Finding of No Signficant Impact with Environmental Assessment

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Florida Department of Transportation

In cooperation with U.S. Department of Defense Department of the Air Force, Tyndall Air Force Base, US Coast Guard

Financial Management Number: 442667-1-22-01

Federal Project Number: To be Determined

FDOT Efficient Transportation Decision Making Project Number: 14347

SR 30 (US 98) OVER ST ANDREWS BAY ICWW BRIDGE NO. 460019, Bay County Florida

This Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study involves the replacement of the Dupont Bridge (No. 460019)on US 98 in Bay County. The project limits are from south of the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center to Oak ShoreDrive, a distance of approximately one mile. The Dupont Bridge spans over Saint Andrew Bay (Gulf IntracoastalWaterway) between Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB) on the south and the City of Parker on the north. The existing US 98 roadway is a four-lane divided facility with 12-foot travel lanes along the Dupont Bridge and on theadjacent approaches. The bridge has no inside shoulders and 2.5-foot outside shoulders. The Dupont Bridge isstructurally deficient and, over the existing navigational channel, has a vertical clearance of 50 feet, which does not meetthe United States Coast Guard (USCG) guide vertical clearance for this waterway. The proposed Dupont Bridge will becapable of accommodating six lanes of traffic but will be striped as a four-lane divided facility to accommodate for futurecapacity when needed. The proposed structure will have a six-foot sidewalk for pedestrians and 10-foot shoulders thatcan accommodate bicyclists. Over the navigational channel, the proposed bridge will have a 75-foot vertical clearance. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for thisproject are being, or have been, carried out by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12/14/2016 and executed by the Federal Highway Administration andFDOT. The FDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and contents of the attached Environmental Assessment. The FDOT Office of Environmental Management (OEM) has determined that this project will not have any significantimpact on the human environment. The Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the attached EnvironmentalAssessment which has been independently evaluated by FDOT OEM and determined to adequately and accuratelydiscuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis fordetermining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The Preferred Alternative, known as Alternative West 1, was selected after considering the various social, cultural,environmental, and engineering issues associated with all of the alternatives. The Preferred Alternative has a bridgefootprint located entirely west of the existing bridge and dolphin footprints. No relocations are required for the project andno significant social, economic, cultural, natural, or physical impacts are anticipated. A Public Hearing was held onFebruary 9, 2021 to provide the public the opportunity to comment on the project. Public and agency comments havebeen incorporated into the final Preferred Alternative. A summary of the agency and public comments received during theproject are included in this FONSI.

08/05/2021Date

Jennifer Marshall, P.E., Director, Office of Environmental ManagementFlorida Department of Transportation

For additional information, contact:Brandon BrunerSr. Project ManagerFlorida Department of Transportation1141 E. Jackson AvenueChipley, Florida, 32428Phone: (850) [email protected]

Jennifer Marshall, P.E.Director, Office of Environmental ManagementFlorida Department of Transportation605 Suwannee Street, MS 37Tallahassee, Florida 32399Phone: (863) [email protected]

SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 i

Finding of No Significant Impact For the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Statement on Finding of No Signficant Impact .......................................................... 1

2.0 Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................... 1

4.0 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................. 1

5.0 Planning Consistency ................................................................................................. 4

6.0 Preferred Alternative Impacts .................................................................................... 5

6.1 Social and Economic Resources ..................................................................................... 5 6.1.1 Social ....................................................................................................................... 5 6.1.2 Economic ................................................................................................................. 5 6.1.3 Land Use Changes .................................................................................................. 6 6.1.4 Mobility ................................................................................................................... 6 6.1.5 Aesthetic Effects ..................................................................................................... 7 6.1.6 Relocation Potential ................................................................................................ 7

6.2 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 8 6.2.1 Section 4(f) .............................................................................................................. 8 6.2.2 Historic Sites / Districts .......................................................................................... 8 6.2.3 Archaeological Sites ................................................................................................ 9 6.2.4 Recreational Areas .................................................................................................10

6.3 Natural ..........................................................................................................................11 6.3.1 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters.....................................................................11 6.3.2 Water Quality and Stormwater .............................................................................12 6.3.3 Floodplains .............................................................................................................13 6.3.4 Coastal Zone Consistency ......................................................................................13 6.3.5 Protected Species and Habitat ..............................................................................13 6.3.6 Essential Fish Habitat ...........................................................................................15

6.4 Physical .........................................................................................................................16 6.4.1 Highway Traffic Noise ...........................................................................................16 6.4.2 Air Quality .............................................................................................................16 6.4.3 Contamination .......................................................................................................16 6.4.4 Utilities ..................................................................................................................17 6.4.5 Construction ...........................................................................................................17 6.4.6 Bicycles and Pedestrians .......................................................................................18

