpportunities tor wood storks. To minimize adverse effects to the wood stork, the Scrvic ~ 's Draft Suppkmental Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the South Florida Ecological Services Consultation Area (Service 2004b) recommend the applicant replace wetlands lost due to the action. The compensation plan should include a temporal lag factor, if necessary. to ensure wetlands provided as compensation adequately replace the wetland functions lost due to the project. Moreover, wetlands offered as compensation should be of the same hydroperiod, and located within the CFA of the affected wood stork colony.
The Service does not consider the preservation of wetlands, by itself~ as adequate compensation for impacts to wood stork foraging habitat. because the habitat lost is not replaced. Accordingly, any wetland mitigation plan that includes the preservation of wetlands should include a restoration, enhancement, or creation component. [n some cases. the Service accepts wetlands compensation located outside the CFA of the affected wood stork nesting colony_ Specifically. wetland credits purchased Irom a "Service Approved" mitigation bank located outside the CF A would be acceptable to the Service. providcd the impacted wetlands occur within the permitted service area of the bank.
For projects that impact 5 or mOl'e acres of wood stork foraging habitat. the Service requires a functional assessmelH be conducted using our " Wood Stork Foraging Analysis Methodology" (Methodology) on the toraging hahitat to be impacted and the foraging habitat provided as mitigation. The Methlldology can found on our wehsite Jt: blli:.ji~\,y \\· .t\vs. gov/yero l? e 3c h ~Ui!. (:L
The FDOT determined the project "may affect. but is not likely to adversely affecf' the wood stork. The project will impact a max imum of 0.31 acre of stonnwater di tches that may provide Steven James Page 3 foraging habitat for the wood stork , The loss of these ditches will be offset by the construction of new storm water ditches in association with the project. Based on the minor impacts to wood stork foraging habitat, the Service concurs with the rOOTs determination for the wood stork,
This letter fulfills the requircments of sC'l,tion 7 of the Act and further action is not required. If moditications are made to the project. if additional information involving potential effects to listed species becomcs available. or if a new species is listed, reinitiation of consul tation may be necessary,
Thank you for your cooperation in the dIort to protect federally listed species. If you have any questions regarding this project. pleas~ contact John Wrublik at 772-469-4282.
Sincerely yours, iJ~~~ Field Supervisor South Florida Ecological Services Office cc: electronic only FWe. Tallahassee. Florida (FWC-CPS) NOAA Fisheries. West Palm Beach, Florida (Brandon Howard) Corps. Palm Beach Gardens. Florida (Garett Lips)
LITERATURE CITED
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 20 i1. Standard Manatee Conditions for In-water Work , T:llJahassee. Florida, h tt p : /h nv [\vc.~om /l11cJ i a I-l15 4 4 R /~ l:il}ul.cL<; ldCondln VYllll'r\V(1rk,pdi'
U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004a, Standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Florida Ecological Services Office; Vero Beach, Florida,
U.S, Fish and WildliJe Service. :2004b. Draft Supplem-:ntal Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the South Florida Ecological Services Consultation Area, Fish and Wildlife Service. South Florida Ecological Services Office; Vero Beach, Florida
Appendix B
USFWS Official Species List
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 1339 20TH STREET VERO BEACH, FL 32960 PHONE: (772)562-3909 FAX: (772)562-4288 URL: fws.gov/verobeach
Consultation Tracking Number: 04EF2000-2015-SLI-0001 October 07, 2014 Project Name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project.
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Attachment
2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Official Species List
Provided by: South Florida Ecological Services Field Office 1339 20TH STREET VERO BEACH, FL 32960 (772) 562-3909 http://fws.gov/verobeach
Consultation Tracking Number: 04EF2000-2015-SLI-0001 Project Type: Transportation Project Description: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Project Location Map:
Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-80.3251407 25.9201773, -80.3251389 25.9201864, - 80.3239373 25.9228111, -80.3239339 25.9228162, -80.3239292 25.9228201, -80.321011 25.9245261, -80.3210012 25.9245288, -80.2816907 25.9251463, -80.2816904 25.9251463, - 80.2753393 25.9251463, -80.2054736 25.9279175, -80.2054654 25.9279161, -80.2054585 25.9279114, -80.205454 25.9279044, -80.2054528 25.9278962, -80.2054551 25.9278882, - 80.2054605 25.9278818, -80.2102806 25.9240982, -80.2105723 25.9235205, -80.2099074 25.9132393, -80.2099085 25.9132316, -80.2099124 25.9132248, -80.2099186 25.9132201, - 80.2099261 25.913218, -80.2099338 25.9132191, -80.2099406 25.913223, -80.2099453 25.9132292, -80.2099474 25.9132367, -80.2106126 25.9235233, -80.2106105 25.9235336, - 80.2103143 25.9241202, -80.2103087 25.9241269, -80.2055338 25.9278751, -80.2753381 25.9251063, -80.2753389 25.9251063, -80.2816902 25.9251063, -80.3209953 25.9244889, - 80.3239035 25.9227887, -80.3251005 25.9201741, -80.3240622 25.8937825, -80.3240634 25.8937748, -80.3240675 25.8937681, -80.3240738 25.8937635, -80.3240814 25.8937617, - 80.3240891 25.8937629, -80.3240958 25.893767, -80.3241004 25.8937733, -80.3241022 25.8937809, -80.3251407 25.9201773)))
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Project Counties: Miami-Dade, FL
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 51 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)
Audubon's Crested caracara Threatened (Polyborus plancus audubonii) Population: FL pop.
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora Endangered bachmanii) Population: Entire
Cape Sable Seaside sparrow Endangered Final designated (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) Population: Entire
Everglade Snail kite (Rostrhamus Endangered Final designated sociabilis plumbeus) Population: FL pop.
Florida Grasshopper sparrow Endangered (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) Population: Entire
Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma Threatened coerulescens) Population: Entire
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Ivory-Billed woodpecker Endangered (Campephilus principalis) Population: Entire
Kirtland's Warbler (Setophaga Endangered kirtlandii) Population: Entire
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened Final designated Population: except Great Lakes watershed
Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Proposed Threatened
Red-Cockaded woodpecker (Picoides Endangered borealis) Population: Entire
Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Threatened Population: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC
Corals
Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) Threatened Final designated
Staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) Threatened Final designated
Ferns and Allies
Florida Bristle fern (Trichomanes Candidate punctatum ssp. floridanum)
Fishes
Atlantic sturgeon (Gulf subspecies) Threatened Final designated (Acipenser oxyrinchus (=oxyrhynchus) desotoi) Population: Entire
Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) Endangered
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 5 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Population: United States DPS
Flowering Plants
Beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia Endangered reclinata)
Blodgett's silverbush (Argythamnia Candidate blodgettii)
Cape Sable Thoroughwort Endangered Final designated (Chromolaena frustrata)
Carter's Small-Flowered flax (Linum Endangered Proposed carteri carteri)
Carter's mustard (Warea carteri) Endangered
Crenulate lead-plant (Amorpha Endangered crenulata)
Deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea Endangered ssp. deltoidea)
Everglades bully (Sideroxylon Candidate reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense)
Florida Pineland crabgrass (Digitaria Candidate pauciflora)
Florida Semaphore Cactus (Consolea Endangered corallicola)
Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia Endangered Proposed mosieri)
Florida prairie-clover (Dalea Candidate carthagenensis floridana)
Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce garberi) Threatened
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 6 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Johnson's seagrass (Halophila Threatened Final designated johnsonii)
Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita Endangered okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis) pineland sandmat (Chamaesyce Candidate deltoidea pinetorum)
Sand flax (Linum arenicola) Candidate
Small's milkpea (Galactia smallii) Endangered
Tiny polygala (Polygala smallii) Endangered
Insects
Bartram's Hairstreak Butterfly Endangered (Strymon acis bartrami)
Florida Leafwing Butterfly (Anaea Endangered troglodyta floridalis)
Miami Blue Butterfly (Cyclargus Endangered (=hemiargus) thomasi bethunebakeri)
Schaus Swallowtail butterfly Endangered (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) Population: Entire
Mammals
Florida Bonneted bat (Eumops Endangered floridanus)
Florida panther (Puma (=felis) Endangered concolor coryi) puma (Puma (=felis) concolor (all Similarity of subsp. except coryi)) Appearance Population: FL (Threatened)
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 7 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus Endangered Final designated manatus) Population: Entire
Reptiles
American alligator (Alligator Similarity of mississippiensis) Appearance Population: Entire (Threatened)
American crocodile (Crocodylus Threatened Final designated acutus) Population: FL pop.
Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon Threatened corais couperi) Population: Entire
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) Endangered Population: FL, Mexico nesting pops.
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys Endangered Final designated imbricata) Population: Entire
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys Endangered Final designated coriacea) Population: Entire
Snails
Stock Island Tree snail (Orthalicus Threatened reses) Population: Entire
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 8 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: SR-826/GGI Ultimate
Critical habitats that lie within your project area
The following critical habitats lie fully or partially within your project area.
Mammals Critical Habitat Type
West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Final designated Population: Entire
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/07/2014 09:07 AM 9
Appendix C
FNAI Tracking List for Miami-Dade County
ABOUT FNAI STAFF PARTNERSHIPS CONTACT US
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 286 Total Elements Found Last Updated: June 2014
Key Scientific Name is linked to the FNAI Online Field Guides when available.
- links to NatureServe Explorer, an online encyclopedia of more than 55,000 plants, animals, and natural communities in North America, compiled by the NatureServe network of natural heritage programs, of which the Florida Natural Areas Inventory is a member.
- links to a species distribution map (Adobe SVG viewer required). If your browser does not support Adobe SVG, try this link
New Search
SEARCH RESULTS
NOTE: This is not a comprehensive list of all species and natural communities occurring in the location searched. Only elements documented in the FNAI database are included.
