Programmatic Section 4(F)

Home , Hialeah Market station, Miami River (Florida)

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

Section 106 Determination of Effects

for

Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8DA103)

CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910)

Miami Canal (8DA6525)

CSX Railroad (8DA10753)

Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868)

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

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA)

In Cooperation with:

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Project Overview ...... 1 1.3 Historical Significance Description ...... 3 1.3.1 Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8DA103) ...... 5 1.3.2 CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) ...... 6 1.3.3 Miami Canal (8DA6525) ...... 7 1.3.4 CSX Railroad (8DA10753)...... 8 1.3.5 Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868) ...... 9 2 Project Description ...... 10 2.1 Miami River Bridge ...... 10 2.2 Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station ...... 12 3 Impacts and Findings ...... 14 3.1 Impacts Due to Miami River Railroad Crossing Improvements ...... 14 3.1.1 Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station/ 1200 SE 10th Court ...... 14 3.1.2 Miami Canal...... 14 3.1.3 CSXT Railroad Bridge ...... 14 3.1.4 CSX Railroad and Miami Central Railroad Spur ...... 14 3.2 Impacts Due to Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station Improvements ...... 15 4 Measures to Mitigate Harm of proposed action ...... 16 5 Agency and Public Coordination ...... 17

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

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location Map ...... 2 Figure 2: NRHP-Eligible and NRHP-Listed Resources ...... 4 Figure 3: National Register–Listed Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8PB103) ...... 5 Figure 4: National Register–Eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) ...... 6 Figure 5: National Register–Eligible Miami Canal (8DA6525) ...... 7 Figure 6: National Register–Eligible CSX Railway (8DA10753) ...... 8 Figure 7: National Register–Eligible Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868) ...... 9 Figure 8: Project Alignment ...... 11 Figure 9: Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station Aerial ...... 12 Figure 10: Hialeah Market Station Center Platform – At Grade Access ...... 13

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: NRHP Eligible or Listed Sites Within the Project APE ...... 3

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – FTA Letter to on CRAS Findings, SHPO Concurrence, and Muscogee Creek Nation Letter Appendix B – Operation and Maintenance Cost Detail Appendix C – FTA Letter on the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to Federal Tribes and SHPO Appendix D – Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) Meeting Minutes and Presentations Appendix E – May 24, 2016 Public Hearing Materials Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI)

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The SFRTA operates the Tri-Rail regional commuter rail system within the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) from Mangonia Park to Miami, through Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. The roughly 72-mile Tri-Rail system has 18 stations along its length and presently has an average weekday ridership of approximately 15,000. As part of the Segment 5 Double Track Corridor Improvement Program completed in 2006, SFRTA reconstructed and added a second mainline track to all but the southernmost 1.25 miles of the Tri-Rail corridor. Municipal jurisdictions within proximity of this portion of the Tri-Rail corridor include Hialeah, Miami, Miami Springs and unincorporated Miami-Dade County. Within this remaining single-track section of the corridor, there is an existing bascule bridge across the Miami River (see Figure 1: Location Map).

1.2 Project Overview

The proposed Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project will provide an additional mainline track within the SFRC from just north of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station (Milepost 1035.96) to the Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station (Milepost 1037.21) located within the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). The MIC is a ground transportation hub that accommodates and provides connectivity among several transportation modes in one facility, serving as a main transfer point in the South Florida region. The additional mainline track will address the existing capacity deficiency along the Tri-Rail system which negatively impacts travel time and schedule adherence. These deficiencies will be further exacerbated in the future with the extension and expansion of Amtrak service (intercity rail) along this segment of the SFRC and into the MIC. SFRTA is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to evaluate the alternatives for the proposed improvements in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

This Project will increase the rail capacity within the SFRC through the addition of a second mainline track to better accommodate Tri-Rail, Amtrak and freight rail. The Project also includes the replacement of a historic bridge due to limited capacity to add a second track on the existing bridge and the need to remove or relocate the bridge to avoid an attractive nuisance. Additionally, the Project requires upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. The addition of a mainline track will require passenger platform modifications and upgrades at the Hialeah Market Station to provide access to the new track. Thus, alternatives for upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station were also considered.

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

0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet .

Figure 1: Location Map

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

1.3 Historical Significance Description

A Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) was conducted for the proposed project to address both historic and archeological resources in the area. The assessment was designed and implemented to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended), as implemented by 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 (Protection of Historic Properties, effective January 2001). Work also conforms to professional guidelines set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 Federal Regulations (FR) 44716, as amended and annotated) and Chapter 1A- 46 (Archaeological and Historical Report Standards and Guidelines) of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC).

In compliance with the Section 106 process, an area of potential effect (APE) was established. In November 2013, FTA transmitted a letter describing the project and a map showing the APE to the Native American Tribes1 and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) requesting comments or concerns regarding the proposed project. For the CRAS, the APE was determined by considering the type of improvements being proposed and the potential effects these improvements could have on cultural resources. The APE determination also considered the urban character of the project area. The APE determined to be sufficient for historic resources includes all historic resources located on parcels immediately adjacent to the proposed improvements. Five resources were identified in the CRAS as listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (See Table 1 and Figure 2). FTA concurred with the findings and forwarded the CRAS to the SHPO. The SHPO also concurred with the findings in the CRAS in a letter dated February 24, 2014. A copy of the SHPO concurrence letter is included in Appendix A.

Table 1: NRHP Eligible or Listed Sites Within the Project APE Construction FMSF # Site Name/ Address Style NRHP Status Date Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Mission/Spanish Listed in 8DA103 Railway Station/ 1200 SE 1927 Colonial Revival 1995 10th Court 8DA6525 Miami Canal 1912 Canal Eligible 8DA5910 CSXT Railroad Bridge 1926 Bridge Eligible 8DA10753 CSX Railroad 1925 Railway Eligible Miami Central Station 8DA11868 1938 Railway Eligible Railroad Spur Source: Janus Research, 2013

1 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Muscogee Creek Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and Seminole Tribe of Florida.

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

Figure 2: NRHP-Eligible and NRHP-Listed Resources

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

1.3.1 Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8DA103)

This one-story circa-1927 Mediterranean Revival railway station is located at 1200 SE 10th Court in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Section 20 (Hialeah United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle 1988) in Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 3). Located in an industrial area, the building is bound by a parking lot and industrial buildings in the north, railroad tracks and the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station in the east, SR 112 in the south, and a parking area and industrial buildings in the west. Divided into two sections, one for passengers and one for freight, the building has a rectangular plan. The building has a hollow tile structural system that rests on a continuous concrete foundation. Roof forms include flat and hipped, and the exterior is clad in stucco. Windows and doors are protected by sheet metal and the building is in good condition. The Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station is significant in the areas of Transportation, Community Planning and Development, and Architecture. The building’s architectural integrity is intact and the building is a good example of the Mediterranean Revival style. The building has been restored and was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1995 (Janus Research 1999:48).

Figure 3: National Register–Listed Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station (8PB103) Image taken facing northeast

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

1.3.2 CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910)

Erected circa-1926, this railroad bridge (8DA5910) is located west of Northwest 37th Avenue and crosses the Miami Canal in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Section 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988) in the southeast corner of Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 4). This steel bridge on timber piles is movable and features two approach spans and one main span. The bridge is an example of the Scherzer rolling lift type and the bridge is in good structural condition. A non-historic Frame Vernacular tender station is located adjacent to the bridge. As a bridge, this resource is significant to railroad engineering that allowed the transportation of people and goods across all types of terrain. This historic structure is significant in the areas of Transportation and Engineering, and was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1995.

Figure 4: National Register–Eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge (8DA5910) Image taken from south of the Miami River, facing north

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

1.3.3 Miami Canal (8DA6525)

Constructed in 1912, the Miami Canal crosses the SFRC railroad tracks in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Section 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988) in Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 5). The canal is 85-miles long, beginning at Lake Okeechobee and ending in Biscayne Bay. This approximately 100-foot wide earthen canal winds through residential and commercial areas. The eligible CSXT Railroad Bridge crosses the canal. The Miami Canal is one of the six primary canals of the Everglades Drainage Project the State began in 1906. Originally engineered to provide agricultural lands and transportation in South Florida, the canals eventually were used to control flooding to provide residential land. Control of the canals was given to the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940s.

As an example of an early water management system and as one of six primary canals of the Everglades Drainage District, the Miami Canal maintains engineering significance. In addition, the canal maintains historical significance for its role in the development of South Florida. This resource was determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places on September 17, 2013, in the areas of Agriculture, Community Planning and Development, and Engineering.

Figure 5: National Register–Eligible Miami Canal (8DA6525) Image taken from the Airport Expressway, facing southeast

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

1.3.4 CSX Railroad (8DA10753)

The portion of the CSX Railroad within the project APE consists of standard gauge railroad tracks over gravel ballast, in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Sections 20 and 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988), Hialeah, Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 6). The CSX Railroad was originally part of the extensive Seaboard Air Line railroad, started in the 1880s, which consisted of numerous branches in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. In 1923, the President of Seaboard Air Line Railroads, Mr. S. Davies Warfield, initiated a move to extend a line from the existing Coleman Station in Sumter County, Florida, to West Palm Beach, with the ultimate goal of connecting the line to Miami. After Warfield organized the quick purchase of over 160,000 acres of right-of-way, construction began on the West Palm Beach branch in the summer of 1924. Immediately following this expeditious construction, work on the line connecting West Palm Beach and Miami was initiated, and by the end of the year the line was extended from Miami to Homestead. This portion of the railroad was constructed circa-1925 and is part of the Miami to Homestead line. As part of the February of 2014 CRAS, the CSX Railroad was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places due to its significance in Transportation, Community Planning and Development, and Commerce.

Figure 6: National Register–Eligible CSX Railway (8DA10753) Image taken from NW 38th Avenue, facing northwest

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

1.3.5 Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868)

The Miami Central Station Railroad Spur goes from north of NW 21st Street to just north of NW 28th Street in Township 53 South, Range 41 East, Section 29 (Hialeah USGS Quadrangle 1988), in Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 7). The spur is located just east of the Miami International Airport and was constructed prior to 1938. It consists of standard single gauge tracks over gravel ballast. The spur branches off from the CSX Railroad mainline, which is part of the Miami to Homestead branch. The Miami Central Station Railroad Spur was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 2011 due to its significance in Transportation and Community Planning and Development.

Figure 7: National Register–Eligible Miami Central Station Railroad Spur (8DA11868) Image taken from NW South River Drive, facing south

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

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) project will provide additional mainline track(s) within the SFRC from just north of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station (Milepost 1035.96) to the Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station (Milepost 1037.21) located within the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). The project also includes the replacement of the existing bridge over the Miami River and upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station.

2.1 Miami River Bridge

The Project consists of removing the existing movable bridge and replacing it with a new two- track fixed span bridge structure. The proposed new double track fixed bridge would be placed slightly west of the existing movable bridge and would tie into the existing and new tracks north and south of the Miami River (see Figure 8). This Project would preserve connections with the existing freight spurs (Downtown Distributor to the north of the Miami River and Homestead Subdivision to the south of the Miami River) within the SFRC. The Project would also tie into the newly constructed four track configuration at the MIC that includes separate center platform boarding areas for Tri-Rail passengers and for Amtrak passengers.

The Project has local support and the Miami River Commission2 (MRC) passed a resolution on September 8, 2014, supporting the project’s “locally preferred alternative.”

2 The Miami River Commission (MRC) is an organization that aims “to act as the official coordinating clearinghouse for all public policy and projects related to the Miami River.” Source: www.miamirivercommission.org/ 10

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

Figure 8: Project Alignment

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

2.2 Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station

The Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station is located adjacent to (just southeast of) the NRHP-listed Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station (see Figure 9). The Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station facility is located to the west of the proposed improvements to the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. The facilities associated with the Tri-Rail station include a passenger platform with several small canopies, surface parking, and a bus loop. These facilities are not connected to or considered part of the features that make the Seaboard Air Line Station building historic. Improvements to the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station include a new center platform passenger boarding area that would be constructed to the east of the existing track and would be situated between the existing track and proposed new track. This new center platform would be approximately 400 feet in length and would be accessed from an at-grade pedestrian crossing (see Figure 10). The existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station canopies would be replaced with a continuous canopy over the length of the new center platform that will provide greater protection for passengers from weather elements.

Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station N Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station

Figure 9: Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station Aerial

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

Figure 10: Hialeah Market Station Center Platform – At Grade Access

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

3 IMPACTS AND FINDINGS

The impacts to NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible sites are evaluated for the Project for the bridge crossing the Miami River and for the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station passenger platform improvements.

3.1 Impacts Due to Miami River Railroad Crossing Improvements

3.1.1 Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station/ 1200 SE 10th Court

The railroad crossing improvements proposed as part of the Project will not result in an adverse effect to the railway station, as the proposed Miami River crossing improvements are to the historic rail line and bridge, located approximately a quarter mile (1/4 mile) south of the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station. The bridge improvements are far enough from the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station, that changes to the rail line at this location would not have a direct or indirect effect on the NRHP-listed resource. The relationship between the station and the rail line will be maintained.

3.1.2 Miami Canal

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

3.1.3 CSXT Railroad Bridge

Based on the loss of the historic resource, the removal of this bridge will result in an adverse effect finding.

3.1.4 CSX Railroad and Miami Central Railroad Spur

The improvements to the rail line segments in the current project APE include the addition of a second mainline track along the CSX Railroad and alignment adjustments to both the CSX Railroad and the Miami Central Railroad Spur to accommodate a second mainline track. The proposed improvements will not adversely affect the historic CSX Railroad and Miami Central Railroad Spur linear resources, as the historic rail line corridors will continue normal operations and the resources’ importance in the areas of Transportation, Community Planning and Development, and Commerce will not be compromised by these changes.

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

3.2 Impacts Due to Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station Improvements

The improvements at the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station will not have adverse effects on the NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible resources discussed above, as improvements will be constructed within the limits of the SFRC.

Based on the proposed improvements, the addition of the center platform with at-grade access will not present any viewshed issues directly or indirectly resulting in adverse effects to the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station. The proposed improvements to the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station will not adversely affect the visual aesthetics surrounding the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Station, as modern development already exists adjacent to this resource. The new center platform allows these rail resources to remain viable for current passenger use and does not affect the historical or physical significance of these resources. The relationship of the station to the railroad will be maintained. By keeping this new platform at-grade, the visual addition of a new structure will also be minimized. Due to the limited scope and extent of this improvement, these improvements will also not adversely affect the CSX Railroad. There is no adverse effect to Miami Canal, CSXT Railroad Bridge or the Miami Central Railroad Spur, because these resources are not in proximity to the station.

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

4 MEASURES TO MITIGATE HARM OF PROPOSED ACTION

As part of the Section 106 process, appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse effect of the proposed action are required for the removal of the historic CSXT Railroad Bridge. SFRTA is committed to doing Historic American Building Survey / Historic Engineering Architectural Records (HABS/HEAR) Level 2, which would produce measured drawings and large format photographs of the CSXT Railroad Bridge. The resulting documentation would be sent to the National Park Service, the SHPO and a local repository, such as the main Miami Library. SFRTA is also committed to installing a historic marker at the location of the bridge.

During Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) meetings conducted for the Project, which are discussed in Section 5 of this document, the SHPO representative indicated that if the CSXT Railroad Bridge could be relocated along the waterway (Miami River / Miami Canal), a no adverse effect determination was possible. However, efforts to relocate the bridge along the Miami River / Miami Canal have not been successful. The project team met with the Miami River Commission, the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to identify a feasible location for the historic bascule bridge to be relocated along the Miami River / Miami Canal. Potential locations that were considered include moving the bridge upstream along the Miami Canal to Miami Springs or downstream along the Miami River or a tributary of the Miami River.

Two potential locations were identified in Miami Springs: (1) a connection to the Okeechobee Metrorail station, located across the Miami Canal from the northernmost corner of Miami Springs, and (2) in proximity to Curtiss Parkway where other historic bridges span the Miami Canal. Both these locations were determined to be unachievable due to engineering challenges and right-of- way limitations.

Relocating the bridge downstream along the Miami River would impact navigation along the river. A location was examined along the C5 Canal (a tributary to the Miami River) west of NW 22nd Avenue, connecting Fern Isle Park to the Miami Police Benevolent Association. However, this location was discarded because the Tamiami Canal Swing Bridge is in the process of being relocated to this location.

Locations along the Miami Canal in the Everglades National Park were also considered. However, the potential demand for a bridge at these remote locations is not enough to justify the costs associated with the bridge relocation.

The project team has continued to coordinate with the Miami-Dade MPO, the SFWMD, the City of North Miami, and Miami-Dade County to identify relocation alternatives in Miami-Dade County. Reasonable efforts to relocate the bridge will continue within the financial capacity of the Project.

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

5 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION

Efforts have been made to involve the public throughout the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Early project coordination was initiated with the regulatory and stakeholder agencies on December 8, 2010, through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) review of the project. An agency/stakeholder kick-off meeting was conducted on January 31, 2013. A project website and project newsletters were developed, and a public meeting was held on November 6, 2013, at the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) auditorium near the project corridor. The purpose of this public meeting was to provide project information to the general public, property owners, and agency stakeholders in both a wide reaching and targeted format. All populations were provided adequate ability to participate and comment via newsletters and property owner notifications, which were provided in both English and Spanish. Translators were also made available at the public meeting so that all attendees had the opportunity to ask questions, make comments, and provide input on the proposed project.

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

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

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

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

Response was received from the Muscogee Creek Nation requesting to be copied on reports and documentation prepared as part of the Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study.

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

In addition, and consistent with Section 106 for the Historic Preservation Act, three cultural resource committee (CRC) meetings were held where specific data on the alternatives and impacts of each alternative were provided, and specific input and comments were received from the CRC on the effects and mitigation. Copies of the Meeting Minutes and CRC presentations are included in Appendix D.

A Public Hearing was held on May 24, 2016, at the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (MDX) auditorium near the project corridor. The purpose of the public hearing was to present the preferred build alternative and provide a discussion on the impacts the proposed action would have on the surrounding environmental, social, and cultural resources. A copy of the Public Hearing presentation, along with a transcript and a summary of the meeting are provided in Appendix E.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between FTA, SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) will be prepared that will include mitigation to compensate for the adverse effects to the bridge.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A1: FTA Letter on CRAS Findings

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

February 3, 2014

Dr. Timothy Parsons Compliance Review Supervisor Florida Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building 500 S. Bronaugh Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Re: Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) of the Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Dear Dr. Parsons:

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) proposes to increase capacity for the approximate 1.25 mile single-track section of the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC), from north of the Hialeah Market Station to the Miami Central Station (MCS) at the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC), by constructing additional set(s) of tracks. Under consideration are two- (2) track, three- (3) track, and four- (4) track options. However, based on an operational analysis conducted for the project, the 4-track option is not warranted and was not considered further in the evaluation.

In conjunction with these track expansion options, SFRTA is also considering modifications to the passenger platform at the Hialeah Market Station, which may include an additional platform and an overhead pedestrian bridge. In order to accommodate the additional track( s ), potential impacts must be identified along the entire length of the 1.25 mile single-track corridor.

The existing Miami River bridge crossing will also need to be modified/upgraded to accommodate the new multi-track typical section. Four (4) river crossing scenarios are being considered for the modifications/upgrades at the Miami River bridge crossing. The bridge crossing options have the potential to impact the land/properties immediately surrounding the existing bridge as well as properties located upstream. These four ( 4) options are as follows:

1. Rehabilitate Existing Bridge & Construct New Movable Bridge 2. Rehabilitate Existing Bridge & Construct New Fixed Bridge 3. Demolish Existing Bridge & Construct New Fixed Bridge 4. Demolish Existing Bridge & Construct New Moveable Bridge Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, the attached Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) has been conducted to identify all historic and archaeological resources that may be affected by the project improvements. For this CRAS, the FTA determined the Area of Potential Effects (APE) by considering the type of improvements being proposed and the potential effects these improvements could have on cultural resources. The APE determination also considered the urban/commercial/industrial character and setting of the project corridor as well as the current noise levels.

The APE for historic resources includes all historic resources located on parcels immediately adjacent to the proposed improvements. This was judged to be a sufficient APE based upon the nature of the improvements and the corridor. The archaeological APE focuses upon identifying and evaluating resources within the geographic limits of the proposed action and its associated ground disturbing activities; that is, the proposed ROW for the project. The APE, therefore, is confined to the footprint where subsurface construction activity will take place.

As documented within the CRAS, FTA identified 26 historic resources (18 of which are newly recorded) within the APE and noted that two previously-recorded resources have been demolished. Of the 26 identified resources, one resource (Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway Station) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and four have been determined to be eligible for listing. The remaining 18 are considered ineligible for listing, either individually or as part of a historic district.

No previously- or newly-recorded archaeological sites were identified. Subsurface testing was impossible within the project APE due to the presence of pavement and buried utilities. Although unlikely, if construction activities uncover any archaeological remains, activities in the immediate area will be stopped until a professional archaeologist can evaluate them.

Please contact Mr. Stan Mitchell of my staff at (404) 865-5643 or [email protected] with any questions or colllllients regarding the information presented in this letter.

Sincerely,

ette G. Taylor, Ph.D. egional Administrator

Enclosure

Appendix A2: SHPO Concurrence

.-J ,.n,vv"-\'\"Z,•\ .' 'F '( :r:

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT or STATE RICK SCOTT KENDETZNER Governor Secretary of State

Yvette G. Taylor, Ph. D. / .··.'.'rA . li" ,·,· February 24, 2014 Regional Administrator ,JYl'ilr;() . '<;, !//: US Department of Transportation .. lleo,/11 Federal Transit Administration 230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30303

Attn.: Stan Mitchell

RE: OHR Project File No.: 2014-503/ Received by OHR: Februmy 14, 2014 Project: Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A County: Miami-Dade

Dear Ms. Taylor:

This office reviewed the referenced project for possible effects on historic prope1ties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The review was conducted in accordance with Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection ofHistoric Properties.

This office concurs with the determinations ofNRHP-eligibility for the 26 historic resources identified within the proposed project Area of Potential Effect (APE). These determinations are listed in the attached letter from your agency and are described in the Cultural Resources Assessment Survey received by this office on February 14, 2014.

This office looks forward to consultation with your agency to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on the one NRHP-listed and four NRHP-eligible resources identified within the project APE. If adverse effects are found, this office will work with your agency to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts.

If you have any questions, please contact Ginny Jones, Transpmtation Compliance & Review Architectural Historian, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 850.245.6333 or 800.847 .7278. :t:f:(p-f-:~ Rober;l Befct:1s, Director Division of Historical Resources & State Historic Preservation Officer

Division of Historical Resources R.A. Gray Building• 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, Florida 32399 ·~-. 850.245.6300 • 850.245.6436 (Fax) flheritage.com Promoting Florid"'s History mu/ Culture VivaFlorida.org VIVA HORIDA. """..-.flhorltago.com

Appendix A3: Muscogee Creek Nation Letter

Hamilton, Liz

From: Kiefer, Lynn Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:44 PM To: Basse, Oliver Subject: FW: Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami- Dade County, Florida.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 5:14 PM To: Handrahan Barbara; Cargill Loraine Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Barbara & Loraine –

FYI – please see below. Tribal involvement ‐‐ response. Take care.

Keith Melton FTA Region IV 230 Peachtree St., NW, Ste. 800 Atlanta, GA 30303‐1512 404.865.5614 Direct /404.865.5605 FAX [email protected] www.fta.dot.gov

From: Emman Spain [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 4:41 PM To: Mitchell, Stanley Subject: Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Mr. Mitchell,

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation has received notice of the Miami River‐Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A in Miami‐Dade County, Florida. We request to be a consulting party on this project. Further, we request all pertinent reports, project studies, construction plans, and surveys be sent to us in an electronic format. Due to our ancestors historic and pre‐contact occupations of the area, inadvertent finds of human remains and associated objects can and do occur, even in areas of existing and prior development. Should this occur we request to be notified. Thank you.

Emman Spain, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Appendix B: Operation and Maintenance Cost Detail

The costs provided below are preliminary planning-level estimates based upon professional opinion. These costs are intended to provide a level of magnitude for comparative and planning purposes.