Finding of No Significant Impact

SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 ii

6.4.7 Navigation ..............................................................................................................18

7.0 Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 19

7.1 Native American Tribal Coordination ..........................................................................19

7.2 Alternatives Public Meeting .........................................................................................20

7.3 Public Hearing ..............................................................................................................21

7.4 Post-Public Hearing Agency Coordination ...................................................................23

8.0 Commitments ........................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Figure 4.1.1: Preferred Alternative (West 1 Alternative) ........................................................ 3


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 1

1.0 Statement on Finding of No Signficant Impact The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Office of Environmental Management (OEM) has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human environment. The Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the attached Environmental Assessment which has been independently evaluated by FDOT OEM and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment (EA) provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required and is incorporated by reference. The FDOT OEM takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and contents of the attached EA.

2.0 Project Location This Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study involves the replacement of the Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) on US 98 in Bay County. The project limits are from south of the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center to Oak Shore Drive, a distance of approximately one mile. The Dupont Bridge spans over Saint Andrew Bay (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway) between Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB) on the south and the City of Parker on the north.

3.0 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to address the structural issues related to the Dupont Bridge. The current bridge was constructed in 1965 and is considered structurally deficient by the FDOT and therefore must be scheduled for replacement. The need for the project is based on the above-mentioned structural deficiency.

4.0 Preferred Alternative The proposed typical section for the Dupont Bridge roadway approaches is based on the FDOT high speed urban typical section and consists of three 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction. Although design year (2048) traffic only requires a total of four lanes, the bridge



and approaches are being designed to ultimately accommodate six lanes, and the outside lane will be striped out in the opening year. The opposing travel lanes are separated by a 30-foot raised median that includes 6.5-foot inside shoulders and a 17-foot grassed / curb and gutter area. A 6.5-foot buffered bicycle lane is adjacent to each outside lane and is separated from the six-foot sidewalk by curb and gutter and an eight-foot grass strip (10 feet total). The overall right-of-way width required from the high speed urban typical is a minimum of 160 feet. The proposed roadway typical section is shown in Figure 2.3.1 of the EA. The typical section for the Dupont Bridge includes three 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction (the outside lane will be striped out in the opening year) and 10-foot inside and outside shoulders. The 10-foot outside shoulder would function as a bicycle lane. A six-foot sidewalk is separated from the outside shoulder by a concrete barrier wall. The proposed bridge will consist of two parallel structures. A distance of 20 feet between the twin structures is proposed to facilitate construction of the adjacent span, future maintenance, and inspection requirements. Including the barrier walls, each bridge deck is 65’-5.5” wide as measured between the inside and outside copings. The bridge footprint, including the 20-foot spacing between bridges, is 150’-11”, as shown in Figure 2.3.2 of the EA. The Preferred Alternative, known as Alternative West 1, was selected after considering the various social, cultural, environmental, and engineering issues associated with all of the alternatives and is shown in Figure 4.1.1. The Preferred Alternative has a bridge footprint entirely west of the existing bridge and dolphins’ footprint. This alternative is based on the premise that the existing bridge would be retained to carry traffic across Saint Andrew Bay during the construction of the new twin bridges. The existing bridge would be removed after traffic is transferred to the new bridges. In order to provide working space for the demolition of the existing bridge, a distance of 30 feet is provided between the outside of the existing dolphins and the edge of the proposed bridge.

11.6

6

PI +70.2

7E

L.

14.5

7

365' V.C.

PI +83.9

9E

L.

105.3

3

1,238' V.C.

PI +29.3

5E

L.

13.0

7

451' V.C.

11.4

6

+87.8

7 E

L.

14.0

2

+52.6

7 E

L.

22.0

5

+65.1

9 E

L.

79.9

6

+02.7

9 E

L.

74.3

9

+03.7

4 E

L.

24.3

5

+54.9

5 E

L.

12.3

9

ENVIRONMENT STUDY

REPLACEMENT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &

SR 30 (US 98) - DUPONT BRIDGE (NO. 460019) NO.

SHEET

$D

AT

E$

$TIM

E$

$FIL

E$

$US

ER$

120125

130

135140 145 150 155 160

165

170

175

180

130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00125+00120+00

RIP RAP

POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING

PROPOSED SIDEWALK

PROPOSED BARRIER WALL

PROPOSED MEDIAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPERTY LINE

PROPOSED TIITF EASEMENT

EXISTING TIITF EASEMENT

PROPOSED RIGHT -OF-WAY

EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY

0

Feet

N

40080

ST. ANDREW BAY

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

Superstructure

Proposed

Oak S

hore Drive

Ground

ExistingCrest = 12.6'

Maximum Wave

Water = 0.78'

Mean High

Clearance

75' Vertical

(150' Minimum)