Plants and Lichens E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Acrostichum aureum Golden Leather Fern G5 S3 N LT
Adiantum melanoleucum Fragrant Maidenhair G4 S1 N LE Fern
Adiantum tenerum Brittle Maidenhair Fern G5 S3 N LE
Aeschynomene pratensis Meadow Jointvetch G4 S1 N LE
Aletris bracteata Bracted Colic-root G2 S2 N LE
Alvaradoa amorphoides Everglades Leaf Lace G5 S1 N LE
Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata Crenulate Lead-plant G4T1 S1 LE LE
Anemia wrightii Wright's Anemia G2? S1 N LE
Argusia gnaphalodes Sea Lavender G4 S3 N LE
Argythamnia blodgettii Blodgett's Wild-mercury G2 S2 C LE Aristolochia pentandra Marsh's Dutchman's G4G5 S1 NLE Pipe
Asplenium dentatum American Toothed G5 S1S2 N LE Spleenwort
Asplenium serratum American Bird's Nest G4 S1 N LE Fern
Asplenium verecundum Modest Spleenwort G1 S1 N LE
Asplenium x biscaynianum Eaton's Spleenwort GNA S1 N N
Basiphyllaea corallicola Rockland Orchid G1G3 S1 N LE
Beloglottis costaricensis Costa Rican Ladies'- G3G5 S1 N LE tresses
Bletia patula Haitian Bletia G4G5 S1 N N
Bourreria cassinifolia Smooth Strongbark G3? S1 N LE
Brickellia mosieri Florida Brickell-bush G1 S1 C LE
Byrsonima lucida Locustberry G4G5 S3 N LT
Calyptranthes zuzygium Myrtle-of-the-river G4 S2 N LE
Catopsis berteroniana Powdery Catopsis G5? S1 N LE
Catopsis floribunda Many-flowered Catopsis G3G5 S1 N LE
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens Hairy Deltoid Spurge G2T1 S1 LE LE
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Deltoid Spurge G2T1 S1 LE LE
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum Pinelands Spurge G2T1 S1 C LE
Chamaesyce garberi Garber's Spurge G1 S1 LT LE
Chamaesyce porteriana Porter's Broad-leaved G2 S2 N LE Spurge
Coccothrinax argentata Silver Palm G4 S3 N LT
Colubrina cubensis var. floridana Cuban Snake-bark G2G3T1 S1 N LE
Crossopetalum ilicifolium Christmas Berry G3 S3 N LT
Crossopetalum rhacoma Rhacoma G5 S3 N LT
Ctenitis sloanei Florida Tree Fern G5 S2 N LE
Cyclopogon elatus Tall Neottia G4G5 SH N LE
Cyrtopodium punctatum Cowhorn Orchid G5? S1 N LE
Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana Florida Prairie Clover G5T1 S1 C LE Digitaria pauciflora Few-flowered G1 S1 CLE Fingergrass
Drypetes diversifolia Milkbark G4 S2 N LE
Eltroplectris calcarata Spurred Neottia G4? S1 N LE
Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia Narrow-leaved Carolina G4T2 S2 N N Scalystem
Encyclia boothiana var. erythronioides Dollar Orchid G4?T4? S1 N LE Q
Encyclia cochleata var. triandra Clamshell Orchid G4G5T2 S2 N LE
Epidendrum nocturnum Night-scented Orchid G4G5 S2 N LE
Ernodea cokeri Coker's Beach Creeper G4Q S1 N LE
Eugenia confusa Tropical Ironwood G4G5 S2S3 N LE
Eugenia rhombea Red Stopper G5 S1 N LE
Eupatorium villosum Villose Fennel G4G5 S2 N LE
Euphorbia pinetorum Rockland Painted-leaf G2 S2 N LE
Forestiera segregata var. pinetorum Florida Pinewood Privet G4T2 S2 N N
Galactia pinetorum Pineland Milkpea G2Q S2 N N
Galactia smallii Small's Milkpea G1Q S1 LE LE
Galeandra bicarinata Two-keeled Helmet G1 S1 N LE Orchid
Glandularia maritima Coastal Vervain G3 S3 N LE
Govenia floridana Sheathing Govenia G1Q S1 N LE
Guaiacum sanctum Lignum-vitae G2 S1 N LE
Guzmania monostachia Fakahatchee Guzmania G4G5 S1S2 N LE
Halophila johnsonii Johnson's Seagrass G2 S2 LT N
Harrisia simpsonii Simpson's Prickly Apple G2 S2 N LE
Hippomane mancinella Manchineel G5 S2 N LE
Hypelate trifoliata White Ironwood G4 S1 N LE
Ilex krugiana Krug's Holly G4 S3 N LT
Ipomoea microdactyla Wild Potato Morning G2 S2 N LE Glory
Ipomoea tenuissima Rocklands Morning Glory G3 S1 N LE Jacquemontia curtissii Pineland Jacquemontia G2 S2 N LT
Jacquemontia pentanthos Skyblue Clustervine G4G5 S2 N LE
Jacquemontia reclinata Beach Jacquemontia G1 S1 LE LE
Jacquinia keyensis Joewood G4 S3 N LT
Lantana canescens Small-headed Lantana G4 S1 N LE
Lantana depressa var. depressa Florida Lantana G2T1 S1 N LE
Lantana depressa var. floridana Atlantic Coast Florida G2T1 S1 N LE Lantana
Leiphaimos parasitica Ghost Plant G4 S2 N LE
Licaria triandra Gulf Licaria G4 S1 N LE
Linum arenicola Sand Flax G1G2 S1S2 C LE
Linum carteri var. carteri Carter's Small-flowered G2T1 S1 C LE Flax
Linum carteri var. smallii Small's Flax G2T2 S2 N LE
Lomariopsis kunzeana Holly Vine Fern G2G4 S1 N LE
Microgramma heterophylla Climbing Vine Fern G4G5 S2 N LE
Odontosoria clavata Wedgelet Fern G4 S2 N LE
Okenia hypogaea Burrowing Four-o'clock G3? S2 N LE
Oncidium floridanum Florida Dancinglady G2Q S1 N LE Orchid
Ophioglossum palmatum Hand Fern G4 S2 N LE
Opuntia corallicola Florida Semaphore G1 S1 LE LE Cactus
Passiflora multiflora White Passionflower G4 S1 N LE
Passiflora sexflora Everglades Key Passion- G5 S1 N LE flower
Pavonia paludicola Mangrove Mallow G5? S1 N LE
Peperomia obtusifolia Blunt-leaved Peperomia G5 S2 N LE
Phoradendron rubrum Mahogany Mistletoe G4 S1 N LE
Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. floridanus Florida Five-petaled G4T2 S2 N N Leaf-flower
Picramnia pentandra Bitter Bush G4G5 S1 N LE
Polygala smallii Tiny Polygala G1 S1 LE LE Polyrrhiza lindenii Ghost Orchid G2G4 S2 N LE
Prescotia oligantha Small-flowered Prescotia G4G5 S1 N LE
Prunus myrtifolia West Indian Cherry G4 S2 N LT
Pseudophoenix sargentii Florida Cherry-palm G3G5 S1 N LE
Psidium longipes Mangrove Berry G4 S2 N LT
Psychotria ligustrifolia Bahama Wild Coffee G4 S1 N LE
Pteris bahamensis Bahama Brake G4 S3 N LT
Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant Orchid G2G3 S2 N LT
Roystonea elata Florida Royal Palm G2G3 S2 N LE
Sachsia polycephala Bahama Sachsia G2 S2 N LT
Sacoila lanceolata var. paludicola Fahkahatchee Ladies' G4T1 S1 N LT -tresses
Schaefferia frutescens Yellowwood G5 S2 N LE
Schizaea pennula Ray Fern G5 S1 N LE
Scutellaria havanensis Havana Skullcap G3G4 S2 N LE
Selaginella eatonii Eaton's Spike Moss G2G3 S2 N LE
Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. Everglades Bully G4G5T1 S1 C N austrofloridense
Spiranthes polyantha Green Ladies'-tresses G4 S1S2 N LE
Spiranthes torta Southern Ladies'-tresses G4 S1 N LE
Stylosanthes calcicola Pineland Pencil Flower G3G4 S2 N LE
Swietenia mahagoni West Indies Mahogany G3G4 S3 N LT
Tectaria fimbriata Least Halberd Fern G4 S2 N LE
Tectaria x amesiana Ames Halberd Fern GNA SX N N
Tephrosia angustissima var. corallicola Rockland Hoary-pea G1T1 S1 N LE
Tephrosia angustissima var. curtissii Coastal Hoary-pea G1T1 S1 N LE
Thelypteris reptans Creeping Maiden Fern G5 S2 N LE
Thelypteris sclerophylla Stiff-leaved Maiden Fern G4 S1 N LE
Thelypteris serrata Toothed Maiden Fern G5 S1 N LE Thrinax morrisii Brittle Thatch Palm G4G5 S3 NLE
Thrinax radiata Florida Thatch Palm G4G5 S2 N LE
Tillandsia flexuosa Banded Wild-pine G5 S3 N LT
Tragia saxicola Pineland Noseburn G2 S2 N LT
Trema lamarckianum Lamarck's Trema G5 S2 N LE
Trichomanes krausii Kraus' Bristle Fern G5 S1 N LE
Trichomanes punctatum ssp. floridanum Florida Filmy Fern G4G5T1 S1 C LE
Tripsacum floridanum Florida Gama Grass G2 S2 N LT
Tropidia polystachya Young-palm Orchid G3G5 S1 N LE
Vanilla barbellata Worm-vine Orchid G4G5 S2 N LE
Vanilla phaeantha Leafy Vanilla G4 S1 N LE
Zanthoxylum coriaceum Biscayne Prickly Ash G4? S1 N LE
Zephyranthes simpsonii Redmargin Zephyrlily G2G3 S2S3 N LT
Clams and Mussels E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Villosa amygdala Florida Rainbow G3 S3 N N
Snails and Allies E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Chondropoma dentatum Crenulate Horn G2G3 S2? N N
Cochlodinella poeyana Truncate Urocoptid G1G2 S1S2 N N
Orthalicus floridensis Banded Tree Snail G3 S3 N N
Orthalicus reses reses Stock Island Tree Snail G2T1 S1 LT FT
Sterkia eyriesii Caribbean Birddrop G3G5 S1S2 N N
Vertigo hebardi Keys Vertigo G1 S1 N N
Amphipods E X P L A N A T I O N Scientific Name Common Name Global State Federal State Rank Rank Status Status
Crangonyx grandimanus Florida Cave Amphipod G2G3 S2S3 N N
Crangonyx hobbsi Hobbs' Cave Amphipod G2G3 S2S3 N N
Crabs, Crayfishes, and Shrimps E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Goniopsis cruentata Mangrove Crab G5 S3S4 N N
Procambarus milleri Miami Cave Crayfish G1 S1 N N
Dragonflies and Damselflies E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Nehalennia pallidula Everglades Sprite G3 S3 N N
Grasshoppers and Allies E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Gryllus cayensis South Florida Taciturn G1 S1 N N Wood Cricket
Beetles E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Anomala robinsoni Robinson's Anomala G1? S1? N N Scarab Beetle
Aphodius troglodytes Gopher Tortoise G2G3 S2 N N Aphodius Beetle
Ataenius brevicollis An Ataenius Beetle G3G5 S1S2 N N
Ataenius peregrinator An Ataenius Beetle G5 S1? N N
Ataenius wenzelii An Ataenius Beetle G3G5 S2S3 N N
Auperia denominata An Aphodiine Beetle G5 S3S5 N N
Bolbocerosoma hamatum Bicolored Burrowing G3G4 S3 N N Scarab Beetle
Branchus floridanus South Florida Beach G1G2 S1S2 N N Darkling Beetle
Chelyoxenus xerobatis Gopher Tortoise G2G3 S2 N N Hister Beetle Cicindela striga Elusive Tiger Beetle G3G4 S2S3 NN
Cicindelidia floridana Miami Tiger Beetle G1 S1 N N
Cotinis aliena Keys Green June G1 S1 N N Beetle
Cyclocephala miamiensis Miami Chafer Beetle G1? S1? N N
Strohecker's Ivory- G1G2 S1S2 N N Eburia stroheckeri Spotted Long-Horned Beetle
Heterachthes sablensis Mangrove Long- G4G5 S1 N N Horned Beetle Tropical White- G2G4 S1 N N Linsleyonides albomaculatus Spotted Long-Horned Beetle
Micronaspis floridana Florida Intertidal G1G3 S1S3 N N Firefly Punctate Gopher G2G3T2T3 S2 N N Onthophagus polyphemi polyphemi Tortoise Onthophagus Beetle
Photuris brunnipennis floridana Everglades GNRT1T3 S1S3 N N Brownwing Firefly
Phyllophaga elongata Elongate June Beetle G3 S3 N N
Phyllophaga youngi Young's June Beetle G2G4 S1? N N
Pseudataenius waltherhorni Pseudataenius Beetle G3G5 SNA N N
Round-Necked G1G2 S1S2 N N Romulus globosus Romulus Long-Horned Beetle
Rutela formosa Handsome Flower G3G4 S1S2 N N Scarab Beetle
Stenodontes chevrolati Chevrolat's Tropical G3G5 S1S2 N N Long-Horned Beetle
Tetracha floridana Florida Big-headed G2G3 S2S3 N N Tiger Beetle
Caddisflies E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Ceraclea floridana Florida Ceraclean GH SH N N Caddisfly
Oecetis porteri Porter's Long-horn G3G4 S2S3 N N Caddisfly
Oxyethira florida Florida Cream and Brown G1G2 S1S2 N N Microcaddisfly
Butterflies and Moths E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status Amblyscirtes alternata Dusky Roadside- G2G3 S2 N N Skipper
Anaea troglodyta floridalis Florida Leafwing G4?T1 S1 C N
Anthanassa frisia Cuban Crescent G5 S1 N N
Aphrissa neleis Pink-spot Sulphur GU S2 N N
Aphrissa statira Statira G5 S2S3 N N
Appias drusilla Florida White G4G5 S1 N N
Chlorostrymon maesites Amethyst Hairstreak G4 S1 N N
Chlorostrymon simaethis Silver-banded G5 S1 N N Hairstreak
Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Miami Blue G3G4TU S1 LE FE
Ephyriades brunnea floridensis Florida Duskywing G5T2 S1 N N
Eumaeus atala Atala G4 S2 N N
Eunica monima Dingy Purplewing G5 S1 N N
Eunica tatila tatilista Florida Purplewing G5T4T5 S1 N N
Euphyes berryi Berry's Skipper G1G3 S2 N N
Hesperia meskei pinocayo Rockland Grass G3G4T1 S1 N N Skipper
Junonia genoveva Tropical Buckeye G5 S1 N N
Ministrymon azia Gray Ministreak G5 S1 N N
Neonympha helicta dadeensis Helicta Satyr G3G4T1T3Q S1S3 N N
Papilio andraemon bonhotei Bahamian G4G5T3 S1 N N Swallowtail
Papilio aristodemus ponceanus Schaus' Swallowtail G3G4T1 S1 LE FE
Polites baracoa Baracoa Skipper G4 S3 N N
Pseudocharis minima Lesser Wasp Moth G3G4 S2S3 N N
Pyrisitia dina Dina Yellow G5 S1 N N
Pyrisitia nise Mimosa Yellow G5 S1 N N
Siproeta stelenes Malachite G5 S2 N N
Strymon acis bartrami Bartram's Scrub- G4?T1 S1 C N Hairstreak
Strymon martialis Martial Scrub- G3G5 S2S3 N N Hairstreak Ants, Bees, and Wasps E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Centris errans Florida Locust-berry Oil- G2 S2 N N collecting Bee
Hylaeus volusiensis A Yellow-masked Bee G1G2 S1S2 N N
Lasioglossum flaveriae A Sweat Bee G1G2 S1S2 N N
Lasioglossum tahitensis Tahiti Beach Sweat Bee G1 S1 N N
Fishes E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet G5 S3 N N
Ctenogobius stigmaturus Spottail Goby G2 S2 N N
Gambusia rhizophorae Mangrove Gambusia G3 S3 N N
Gobiomorus dormitor Bigmouth Sleeper G4 S2 N N
Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus G4G5 S3 SC SSC
Reptiles E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator G5 S4 SAT FT (S/A)
Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle G3 S3 LE, LT FT
Chelonia mydas Green Sea Turtle G3 S2 LE FE
Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile G2 S2 LT FT
Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback G4 S3 N N Rattlesnake