Capital Cost (Millions) No Build Avoidance Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Existing Bridge $0.0 $1.9 $0.3 Major Maintenance $0.0 $1.7 $0.0 Structural $0.0 $1.7 $0.0 Mechanical $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Electrical $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Removal $0.0 $0.2 $0.3 Components $0.0 $0.2 $0.0 Bridge $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 New Bridge $0.0 $2.3 $2.3 ROW Acquisition $0.0 $13.1 $13.1 Total Bridge Capital Cost $0.0 $17.3 $15.7 Other Capital Cost $0.0 $14.4 $14.3 Total Project Capital Cost $0.0 $31.7 $30.0

Life-cycle O&M Costs (Millions) No Build Avoidance Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Recurring Operating Costs (over 75 years) $8.00 $0.00 $0.00 Existing Bridge $8.00 $0.00 $0.00 Recurring Maintenance Costs (over 75 years) $0.75 $0.96 $0.21 Existing Bridge $0.75 $0.75 $0.00 New Bridge $0.00 $0.21 $0.21 Major Maintenance Initial $4.20 $0.00 $0.00 Major (year 20) $13.00 $1.70 $0.00 Subsequent (year 40, year 60) $11.50 $3.40 $0.00 Total Bridge O&M Costs (75 years) $37.5 $6.1 $0.2

Total Bridge Costs $40.0 $37.5 Total Bridge Capital Cost $35.0 Total Bridge O&M Costs (75 years)

$30.0

$25.0

$20.0 $17.3 $15.7 $15.0

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

Appendix C: FTA Letter on the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to Federal Tribes and SHPO

November 12, 2013

The Honorable George Tiger Principal Chief Muscogee (Creek) Nation Office of the Administration P.O. Box 580 Okmulgee, OK 74447

Re: Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A

Dear Mr. Tiger:

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended)and it’s implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties, effective January 2001), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) would like to initiate Section 106 consultation for the Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A project (MR-MICCI). The project is located in highly urbanized areas of unincorporated Miami-Dade County and the cities of Miami and Hialeah in the state of Florida. This project is being conducted by the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) on behalf of the FTA. A map showing the proposed improvements is included as an attachment to this letter.

The SFRTA, which operates a 72-mile Tri-Rail system within Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, is proposing to increase capacity for a section of the Tri-Rail system in Miami- Dade County. The proposed improvements in Miami-Dade County include a single-track section, approximately 1.25 miles in length, from north of the Hialeah Market Station to the Miami Intermodal Center in Miami. Under consideration are two-(2) track and three-(3) track options. In conjunction with these track expansion options, SFRTA is also considering modifications to the passenger platform at the Hialeah Market Station which may include an additional platform and an overhead pedestrian bridge. In order to accommodate the additional track(s), potential impacts must be identified along the entire length of the 1.25 mile single-track corridor. The project will also include a new bridge across the Miami River to accommodate the additional mainline track(s).

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

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

Sincerely,

Stan Mitchell Environmental Protection Specialist

cc: Emman Spain, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Barbara Handrahan, SFRTA Lorraine Cargill, SFRTA Lynn Kiefer, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) Greg Kyle, KHA Ken Hardin, Janus Research

Appendix D: CRC Meeting Minutes and Presentation

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

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

Comments and Discussion on Presentation:

Vertical Clearance Requirements:

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

Summary of Impacts, Bridge Alternatives Matrix:

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on Historic Resources and Section 106 Adverse Effects determination:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on Involvement of FDOT Environmental

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

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

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

Action Items:

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

2 Attendees:

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

3 CRC Meeting #2 Miami River – Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Phase 2A Miami, Florida Miami Dade Express Authority (MDX) Offices 3790 NW 21st Street Miami, Florida 33142 Call-In Number: 1-888-305-2064 Access Code: 5656# Wednesday, July 1, 2015

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

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

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

Introductions:

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

Presentation:

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

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

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

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

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

Open Discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 5

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

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

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

Page 1 of 5

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

Introductions:

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

Presentation: • A PowerPoint presentation was prepared and used as the basis of discussion. This presentation was provided to the attendees during the meeting (copy attached). The following is a summary of discussions on the presentation, particularly with regards to Determination of Effects and Mitigation Measures. • Slide 18 – Effects on Historic Resources: Avoidance Alternative

o Carrie Walker (FTA) – removing the mechanical and electrical components of the bridge, which make the bridge unique, would result in an adverse effect.

o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – there are several bridges that have been locked down but were able to retain eligibility by maintaining the potential to open, even if it is through the use of other means (e.g. a crane).

o Ginny Jones (SHPO) – there is precedence in Florida for no adverse effect determination for bridges that have been locked down but the mechanical components remained in place. However, SHPO would concur with FTA’s determination. • Slide 22 – Effects on Historic Resources: Preferred Alternative

o Demolition of the bridge would be an adverse effect. However, there is some gray area for relocation of the bridge.

o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – there is precedent in Florida to relocate bridges and have a no adverse effect determination. This has been viewed differently over the years but with so many historic bridges being removed in South Florida, it may need to be considered.

o Ginny Jones (SHPO) – if bridge were to be relocated on the same waterway (Miami River/Miami Canal), there is precedence for SHPO to consider this to be no adverse

Page 2 of 5

effect.

o Ken Harding (Janus Research) – the City of Miami Springs has a few historic bridges already (photos provided). The City is very supportive of historic preservation. . Adriano Rothschild (Kimley-Horn) – an active Miami-Dade MPO Study identified a need for a pedestrian bridge crossing the Miami Canal at northern end of the City of Miami Springs to provide connectivity to Okeechobee Metrorail Station. • Miami Springs Greenway trails are located on South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) property.

o Greg Kyle (Kimley-Horn) – discussed bridge relocation alternatives with Brett Bibeau (Staff Director of the Miami River Commission). Most tributaries are too narrow to accommodate the bridge, and placing locked bridge downstream (over navigable section of the Miami River) is not an option. One possibility could be to relocate it slightly upstream, near the flood control structure. . There is a need to discuss bridge relocation with SFWMD as it may impact flood control and they own the right-of-way where the bridge could be placed.

o Jim Murley (SFRPC) – if bridge is kept closer to existing location, the Riverwalk project could be extended west to connect to the bridge. Miami River Commission would be in support of this. However, relocating the bridge to Miami Springs may be beyond Riverwalk access.

o Jim Murley (SFRPC) – the Miami River Commission is a big proponent of relocating the bridge on the waterway, as it provides opportunities for marine related uses under the bridge. • Slide 34 – Section 106 Process / Slide 35 – Open Discussion

o Ginny Jones (SHPO) and Carrie Walker (FTA) – agreed that the preferred alternative would have no adverse effect if the bridge can be relocated along the Miami River. . The conditions for no adverse effect could be memorialized in the FONSI . No need for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a Section 4(f) Individual Statement would not be required. . Need to find locations for bridge relocation. • Talk to potential recipients.

o Outline an agreement for transfer of bridge maintenance. o Lynn Kiefer (Kimley-Horn) – How much detail will be required regarding the relocation? . Carrie Walker (FTA) – agreement with property owners agreeing to the specifics of when and where the bridge would be moved, and outlining logistics of what needs to happen for bridge to be transferred to new ownership. . SHPO would need to be involved in reviewing bridge relocation plans.

o Ginny Jones (SHPO) – for the Tamiami Swing Bridge, a ‘Bridge Relocation Agreement’ was established between the County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

Page 3 of 5

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

Page 4 of 5

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

Page 5 of 5

Appendix E: May 24, 2016 Public Hearing Materials

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA)

Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A

Public Meeting Summary

From: Denis Eirikis, Project PIO, Clear Light Communications, Inc. To: Project File Subject: Public Hearing; Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Phase 2A Meeting Date: May 24, 2016 5:30 – 7:30 PM Place: MDX Board Room Miami-Dade Expressway Authority 3790 NW 21st Street Miami, Florida 33142 Background and Purpose The SFRTA) completed a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for the Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Project and made the Environmental Assessment (EA) document available to public. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the Public Hearing held on 5/24/16 to encourage public comment and reaction to the EA.

Public Notifications  Legal ads were placed In the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald which ran on May 10. See Attachments 1 for the: English ad, Spanish ad, plus affidavit of publication.  219 Property owners within a quarter mile buffer zone of the project were sent by first class mail: o Property owner letter English with obverse in Spanish (Attachment 2) o Newsletter English (Attachment 3) o Newsletter Spanish (Attachment 4) o Note: Of the 226 property owners mailed, only 3 letters were returned as nondeliverable)  Agencies, stakeholders, those who attended the kickoff meeting, and those who sign up for notifications on the web site were emailed an invitation directly from SFRTA..  Every notification directed the public to visit www.MRMICCI.com where the EA and all related appendices were posted.  Business stakeholders were encouraged to forward meeting invitations to their members.

Public Hearing Minutes  Nineteen members of the general public, plus project team staff, attended the meeting as per the Sign-In Sheet (Attachment 5). Mayor Hernandez of Hialeah, FL was the only elected official to attend.  Newsletters and property owner letters were made available at the sign-in table.  PI Officer Denis Eirikis welcomed the public, gave instructions on comment cards and speaker request cards, and the introduced SFRTA Project Manager Jessica Vargas who gave opening remarks  John Lafferty of PB and Greg Kyle of Kimley Horn Associates gave a PowerPoint Presentation (Attachment 6).  Project team representatives were available to explain presentation boards and answer public questions before and after the formal presentation.  Denis Eirikis adjourned the meeting after ascertaining that no members of the public wished to speak. The public was invited to either visit with project staff or give comments to the court reporter immediately after the meeting.  The last members of the general public departed at about 7:15 PM.

Comments and Remarks from the Public

 A comment table with comment cards and two copies of the EA was made available to the public. Two written comments were received. (Attachment 7).  A court reporter was available throughout the meeting to take public comments, several announcements were made to this effect, none were received.

Attachments 1. Legal Ads (English ad, Spanish ad, and Proof of Publication). 2. Property Letters (English and Spanish) 3. English Newsletter 4. Spanish Newsletter 5. Sign-In Sheet. 6. Power Point Presentation 7. Two comment cards collected at the Public Hearing. One email received on May 27, 2016. One comment card received via mail postamarked June 3, 2016. 8. Property Owner list with returns noted.

INCLUYE CARTA EN ESPAÑOL

April 26, 2016

Re: Public Hearing Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Project Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Miami-Dade County, Florida

Dear Property Owner/Stakeholder: You are invited to attend a Public Hearing scheduled for May 24 at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room at the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, 3790 NW 21st Street Miami, Florida 33142. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) is finalizing a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for the Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR- MICCI) Project. The project alternatives evaluated include a No Build Alternative and Two Build Alternatives that would provide an additional mainline track within the South Florida Rail Corridor from just north of the Tri-Rail Hialeah Market Station to the Tri-Rail Miami Airport Station within the Miami Intermodal Center. The project recommends the implementation of improved track connections across the Miami River, including a new bridge, second track, and signal upgrades. The Environmental Assessment (EA) document for the project can be viewed at Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, at SFRTA headquarters per the address on this letterhead, and on the project website at www.mrmicci.com. This is the formal Public Hearing for the project. The SFRTA is requesting your input for the final selection of the preferred alternative. We would like to brief you about the project and solicit your feedback. The meeting will be an “open house” format where the public is invited to arrive at 5:30 p.m. with a formal presentation scheduled for 6:00 p.m. Public comments at the meeting are encouraged and will be formally recorded. Comments can be made at www.mrmicci.com or postmarked via US Mail by June 3, 2016. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact Denis Eirikis at (561) 798-9633 or via the Contact Us form at www.mrmicci.com at least seven days prior to the meeting. If you have any questions about the Project or the Public Hearing, please contact me at 954-788-1783 or email [email protected].