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Sea Turtle G2 S2 LE FE
Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake G3 S3 LT FT
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Sea Turtle G3 S1 LE FE
Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise G3 S3 C ST
Lampropeltis getula Common Kingsnake G5 S2S3 N N Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida Pine Snake G4T3 S3 N SSC
Sceloporus woodi Florida Scrub Lizard G3 S3 N N
Tantilla oolitica Rim Rock Crowned Snake G1G2 S1S2 N ST
Birds E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Cape Sable Seaside G4T1 S1 LE FE Sparrow
Aramus guarauna Limpkin G5 S3 N SSC
Ardea alba Great Egret G5 S4 N N
Ardea herodias occidentalis Great White Heron G5T2 S2 N N
Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl G4T3 S3 N SSC
Buteo brachyurus Short-tailed Hawk G4G5 S1 N N
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover G3 S2 LT FT
Chordeiles gundlachii Antillean Nighthawk G4 S2 N N
Coccyzus minor Mangrove Cuckoo G5 S3 N N
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron G5 S4 N SSC
Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret G4 S2 N SSC
Egretta thula Snowy Egret G5 S3 N SSC
Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron G5 S4 N SSC
Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite G5 S2 N N
Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite G5 S1 N N
Eudocimus albus White Ibis G5 S4 N SSC
Falco columbarius Merlin G5 S2 N N
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon G4 S2 N N
Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American G5T4 S3 N ST Kestrel
Fregata magnificens Magnificent Frigatebird G5 S1 N N
Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill Crane G5T2T3 S2S3 N ST
Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher G5 S2 N SSC Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G5 S3 N N
Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern G5 S2 N N
Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern G5 S4 N N
Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 S2 LE FE
Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned Night- G5 S3 N N heron
Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night- G5 S3 N N heron
Pandion haliaetus Osprey G5 S3S4 N SSC*
Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon G3 S3 N ST
Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican G4 S3 N SSC
Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker G5 S3 N N
Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill G5 S2 N SSC
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis G5 S3 N N
Rallus longirostris insularum Mangrove Clapper Rail G5T3 S3 N N
Rallus longirostris scottii Florida Clapper Rail G5T3? S3? N N
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Snail Kite G4G5T2 S2 LE FE
Rynchops niger Black Skimmer G5 S3 N SSC
Setophaga discolor paludicola Florida Prairie Warbler G5T3 S3 N N
Setophaga petechia gundlachi Cuban Yellow Warbler G5T4 S3 N N
Sternula antillarum Least Tern G4 S3 N ST
Thalasseus maximus Royal Tern G5 S3 N N
Thalasseus sandvicensis Sandwich Tern G5 S2 N N
Vireo altiloquus Black-whiskered Vireo G5 S3 N N
Mammals E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat G1 S1 LE FE
Neofiber alleni Round-tailed Muskrat G3 S3 N N Neovison vison pop. 1 Southern Mink, Southern G5T2Q S2 N ST Florida Pop
Podomys floridanus Florida Mouse G3 S3 N SSC
Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther G5T1 S1 LE FE
Trichechus manatus Manatee G2 S2 LE FE
Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear G5T2 S2 N ST*
Natural Communities D E S C R I P T I O N E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Aquatic cave G3 S3 N N
Beach dune G3 S2 N N
Coastal strand G3 S2 N N
Mangrove swamp G5 S4 N N
Maritime hammock G3 S2 N N
Pine rockland G1 S1 N N
Rockland hammock G2 S2 N N
Shell mound G2 S2 N N
Sinkhole G2 S2 N N
Other Elements E X P L A N A T I O N Global State Federal State Scientific Name Common Name Rank Rank Status Status
Bird Rookery G5 SNR N N
Geological feature GNR SNR N N
Manatee Aggregation Site GNR SNR N N
Migratory Bird Concentration Area G3 SNR N N
New Search
Appendix D
ETDM Summary Report for SR-826
ETDM Summary Report
Project #11241 - SR 826/Palmetto Expressway East-West Corridor
Programming Screen - Published on 10/30/2012
Printed on: 10/08/2014
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Overview 2 Chapter 2 Alternative #1 3 Chapter 3 Project Scope 26 3.1. General Project Commitments 26 Appendices 27 4.1. GIS Analyses 27 4.2. Degree of Effect Legend 27 Screening Summary Reports
Introduction to Programming Screen Summary Report
The Programming Screen Summary Report shown below is a read-only version of information contained in the Programming Screen Summary Report generated by the ETDM Coordinator for the selected project after completion of the ETAT Programming Screen review. The purpose of the Programming Screen Summary Report is to summarize the results of the ETAT Programming Screen review of the project; provide details concerning agency comments about potential effects to natural, cultural, and community resources; and provide additional documentation of activities related to the Programming Phase for the project. Available information for a Programming Screen Summary Report includes:
Screening Summary Report chart
Project Description information (including a summary description of the project, a summary of public comments on the project, and community-desired features identified during public involvement activities)
Purpose and Need information (including the Purpose and Need Statement and the results of agency reviews of the project Purpose and Need)
Alternative-specific information, consisting of descriptions of each alternative and associated road segments; an overview of ETAT Programming Screen reviews for each alternative; and agency comments concerning potential effects and degree of effect, by issue, to natural, cultural, and community resources.
Project Scope information, consisting of general project commitments resulting from the ETAT Programming Screen review, permits, and technical studies required (if any)
Class of Action determined for the project
Dispute Resolution Activity Log (if any) The legend for the Degree of Effect chart is provided in an appendix to the report.
For complete documentation of the project record, also see the GIS Analysis Results Report published on the same date as the Programming Screen Summary Report.
1. Overview #11241 SR 826/Palmetto Expressway East-West Corridor District: District 6 Phase: Programming Screen County: Miami-Dade From: I-75 Planning Organization: FDOT District 6 To: Golden Glades Interchange Plan ID: Not Available Financial Management No.: 41842312201 Federal Involvement: Maintain Federal Eligibility Federal Action Contact Information: Dat Huynh (305) 470-5217 [email protected] Snapshot Data From: Project Re-Published 10/30/2012 Issues and Categories are reflective of what was in place at the time of the screening event. Natural Cultural Community Air Quality Coastal and Marine Contaminated Sites Farmlands Floodplains Infrastructure Navigation Special Designations Water Quality and Quantity Wetlands Wildlife and Habitat Historic and Archaeological Sites Recreation Areas Section 4(f) Potential Aesthetics Economic Land Use Mobility Relocation Social Secondary and Cumulative Effects
Alternative #1 From: I-75 To: Golden Glades Interchange Re-Published: 10/30/2012 Reviewed from 08/23/2011 to 0 0 3 0 2 1 N/A 2 2 2 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 10/07/2011)
2. Alternative #1
Alternative #1
Project Effects Overview for Alternative #1 Issue Degree of Effect Organization Date Reviewed Natural US Environmental Protection Air Quality 0 None 10/05/2011 Agency
Coastal and Marine 0 None National Marine Fisheries Service 09/28/2011
US Environmental Protection Contaminated Sites 3 Moderate 10/05/2011 Agency
Contaminated Sites 3 Moderate Federal Highway Administration 10/07/2011
FL Department of Environmental Contaminated Sites 3 Moderate 10/06/2011 Protection Natural Resources Conservation Farmlands 0 None 08/25/2011 Service US Environmental Protection Floodplains 2 Minimal 10/05/2011 Agency
Navigation N/A N/A / No Involvement US Coast Guard 08/24/2011
Navigation 0 None US Army Corps of Engineers 09/23/2011
US Environmental Protection Special Designations 0 None 10/05/2011 Agency FL Department of Environmental Water Quality and Quantity 2 Minimal 10/06/2011 Protection US Environmental Protection Water Quality and Quantity 2 Minimal 10/05/2011 Agency
Wetlands 0 None National Marine Fisheries Service 09/28/2011
Wetlands 2 Minimal US Army Corps of Engineers 09/23/2011
FL Department of Environmental Wetlands 0 None 10/06/2011 Protection US Environmental Protection Wetlands 0 None 10/05/2011 Agency South Florida Water Management Wetlands 0 None 10/04/2011 District
Wetlands 2 Minimal US Fish and Wildlife Service 08/31/2011
FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Wildlife and Habitat 2 Minimal 10/04/2011 Commission
Wildlife and Habitat 2 Minimal US Fish and Wildlife Service 08/31/2011
Cultural
Historic and Archaeological Sites 3 Moderate FL Department of State 08/29/2011
Historic and Archaeological Sites 0 None Federal Highway Administration 10/07/2011
Historic and Archaeological Sites 3 Moderate Seminole Tribe of Florida 09/26/2011
Recreation Areas 0 None Federal Highway Administration 10/07/2011
FL Department of Environmental Recreation Areas 0 None 10/06/2011 Protection US Environmental Protection Recreation Areas 0 None 10/05/2011 Agency Community
Aesthetics 3 Moderate FDOT District 6 10/05/2011 Economic 1 Enhanced FDOT District 6 10/05/2011
Land Use 0 None FL Department of Community Affairs 09/30/2011
Land Use 2 Minimal FDOT District 6 10/05/2011
Mobility 1 Enhanced FDOT District 6 10/05/2011
Relocation 3 Moderate FDOT District 6 10/05/2011
Social 3 Moderate FDOT District 6 10/05/2011
Social 3 Moderate Federal Highway Administration 10/07/2011
US Environmental Protection Social 3 Moderate 10/05/2011 Agency
Social 0 None FL Department of Community Affairs 09/30/2011
Secondary and Cumulative ETAT Reviews and Coordinator Summary: Natural Air Quality Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: As of June 2005, Miami-Dade County is an area designated as attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the criteria provided in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Clean Air Act conformity requirements do not apply to this project. Note, however, that potential air quality impacts will be assessed during Project Development.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance:
Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Coastal and Marine Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: NMFS noted that the canals in the vicinity of the project are located upstream of South Florida Water Management District water control structures, which makes the site inaccessible to federally managed fishery species. As such, the NMFS concluded that the proposed work would not directly impact areas (including wetland areas) that support essential fish habitat (EFH) or NOAA trust fishery resources. This project will not require an EFH assessment, nor is further consultation with NMFS necessary unless any future proposed modifications to the project are anticipated to result in adverse impacts to EFH.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 09/28/2011 by Brandon Howard, National Marine Fisheries Service Coordination Document: No Involvement Coordination Document Comments:Magnuson-Stevens Act: Comments were provided for the Planning Screen on May 4, 2009. Our comments remain the same. The proposed expansion will be within FDOT's right-of-way. The project is in an urban area and there appear to be no wetlands adjacent to the roadway. The project corridor crosses and is adjacent to several canals. These canals are upstream of SFWMD water control structures and inaccessible by federally managed fishery species. Based on the project location, information provided in the ETDM website, and GIS-based analysis of impacts, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concludes the proposed work would not directly impact areas that support essential fish habitat (EFH) or NOAA trust fishery resources. NMFS has no comments or recommendations to provide pursuant to the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 104-297); and this project will not require an EFH Assessment. Further consultation on this matter is not necessary unless future modifications are proposed and you believe that the proposed action may result in adverse impacts to EFH.