Jessica Vargas Astaiza Project Manager South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 800 NW 33rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Website: www.sfrta.fl.gov

26 de abril de 2016

Re: Reunión Pública Proyecto Río Miami-Mejora de Capacidad del Centro Intermodal de Miami (MR-MICCI) Estudio Ambiental y de Desarrollo Condado de Miami-Dade, Florida

Estimado Propietario / Persona interesada: Está invitado a asistir a una Reunión Pública programada para el 24 de mayo a las 5:30 p.m. en la Sala de Juntas de la Autoridad de Autopistas de Miami-Dade (MDX, por sus siglas en inglés), 3790 NW 21 Street Miami, Florida 33142. La Autoridad de Transporte Regional del Sur de la Florida (SFRTA, por sus siglas en inglés) está finalizando un Estudio Ambiental y de Desarrollo del Proyecto del Río Miami-Mejora de la Capacidad del Centro Intermodal de Miami (MR-MICCI, por sus siglas en inglés). Se evaluó la Alternativa de No Construir y dos Alternativas de Construcción que consisten en construir una vía adicional dentro del Corredor Ferroviario del Sur de la Florida desde justo al norte de la Estación Hialeah Market a la estación del Aeropuerto de Miami del Tri-Rail en el Centro Intermodal de Miami. Se evaluarán mejoras en la vía férrea sobre el Río Miami, que incluyen el puente, la vía adicional y la actualización de las señales. El documento de Evaluación Ambiental (EA) del Proyecto está disponible en la Autoridad de Autopistas de Miami-Dade (MDX), en la sede de la SFRTA localizada en la dirección que aparece en el membrete de esta carta y en el sitio web: www.mrmicci.com. Esta es la reunión formal del Proyecto. La SFRTA solicita su opinión para seleccionar la alternativa preferida. Nos gustaría informarle sobre el Proyecto y recibir su opinión. La reunión será un formato de “casa abierta” donde el público está invitado a llegar a las 5:30 pm con la presentación oficial prevista para las 6:00 pm. La opinión del público durante la reunión será grabada formalmente. Usted puede hacer sus comentarios en el sitio web www.mrmicci.com o enviarlos por correo postal no más tarde del 3 de junio de 2016. Se solicita la participación pública sin consideración de la raza, color, nacionalidad, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o estado familiar. Las personas que requieran acomodaciones especiales conforme a la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidad o las personas que requieran servicios de traducción (gratis) deben comunicarse con Denis Eirikis al (561) 798-9633 ó vía la página “Contáctenos” en el sitio web www.mrmicci.com al menos siete días antes de la reunión. Si tiene alguna pregunta sobre el Proyecto o la Reunión Pública, por favor comuníquese conmigo al 954- 788-1783 ó por correo electrónico a [email protected].

Jessica Vargas Astaiza Project Manager South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 800 NW 33rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 Website: www.sfrta.fl.gov

Newsletter www.MRMICCI.com Spring 2016 YOU’RE INVITED To a Public Hearing Project The SFRTA is finalizing a Project MR-MICCI Project; Project Development Development and Environment and Environment (PD&E) Study Study for the MR-MICCI Project. The project will provide an When additional mainline track within the May 24, 2016 • Doors Open 5:30 p.m. South Florida Rail Corridor from Presentation 6:00 p.m. just north of the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station to the Miami Where Airport Tri-Rail Station within the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Miami Intermodal Center. The Boardroom project will evaluate improved 3790 NW 21st Street track connections across the Miami Miami, Florida 33142 Meeting River, including bridge, track, and Location signal upgrades. For directions, visit www.MRMICCI.com

Project Overview The proposed MR-MICCI project will provide an additional mainline track within the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC) between NW 46th Street and the Miami Airport Tri-Rail Station located within the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC). The MIC is a major multimodal transportation hub for the South Florida region. This additional mainline track will address an existing capacity deficiency within the rail corridor which negatively impacts Tri-Rail travel time and schedule adherence. These deficiencies will be further exacerbated in the future with the extension of Amtrak service (intercity rail) into the MIC. The project also includes an evaluation of bridge alternatives (replace or rehabilitate the existing bascule bridge) over the Miami River and upgrades to the existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. This proposed project is listed in the SFRTA’s Transit Development Plan and programmed in the SFRTA’s Capital Budget and Five Year Plan. The project is consistent with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which includes the double tracking of the remaining single-track section of the Tri-Rail system. The project is also included in the Miami-Dade MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Project Alternatives After a preliminary environmental screening of the physical, social and natural environment effects throughout the project limits and consideration of right-of-way requirements, operational capacity requirements and costs, a No Build Alternative and two Build Alternatives were carried forward for evaluation. Build Alternative 1: Rehabilitate/Maintain Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge Alternative 1 consists of rehabilitating/maintaining the existing moveable bridge and constructing an additional two- track low-level fixed span bridge adjacent to the existing bridge structure. The proposed new double track fixed bridge structure would be placed west of the existing movable bridge. Build Alternative 2: Remove Existing Bridge and Add New Fixed Bridge Alternative 2 consists of removing the existing movable bridge and replacing it with a new two-track fixed span bridge structure. The proposed new double track fixed bridge would be placed west of the existing movable bridge. (Note: After consulting with stakeholders, this is the Locally Preferred Alternative) Hialeah Market Station The Hialeah Market Tri-Rail station will be upgraded to include a new center platform for-passenger boarding with a continuous canopy over the length of the platform that will provide greater weather protection for passengers. Locally Preferred Alternative Each alternative was evaluated against a set of criteria related to engineering, socio-economic, and environmental considerations, as well as various cost factors. Based on the evaluation results, public and stakeholder input, and local preference, Alternative 2 for a low- level fixed bridge crossing the Miami River and the Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station passenger platform improvements were chosen ← as the preferred alternative. The Miami River Commission and all agencies involved support these recommendations. N Environmental Documentation Aerial Photo of Project Site. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and SFRTA and in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Department of Transportation. The MR-MICCI EA has been approved by the FTA and is currently available for public review at Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, at SFRTA Headquarters, and on the project website www.MRMICCI.com.

Contact Us Jessica Vargas Astaiza, Project Manager South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 800 NW 33rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 954-788-1783 www.MRMICCI.com Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation Public Participation services (free of charge) should contact Denis Eirikis at 561-798-9633 or via [email protected] at In addition to the Public Kickoff Meeting held in least seven days prior to meeting. If hearing impaired, January 2013, and the Public Workshop held in telephone 1-800-273-7545 (TDD). November 2013, more than 20 outreach meetings were conducted with stakeholders, agencies, and property owners. Written comments received at www.MRMICCI.com or postmarked by June 3, 2016 will become a part of the record for this public hearing. Boletín Informativo www.MRMICCI.com Primavera 2016 ESTÁ INVITADO a una Reunión Pública Proyecto La Autoridad de Transporte Regional Proyecto Río Miami-Mejora de la del Sur de la Florida (SFRTA, por sus Capacidad del Centro Intermodal siglas en inglés) ha finalizado un Estudio de Miami (MR-MICCI); Estudio de Ambiental y de Desarrollo del Proyecto Desarrollo y Ambiente del Proyecto del Río Miami-Mejora de la Capacidad Cuándo del Centro Intermodal de Miami (MR- MICCI, por sus siglas en inglés). El 24 de mayo de 2016 proyecto consiste en construir una vía Puertas abiertas a las 5:30 p.m. adicional a la línea principal dentro Presentación a las 6:00 p.m. del Corredor Ferroviario del Sur de Dónde la Florida (SFRC) desde justo al norte Sala de Juntas de la Autoridad de de la Estación Hialeah Market hasta la Autopistas de Miami-Dade Estación del Aeropuerto de Miami del 3790 NW 21st Street Tri-Rail, en el Centro Intermodal de Miami, Florida 33142 Localización Miami. Se evaluarán mejoras en la vía de la Reunión férrea sobre el Río Miami, que incluyen Para obtener indicaciones, visite www.MRMICCI.com el puente, la vía y actualización de las señales. Antecedentes del proyecto El proyecto MR-MICCI propuesto consiste en construir una vía adicional a la línea principal dentro del Corredor Ferroviario del Sur de la Florida (SFRC) entre NW 46th Street y la Estación del Aeropuerto de Miami del Tri-Rail, en el Centro Intermodal de Miami. El Centro Intermodal de Miami (MIC) es un centro de transporte multimodal principal para la región Sur de la Florida. Esta vía adicional a la línea principal abordará una deficiencia en capacidad actual dentro del corredor ferroviario que produce un impacto negativo en el tiempo de viaje y el cumplimiento de horarios del Tri-Rail. Estas deficiencias se agravarán aún más en el futuro con la extensión del servicio Amtrak (ferrocarril interurbano) en el Centro Intermodal de Miami (MIC). El proyecto también incluye una evaluación de alternativas para el puente (reemplazar o rehabilitar el puente levadizo actual) sobre el Río Miami y mejoras en la Estación Hialeah Market del Tri-Rail. Este proyecto propuesto está incluido en el Plan de Desarrollo de Transporte de la Autoridad de Transporte Regional del Sur de la Florida (SFRTA, por sus siglas en inglés). El proyecto es coherente con el Plan de Transporte de Larga Distancia 2040 (LRTP, por sus siglas en inglés) de la Organización de Planificación Metropolitana de Miami-Dade (MPO), que añade una doble vía en la sección actual de una sola vía del sistema Tri-Rail. El proyecto también está incluido en el Programa de Mejoras en el Transporte de la Organización de Planificación Metropolitana de Miami-Dade (MPO) y en el Programa de Mejoras en el Transporte Estatal (STIP, por sus siglas en inglés) del Departamento de Transporte de la Florida (FDOT, por sus siglas en inglés). Alternativas del Proyecto Después de realizar una evaluación ambiental preliminar de los efectos ambientales físicos, sociales y naturales a través de los límites del proyecto y considerar los requisitos de derecho de paso, los requisitos y costos de capacidad operativa, se prosiguió con la evaluación de una Alternativa de No Construir y dos Alternativas de Construcción. Alternativa de Construcción 1: Rehabilitar/Mantener el Puente Actual y Agregar un Puente Fijo Nuevo La Alternativa 1 consiste en rehabilitar/mantener el puente móvil existente y construir un puente adicional de dos vías con un tramo fijo de nivel inferior adyacente a la estructura actual del puente. La estructura propuesta del nuevo puente fijo de dos vías se colocará al oeste del puente móvil actual. Alternativa de Construcción 2: Retirar el Puente Actual y Agregar un Puente Fijo Nuevo La Alternativa 2 consiste en retirar el puente móvil actual y reemplazarlo con una nueva estructura de puente con tramo fijo de dos vías. El nuevo puente fijo de dos vías propuesto se colocará al oeste del puente móvil actual. (Nota: Después de consultar con los interesados, esta es la Alternativa Preferida Localmente). Estación Hialeah Market Se mejorará la estación Hialeah Market del Tri-Rail para incluir una nueva plataforma central para pasajeros que abordan con una cubierta continua de la longitud de la plataforma que proporcionará a los pasajeros una mayor protección contra el clima. Alternativa Preferida Localmente Cada alternativa fue evaluada conforme a una serie de criterios relacionados con consideraciones de ingeniería, socioeconómicas y ambientales, así como varios factores de costo. Según los resultados de la evaluación, los aportes públicos y de las partes interesadas, y la preferencia local, se decidió por la Alternativa 2 de un puente fijo de nivel inferior que cruza el Río Miami y las mejoras en la plataforma de pasajeros de la Estación Hialeah Market del Tri-Rail. La Comisión del Río Miami y todas las agencias involucradas respaldaron estas recomendaciones. ← Documentación Ambiental N Se ha preparado una Evaluación Ambiental (EA) conforme a la Ley sobre Foto Aérea del Proyecto. Política Nacional Medioambiental (NEPA) de la Administración de Transporte Federal (FTA, por sus siglas en inglés), la Autoridad de Transporte Regional del Sur de la Florida (SFRTA, por sus siglas en inglés) y en cooperación con la Guardia Costera de los Estados Unidos y el Departamento de Transporte de la Florida. La Evaluación Ambiental del Proyecto Río Miami-Mejora de la Capacidad del Centro Intermodal de Miami (MR-MICCI, por sus siglas en inglés) ha sido aprobada por la Administración de Tránsito Federal (FTA, por sus siglas en inglés) y actualmente está disponible para revisión pública en la Autoridad de Autopistas de Miami-Dade, en la sede de la SFRTA y en el sitio web del proyecto: www.MRMICCI.com.

Comuníquese con Nosotros Jessica Vargas Astaiza, Project Manager South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 800 NW 33rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 954-788-1783 www.MRMICCI.com Se solicita la participación pública sin consideración de la raza, color, nacionalidad, edad, sexo, religión, discapacidad o estado familiar. Las personas que requieran adaptaciones especiales conforme a la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidad o las personas que requieran servicios de traducción (sin cargo) deben comunicarse con Denis Eirikis al Participación Pública 561-798-9633 o a través de [email protected] al Además de la Reunión Pública (Kickoff) llevada a cabo en enero menos siete días antes de la reunión. Si es discapacitado de 2013, y el Taller Público llevado a cabo en noviembre de auditivo, comuníquese telefónicamente al 2013, se realizaron más de 20 reuniones informativas con partes 1-800-273-7545 (TDD). interesadas, agencias y propietarios de comercios/viviendas. Comentarios por escrito recibidos en www.MRMICCI.com ó enviados por correo antes del 3 de junio de 2016 pasarán a formar parte del registro público para esta audiencia pública.

From: Sanchez, Jose To: Vargas Astaiza Jessica Cc: Hernandez, Jorge; Storch, Debora Subject: Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Project Bridge Relocation Date: Friday, May 27, 2016 8:36:41 AM

Dear Jessica Vargas Astaiza,

As a follow-up to the bridge discussion that took place on Tuesday’s Miami River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Public Hearing, the City of Hialeah is hereby respectfully requesting that the relocation of the existing bascule bridge over the Miami River take place in close proximity to its current location. We propose the bridge be relocated upstream over the Miami River, south of NW 36th St and north of pump S-26, to serve as a pedestrian crossing over the Miami River.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or wish to discuss further.

Respectfully, Jose Sanchez Roadway & Stormwater Engineering Manager

City of Hialeah Streets Department 5601 E 8th Ave Hialeah, Fl 33013 Tel: 305-687-2611 Fax: 305-687-2632