Endangered Species Act: We are not aware of any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the purview of NMFS that occur within the project area. However, it should be noted that a "no effect" determination must be made by the action agency and the reasoning underlying the determination should be documented in a project file. Please coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may require consultation.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: No impacts to wetlands are proposed; hence NMFS offers no comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: None. Comments on Effects to Resources: None. Additional Comments (optional): Magnuson-Stevens Act: Comments were provided for the Planning Screen on May 4, 2009. Our comments remain the same. The proposed expansion will be within FDOT's right-of-way. The project is in an urban area and there appear to be no wetlands adjacent to the roadway. The project corridor crosses and is adjacent to several canals. These canals are upstream of SFWMD water control structures and inaccessible by federally managed fishery species. Based on the project location, information provided in the ETDM website, and GIS-based analysis of impacts, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concludes the proposed work would not directly impact areas that support essential fish habitat (EFH) or NOAA trust fishery resources. NMFS has no comments or recommendations to provide pursuant to the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 104-297); and this project will not require an EFH Assessment. Further consultation on this matter is not necessary unless future modifications are proposed and you believe that the proposed action may result in adverse impacts to EFH.
Endangered Species Act: We are not aware of any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the purview of NMFS that occur within the project area. However, it should be noted that a "no effect" determination must be made by the action agency and the reasoning underlying the determination should be documented in a project file. Please coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may require consultation.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: No impacts to wetlands are proposed; hence NMFS offers no comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Contaminated Sites Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: The EST GIS analysis results identified forty-four RCRA regulated facilities, two brownfield sites, twenty-one Super Act Risk Sources, three Super Act Wells, and two Toxic Release Inventory Sites within 500-foot project buffer.
Contamination (including any required permits) will be evaluated during Project Development in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations to assess the potential involvement with contaminated sites during project construction. A Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (similar to a Phase I Audit) will be prepared for documentation of impacts.
"Special Provisions for Unidentified Areas of Contamination" shall be included in the project's construction contract documents. These provisions will specify procedures to follow in the event any hazardous material or suspected contamination is encountered during construction, including groundwater -monitoring wells, or should there be any construction-related spills. In addition, staging areas will be identified and maintained in accordance with FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Soil, Biscayne Aquifer, Biscayne Canal and Little River Comments on Effects to Resources: The EST identified several RCRA regulated sites, biomedical waste sites and DERM contaminated sites within 500 feet of the subject site. Potential subsurface contamination should be verified by a site specific survey. Subsurgface construction activities should have the capacity of identifying subsurface contamination when necessary. Contigencied to manage contaminated media and possibly hazardous waste should be in place around areas that have subsurface contamination. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/07/2011 by Cathy Kendall, Federal Highway Administration Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Two brownfield areas within close proximity. Comments on Effects to Resources: Contamination assessment needed to determine areas that may require additional costs to address contamination, which could affect the overal project cost estimates. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/06/2011 by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: GIS data indicates that there are 44 RCRA regulated facilities within the 500-ft. project buffer zone. Comments on Effects to Resources: A Contamination Screening Evaluation (similar to Phase I and Phase II Audits) may need to be conducted along the project right-of-way in considering the proximity to potential hazardous material handling facilities. The Contamination Screening Evaluation should outline specific procedures that would be followed by the applicant in the event drums, wastes, tanks or potentially contaminated soils are encountered during construction. Special attention should be made in the screening evaluation to historical land uses (such as solid waste disposal) that may have an affect on the proposed project, including storm water retention and treatment areas.
-- In the event contamination is detected during construction, DEP and Miami-Dade County DERM need to be notified and the FDOT may need to address the problem through additional assessment and/or remediation activities. Please note that revisions to Chapters 62-770, 62-782, 62-785, 62- 777, F.A.C., and a new rule, Chapter 62-780, F.A.C., all involving contamination assessment and cleanup along with other notification requirements, took effect on April 17, 2005.
-- Groundwater monitoring wells (and possibly water production wells) are likely present at/near the project corridor. Arrangements need to be made to properly abandon (in accordance with Chapter 62-532, F.A.C.) and or replace any wells that may be destroyed or damaged during construction. These wells may also be used to gather data for the Contamination Screening Evaluation report.
-- Depending on the findings of the Contamination Screening Evaluation and the proximity to known contaminated sites, projects involving "dewatering" should be discouraged, since there is a potential to spread contamination to previously uncontaminated areas and affect contamination receptors, site workers and the public. Dewatering projects would require permits/approval from the South Florida Water Management District, Water Use Section and coordination with DERM.
-- Any land clearing or construction debris must be characterized for proper disposal. Potentially hazardous materials must be properly managed in accordance with Chapter 62-730, F.A.C. In addition, any solid B76wastes or other non-hazardous debris must be managed in accordance with Chapter 62-701, F.A.C.
-- Staging areas, with controlled access, should be planned in order to safely store raw material paints, adhesives, fuels, solvents, lubricating oils, etc. that will be used during construction. All containers need to be properly labeled. The project managers should consider developing written construction Contingency Plans in the event of a natural disaster, spill, fire or environmental release of hazardous materials stored / handled for the project construction. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Farmlands Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: NRCS identified that there are no Prime, Unique, or Locally Important Farmland soils located within any of the project buffers. Therefore, no impacts to farmlands are anticipated as part of the project.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 08/25/2011 by Rick Allen Robbins, Natural Resources Conservation Service Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: The USDA-NRCS considers soil map units with important soil properties for agricultural uses to be Prime Farmland. In addition, the USDA-NRCS considers any soils with important soil properties and have significant acreages that are used in the production of commodity crops (such as, cotton, citrus, row crops, specialty crops, nuts, etc.) to be considered as Farmlands of Unique Importance. Nationally, there has been a reduction in the overall amount of Prime and Unique Farmlands through conversion to non-farm uses. This trend has the possibility of impacting the nation's food supply and exporting capabilities. Comments on Effects to Resources: Conducting GIS analysis of Prime Farmland (using USDA-NRCS data) and Important (Unique) Farmland Analysis (using existing 2004 SFWMD land use data and 2010 SSURGO data) has resulted in the determination that there are no Prime, Unique, or Locally Important Farmland soils within any buffer width within the Project Area. Therefore, no degree of effect to agricultural resources. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Floodplains Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: Based on information provided in the 2011 DFIRM Flood Hazard Zones data, 168.2 acres (38.26%) of FEMA Flood Zone AE, 117.9 acres (26.82%) of FEMA Flood Zone X, 0.2 acres of Flood Zone AH (0.03%) and 153.4 acres (34.89%) of 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone occur within the 200-foot project buffer.
Floodplain impacts will be assessed further during Project Development and the proposed project design will be adjusted so as to avoid or minimize impacts to this resource. All necessary permits will be obtained in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Flood Plain Comments on Effects to Resources: Specific project design criteria will determine the actual flood plain impact. Currently the EST is showing that over 100 acres are in the 100-year flood plain. Since this is a road widening project, it is likely that existing roadway is in the same flood plain. Project development should address impact on flood plain and potential mitigation. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Infrastructure Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 1 Enhanced assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: According to the EST GIS analysis results, one Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction (tower) is located within the 200-foot buffer of this project. However, no negative direct impacts to this facility are anticipated. None found
Navigation Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: N/A N/A / No Involvement assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: The US Army Corps of Engineers and US Coast Guard commented that no navigable waters are identified through the EST GIS analysis results. Therefore, no impacts to navigation are anticipated as a result of the proposed project and no further involvement on this issue is required from the Corps or Coast Guard.
Degree of Effect: N/A N/A / No Involvement assigned 08/24/2011 by Evelyn Smart, US Coast Guard Coordination Document: No Involvement
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Navigable Waters of the United States. Comments on Effects to Resources: There are no navigable waters of the United States in the project vicinity. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 09/23/2011 by Garett Lips, US Army Corps of Engineers Coordination Document: No Involvement
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Based on the EST GIS review, no navigable waterways were identified; however, the Corps recommends the FDOT verify during the study that no navigable waters will be affected. The eastern portion of 826 crosses the Miami Canal/River but uncertainty exists if the limits of the project extends past the Miami River. Comments on Effects to Resources: possibly none Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Special Designations Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: During Project Development, potential impacts to special designations will be evaluated in accordance with the FDOT PD&E Manual. FDOT will coordinate with the appropriate agencies concerning the necessary studies, documentation and commitments needed to adequately address all identified resources. All necessary measures will be taken to avoid and/or minimize impacts to all cited resources to the greatest extent practicable during project design. All necessary permits (including ERP) will be obtained in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance:
Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Water Quality and Quantity Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: FDEP and USEPA commented that stormwater runoff from the proposed project may impact water quality and alter adjacent surface waters through increased pollutant loading. While the project is located within the vicinity of the Biscayne Sole Source Aquifer, the proposed stormwater facility design will include the water quantity requirements for the water quality impacts as required by Chapter 24, Section 24-58 of the Miami-Dade County code. The Miami-Dade County requirements meet or exceed the State of Florida's water quality and water quantity requirements. Therefore, it is anticipated that water quality within the project area will improve due to the proposed stormwater treatment measures. In addition, all necessary permits will be obtained in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
During Project Development, FDOT will coordinate with the appropriate agencies concerning the necessary studies, documentation and commitments needed to adequately address all identified resources. All necessary permits (including ERP) will be obtained in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 10/06/2011 by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection Coordination Document: Permit Required
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Stormwater runoff from the highway widening project may alter adjacent wetlands and surface waters through increased pollutant loading. Increased runoff carrying oils, greases, metals, sediment, and other pollutants from the increased impervious surface will be of concern. Comments on Effects to Resources: Every effort should be made to maximize the treatment of stormwater runoff from the proposed highway widening project to prevent ground and surface water contamination. Stormwater treatment should be designed to maintain the natural predevelopment hydroperiod and water quality, as well as to protect the natural functions of adjacent wetlands. We recommend that the PD&E study include an evaluation of existing stormwater treatment adequacy and details on the future stormwater treatment facilities. Retro-fitting of stormwater conveyance systems would help reduce impacts to water quality. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Biscayne aquifer, Biscayne Canal, Little River Comments on Effects to Resources: The additional impervious surface for the 4 lanes proposed will add a substantial impact to water flow and quality as it generate a substantial amount of additional storm water. Storm water management must be optimized to minimize that impact. Water treatment must meet all State and local stormwater treatment criteria. Mitigation of the stormwater flow is necessary in light of the size of the flood zone areas within the project vicinity. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Wetlands Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: During Project Development, potential wetland impacts will be evaluated in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 18 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. All necessary measures will be taken to avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent practicable during project design. Should avoidance and/or minimization not be practicable, a Mitigation Plan will be prepared. In addition, all applicable permits (including ERP) will be obtained in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 09/28/2011 by Brandon Howard, National Marine Fisheries Service Coordination Document: No Involvement Coordination Document Comments:Magnuson-Stevens Act: Comments were provided for the Planning Screen on May 4, 2009. Our comments remain the same. The proposed expansion will be within FDOT's right-of-way. The project is in an urban area and there appear to be no wetlands adjacent to the roadway. The project corridor crosses and is adjacent to several canals. These canals are upstream of SFWMD water control structures and inaccessible by federally managed fishery species. Based on the project location, information provided in the ETDM website, and GIS-based analysis of impacts, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concludes the proposed work would not directly impact areas that support essential fish habitat (EFH) or NOAA trust fishery resources. NMFS has no comments or recommendations to provide pursuant to the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 104-297); and this project will not require an EFH Assessment. Further consultation on this matter is not necessary unless future modifications are proposed and you believe that the proposed action may result in adverse impacts to EFH.