SFRTA MR MICCI Project Corridor Mailing List Name 1 Name 2 Street City State MAIL_ZIP 1315 INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 1315 SE 9 AVENUE HIALEAH FL 33010 18 UNIT PROJECT LLC 13081 SW 133 CT MIAMI FL 33186-5846 1ST CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST ESTATE OF SARA SILVERMAN PO BOX 570 FLORHAM PARK NJ 07932 3630 INVESTMENT CORP PO BOX 563097 MIAMI FL 33256 3665 JAI LAI LLC 306 ALCAZAR #302 CORAL GABLES FL 33134 3820 NW 36TH ST LLC 2900 NW 36 ST MIAMI FL 33142 4201 NW 37TH AVE LLC 6013 JOHNSON ST HOLLYWOOD FL 33024 4511 LASCO LAND LLC 306 ALCAZAR AVE STE 302 CORAL GABLES FL 33134 831 HIALEAH LLC 445 GRAND BAY DR #504 KEY BISCAYNE FL 33149 A FIRE PROTECTION PLUS INC 10350 SW 111 ST MIAMI FL 33176-3415 AA BAKER GROUP LTD 1320 S DIXIE HWY STE 241 CORAL GABLES FL 33146-2937 ACE FIRE SPRINKLERS INC 1115 SE 9 CT MIAMI FL 33010-5817 ACKERLEY REALTY INC 5800 NW 77 CT MIAMI FL 33166-3509 AERO KOOL CORPORATION 1495 SE 10 AVE HIALEAH FL 33010-5916 AEROSEVICIOS USA INC 4020 NW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33142-6730 AIRCO PLATING CO INC 3636 NW 46 ST MIAMI FL 33142-3944 AIRPORT WAREHOUSE ASSOC LLC 223 E FLAGLER ST STE 302 MIAMI FL 33131 AIRWAYS AUTO TAG LLC 12190 SW 100 ST MIAMI FL 33186-2640 ALEJANDRO DIAZ &W NORKA 2133 SW 155 AVE MIAMI FL 33185-5866 ALEXANDER ORTIZ &W LUDDYS ORTIZ JTRS 4530 W 8 LN HIALEAH FL 33012 ALICIA ACOSTA PACHECO 872 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5712 ALICIA QUINTANA TRS 3411 NW 19 STREET MIAMI FL 33125 ALMIR GROUP LLC 1633 NW 27 AVE MIAMI FL 33125 AMADO & DORA ACUNA 138-35 SW 106 TERR MIAMI FL 33186-3136 AMERICA C MENENEZ GONZALEZ 938 SE 12 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5923 AMERICAN FEDERATED TITLE CORP(TR) 3850 HOLLYWOOD BLVD #400 HOLLYWOOD FL 33021 ANDRES SUAREZ & SERGIO FELIPE 165 E 34 ST HIALEAH FL 33013-2619 ANGEL BLANCO 935 SE 9 AVE HIALEAH FL 33010 ANGELINE M PRADO &H NESTOR 6865 SW 98 ST PINECREST FL 33156-3044 ANTHONY ABRAHAM CHEVY CO LTD 1320 S DIXIE HWY STE 241 CORAL GABLES FL 33146-2937 ANTOINE J ST PAUL 15281 SW 212 ST MIAMI FL 33187-4506 ARLENE L SOKOLOW TRS DEBI KEENE TRS 13004 ADAMS CT THORNTON CO 80241 ASHLEY REALTY INC 2209 SE 58 WAY WEST PARK FL 33023 ASSOC FOR RETARDED CITIZENS DADE COUNTY INC 5555 BISCAYNE BLVD MIAMI FL 33137-2656 B&D PLUS 3 INVESTMENT LLC ROBERT CORREA 3180 NW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 BARFIELD INSTRUMENT CORP 4101 NW 29 ST MIAMI FL 33142-5617 BEST RATE MORTG CORP 7364 SW 48 ST MIAMI FL 33155-5523 BETTY K AGENCIES LLC 3701 NW S RIVER DR MIAMI FL 33142-6224 Supermix Bernardo Dias (President) 4300 SW 74 AVE MIAMI FL 33155-4406 BRE LQ FL PROPERTIES L L C C/O LA QUINTA CORP 909 HIDDEN RIDGE STE 600 IRVING TX 75038 BUENA VISTA OF HIALEAH INC 300 STERLING LN NORTHFIELD IL 60093 CARMEN L PENA 533 E 19 ST HIALEAH FL 33013 CENTRAL ESPANOL HOLDINGS LLC 7483 SW 24 ST #101 MIAMI FL 33155 CHAZAR LLC PO BOX 559051 MIAMI FL 33255 CHICAGO DIGITAL POWER REAL ESTATE HOLDNGS LLC 4041 NW 26 ST MIAMI FL 33142-6729 CITY NATL BANK OF MIAMI %WORLD JAI-ALAI 3500 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-4923 CITY NATL BANK OF MIAMI %WORLD JAI-ALAI 3500 NW 35 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-5766 CITY OF HIALEAH PLAY GROUND PARK HIALEAH FL 33013-0000 SFRTA MR MICCI Project Corridor Mailing List CITY OF MIAMI SPRINGS 201 WESTWARD DR MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33166-5259 CONSOLIDADA INTERAMERICANA S A 2945 NW 21 TERR MIAMI FL 33142-7019 CSX TRANSPORTATION INC TAX DEPARTMENT (J910) 500 WATER STREET JACKSONVILLE FL 32202-0000 CUBAN CHAIN MANUFACTURING INC 1400 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5953 DAIMY INVESTMENT INC 3700 NW 46 ST MIAMI FL 33142 DANIELLE MALKIN ROBERT ELKAIM 9047 SW 129 LANE MIAMI FL 33176 DAVID JANNEY TR PRTNSHP 19301 SW 106 AVE SUITE 15 MIAMI FL 33157-7647 DAVID JANNEY TR PRTNSHP 19301 SW 106TH AVE SUITE#15 MIAMI FL 33157-7647 DDT ENTERP LLC 641 DE SOTO DR MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33166 DODD COMMUNICATIONS PROPERTY LLC 1350 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 9FL NEW YORK NY 10019 DORIS I HERNANDEZ 1298 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010 EARL S HEATHERDALE & BEVERLY L HEATHERDALE 4590 NW 37 CT MIAMI FL 33142-4247 EAST COST TANK SEALING INC C/O DONALD BOWER JR P O BOX 661199 MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33266 EDDIE BARRIOS 4590 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 ELIAS LEGRA SR TRS 525 E 9 ST HIALEAH FL 33010 ELISE P SKLAR 10170 SW 4 ST PLANTATION FL 33324 EMJ QUANTUM ENTERP INC 2645 SW 137 TERR MIRAMAR FL 33027 ERNESTO ALVAREZ &W TATIANA 14920 SW 183 TERR MIAMI FL 33187-6807 ESTEBAN T HERNANDEZ 1222 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010 21050 POINT PLACE #3104 AVENTURA FL 33180 EUGENE EISENBERG TRS John Lukacs, ATTORNEY 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 4th Floor CORAL GABLES FL 33134 EWE WAREHOUSE INVEST EAST AIRPORT LLC 10165 NW 19 ST MIAMI FL 33172 EWE WAREHOUSE INVESTMENTS EAST AIRPORT LLC 10165 NW 19 ST MIAMI FL 33172 FELIX FLORES &W DAISY 18123 SW 87 PL MIAMI FL 33157-5984 FLA GAS TRANSMISSION CORP PO BOX 4967 HOUSTON TX 77210-4967 FLA POWER & LIGHT CO ATTN PROPERTY TAX DEPT 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH FL 33408 FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS D/B/A MIAMI JAI-ALAI INC ETALS 3500 NW 35 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS INC D/B/A MIAMI JAI-ALAI INC 3500 NW 35 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS INC CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLA 3500 NW 35 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 FLORIDA MINI STOR IT LLC 1547 N FLORIDA MANGO RD STE 1-3 WEST PALM BEAC H FL 33409 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO ATTN: PROPERTY TAX 700 UNIVERSE BLVD JUNO BEACH FL 33408-0420 FPT FLORIDA LAND LLC 3400 E LAFAYETTE DETROIT MI 48207 FRANCISCO ABELLA &W ELSA 3925 NW 37 CT MIAMI FL 33142-4209 FRANCISCO J ALTUNA 17434 SW 12 ST PEMBROKE PINES FL 33029 FRANCISCO ORTEGA &W OLGA PO BOX 171625 HIALEAH FL 33017-1625 G & R DEVELOPMENT OF MIAMI INC 4040 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-4206 GARGOR LLC 4000 NW 29 ST MIAMI FL 33142 GAS LC 16670 SW 148 AVE MIAMI FL 33187 GIOVANNA SANCHEZ 824 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010 GLOBAL APPROACH INC 9559 COLLINS AVE #703 SURFSIDE FL 33154 GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 1401 SE 9TH CT HIALEAH FL 33101 GONZALO HERNANDEZ MARIA E HERNANDEZ 1361 SE 9 AVE HIALEAH FL 33010-5907 GONZALO ESTEVEZ 7160 SW 8TH STREET MIAMI FL 33144 GRED JIMENEZ 9220 FONTAINBLEAU BLVD #204 MIAMI FL 33172 GRUPO ANDINO S A P O BOX 14-3131 CORAL GABLES FL 33114 H 1070 LLC 6500 COWPEN RD STE 101 MIAMI LAKES FL 33014 HABER & SONS PLUMBING INC 4106 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 HERMES ARCIA 940 SE 8 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5704 HERTZ REALTY CORP 3795 NW 21 ST MIAMI FL 33142-6894 SFRTA MR MICCI Project Corridor Mailing List HERTZ REALTY CORP % BERNICE FEEST-TAX DEPT 225 BRAE BLVD PARK RIDGE NJ 07656 HOME DEPOT USA INC 2455 W PACES FERRY RD BLD C 20FL ATLANTA GA 30339 HOWARD YASGAR 4500 NW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-4220 HVS HOLDINGS LLC 815 VISCAYA LN ALTAMONTE SPRINGS FL 32701 I & J REAL ESTATE CORP& MAURICE RAGOSIN 2525 NW 39 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-6741 ICONO LLC 410 NW 35 ST UNIT #1 MIAMI FL 33127 INES FUENTES TRS PO BOX 565816 MIAMI FL 33256 INES TEMPRANA 945 SE 9 AVE HIALEAH FL 33010-5807 INNER CITY HOLDINGS OF MIAMI LLC 9100 S DADELAND BLVD SUITE 912 MIAMI FL 33156 INNER CITY HOLDINGS OF MIAMI LLC 780 NW LEJEUNE RD STE 516 MIAMI FL 33126-5538 IRIS CICERO 1800 NE 114 ST #806 MIAMI FL 33181-3417 IRON MOUNTAIN CORP 3775 NW 36 ST MIAMI FL 33142-4966 ISLAND LIVING CO INC 3660 NW 41 ST MIAMI FL 33142 J BARRIOS ENTERPRISES LLC 1664 SW 9 ST MIAMI FL 33135 J D CARGO & INVESTMENTS CORP 4233 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 J X REALTY LLC 29-09 BROADWAY ASTORIA NY 11106 JACK K THOMAS JR (TR) 25 SW 2 AVE MIAMI FL 33130-1502 JEFFDELLE INC 4440 NW 36 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-4220 JEROME ALBERT YOHAM SR FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC 7895 GRAND CANAL RD MIAMI FL 33144 JESUS L MUNOZ &W MARLEN 1402 E 7 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-3214 JOAN M FLUTIE ALBERT E FLUTE EST OF 6915 MAIN ST APT 328 MIAMI LAKES FL 33014 JOHNNY & MACK INC 3747 NW 36 ST MIAMI FL 33142-4913 JOHNNY & MACK INC 3647 NW 36 ST MIAMI FL 33142-4913 JOSE G DEL RIO &W ADRIANA C 6523 SW 47 ST MIAMI FL 33155-5939 JOSE OLIVARES &W MARGARITA 862 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5712 JUAN DE DIOS PROPERTY INC P O BOX 660536 MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33266 JULIO DELGADO & MANUEL ROLLE 3920 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-4204 JV LLC 4401 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142-4227 LALE CORP 3703 NW 41 ST MIAMI FL 33142-4215 LAPOINTE FAMILY LLC 1900 PRESTON TRAIL CORAL SPRINGS FL 33071 LAWS ENGRAVING INC 3976 NW 28 ST MIAMI FL 33142-5610 LEIGH W MCCREARY PAUL D MCCREARY 10720 WHITEWIND CIRCLE BOYNTON BEACH FL 33473 LEJEUNE PROPERTIES INC % ROBIN LUKACS ESQ 3650 NW S RIVER DR MIAMI FL 33142 LESLIE EISENBERG &W SUSAN 3775 NW 36 ST MIAMI FL 33142-4966 LISLEI V GAMARRA CELI WRIGHT 4290 NW 37 CT MIAMI FL 33142 LIZY APARTMENTS LLC 7390 SW 154 TERR MIAMI FL 33157-2466 LOS TRAVIESOS INC 6675 WEST 4 AVE #406 HIALEAH FL 33012 LUIS ELERA &W BETHSAIDA MALDONADO 1090 NIGHTINGALE AVE MIAMI FL 33166-3829 MANUEL E DOBAO LE ANA DOBAO LE 3828 NW 37 CT MIAMI FL 33142 MANUEL J AGUERO 20 OLIVE DR HIALEAH FL 33010-5226 MANUEL SEAGE TRS & LILIA A SEAGE TRS 2210 ALHAMBRA CIR CORAL GABLES FL 33134-2107 MARCHELLI ENTERPRISES INC 1001 SE 11 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5800 MARCIA M GUMBERG 2201 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 MARGATE INVESTMENT CORP % E M WRIGHT P O BOX 291298 PORT ORANGE FL 32129-1298 MARIA C JORGE TR 3300 ROSLYN RD OAK BROOK IL 60523 MARIA F CALARESE PO BOX 521721 MIAMI FL 33152 MARIA M VELAZQUEZ 876 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5712 MARIE BESSON 3600 NW 46 ST MIAMI FL 33142-3944 MATEO MILOS &W ALICIA 3396 NW SOUTH RIVER DR MIAMI FLAMI BCH FL 33142-6952 SFRTA MR MICCI Project Corridor Mailing List MATSUI PICCIOLO TR 19961 NE 10 PLACE WAY MIAMI FL 33179-2504 MECCA MULTI MEDIA INC 10320 NW 32 CT MIAMI FL 33147-1110 MEUCHADIM OF FLORIDA LP 6100 HOLLYWOOD BLVD STE 709 HOLLYWOOD FL 33024 MIAMI AIRPORT WAREHOUSES LLC 9201 SW 102 ST MIAMI FL 33176-3046 MIAMI AIRPORT WAREHOUSES LLC 9201 SW 102 ST MIAMI FL 33176-3046 MIAMI AP HOTEL LLC 545 E JOHN CARPENTER FREEWAY STE #1300 IRVING TX 75062 MIAMI DADE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 3790 NW 21 ST MIAMI FL 33142-6812 MIAMI DADE COUNTY WASD 3071 SW 38 AVE MIAMI FL 33146-1520 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TRANSIT AGENCY 701 NW 1 CT STE 1600 MIAMI FL 33136 MIAMI DADE COUNTY GSA RE MIC 111 NW 1 ST STE 2460 MIAMI FL 33128 MIAMI DADE COUNTY GSA - R/E MIC 111 NW 1 ST STE 2460 MIAMI FL 33128 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TRANSIT DEPARTMENT 701 SW 1 CT STE 1600 MIAMI FL 33136 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TRANSIT AGENCY 701 NW 1 CT STE 1600 MIAMI FL 33136 MIAMI DADE COUNTY AVIATION DEPT (MDAD) PO BOX 025504 MIAMI FL 33102 MIAMI DADE COUNTY AVIATION DEPARTMENT PO BOX 592075 MIAMI FL 33159-2075 MIAMI DADE COUNTY GSA - R/E MGMT 111 NW 1 ST STE 2460 MIAMI FL 33128 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TRANSIT DEPT 701 NW 1 CT STE 1600 MIAMI FL 33136 MIAMI DADE COUNTY MIAMI DADE TRANSIT 701 NW 1 CT 15 FL MIAMI FL 33136 MIAMI DADE COUNTY R/W DEPARTMENT 111 NW 1 ST MIAMI FL 33128-1902 MIAMI DADE COUNTY TRANSIT DEPARTMENT 701 NW 1 CT STE 1600 MIAMI FL 33136-3914 MIAMI DADE CTY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORI 3790 NW 21 ST MIAMI FL 33142-6812 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 111 NW 1 ST STE 1610 MIAMI FL 33128-1924 MIC PROPERTIES INC 811 PONCE DE LEON BLVD #100 CORAL GABLES FL 33134-3007 MIRTA C RODRIGUEZ 3295 W 4 AVE HIALEAH FL 33012-5308 MJG REAL PROPERTIES LLC % JOHN GUARINO 269 N COCONUT LN MIAMI BEACH FL 33139 NEW HORIZONS COMM-BOUND INDIV 929 SE 12 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5945 NORMA LLANES ORLANDO LLANES 80 SOUTH DR MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33166 NORTHWEST DADE CENTER INC 4175 W 20 AVE HIALEAH FL 33012-5874 NOVUS MANAGEMENT LLC 4029 SW 25 ST MIAMI FL 33142 ODALIS L RODRIGUEZ 9856 NW 26 AVE MIAMI FL 33147-2128 ORLANDO PEREZ &W CARMELA 1402 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5953 ORLANDO RIESGO &W TOMASA 920 S E 8 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5704 ORLANDO SARMIENTO BERTHA HERNANDEZ 840-844 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010 OROSHNIK PROPERTY I LLC 5502 NW 37 AVE MIAMI FL 33142 PAPA JOE INC 20515 E COUNTRY CLUB DR #2146 AVENTURA FL 33180-3046 PARADE FLOATS USA INC 3759 NW 38 ST MIAMI FL 33142-4956 PAULA MONZON 946 SE 8 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5704 PEDRO ROJO &W BARBARA G NEUGART 1050 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5816 PINNACLE PLAZA LTD 9400 S DADELAND BLVD #100 MIAMI FL 33156-2811 RAINBOW PROPERTIES INC % E M WRIGHT P O 291298 PORT ORANGE FL 32129-1298 RAMON FLORES &W ARGELIA 984 SE 1 PL HIALEAH FL 33010-5506 RIVER PROPERTIES INC Frank Bona 255 E DANIA BCH BLVD #230 DANIA FL 33004 RIVER SOLUTIONS LLC 1955 NW 110 AVE MIAMI FL 33172 RIVIERA PROPERTIES GROUP INC 1399 SE 9 AVE HIALEAH FL 33010-5928 RKMR INC 880 E 9 ST HIALEAH FL 33010 ROBERT P CARLEY & MARTHA J TRS 4111 NW 37 AVE OFFICE MIAMI FL 33142-4249 ROLANDO MANZANO &W EVELYN & 812-16 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5712 RONALD C CHIN INC 206 E ROBERTSON ST BRANDON FL 33511 ROVIRA Y COMPANIA LLC P O BOX 138627 HIALEAH FL 33013-8627 SFRTA MR MICCI Project Corridor Mailing List RUBEN ALVAREZ &W RAQUEL ALVAREZ 2900 SW 21 ST MIAMI FL 33145 S & S PALMER LK LLC C/O WENDY SAGER POMERANTZ 9000 SCHOOLHOUSE RD MIAMI FL 33156 SAG REALTY LLC 13105 NW 42 AVE OPA LOCKA FL 33054-4435 SEGAR ENTERPRISES INC 647 N.W. 131 AVE. MIAMI FL 33182-1174 SEGAR ENTERPRISES INC 13341 SW 1 TERR MIAMI FL 33184-1164 SEGAR ENTERPRISES INC 647 NW 131 AVE MIAMI FL 33182-1174 SIMKINS AIRPORT PROPERTY LLC 301 W 41 ST STE 406 MIAMI BEACH FL 33140 SOCORRO INTL ENTERPRISES CORP 7350 NW 7 ST STE 204 MIAMI FL 33126 SOSA INVESTMENTS GROUP LLC 226 PINECREST DR MIAMI SPRINGS FL 33166 SOSA INVESTMENTS INC 540 W 77 ST HIALEAH FL 33014-4208 SOUTH FLA WATER MANAGEMENT PO BOX 24680 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33416 SPECIAL AMERICAS BBQ INC P O BOX 960458 MIAMI FL 33296 STATE OF FLORIDA D O T 1000 NW 111 AVE MIAMI FL 33172-5800 STEVEN HERNANDEZ YESENIA DIAZ 637 CUDA LANE KEY LARGO FL 33037 SUNNY PROPERTIES OF MIAMI INC 4780 NW 128 ST RD OPA LOCKA FL 33054 SUNNY PROPERTIES OF MIAMI INC 4300 NW 37 AVE HIALEAH FL 33142-4226 SWEET RIVER HARBOR LLC 5760 SW 8 ST #500 MIAMI FL 33144 THE HERTZ CORP 255 BRAE BLVD PARK RIDGE NJ 07656 THEOREM ONE INC 3640 NW 41 ST MIAMI FL 33142 TITAN TECHNOLOGIES INC 4120 NW 28 ST MIAMI FL 33142-5614 TITAN TECHNOLOGIES INC 2540 NW 38 CT MIAMI FL 33142 TRINET CORP REALTY TRUST INC % E PROPERTY TAX P O BOX 4900 DEPT 114 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85261 U S CENTURY BANK 2301 NW 87 AVE 3RD FLOOR MIAMI FL 33172 VIDAL MORENO &W MIRTA 830 W 53 ST MIAMI FL 33012-2417 VIDAL MORENO &W MIRTA & AGUSTINA 830 W 53 ST HIALEAH FL 33012-2417 WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATES NO #1 4834 SW 75 AVE MIAMI FL 33155-4437 WASTE SERVICES OF FLA INC C/O HARDING & CARBONE INC 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD HOUSTON TX 77025 WASTE SERVICES OF FLA INC C/O IVAN R CAIMS 3903 BELLAIRE BLVD HOUSTON TX 77025 WASTE SERVICES OF FLA INC C/O IVAN R CAIMS 1122 INTERNATIONAL BLVD STE 601 BURLINGTON ONTARIO L7L 6Z8 WHITE SANDS LLC 1388 SE 9 CT HIALEAH FL 33010-5913 YOLANDA JIMENEZ 915 SE 9 AVE HIALEAH FL 33010-5807 ZENAIDA DE LA PAZ 942 SE 8 ST HIALEAH FL 33010-5704

Note: Addresses that did not have a forwarding address and could be removed from the list before 2016 mailing

Properties upstream of the Miami River Bridge

Three returns from 2016 mailing 1

1 SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2 3 4 Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Project 5 Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

6 7 Public Hearing 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tuesday, May 24, 2016 14 15 16 17 Public Hearing of the for the Miami 18 River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement 19 (MR-MICCI) Project held at Board Room at the 20 Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, 3790 Northwest 21st 21 Street, Miami, Florida 33142, on the 24th day of 22 May, 2016, commencing at or about 6:03 p.m. - 6:29 23 p.m., pursuant to Notice of Public Hearing. 24 25 ______2

1 The Record of the Proceedings of a Public Hearing of 2 the Miami-River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity 3 Improvement Project, Project Development and 4 Environment (PD&E) Study, had at the Board Room at 5 the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, 3790 Northwest 6 21st Street, Miami, Florida, on Tuesday, May 24, 7 2016, commencing at or about 6:03 p.m.: 8 9 10 PRESENT: 11 12 DENIS EIRIKIS, Public Involvement Officer. 13 JESSICA VARGAS ASTAIZA, Project Manager of TriRail. 14 JOHN LAFFERTY, Parsons Brinckerhoff. 15 GREG KYLE, Kimley Horn. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

1 Whereupon the following formal public hearing 2 proceedings commenced as follows at approximately 3 6:03 p.m.: 4 MR. EIRIKIS: Ladies and gentlemen, could 5 you please take your seat for the formal party 6 of the Public Hearing. 7 We will be having open house after the 8 hearing and presentation if you have any other 9 comments or questions. 10 Good evening. It is 6:03 p.m. on May 24th 11 of 2016 and we would like to open up this 12 Public Hearing. 13 Thank you ladies and gentlemen for making 14 it out here. My name is is Denis Eirikis. I 15 am the public involvement officer on this 16 project, which is the Miami River - Miami 17 Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement Project, 18 which is so much easier to say, MR-MICCI, which 19 is what we usually call it. 20 Here with me tonight I would like to 21 introduce, one, I would like to acknowledge, 22 Mayor Carlos Hernandez from the City of 23 Hialeah. 24 MAYOR HERNANDEZ: Thank you. 25 MR. EIRIKIS: Thank you very much. 4

1 MAYOR HERNANDEZ: Thank you, guys. 2 MR. EIRIKIS: And I would like to 3 introduce the project manager from TriRail, the 4 South Florida Regional Transportation 5 Authority, Jessica Vargas Astaiza. Did I 6 introduce you there, right? This is Jessica. 7 And I would like to ask the rest of our 8 staff, project staff, to introduce themselves, 9 please. 10 MR. LAFFERTY: Good evening. John 11 Lafferty of Parsons Brinckerhoff. 12 MR. KYLE: Greg Kyle with Kimley Horn. 13 MR. RAIRDEN: Ian Rairden also with Kimley 14 Horn. 15 MR. LIBERMAN: Eric Liberman, Parsons 16 Brinckerhoff. 17 MR. HARDEN: Ken Harden, Janus Research. 18 MR. ROTHCHILD: Adriano Rothchild with 19 Kimley Horn. 20 MR. EIRIKIS: Thank you very much. This 21 Public Hearing serves as an official public 22 forum providing an opportunity for the public 23 to express their opinions and concerns 24 regarding the project. 25 All the participation at this hearing is 5

1 encouraged and solicited without regard to 2 race, color, national origin, age, sex, 3 religion, disability or family status. 4 There is three parts to tonight's Public 5 Hearing. One is we just had the open house 6 portion where the people have an informal. We 7 will revert to that after the formal 8 presentation. 9 In a minute we are going to have a formal 10 presentation. And then after the formal 11 presentation, if anyone would like their 12 comments to go on the record there is three 13 ways to do that. 14 One, we have a court reporter here. You 15 can fill out a speaker card, please, and come 16 up to the microphone and make your comments and 17 they will be reported or, after the meeting, 18 you can go to the court reporter directly or to 19 the comment table if you care to write the 20 comments yourself. 21 Comments are only -- They will close in 22 ten business days -- excuse me -- ten calendar 23 days, which would be on the close of business 24 of June 3rd. You would have until then to get 25 your comments in by e-mail or stamped mail. It 6

1 would have to be postmarked by June 3rd. No 2 matter how we hear the comment, your comments 3 will be forwarded. 4 And with that I would like to give you 5 Jessica for the formal presentation. 6 MS. ASTAIZA: Thank you. Good evening, 7 everybody. Thank you so much for being here. 8 As Denis said, my name is Jessica Vargas 9 Astaiza, the project manager for MR-MICCI, 10 Miami-River - Miami Intermodal Center Capacity 11 Improvement Project. 12 We really appreciate your attendance here. 13 This is a very important project for our 14 agency, for our operations of the TriRail, 15 which is a commuter rail we operate, and 16 particularly for the Tri-County Region as it 17 seeks to add capacity to the rail corridor that 18 right now is just this one mile and a quarter 19 that is not double-tracked. The rest of the 20 corridor has two tracks and this is the 21 southernmost part of the corridor that is still 22 missing that additional track, which will 23 increase capacity. 24 And that would allow, you know, the trains 25 to go into the new facility that you probably 7

1 have all seen when you came into the Miami 2 Intermodal Center, where then our trains will 3 be able to connect better and with more 4 reliability and the system enhancement in terms 5 of the schedule get there on time to connect 6 with Metrorail, Metrobus, the future Amtrak, 7 Greyhound is already there, and then better 8 connections to the airport and the Metromover. 9 With that I would like for our team here 10 to then present to you the project. I think 11 some of you already got an overview looking at 12 some of the boards, but this presentation will 13 give you all of the information with regard as 14 to why we are here, where we stand in the 15 process and then we will present to you the 16 preferred alternative that we would like to go 17 forward. 18 So thank you and I would allow Denis 19 to start his. John. Sorry. Thank you. 20 MR. LAFFERTY: Thank you, Jessica. 21 Jessica had mentioned that the purpose of 22 this project is to increase the rail capacity 23 within the existing South Florida rail corridor 24 where the South Florida Regional Transportation 25 Authority currently operates parallel passenger 8

1 service. 2 This is a 72-mile corridor. All but one 3 and a quarter miles in this project area that 4 you see up here at the front table and on 5 boards is double track, with the exception of 6 this one and a quarter-mile segment. 7 The need for this project is to improve 8 the system linkage, address existing and future 9 transportation demands on original constraints. 10 There is, in addition to the passenger rail 11 system, there is Tri-Rail, there is existing 12 freight service as well as future Amtrak 13 service that will be providing passenger rail 14 into Miami Intermodal Center. 15 It also seeks to support, you know, the 16 development as well as improvement of those 17 modal relationships that exist at the Miami 18 Intermodal Center. 19 This Public Hearing is held in accordance 20 with but not limited to the National 21 Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 23 of the 22 United States Code, 128, Federal Highway Act, 23 1968, as amended, as well as the Florida 24 Statutes, 389.155. 25 The Public Hearing was advertised 9

1 consistent with Federal and State requirements 2 as being conducted consistent with the American 3 with Disabilities Act of 1990. This Public 4 Hearing is being held to give all interested 5 persons the right to understand the project, 6 comment on their concerns. The public 7 participation at this hearing is encouraged and 8 solicited without regard to race, color, creed, 9 religion, sex, age, national origin, disability 10 or familial status. 11 There are several key phases in the 12 planning and the project development process as 13 we see before you here. We are in the process 14 now where we are completing an Environmental 15 Assessment. Those are the very early stages of 16 the project development process. It involves 17 alternative analysis and is accepted before 18 entering the preliminary engineering followed 19 by final design and construction. 20 The public involvement is consistent on 21 task connectivity that appears throughout each 22 one of these tasks as part of the project 23 development process. 24 As I mentioned before, and in accordance 25 with the National Environmental Policy Act, 10

1 this Environmental Assessment has a lead 2 federal sponser through the Federal Transit 3 Administration, co-sponsored with the 4 cooperating agency of the United States Coast 5 Guard. 6 There are a number of technical reports 7 that helped to inform the Environmental 8 Assessment that will be a part of what is 9 commonly called the administrative record that 10 are listed here before you, that will include 11 the Cultural Resources Assessment Report, the 12 Preliminary Evaluation Report. 13 There are number of technical documents 14 that address the physical, social and the 15 natural environment. 16 Public involvement and opportunities to be 17 provided throughout the planning and project 18 development process to understand the potential 19 issues and to allow the public to provide input 20 that results in the development of a 21 transportation system that meets the community 22 needs and desires. 23 The Environmental Assessment completed for 24 the MIC-MICCI Project will be summarized next, 25 including a description of the post-project and 11

1 the summary of the results of the Environment 2 Assessment. 3 Throughout this process we have had 4 extensive stakeholder coordination, meeting 5 with a number of agency stakeholders throughout 6 the last several years, holding project 7 alternatives workshops, as well as engaging the 8 Miami River Marine Group, the Miami River 9 Commission, as well as a number of the property 10 owners that are present here this evening as 11 well as briefing various elected officials. 12 This just lists again the additional 13 agencies that have been involved and state 14 agencies that have been involved thoughout the 15 entire process from the Florida Department of 16 Transportation engaged in the Federal Transit 17 Administration as well as the U.S. Coast Guard 18 as the federal sponsors, as well as a number of 19 the County organizations and regional planning 20 authorities. 21 Existing conditions of the corridor, as 22 mentioned before, is about a mile and a quarter 23 long of single track. There is a right-of-way 24 within this rail corridor and in some areas the 25 most constrained in about 60 feet and it varies 12

1 up to 80 feet at particular segments. There is 2 an existing Hialeah Market Tri-Rail Station. 3 It is currently a single platform that is on 4 the west side and it is adjacent to Hialeah 5 Seaboard and Air Line Railway Station, which is 6 considered historical. 7 There is also the Miami Airport Station, 8 which is the Tri-Rail terminus and the southern 9 part of their system at the Miami Intermodal 10 Center that opened in April of 2015. 11 There is the existing Miami River Bridge. 12 This bridge was constructed in the 1920's. It 13 is on the National Register of historic places 14 as an eligible historic structure. 15 There is limited openings that exist with 16 this bridge. You need to call in advance, 17 48-hour call-up ahead of period is mandated, 18 for there needs to be a bridge attendant that 19 actually opens and closes the bridge. 20 There are some issues with the bridge 21 currently not operating properly it does result 22 in some delays with existing passenger rail 23 trains. 24 Directly adjacent to this corridor is the 25 airport Metrorail extension. That is the 13

1 elevated fixed structure where Metrorail 2 operates from Earlington Heights into the Miami 3 Intermodal Center. And this bridge does extend 4 over the Miami River, which is considered a 5 federal navigable channel, and about 6 approximately west or upstream of this bridge 7 is about a thousand feet of navigable channel. 8 Again, looking at the operational 9 requirements for the purpose of meaning and 10 understanding the future conditions, today 11 there is current 50 Tri-Rail passenger rail 12 trains that operate every weekday. There is 13 anywhere from six to eight freight trains as 14 well as four AmTrak trains in the plans to 15 operate at within this corridor and to extend 16 their service from the existing Hialeah yard 17 into the Miami Intermodal Center. 18 In addition to that the regular service, 19 although there is certainly trains that travel 20 back and forth from the Miami Intermodal Center 21 for light maintenance. That would be the 22 AmTrak service. 23 The description of our project is to add a 24 second main line track to the South Florida 25 rail corridor and the Miami Intermodal Center 14

1 and it is just north of the Hialeah Market 2 Tri-Rail Station beyond Northwest 46th Street. 3 As part of these improvements this will 4 include at-grade crossing improvements as well 5 as signal improvements. 6 We went through an operational analysis 7 very early on as part of our evaluation. We 8 determined that additional tracks such that 9 this section had two tracks would meet not only 10 the existing or current, but future capacity 11 demands. 12 We also looked for opportunities where we 13 can add improvements to the existing Tri-Rail 14 Hialeah Market Station. And what the solution 15 there was to look at the center platform as 16 well as looking further down south and looking 17 at whether a new bridge is necessary to provide 18 additional two tracks over the Miami River. 19 As I mentioned, Hialeah Market preferred 20 alternative is a center platform with at-grade 21 access at the station. This required no new or 22 additional right-of-way. 23 We also would be looking at providing 24 additional passenger shelter or canopies, as an 25 upgrade or improvement from what is out there 15