Endangered Species Act: We are not aware of any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the purview of NMFS that occur within the project area. However, it should be noted that a "no effect" determination must be made by the action agency and the reasoning underlying the determination should be documented in a project file. Please coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may require consultation.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: No impacts to wetlands are proposed; hence NMFS offers no comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: None. Comments on Effects to Resources: None. Additional Comments (optional): Magnuson-Stevens Act: Comments were provided for the Planning Screen on May 4, 2009. Our comments remain the same. The proposed expansion will be within FDOT's right-of-way. The project is in an urban area and there appear to be no wetlands adjacent to the roadway. The project corridor crosses and is adjacent to several canals. These canals are upstream of SFWMD water control structures and inaccessible by federally managed fishery species. Based on the project location, information provided in the ETDM website, and GIS-based analysis of impacts, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concludes the proposed work would not directly impact areas that support essential fish habitat (EFH) or NOAA trust fishery resources. NMFS has no comments or recommendations to provide pursuant to the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 104-297); and this project will not require an EFH Assessment. Further consultation on this matter is not necessary unless future modifications are proposed and you believe that the proposed action may result in adverse impacts to EFH.
Endangered Species Act: We are not aware of any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the purview of NMFS that occur within the project area. However, it should be noted that a "no effect" determination must be made by the action agency and the reasoning underlying the determination should be documented in a project file. Please coordinate closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for other species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may require consultation.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: No impacts to wetlands are proposed; hence NMFS offers no comments under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 09/23/2011 by Garett Lips, US Army Corps of Engineers Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: the EST identified less than 10 acres of palustrine wetlands within 200 feet of the corridor. However, the full extent of all jurisdictional waters onsite was not determined so the Corps recommends the study to include identification of all aquatic features within the project area that may be affected by the project. The requests FDOT to verify the abscence of CERP proejcts along the corridor or project related activities which may affect adjacent CERP activities. Furthermore, the corps recommends a review of the adjacent properties includes verification that no compensatory mitigation sites authorized by the Department of the Army sites will be directly or indirectly affected. Comments on Effects to Resources: The Corps recommends avoidance of wetlands, and minimization of impacts to jurisdictioal waters to the extent practical. If imapcts are unavoidable the Corps will require mitigation bank credits to be purchased as opposed to other types of mitigation. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/06/2011 by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection Coordination Document: Permit Required
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Although wetlands are not likely to be affected, an Environmental Resource Permit from the South Florida Water Management District may be required for the proposed highway widening project. Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance:
Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/04/2011 by Barb Conmy, South Florida Water Management District Coordination Document: Permit Required
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance:
Comments on Effects to Resources: Based on a review of the information describing the proposed project, it appears that no wetlands exist on the proposed site; however, it appears that surface waters may be impacted. As such, the proposed project will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the District, which must address both surface water management as well as any work in wetlands and/or other surface waters, including any impacts to wetlands/other surface waters, and mitigation to offset those impacts not addressed in the submittal. Additionally, the surface waters being impacted may be accessible by manatees and a review by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) may be required as part of the review process. As part of an ERP application submitted for the proposed project, the applicant must demonstrate reasonable assurances that the project meets all applicable conditions for issuance of an ERP, such as demonstrating that the project will not cause secondary impacts to the water resources, and will not violate applicable water quality standards. Please refer to Rule 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and the Basis of Review for ERP applications. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 08/31/2011 by John Wrublik, US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Wetlands Comments on Effects to Resources: Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. Data in the environmental screening tool indicate that wetlands may occur within the project area. We recommend that the project be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland resources to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, we recommend that the FDOT provides mitigation that fully compensates for the loss of wetland resources. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Wildlife and Habitat Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: The final design of the project will avoid and/or minimize impacts to wetlands/wildlife & habitat to the greatest extent possible and appropriate mitigation will be provided for unavoidable impacts.
An Endangered Species Biological Assessment (ESBA) will be prepared in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq) and in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 27 of the FDOT PD&E Manual.
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 10/04/2011 by Scott Sanders, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: No significant fish or wildlife resources were identified in the project area. Comments on Effects to Resources: Minimal impacts to fish or wildlife resources are anticipated to result from this project. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 08/31/2011 by John Wrublik, US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Federally-listed species and fish and wildlife habitat Comments on Effects to Resources: Federally-listed species - The Service has reviewed our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database for recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered species on or adjacent to the project study area. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources.
Wood Stork
The project corridor is located in the Core Foraging Areas (CFA)(within 18.6 miles ) of two active nesting colonies of the endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana). The Service believes that the loss of wetlands within a CFA due to an action could result in the loss of foraging habitat for the wood stork. To minimize adverse effects to the wood stork, we recommend that any lost foraging habitat resulting from the project be replaced within the CFA of the affected nesting colony. Moreover, wetlands provided as mitigation should adequately replace the wetland functions lost as a result of the action. The Service does not consider the preservation of wetlands, by itself, as adequate compensation for impacts to wood stork foraging habitat, because the habitat lost is not replaced. Accordingly, any wetland mitigation plan proposed should include a restoration, enhancement, or creation component. In some cases, the Service accepts wetlands compensation located outside the CFA of the affected wood stork nesting colony. Specifically, wetland credits purchased from a "Service Approved" mitigation bank located outside of the CFA would be acceptable to the Service, provided that the impacted wetlands occur within the permitted service area of the bank.
For projects that impact 5 or more acres of wood stork foraging habitat, the Service requires a functional assessment be conducted using our "Wood Stork Foraging Analysis Methodology"(Methodology) on the foraging habitat to be impacted and the foraging habitat provided as mitigation. The Methodology can found in the Service's November 9, 2007, Eastern Indigo Snake and Wood Stork Key (Service Federal Activity Code Number 41420- 2007-FA-1494) provided to the Corps to guide their effect determinations for these two species (available upon request).
The Service believes that the following federally listed species have the potential to occur in or near the project site: wood stork, and the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Accordingly, the Service recommends that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) prepare a Biological Assessment for the project (as required by 50 CFR 402.12) during the FDOT's Project Development and Environment process.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. Data in the environmental screening tool indicate that wetlands may occur within the project area. We recommend that the project be designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland resources to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, we recommend that the FDOT provides mitigation that fully compensates for the loss of wetland resources.
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
ETAT Reviews and Coordinator Summary: Cultural Historic and Archaeological Sites Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: During Project Development, a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) will be conducted in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 12 of the FDOT PD&E Manual to determine the presence of historic, cultural and archeological resources in the area. Any potential impacts to such resources will be avoided and/or minimized during the process. Coordination with the SHPO will take place prior the initiation of any activities.
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 08/29/2011 by Ginny Leigh Jones, FL Department of State Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual Coordination Document Comments:The project area has been surveyed, but some previous surveys are inadequate for the current project. Therefore, this office recommends that prior to initiating any project-related land clearing or ground disturbing activities within the project area it should be subjected to a systematic archaeological and architectural survey. All historic-age resources, including potential historic districts, within the area of potential effects should be documented and assessed for NRHP eligibility. The resultant survey report shall conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46 Florida Administrative Code and need to be forwarded to this agency for review and comment.
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Historic Bridges: GIS analysis reveals 12 historic-age FDOT bridges that intersect or consist of a portion of the project area. Ten of the bridges (FDOT Nos: 870102/870252, 870253, 870251, 870249, 870234, 870248, 870239, 870035, 870104, 870050) carry SR 826 over various roads and one waterway (Canal C-8). The final two bridges (FDOT Nos: 870038, 870601) carry SR 91 over SR 826. One bridge is located between 200 and 500 ft from the project corridor. This bridge, FDOT No. 870159, was constructed in 1964. Six historic-age bridges are located between 500 and 1320 ft from the project corridor. Finally, 17 historic-age bridges are located between 1320 and 5280 ft from the project corridor. One of these bridges, FDOT No. 874023, is recorded in the Florida Master Site File (FMSF No. 8DA11725). The bridge, DA11725, was determined not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 2010.
Resource Groups: GIS analysis reveals two resource groups located immediately adjacent to the project corridor. One of the resources, the SR 826 Canal (8DA11681) has had a section determined not significant by the SHPO. The second adjacent resource, the Senator Course at Don Shula's (8DA11684) has also been determined not significant by the SHPO. The next closest resource group to the project corridor - the Graham Dairy Canal (8DA11420) -- has had sections determined not significant by the SHPO. This resource is located between 100 and 200 ft from the project corridor. The next closest resource, the CSX Railroad (8DA10753) is located between 500 and 1320 ft from the project corridor. This resource has not been evaluated for its significance by the SHPO. The remaining five resource groups are located between 1320 and 5280 ft from the project corridor. One of the resources, the Opa Locka Airport Runway (8DA10000) has been determined potentially eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. The rest of the resources have either been determined not eligible for the NRHP or have not been evaluated for their significance by the SHPO.
Historic Structures: GIS analysis reveals the closest recorded historic structure is located between 100 and 200 ft from the proposed project area. This structure (8DA11167), the Sunshine State Arch, has not been evaluated for its significance by the SHPO. The next closest three structures are located between 200 and 500 ft from the proposed project corridor. Two of these structures (8DA6321, 8DA6322) have been determined not significant by the SHPO. One of the structures (8DA11165) has not been evaluated for their significance by the SHPO. The next 17 closest structures are located between 500 and 1320 ft from the project corridor. Thirteen of the structures have not been evaluated for their significance and four have been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO. There are 55 structures recorded between 1320 and 5280 ft from the proposed project area. Fifty-four of the structures have not been evaluated for their significance by the SHPO. The last structure located at this distance has been determined not eligible for the NRHP by the SHPO.
Archaeological Sites: GIS analysis reveals the presence of one archaeological site located between 100 and 200 ft of the proposed project area. This site (8DA46) has not been evaluated by the SHPO. There are six archaeological sites located between 1320 and 5280 ft of the proposed project area. Five of the sides have not been evaluated by the SHPO and the last site has been evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP. Comments on Effects to Resources: Bridges: Although there are numerous historic-age bridges that intersect with the project corridor, it is unlikely that the proposed project will impact them. However, further research will need to be conducted to make a final determination of significance and effect.
Resource Groups: It is unlikely that any significant resource groups will be impacted by the proposed project.
Historic Structures: It is unlikely that the proposed project will impact the recorded historic structures due to the nature of the proposed work.
Archaeological Sites: There is a slight possibility that the proposed project will impact recorded archaeological sites. There is also a possibility that there are unrecorded archaeological sites. Additional Comments (optional): The project area has been surveyed, but some previous surveys are inadequate for the current project. Therefore, this office recommends that prior to initiating any project-related land clearing or ground disturbing activities within the project area it should be subjected to a systematic archaeological and architectural survey. All historic-age resources, including potential historic districts, within the area of potential effects should be documented and assessed for NRHP eligibility. The resultant survey report shall conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46 Florida Administrative Code and need to be forwarded to this agency for review and comment. CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/07/2011 by Cathy Kendall, Federal Highway Administration Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: No cultural resources indicated on the GIS tool that are in close proximity to the project. Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 09/26/2011 by Elliott York, Seminole Tribe of Florida Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Due to the absence of a systematic Cultural Resources Assessment Survey for the proposed project corridor, the STOF-THPO would like to request a CRAS be conducted in order to determine effects, if any, to archaeological sites within the project area. Comments on Effects to Resources: The STOF-THPO would like to review a CRAS before commenting on possible effects to archaeological sites in the project area. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Recreation Areas Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: Based on comments received from the Miami-Dade County Park and Recreation Department as part of the Advance Notification process, there would be no direct impacts to any County park sites. However, they note that Amelia Earhart Park is located east of the intersection of I-75 and SR 826 and suggest that appropriate signage be provided for motorists using SR 826 who access the park facility.
An assessment of potential impacts to recreation areas will be conducted during Project Development. Future environmental documentation will include an evaluation of the primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed interchange improvements and construction on any public lands and any proposed acquisition sites. FDOT will coordinate with the appropriate agencies concerning the necessary studies, documentation and commitments needed to adequately address all identified resources in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Impacts will be avoided and/or minimized during the process.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/07/2011 by Cathy Kendall, Federal Highway Administration Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: No recreation areas identified within 200 feet of project using the GIS mapping. Please verify. Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/06/2011 by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance:
Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional): CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance:
Comments on Effects to Resources:
Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Section 4(f) Potential Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: An assessment of potential impacts to Section 4(f)/Section 106 resources will be conducted during Project Development in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 12 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. FDOT will coordinate with the appropriate agencies concerning the necessary studies, documentation and commitments needed to adequately address any identified resources in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Impacts will be avoided and/or minimized during the process. None found
ETAT Reviews and Coordinator Summary: Community Aesthetics Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: Potential aesthetic effects will be assessed further during Project Development as more detailed information becomes available. Noise and vibration effects will be evaluated per Part 2, Chapter 17 of the FDOT PD&E Manual. Throughout the process, public outreach will be conducted by FDOT District 6 (in coordination with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization) to solicit input from the community. Throughout the process, FDOT District 6 will ensure that public commentary collected as a result of such efforts is documented in the EST.
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/05/2011 by Megan McKinney, FDOT District 6 Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 0.3 / 0.14% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 5.6 / 2.54% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 0.4 / 0.18% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 3.8 / 1.72% INSTITUTIONAL / 0.8 / 0.37% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 0.0 / 0.01% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 0.3 / 0.12% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 208.0 / 94.91%
Front Porch Communities - OPA-LOCKA (25.48 Acres)
500-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 6.1 / 0.55% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 16.9 / 1.52% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 302.1 / 27.21% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 2.8 / 0.25% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 25.3 / 2.27% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 3.0 / 0.27% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 2.1 / 0.19% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 219.8 / 19.80% GOLF COURSE / 28.1 / 2.53% INSTITUTIONAL / 27.9 / 2.51% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 0.5 / 0.04% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 47.7 / 4.30% OPEN LAND / 14.6 / 1.32% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 24.4 / 2.20% RESERVOIRS / 7.7 / 0.69% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 358.9 / 32.33% SHOPPING CENTERS / 7.5 / 0.67% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 14.7 / 1.33%
Front Porch Communities - OPA-LOCKA (146.65 Acres) Geocoded Health Care Facilities (4) - MIAMI GARDENS DIALYSIS - FARMERS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. - HOLLISTIC MEDICAL CENTER - NORTH DADE HEALTH CENTER
Group Care Facilities (22) Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures (4) - CADILLAC CLASSIC MOTORS LAMPPOSTS - CADILLAC MOTOR CARS ENTRANCE OFFICE - 16600 NW 13TH AVENUE - SUNSHINE STATE ARCH List of Florida Site File Archaeological or Historic Sites (1)
1320-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 7.8 / 0.26% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 107.9 / 3.59% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 691.5 / 22.99% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 13.1 / 0.44% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 80.8 / 2.69% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 8.9 / 0.30% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 8.0 / 0.27% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 953.8 / 31.71% GOLF COURSE / 109.5 / 3.64% INSTITUTIONAL / 68.9 / 2.29% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 5.8 / 0.19% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, HIGH RISE / 11.7 / 0.39% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 157.3 / 5.23% OPEN LAND / 75.4 / 2.51% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 104.5 / 3.47% RESERVOIRS / 28.7 / 0.95% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 513.0 / 17.05% SHOPPING CENTERS / 28.6 / 0.95% TRANSPORTATION / 0.4 / 0.01% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 32.6 / 1.08%
2000 Census Designated Places - Bunche Park - Carol City - Country Club - Golden Glades - Hialeah - Miami Lakes - Norland - North Miami Beach - Opa-locka North - Scott Lake Front Porch Communities - OPA-LOCKA (395.01 Acres) Geocoded Health Care Facilities (5) - MIAMI GARDENS DIALYSIS - SIERRA MEDICAL CENTER INC. - FARMERS MEDICAL CENTER, INC. - HOLLISTIC MEDICAL CENTER - NORTH DADE HEALTH CENTER Group Care Facilities (54) Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures (21) List of Florida Site File Archaeological or Historic Sites (1) Comments on Effects to Resources: SR 826 (Palmetto Expressway) is one of the most traveled transportation corridors in Miami-Dade County. The proposed widening of the Expressway, currently a 6-lane facility, from I-75 to the Golden Glades Interchange is planned to alleviate the increasing levels of traffic congestion observed within the study area.
According to EST GIS analysis, several community features potentially sensitive to noise and vibration are present within the study area. There is one archaeological site (likely eligible for listing on the NRHP) within the 200-foot buffer, while four healthcare facilities and twenty-two group care facilities are identified within the 500-foot buffer. EST analysis also identified a mix of residential and commercial land use within the 1320-foot project buffer. The residential portion consists of a combination of multi-family and single-family development. Much of the development within the study area abuts the SR 826 right-of-way line.
The segment of SR 826 between NW 42nd Avenue and NW 17th Avenue forms the northern boundary of the state-designated Opa-Locka Front Porch Community. As a Front Porch Community, Opa-Locka is a focal point for state-mandated efforts and financial investments directed towards the redevelopment of distressed communities.
Due to the presence of an archaeological site, several healthcare and group care facilities, proximate residential uses, and the Opa-Locka Front Porch Community, the aesthetic impacts resulting from this project are anticipated to be moderate. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Potential aesthetic effects will be assessed further during Project Development as more detailed information becomes available. Noise and vibration effects will be evaluated per Part 2, Chapter 17 of the PD&E Manual. Throughout the process, FDOT District 6 will conduct public outreach to solicit input on the project from the community.
Economic Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 1 Enhanced assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: During Project Development, public outreach will be conducted by FDOT District 6 (in coordination with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization) to solicit input from the community. Throughout the process, FDOT District 6 will ensure that public commentary collected as a result of such efforts is documented in the EST.
As more detailed and finalized information regarding potential economic enhancements and impacts becomes available, the proposed project will be adjusted so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the identified social, cultural, and natural features within the vicinity of the interchange.
Degree of Effect: 1 Enhanced assigned 10/05/2011 by Megan McKinney, FDOT District 6 Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 0.3 / 0.14% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 5.6 / 2.54% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 0.4 / 0.18% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 3.8 / 1.72% INSTITUTIONAL / 0.8 / 0.37% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 0.0 / 0.01% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 0.3 / 0.12% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 208.0 / 94.91%
Air Transportation Facilities - CAPELETTI Enterprise Zones - MIAMI/DADE COUNTY (19.0 Acres) Brownfield Location Boundaries - CAROL CITY AREA (0.4 Acres) - DADE-OPA-LOCKA AREA (34.4 Acres)
500-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 6.1 / 0.55% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 16.9 / 1.52% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 302.1 / 27.21% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 2.8 / 0.25% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 25.3 / 2.27% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 3.0 / 0.27% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 2.1 / 0.19% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 219.8 / 19.80% GOLF COURSE / 28.1 / 2.53% INSTITUTIONAL / 27.9 / 2.51% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 0.5 / 0.04% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 47.7 / 4.30% OPEN LAND / 14.6 / 1.32% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 24.4 / 2.20% RESERVOIRS / 7.7 / 0.69% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 358.9 / 32.33% SHOPPING CENTERS / 7.5 / 0.67% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 14.7 / 1.33%
Air Transportation Facilities - CAPELETTI Enterprise Zones - MIAMI/DADE COUNTY (208.8 Acres) Brownfield Location Boundaries - CAROL CITY AREA (5.9 Acres) - DADE-OPA-LOCKA AREA (145.3 Acres)
1320-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 7.8 / 0.26% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 107.9 / 3.59% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 691.5 / 22.99% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 13.1 / 0.44% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 80.8 / 2.69% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 8.9 / 0.30% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 8.0 / 0.27% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 953.8 / 31.71% GOLF COURSE / 109.5 / 3.64% INSTITUTIONAL / 68.9 / 2.29% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 5.8 / 0.19% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, HIGH RISE / 11.7 / 0.39% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 157.3 / 5.23% OPEN LAND / 75.4 / 2.51% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 104.5 / 3.47% RESERVOIRS / 28.7 / 0.95% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 513.0 / 17.05% SHOPPING CENTERS / 28.6 / 0.95% TRANSPORTATION / 0.4 / 0.01% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 32.6 / 1.08%
Air Transportation Facilities - CAPELETTI Enterprise Zones - MIAMI/DADE COUNTY (532.1 Acres) Brownfield Location Boundaries - CAROL CITY AREA (17.2 Acres) - DADE-OPA-LOCKA AREA (381.2 Acres) Comments on Effects to Resources: SR 826/Palmetto Expressway is one of the most traveled transportation corridors in Miami-Dade County. The multi-lane expressway extends from US-1 to the Golden Glades Interchange. SR 826 connects south Miami-Dade County to north Miami-Dade County and serves as a feeder route to the County's busiest east-west transportation corridor (SR 836), as well as provides system-to-system connections to I-75, Florida's Turnpike, SR 874, and I -95. In addition, SR 826 is designated as a Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) and Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility.
Based upon 2010 FDOT Florida Traffic Information Software, the highest existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume for SR 826 is 149,500 vehicles per day (vpd) on the six-lane section (from NW 154th Street to NW 27th Avenue) and 164,000 vpd on the eight-lane section (from NW 27th Avenue to the Golden Glades Interchange). These volumes equate to a daily Level of Service (LOS) F and E, respectively.
Throughout most of the east-west corridor, the mainline facility currently operates at LOS F during peak traffic conditions. Additionally, during existing peak traffic conditions, the off-ramps at NW 67th Avenue, NW 57th Avenue and NW 27th Avenue queue back into the mainline and in many instances, impede through traffic in the outside lane. The signalized intersections within the interchanges at NW 67th Avenue and NW 57th Avenue operate at LOS F during the PM peak period.
The widening of the Palmetto Expressway is expected to improve traffic circulation in the area. The increased capacity of the roadway is expected to improve mobility for commuters and improve access to commercial uses located along the roadway. SR 826 also serves a significant role in the regional movement of traffic and goods. As a facility that functions as part of the FIHS and SIS, SR 826 links hubs of economic activity within the state, and serves as a corridor for freight traffic and movement.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed widening of SR 826 is anticipated to increase capacity and improve mobility along the project corridor and within the region. Therefore, a degree of effect of enhanced is assigned for the economic issue. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations: During Project Development, FDOT District 6 will conduct public outreach to solicit input on the project from the community.
Land Use Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: According to comments received from the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization, this project is not listed in the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan approved by the MPO Governing Board in October of 2009 because it is not fully funded (only has funding for the Planning and Design phases). Only those projects that are fully funded are identified in the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan. Once the PD&E Study is complete, and the preferred alternative and final alignments are defined, FDOT will need to request a LRTP amendment from the MPO Board that includes the funding mechanisms for the construction phase, hence being able to move the project into the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan.
During Project Development, public outreach will be conducted by FDOT District 6 (in coordination with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization) to solicit input from the community. Throughout the process, FDOT District 6 will ensure that public commentary collected as a result of such efforts is documented in the EST.
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 09/30/2011 by Amie Longstreet, FL Department of Community Affairs Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Miami-Dade County and Miami Gardens Comprehensive Development Master Plans, and the Miami Lakes Comprehensive Plan Comments on Effects to Resources: Comment:
City of Miami Gardens The proposed project is within TCMA #1 through TCMA 4 which is depicted on MAP TRAN I - 6: 2016 Level of Service Standards of the Transportation Element of the City of Miami Gardens Community Development Master Plan (December 2006). Also, the project is consistent with the Transportation Element Goals, Objectives and Policies: Goal 1, Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.5.7, 1.9.14 and 1.9.2 of the Community Development Master Plan (amended February 8, 2001).
Miami-Dade County The proposed project makes up the boundary of the northwest corner of the Urban Infill Boundary depicted I Figure 1 of the Miami-Dade Community Development Master Plan Capital Improvements Element (amended April 2009) and is consistent with Objectives TC-3 and TC-4 of the Transportation Element.
Comment: The allocation of construction fund for the proposed project is not included in the current Five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements for the City of Miami Gardens, or the Town of Miami Lakes. As the project moves forward, the project coordinator should also remind the City of Miami Gardens, and the Town of Miami Lakes that the Construction phase of this project must be included in their respective Five-year Schedule of Capital Improvements Elements pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(a)5, F.S.
Comment: Town of Miami Lakes The proposed project is consistent with following Transportation Element GOPs from the Town of Miami Lakes 2003 Community Development Master Plan: Goal1, Objective 1.1, Policy 1.1,1, Policy 1.1.14, Policy 1.5.7, and Policy 1.9.14.
Miami-Dade County The proposed project is consistent with Policies TC-1A, TC-1B, Objective TC-3, Objective TC-4 and Policies TC-4B and TC-4D of the Miami-Dade County Community Development Master Plan (amended April 28, 2010).