1 today. 2 As mentioned before, there is a historic 3 structure to support building and there would 4 be no impact to that existing structure that 5 was proposed in prudence. 6 In addition to that there is some bridge 7 alternatives. There is what is called a 8 "No-build alternative." This is a do-nothing 9 alternative, which would result in keeping the 10 existing structure intact and rehabilitate that 11 existing movable structure. 12 Build alternative number one is the option 13 to keep the existing structure in place, to 14 rehabilitate that bridge, and add a new fixed 15 bridge. 16 You will see a comparative matrix a little 17 later on in a slide presentation, but with that 18 additional -- Keeping that additional existing 19 bridge, and putting a new movable structure, 20 does require minimal horizontal clearance, 21 which results in similar use of train design 22 speeds because of the curvature of the track. 23 The second build alternative is to remove 24 the existing bridge all together and add a new 25 fixed structure over the Miami River, 16

1 double-track structure. 2 And with that I will turn this over to 3 Greg to discuss the environmental impacts. 4 MR. KYLE: Good evening. I am Greg Kyle 5 with Kimley Horn. 6 And as part of the Project Development and 7 Enviroment Study, the impact of the project's 8 build alternatives and no-build alternative 9 were evaluated with their impacts to the 10 natural, social and physical environment. This 11 Environmental Assessment is summarized within 12 the project's Environmental Assessment Report 13 and we will begin by going over the impacts to 14 the natural environment. 15 The evaluation document in the project is 16 not expected to have significant encroachment 17 on the flood plain or the wetland impacts. 18 The West Indian manatee is the only 19 endangered or threatened species with a high 20 likelihood of occurrence within the project 21 area. 22 And U.S. Fish and Wildlife conditions and 23 water work will be implemented and required 24 during construction to offset any impacts to 25 the manatee. And that includes in ceasing all 17

1 water operations if the manatee comes within 50 2 feet of construction. 3 An essential fish habitat assessment was 4 performed for the project and it determined the 5 presence of shell and sand bottoms in the area 6 of the bridge crossing. 7 However, the project is not located within 8 nor will it have any impacts on the habitat 9 area of a particular concern. The National 10 Marine Fishery Services has recommended to 11 implement a Storm Water Management Plan as part 12 of the implementation of this project. 13 The project is not anticipated to have any 14 impacts on any impact to air quality. In 15 addition, the project is not expected to result 16 in any noise or vibration impacts to the 17 surrounding area from its operations. 18 Contamination. Screening was performed 19 for the project. Four of the surrounding areas 20 were identified: High, medium and lowrisk 21 sites for contamination. 22 The South Florida corridor or rail 23 corridor itself is the only medium or high-risk 24 site suspected to be impacted by this project. 25 DERM future phases of the project: 18

1 Avoidance, minimization and remediation 2 measures will be employed as part of the 3 advancement. 4 In addition, an asbestos and lead-based 5 paint evaluation will be performed for the 6 existing bridge before it is removed. 7 An evaluation of potential construction 8 and impacts associated with the project 9 determined that the construction of the new 10 bridge may damage the existing bridge. The 11 technique will be need to be employed to 12 minimize these impacts. 13 In addition, the best management practices 14 need to be employed and employed as part of 15 this project to minimize impacts on traffic, 16 air quality, noise and vibration during 17 construction. 18 Some examples of these best management 19 practices include developing a maintenance and 20 traffic plan, water in trucks to minimize the 21 dust produced from construction activities, 22 minimizing unnecessary vehicle and equipment 23 idling, covering the trucks that are hauling 24 debris. 25 The evaluation of social impacts 19

1 determined the project is consistent with the 2 existing future land use in the area. No 3 adverse affects are expected on minority and 4 low-income populations. Therefore, no 5 disproportionate impacts will occur to these 6 populations. 7 In addition, the project is expected to 8 provide a benefit to using of the transit 9 system, which do include minority and 10 low-income populations. 11 There are no expected impacts to visual 12 and aesthetic resources in the corridor. 13 Right-of-way acquisition necessary for the 14 project will be conducted consistent with 15 Florida Statute and the Uniform Relocation 16 Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 17 Policies Act. Owners of property to be 18 acquired will be paid fair market value for 19 their property. 20 The preferred alternative will require the 21 acquisition of right-of-way from several 22 adjacent properties. 23 In addition, the project's build 24 alternatives will limit navigation upstream or 25 to the west of the rail corridors crossing at 20

1 the Miami River. Therefore, navigation would 2 be adversely impacted for three properties 3 located upstream with rail corridors crossing 4 at the Miami River. 5 It is important to note that navigation in 6 this area has already been limited by the 7 Metorail airport link crossing at the Miami 8 River. 9 In addition to that, the property owners 10 may be compensated for the navigation impacts 11 associated with the project's build 12 alternatives. 13 A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey was 14 performed to identify historic resources in the 15 project area. There is one resource which is 16 listed on the National Register of Historic 17 Places, the Hialeah Seaboard Air Line Railway 18 Station. 19 In addition, there are four resources that 20 are eligible for listing on the National 21 Register of Historic Places: The CSX Railroad, 22 the Miami Central Station Railroad Spur, The 23 CSX Railroad Bridge and the Miami River/Miami 24 Canal. 25 Those resources were shown on the map that 21

1 is on the screen right now. 2 Section 106 of the National Historic 3 Preservation Act requires federal agencies to 4 take into account the effects of their 5 undertakings on historic properties. This 6 includes evaluating the effects of each 7 alternative on the historic resources and 8 coordinating with local, state and federal 9 agencies. 10 As part of Section 106, consultations 11 performed for the project, three cultural 12 resource committee meetings were held in 2015. 13 And some of the agencies that participated in 14 these meetings included the State Historic 15 Preservation Officer, the Federal Transit 16 Administration, the United States Coast Guard, 17 the City of Miami Historian and the Miami-Dade 18 County Historian. 19 Section 4F of the United States Department 20 of Transportation Act, establishes requirements 21 for consideration of park and recreational 22 lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and 23 historical sites and transportation project 24 development. 25 Some of the conditions are to show that 22

1 there is no feasible and prudent alternative 2 that include the avoidance and use of the 3 Section 4F property and to demonstrate the 4 project includes all possible planning to 5 minimize harm to the Section 4F property 6 resulting from the transportation use. 7 Federal Transit Administration is seeking 8 input from the public on the potential facts to 9 Section 4F resources. 10 As part of this Section 106 consultation 11 process was determined that the no-build 12 alternative would not likely result in any 13 adverse affects to historic resources. 14 It was determined that the build 15 alternative number one may have an adverse 16 affect on the CSX railroad bridge. 17 It was further determined that build 18 alternative number two would have an adverse 19 affect on the CSX railroad bridge. 20 Based on these findings Section 4F 21 evaluation will be conducted for the CSX 22 railroad bridge. 23 Expected engineering and environmental 24 impacts were summarized with the no-build and 25 build alternatives. 23

1 The no-build alternative does not address 2 the purpose and need of the project to provide 3 two sets of tracks to accommodate the new train 4 movements and corridor. 5 Build alternative number two best 6 addresses the train operations by providing two 7 sets of tracks with a higher train speed than 8 can be provided by build alternative number 9 one. 10 No-build and build alternatives are 11 expected to have minimal impacts to the natural 12 environment, including floodplains, wetlands, 13 essential fish habitat, water quality, 14 threatened and endangered species, air quality, 15 hazardous materials and noise and vibration. 16 In terms of the socio-cultural impacts, 17 build alternative number two is suspected to 18 have adverse impacts on historical resources, 19 which include Section 4F resources. 20 In addition, build alternatives one and 21 two will adverse impact on navigation. 22 In terms of the financial impacts, the 23 no-build alternative will require ongoing 24 maintenance costs for the upkeep of the 25 existing railroad bridge, which is 24

1 approximately 90 years old. 2 Build alternative number one includes 3 capital costs for construction of a new 4 railroad bridge as well as the ongoing 5 maintenance costs for upkeep of the existing 6 railroad bridge. 7 Whereas build alternative number two only 8 requires capital costs for the construction of 9 the new railroad bridge. 10 In summary, the no-build alternative does 11 not meet the purpose and need of the project. 12 It does not provide safety improvements or meet 13 the operational needs of the system. It also 14 results in high operations and maintenance 15 costs associated with the existing railroad 16 bridge. 17 Alternative number one meets the project's 18 purpose and need, but negatively impacts flood 19 control because additional piers would be 20 required to placed in the river for a new 21 bridge adjacent to the existing bridge, which 22 would also remain in place. 23 Alternative one also results in high 24 operations and maintenance costs associated 25 with maintaining the existing bridge. 25

1 Alternative two meets the project's 2 purpose and need, but negatively impacts 3 historic resources. However, alternative two 4 is the most financial addition and long-term 5 solution because it eliminates the need for the 6 ongoing operations and maintenance costs 7 associated with the existing railroad. 8 Following the Public Hearing and comment 9 period subsequent steps in this project will 10 include completing Section 106 and Section 4F 11 processes, as well as the National 12 Environmental Policy Act process which are 13 expected to occur over the next several months 14 and be completed by the winter of 2016. 15 Preliminary engineering will be performed 16 for the project beginning in the summer of 17 2016, along with the acquisition of 18 right-of-way required for the project. 19 Subsequent steps to the project may 20 include the authorization of the navigable 21 channel as well as final design and permitting. 22 This concludes our formal presentation. 23 We are now going to proceed with the public 24 comments process. 25 MR. EIRIKIS: Thank you, Greg. I have not 26

1 received any completed Speaker Request Forms. 2 If anyone would like to speak on the record now 3 and state their name and address for the 4 record, then please fill this out afterwards 5 for the benefit of the court reporter getting 6 the information correct. Now would be the time 7 to do that. 8 When we close the formal part of this 9 meeting you can go over to the court reporter 10 and give comments if you wish. We also have a 11 comment table there. 12 Yes, sir. 13 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: All right. I didn't 14 fill out a comment card, but I would like to 15 pose a question, if I may. 16 MR. EIRIKIS: Sir, the formal part of the 17 hearing is for us to pose the questions to the 18 public. 19 At the end of the meeting the engineers 20 and planners will be available afterwards for 21 questions. 22 UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: That is fine. 23 MR. EIRIKIS: Okay. Let the record 24 reflect, please, that no one has requested to 25 speak. 27

1 So, at 6:29 p.m., I hereby officially 2 close this Public Hearing for the Miami 3 River/Miami Intermodal Center Capacity 4 Improvement Project. 5 And, remember, a court reporter will be 6 available in the back of the room and all the 7 project staff is available for questions. 8 Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. 9 (Whereupon, the Public Hearing was closed 10 at approximately 6:29 p.m.) 11 ______12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28

1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF FLORIDA) SS. 3 COUNTY OF MIAMI DADE) 4 I, Alan J Levine, being a court reporter and a Notary Public in and for the State of Florida 5 at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing Public 6 Hearing of Miami River-Miami Intermodal Center Capacity Improvement (MR-MICCI) Project held at 7 Board Room at the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, 3790 Northwest 21st Street, Miami, Florida, on the 8 24th day of May, 2016, commencing at or about 6:03 p.m. - 6:29 p.m., to the best of my ability at the 9 time and place aforesaid, and that the foregoing pages, numbered one to 27, inclusive, constitute a 10 true record of the proceedings thereof. I further certify that I am not a 11 relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any 12 of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with this matter, nor am I financially interested in the 13 outcome thereof. The foregoing certification does not apply 14 to any reproduction of this transcript by any means unless under the direct control and/or direction of 15 the certifying court reporter. Dated at Miami-Dade County, this 7th day 16 of June, 2016. 17 18 ______Alan J. Levine, Court Reporter 19 Notary Public - State of Florida My commission No.: FF 132454 20 Expires: October 11, 2018 21 22 23 24 25