Comment: Currently, the east-west corridor operates at a Level of Service F during peak hours within a densely urbanized area that transverses several TCMAs. The inclusion of a general use lane or Managed lane would enhance mobility within the project area and is consistent with the Community Development Master Plans and Comprehensive Plans of the City of Miami Gardens, the Town of Miami Lakes and Miami-Dade County. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 10/05/2011 by Megan McKinney, FDOT District 6 Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 0.3 / 0.14% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 5.6 / 2.54% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 0.4 / 0.18% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 3.8 / 1.72% INSTITUTIONAL / 0.8 / 0.37% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 0.0 / 0.01% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 0.3 / 0.12% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 208.0 / 94.91%
500-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 6.1 / 0.55% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 16.9 / 1.52% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 302.1 / 27.21% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 2.8 / 0.25% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 25.3 / 2.27% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 3.0 / 0.27% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 2.1 / 0.19% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 219.8 / 19.80% GOLF COURSE / 28.1 / 2.53% INSTITUTIONAL / 27.9 / 2.51% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 0.5 / 0.04% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 47.7 / 4.30% OPEN LAND / 14.6 / 1.32% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 24.4 / 2.20% RESERVOIRS / 7.7 / 0.69% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 358.9 / 32.33% SHOPPING CENTERS / 7.5 / 0.67% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 14.7 / 1.33%
1320-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 7.8 / 0.26% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 107.9 / 3.59% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 691.5 / 22.99% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 13.1 / 0.44% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 80.8 / 2.69% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 8.9 / 0.30% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 8.0 / 0.27% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 953.8 / 31.71% GOLF COURSE / 109.5 / 3.64% INSTITUTIONAL / 68.9 / 2.29% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 5.8 / 0.19% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, HIGH RISE / 11.7 / 0.39% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 157.3 / 5.23% OPEN LAND / 75.4 / 2.51% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 104.5 / 3.47% RESERVOIRS / 28.7 / 0.95% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 513.0 / 17.05% SHOPPING CENTERS / 28.6 / 0.95% TRANSPORTATION / 0.4 / 0.01% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 32.6 / 1.08% Comments on Effects to Resources: As indicated in the EST data, the segment of SR 826 from I-75 to the Golden Glades Interchange is surrounded by a mix of land use types. Commercial and residential land uses make up the majority of use proximate to the roadway. Fixed single-family units make up the largest percentage of land use within the quarter-mile buffer (953 acres/31.71%), and less than 5% of the total identified use is presently open land.
According to the 2015-2025 Miami-Dade County Future Land Use Map, the character of the study area is to remain relatively unchanged. Based on the foregoing, the project's potential adverse effects on land use are anticipated to be minimal.
Plan Consistency: The proposed project is included in the Miami-Dade 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and is listed under the Partially Funded Projects as a Priority IV for funding of Planning and Design between the years 2026 and 2035. The project has funding in the amount of $5,050,000 allocated for PD&E in FY 2011/2012 of the latest Miami-Dade County MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and $4,883,444 (2011) and $126,178 (2012) in the latest adopted FDOT Five-Year Work Program. Additionally, the project is funded for PD&E in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Note that this project is not included in the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan approved by the MPO Governing Board in October 2009 because it is not fully funded. Only fully-funded projects are identified in the 2035 LRTP Cost Feasible Plan. As stated above, this project only has assigned funding for the Planning and Design phases. Once a preferred alternative is identified during Project Development, FDOT District 6 will coordinate with the Miami- Dade MPO to amend the LRTP and identify the funding mechanisms for construction of the project. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations: During Project Development, FDOT District 6 will conduct public outreach to solicit input from the community.
Mobility Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 1 Enhanced assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: During Project Development, public outreach will be conducted by FDOT District 6 (in coordination with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization) to solicit input from the community. Throughout the process, FDOT District 6 will ensure that public commentary collected as a result of such efforts is documented in the EST.
As more detailed and finalized information regarding potential mobility enhancements and effects becomes available, the proposed project will be adjusted so as to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the identified social, cultural, and natural features within the vicinity of the interchange.
Degree of Effect: 1 Enhanced assigned 10/05/2011 by Megan McKinney, FDOT District 6 Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 500-Foot Buffer:
Bus Transit Route (33) - 17, 21, 22, 27, 32, 42, 75, 77, 83, 95, 97 105, 122, 241, 246, 267
1320-Foot Buffer:
Bus Transit Routes (60) - 2, 17, 18, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 42, 73, 75, 77, 83, 95, 97 105,107, 122, 241, 246, 267, 441, Trail Fixed-Guideway Transit and Ferry Network - TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL Comments on Effects to Resources: The section of SR 826 from I-75 to the Golden Glades Interchange serves the major northwest Miami-Dade County growth area along NW 154th Street, NW 67th Avenue and NW 57th Avenue, provides access to Sun Life Stadium and Calder Casino and Race Course on NW 27th Avenue and connects to Florida's Turnpike and I-95 at the Golden Glades Interchange. SR 826 in this area is a six-lane divided limited access facility from NW 154th Street to NW 27th Avenue and an eight-lane divided expressway from NW 27th Avenue to the Golden Glades Interchange. A one-way frontage road (NW 167th Street) runs along each side of the SR 826 mainline facility that intersects the cross streets and provides access to businesses located along the corridor.
Based upon 2010 FDOT Florida Traffic Information Software, the highest existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume for SR 826 is 149,500 vehicles per day (vpd) on the six-lane section (from NW 154th Street to NW 27th Avenue) and 164,000 vpd on the eight-lane section (from NW 27th Avenue to the Golden Glades Interchange). These volumes equate to a daily Level of Service (LOS) F and E, respectively.
Throughout most of the east-west corridor, the mainline facility currently operates at LOS F during peak traffic conditions. Additionally, during existing peak traffic conditions, the off-ramps at NW 67th Avenue, NW 57th Avenue and NW 27th Avenue queue back into the mainline and in many instances, impede through traffic in the outside lane. The signalized intersections within the interchanges at NW 67th Avenue and NW 57th Avenue operate at LOS F during the PM peak period.
Though SR 826 does not currently support transit routes, it does provide access to the Golden Glades Multimodal Terminal which is located at the eastern terminus of the project. This terminal provides a regional link connecting Tri-Rail, Miami-Dade County Transit and Broward County Transit and supports a park and ride lot, Tri-Rail access, and bus service (Routes 22, 49, 77, 95X, E, 246, and 277).
SR 826 serves as part of the evacuation route network established by the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Designated as a primary evacuation route of Miami-Dade County, this facility is critical in evacuating residents of the cities of Miami Lakes, Opa-Locka and surrounding areas in Miami-Dade County. The proposed capacity improvement is anticipated to enhance evacuation capacity and traffic circulation during emergency events which, in turn, will lead to improved evacuation and response times.
Currently, there are multiple projects along or connecting to SR 826 that are under construction or planned for construction in the near future. The ongoing FDOT Palmetto Improvement Program includes a twelve-section phasing plan that consists of mainline widening and interchange improvements along the corridor. The last section scheduled for construction in 2010 is Section 5 that includes the SR 826/SR 836 interchange. Improvements required as part of the proposed East-West corridor project are needed to be consistent with the improvement program completed for the north-south section.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed expansion of SR 826 is anticipated to alleviate traffic congestion along the corridor, improve access to the Golden Glades Multimodal Center, improve connectivity to adjacent FIHS and SIS facilities, facilitate freight movement and improve emergency evacuation and response times. Therefore, overall mobility within the area is anticipated to be enhanced as a result of the proposed improvement. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations: During Project Development, FDOT District 6 will conduct public outreach to solicit input from the community.
Relocation Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: Potential relocation effects will be assessed further during Project Development as more detailed information becomes available.
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/05/2011 by Megan McKinney, FDOT District 6 Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 0.3 / 0.14% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 5.6 / 2.54% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 0.4 / 0.18% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 3.8 / 1.72% INSTITUTIONAL / 0.8 / 0.37% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 0.0 / 0.01% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 0.3 / 0.12% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 208.0 / 94.91%
500-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 6.1 / 0.55% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 16.9 / 1.52% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 302.1 / 27.21% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 2.8 / 0.25% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 25.3 / 2.27% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 3.0 / 0.27% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 2.1 / 0.19% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 219.8 / 19.80% GOLF COURSE / 28.1 / 2.53% INSTITUTIONAL / 27.9 / 2.51% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 0.5 / 0.04% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 47.7 / 4.30% OPEN LAND / 14.6 / 1.32% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 24.4 / 2.20% RESERVOIRS / 7.7 / 0.69% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 358.9 / 32.33% SHOPPING CENTERS / 7.5 / 0.67% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 14.7 / 1.33% Comments on Effects to Resources: The purpose of this project is to widen the SR 826 mainline from I-75 to the Golden Glades Interchange to provide additional lanes in each direction that could function as general use lanes or managed lanes. Two lanes in each direction could most likely be added within existing right-of-way.
Though EST analysis shows few listed features within the 100-foot project buffer, additional research shows that a fire station, Dade Christian School, St. Thomas University, and Golden Glades Elementary School all front the service roads located along SR 826.
Residential land use comprises approximately 1/4 of the total area identified within the 500-foot project buffer, and is adjacent to both sides of SR 826 at multiple locations along the project corridor. The Opa-Locka Front Porch Community is located adjacent to the south side of SR 826 between NW 42nd Avenue and NW 17th Avenue.
Though limited impacts are anticipated to result from the project, the proximity of community facilities, residential land use, and the Opa-Locka Front Porch Community warrant a moderate degree of effect for the relocation issue. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Potential relocation effects will be assessed further during Project Development as more detailed and finalized information regarding right-of-way needs becomes available.
Social Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: During Project Development, public outreach will be conducted by FDOT District 6 (in coordination with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization) to solicit input from the transportation disadvantaged, elderly, and low income populations to ensure that identified transportation needs are addressed through the project.
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/05/2011 by Megan McKinney, FDOT District 6 Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: 100-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 0.3 / 0.14% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 5.6 / 2.54% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 0.4 / 0.18% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 3.8 / 1.72% INSTITUTIONAL / 0.8 / 0.37% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 0.0 / 0.01% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 0.3 / 0.12% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 208.0 / 94.91%
Enterprise Zones - MIAMI/DADE COUNTY 19 Acres Front Porch Communities - OPA-LOCKA (25.48 Acres) Resource Groups (1) - THE SENATOR COURSE AT DON SHULA'S
500-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 6.1 / 0.55% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 16.9 / 1.52% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 302.1 / 27.21% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 2.8 / 0.25% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 25.3 / 2.27% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 3.0 / 0.27% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 2.1 / 0.19% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 219.8 / 19.80% GOLF COURSE / 28.1 / 2.53% INSTITUTIONAL / 27.9 / 2.51% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 0.5 / 0.04% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 47.7 / 4.30% OPEN LAND / 14.6 / 1.32% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 24.4 / 2.20% RESERVOIRS / 7.7 / 0.69% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 358.9 / 32.33% SHOPPING CENTERS / 7.5 / 0.67% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 14.7 / 1.33%
Enterprise Zones - MIAMI/DADE COUNTY 208.8 Acres FDEM FIRE STATIONS (1) - MIAMI - DADE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE STATION 1 Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures (4) - CADILLAC CLASSIC MOTORS LAMPPOSTS - CADILLAC MOTOR CARS ENTRANCE OFFICE - 16600 NW 13TH AVENUE - SUNSHINE STATE ARCH Group Care Facilities (22) Geocoded Community Centers (8) - MIAMI GARDENS JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - TEEM 2000 INC - T-MACK COMMUNITY TECH CENTER - LOCK TOWNS COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER - EMMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER - JACKSON NORTH COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER TARGETED CASE MANAGEMENT - SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK - SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK Geocoded Cultural Centers (1) - GALLERY NORDSOUTH Geocoded Religious Centers (31) Geocoded Schools (6) - GOLIATH ACADEMY - A LITTLE COLLEGE CLUB - ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY - MAIN CAMPUS - EMMANUEL CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND KINDERGARTEN - GOLDEN GLADES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS INC List of Florida Site File Archaeological or Historic Sites (1) Front Porch Communities - OPA-LOCKA (146.65 Acres) Resource Groups (3) - GRAHAM DAIRY CANAL - SR 826 CANAL - THE SENATOR COURSE AT DON SHULA'S
1320-Foot Buffer:
2004 SFWMD FL Land Use and Land Cover Land Use / Acres / Percent BRAZILIAN PEPPER / 7.8 / 0.26% CHANNELIZED WATERWAYS, CANALS / 107.9 / 3.59% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES / 691.5 / 22.99% COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 13.1 / 0.44% EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES / 80.8 / 2.69% ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES / 8.9 / 0.30% ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION LINES / 8.0 / 0.27% FIXED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS / 953.8 / 31.71% GOLF COURSE / 109.5 / 3.64% INSTITUTIONAL / 68.9 / 2.29% MEDIUM DENSITY UNDER CONSTRUCTION / 5.8 / 0.19% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, HIGH RISE / 11.7 / 0.39% MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS, LOW RISE / 157.3 / 5.23% OPEN LAND / 75.4 / 2.51% OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRY / 104.5 / 3.47% RESERVOIRS / 28.7 / 0.95% ROADS AND HIGHWAYS / 513.0 / 17.05% SHOPPING CENTERS / 28.6 / 0.95% TRANSPORTATION / 0.4 / 0.01% UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST / 32.6 / 1.08%
Enterprise Zones - MIAMI/DADE COUNTY 532.1 Acres FDEM FIRE STATIONS (1) - MIAMI - DADE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE STATION 1 Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures (21) Group Care Facilities (54) Geocoded Community Centers (11) - MEM TCL - CENTER FOR FAMILY & CHILD ENRICHMENT INC - MIAMI GARDENS JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - PARK CENTRE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION LIMITED - TEEM 2000 INC - T-MACK COMMUNITY TECH CENTER - LOCK TOWNS COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER - EMMANUEL COMMUNITY CENTER - JACKSON NORTH COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER TARGETED CASE MANAGEMENT - SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK - SOUTH FLORIDA COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK Geocoded Cultural Centers (3) - MIAMI LAKES LIBRARY - GALLERY NORDSOUTH - SAINT THOMAS UNIVERSITY LAW LIBRARY Geocoded Religious Centers (53) Geocoded Schools (15) List of Florida Site File Archaeological or Historic Sites (1) Front Porch Communities - OPA-LOCKA (395.01 Acres) Resource Groups (4) - CSX RAILROAD - GRAHAM DAIRY CANAL - SR 826 CANAL - THE SENATOR COURSE AT DON SHULA'S Comments on Effects to Resources: SR 826/Palmetto Expressway is one of the most traveled transportation corridors in Miami-Dade County. The multi-lane expressway extends from US-1 to the Golden Glades Interchange. Widening of the segment between I-75 and the Golden Glades Interchange is planned to alleviate congestion along SR 826.
The EST GIS analysis results revealed the following features within the 100-foot project buffer: three social service facilities, one healthcare facility, one school, one resource group, the Opa-Locka Front Porch Community, and the Miami-Dade Enterprise Zone. Additionally, four historic structures, three resource groups, and one archaeological site (likely eligible for listing on the NRHP) were identified within the 500-foot buffer.
The table below presents demographic data for the quarter-mile (1,320-foot) project buffer and Miami-Dade County. According to the EST GIS analysis results, the population within the quarter-mile buffer differs in race, ethnicity, and mobility from the overall population of Miami-Dade County. The White population within the buffer area (12.5%) is less than the county average (73.8%) by approximately 61.3%. The African-American population in the buffer area accounts for 81.2% of the population total; this figure is more than four times the county percentage of 18.9%. The Hispanic population within the buffer area is 53.3% less than the Hispanic population percentage of Miami-Dade County (65.0%).
Table 1:
Demographic / 1,320-Foot Buffer / Miami-Dade County White (Race) / 12.5% / 73.8% African-American (Race) / 81.2% / 18.9% "Other" (Race) / 6.4% / 7.3% Hispanic (Ethnic Group) / 11.7% / 65.0% *Source: EST and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.
Minority Population and English Proficiency:
Census data shows that approximately 293 Census Blocks within the study area contain a minority population that is greater than 40% (15,206 persons). Additionally, greater than 20% of the population in 27 Census Blocks identified that they spoke no English. A total of 411 individuals indicated that they spoke English "Not At All".
Table 2 provides age, mobility and income data extracted from the 2000 U.S. Census for the quarter-mile (1,320-foot) project buffer and Miami-Dade County. The 2000 Census data represents the most recent data available within the EST for those demographic categories. According to the EST GIS analysis results, the population within the quarter-mile buffer differs slightly in age, mobility, and income from the overall population of Miami Dade County. The elderly population within the study area (9.9%) is less than that found within the County (13.3%). The population under age 18 accounts for 26.7% of the overall population within the project buffer, which is 1.9% greater than the average found within the County. The figure for households with no access to an automobile is 6.2% lower than the County average. Finally, the Median Family Income within the buffer area is approximately 19.5% or $7,862 greater than that generally seen in the County.
Table 2:
Demographic / 1,320-Foot Buffer / Miami-Dade County Age 65+ / 9.9% / 13.3% Under age 18 / 26.7% / 24.8% HH w/o car / 8.1% / 14.3% Median Family Income / $48,122 / $40,260 *Source: EST and U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census
Due to proximate cultural resources, residential use, and the presence of a historically disadvantaged population within the immediate project area, the overall project effects on community character and cohesion are anticipated to be moderate. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations: Potential social impacts will be assessed further during Project Development as more detailed information becomes available. FDOT District 6 will conduct public outreach to solicit input from the community.
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/07/2011 by Cathy Kendall, Federal Highway Administration Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Several low income or minority communities and population with high percentage of disabilities within 200 feet of the project, creating potential noise, air quality or right-of-way impacts to populations that may be less mobile than the general population. Comments on Effects to Resources: Please ensure that the PD&E addresses Title VI/Environmental Justice issues, as well as noise and air toxic impacts. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 10/05/2011 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Relocations Comments on Effects to Resources: Based on the field review, it is likely that a good numebr of residences and business will have to be relocated to add the four lanes proposed. Social impact of the relocation should be analyzed. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 09/30/2011 by Amie Longstreet, FL Department of Community Affairs Coordination Document: No Selection
Direct Effects Identified Resources and Level of Importance: Miami-Dade County and Miami Gardens Comprehensive Development Master Plans, and the Miami Lakes Comprehensive Plan Comments on Effects to Resources: Comment: Town of Miami Lakes The proposed project is adjacent to the Don Shula's Golf Course, which is a privately operated recreation facility identified as Park and Recreation lands on Figure 1-3 of the Town of Miami Lakes 2003 Community Development Master Plan. The Purpose and Need of the project indicates that a determination of right-of-way requirements has not been completed and the project is within an urbanized area. Given that this golf course is privately owned and open to the general public, a Section 4(f) determination would not be required. However, if right-of-way for the proposed project includes parcels within or near this recreation facility, close coordination with the golf course management staff during project development would be necessary. Additional Comments (optional):
CLC Commitments and Recommendations:
ETAT Reviews and Coordinator Summary: Secondary and Cumulative Secondary and Cumulative Effects Project Effects Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 12/05/2011 by FDOT District 6
Comments: Potential secondary and cumulative effects will be assessed further during Project Development as more information regarding potential right-of-way needs become available. None found 3. Project Scope
Project Scope
3.1. General Project Commitments General Project Commitments There are no general project recommendations identified for this project in the EST. 4. Appendices
Appendices
4.1. GIS Analyses GIS Analyses Since there are so many GIS Analyses available for Project #11241 - SR 826/Palmetto Expressway East-West Corridor, they have not been included in this ETDM Summary Report. GIS Analyses, however, are always available for this project on the Public ETDM Website. Please click on the link below (or copy this link into your Web Browser) in order to view detailed GIS tabular information for this project:
http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?tpID=11241&startPageName=GIS%20Analysis%20Results
Special Note: Please be sure that when the GIS Analysis Results page loads, the Project Re-Published 10/30/2012Milestone is selected. GIS Analyses snapshots have been taken for Project #11241 at various points throughout the project's life-cycle, so it is important that you view the correct snapshot.
4.2. Degree of Effect Legend Degree of Effect Legend
Color Code Meaning ETAT Public Involvement Not Applicable / No There is no presence of the issue in relationship to the project, or the issue is irrelevant in relationship to N/A Involvement the proposed transportation action. The issue is present, but the project will have no impact on No community opposition to the planned the issue; project has no adverse effect on ETAT project. No adverse effect on the 0 None (after resources; permit issuance or consultation involves routine community. 12/5/2005) interaction with the agency. The None degree of effect is new as of 12/5/2005. Project has positive effect on the ETAT resource or can Affected community supports the proposed 1 Enhanced reverse a previous adverse effect leading to environmental project. Project has positive effect. improvement. Project has little adverse effect on ETAT resources. Permit Minimum community opposition to the issuance or consultation involves routine interaction with planned project. Minimum adverse effect on 2 Minimal the agency. Low cost options are available to address the community. concerns. Project has little adverse effect on ETAT resources. Permit Minimum community opposition to the Minimal to None issuance or consultation involves routine interaction with planned project. Minimum adverse effect on 2 (assigned prior to the agency. Low cost options are available to address the community. 12/5/2005) concerns. Agency resources are affected by the proposed project, but Project has adverse effect on elements of avoidance and minimization options are available and can the affected community. Public Involvement be addressed during development with a moderated is needed to seek alternatives more 3 Moderate amount of agency involvement and moderate cost impact. acceptable to the community. Moderate community interaction will be required during project development. The project has substantial adverse effects but ETAT Project has substantial adverse effects on understands the project need and will be able to seek the community and faces substantial avoidance and minimization or mitigation options during community opposition. Intensive community 4 Substantial project development. Substantial interaction will be required interaction with focused Public Involvement during project development and permitting. will be required during project development to address community concerns. Project may not conform to agency statutory requirements Community strongly opposes the project. Potential Dispute and may not be permitted. Project modification or Project is not in conformity with local 5 (Planning Screen) evaluation of alternatives is required before advancing to comprehensive plan and has severe the LRTP Programming Screen. negative impact on the affected community. Project does not conform to agency statutory requirements Community strongly opposes the project. Dispute Resolution and will not be permitted. Dispute resolution is required Project is not in conformity with local 5 (Programming before the project proceeds to programming. comprehensive plan and has severe Screen) negative impact on the affected community. ETAT members from different agencies assigned a different degree of effect to this project, and the No ETAT Consensus ETDM coordinator has not assigned a summary degree of effect. No ETAT members have reviewed the corresponding issue for this project, and the ETDM coordinator No ETAT Reviews has not assigned a summary degree of effect.
Appendix E
ETDM Summary Report for GGI
Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study From SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Eastbound to I-95 Northbound
Endangered Species Biological Assessment
Appendix F
Standard Protection Measures for Eastern Indigo Snake
STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE
I. An eastern indigo snake protection/education plan shall be developed by the applicant or rcquestor for all constmction personnel to follow. The plan shall be provided to the Service for review and approval at least 30 days prior to any clearing activities. The educational matcrials for the plan may consist of a combination ofpostcrs, videos, pamphlets, and lectures (e.g., an obscrver traincd to identify eastern indigo snakcs could use the protection/education plan to instruct constmction personnel before any clearing activities occur). Informational signs should be posted tlu'oughout the construction site and along any proposed· access road to contain the following information:
a. a description ofthc eastern indigo snake, its habits, and protection under Federal Law; b. instructions not to injurc, harm, harass or kill this species; c. directions to ceasc clearing activities and allow the eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away fi-om the site on its own before resuming clearing; and, d. telephone numbers ofpertinent agencies to be contacted if a dead eastern indigo snake is encountered. The dead specimen should be thoroughly soaked in water and then frozen.
2. If not currently authorized through an Incidental Take Statement in association with a Biological Opinion, only individuals who have been either authorized by a section W(a)(l)(A) permit issued by thc Service, or by the State of Florida through the Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCJ for such activities, are pernlitted to corne in contact with an eastem indigo snake.
3. An eastem indigo snake monitoring report must be submitted to the appropriate FloIida Field Office within 60 days of the conclusion ofclcaring phases. The report should be submitted whether or not eastern indigo snakes afe observed. The report should contain the following information:
a. any sightings of eastern indigo snakes and b. other obligations required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, as stipulated in the permit.
Revised February 12, 2004
..
Appendix G
Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK 2011
The permittee shall comply with the following conditions intended to protect manatees from direct project effects:
a. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. b. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/No Wake” at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible. c. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement. d. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. e. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the FWC Hotline at 1- 888-404-3922. Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1-772-562-3909) for south Florida, and to FWC at [email protected] f. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Temporary signs that have already been approved for this use by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) must be used (see MyFWC.com/manatee). One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 81/2" by 11" explaining the requirements for “Idle Speed/No Wake” and the shut down of in-water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities. Questions concerning these signs can be sent to the email address listed above.