Channel Location

Approximate

Center / Jeffers

on Blvd

Bonita B

ay R

ec

Preferred Alternative Profile1" = 100' Horizontal

1" = 20' Vertical

PROPOSED POND

(WEST 1 ALTERNATIVE)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 4.1.1

3

1' MIN

1' MIN

Oak Sh

ore

Dr

Tyndall Pkwy

W C

ooper D

r

E C

ooper D

r

Jeffers

on Blvd

ST. ANDREW BAYREC CENTERBONITA BAY

PARKER



The proposed structures are parallel to the existing Dupont Bridge at the channel crossing, then curve to tie-in to the existing alignment on the approaches. The Preferred Alternative begins approximately 1,730 feet north of the existing US 98 bridge approach in the City of Parker. The replacement structure begins approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge approach and continues for 3,582 feet, ending approximately 280 feet south of the existing bridge abutment. The Preferred Alternative ties into the south approach approximately 1,380 feet south of the existing bridge abutment on TAFB. The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 6 of the Preliminary Engineering Report or Section 2.3.1 of the EA. At the Public Hearing, a representative of the developer of East Bay Flats commented that a new apartment complex and two restaurants are being planned on the northeast quadrant of the existing Dupont Bridge. The Preferred Alternative resulted in minor impacts to this planned development including impacts to a proposed parking lot and dry retention pond. As a result, the alignment was shifted slightly and the buffer between the curb and gutter and sidewalk were reduced to a minimum of 3’-3” in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot. During the Public Hearing formal comment period, Eastern Shipbuilding Group expressed a desire for the vertical clearance of the proposed Dupont Bridge to be raised from 65 feet to 75 feet to facilitate all of their vessel fabrication in a single location. After considering the Public Hearing comments and coordinating with TAFB, FDOT agreed to increase the vertical clearance to 75 feet.

5.0 Planning Consistency The project is listed in the FDOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with funding for PD&E in 2020 and 2021, Preliminary Engineering in 2021 and 2024, Right-of-way in 2023 and 2024, and Design-Build in 2024. The project is listed in the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) under Amendment 2 with funding for PD&E between 2015 and 2020 and Design and Construction between 2021 and 2025. The project is also included in the Bay County TPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for fiscal years 2021 to 2025 with funding for Preliminary Engineering in 2020/2021, Right-of-Way in 2022 to 2024, and Design-Build in 2023/2024. The STIP, TIP, and LRTP Amendment 2 funding are consistent.



6.0 Preferred Alternative Impacts The following environmental resources are not present in the project study area and will not be affected: Farmlands, Aquatic Preserves and Outstanding Florida Waters, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, Coastal Barrier Resources, and Railroads.

6.1 Social and Economic Resources 6.1.1 Social The analysis in the EA (Section 3.3.1) concluded that the project will not result in significant or disproportionate impacts to any minority, ethnic, elderly, handicapped groups, and/or low-income populations. This project provides an opportunity to enhance the community cohesion with improved bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and connectivity. The project does not negatively impact any community focal points. Coordination with the TAFB is ongoing to ensure that the access and right-of-way impacts associated with the Dupont Bridge Replacement will be compatible with the new base master plan. The project is consistent with the community goals and plans. Environmental Justice impacts were evaluated in terms of project impacts to minority communities and low-income communities. The anticipated right-of-way impacts do not disproportionately affect minority, or low-income communities; therefore, no Environmental Justice impacts are expected.

6.1.2 Economic The analysis in the EA (Section 3.3.2) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to economic factors such as business and employment, tax base, traffic patterns, and business access. This project is vital to maintaining access to TAFB, which is the largest economic driver in Bay County. The Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center, located on TAFB property south and west of the existing Dupont Bridge on US 98, will have its two existing access points consolidated into a single access point. Access to Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center (and/or any of the military installations on this property) will be maintained throughout the



entirety of the project. No other businesses are proposed to have their access modified with the proposed improvements. The Preferred Alternative requires minor right-of-way acquisition from the planned East Bay development located on the east side of the north landfall. This minor encroachment results in impacts to a proposed parking lot and dry retention pond. Coordination with the developer has been ongoing since the Public Hearing. The proposed construction activities will generate a number of construction-related jobs and will contribute to regional economic output and household incomes. However, these potential positive effects will be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction. Ultimately, business and employment impacts associated with the project are beneficial, with temporary adverse, but not significant, impacts during construction. Negligible impacts on the tax base are anticipated since the project will result in minimal right-of-way acquisition from vacant properties and from unimproved portions of TAFB. 6.1.3 Land Use Changes The analysis in the EA (Section 3.3.3) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to land use. The project (roadway and ponds) impacts seven parcels, of which five are vacant, one is categorized as military, and one contains an unoccupied building. The building will not be impacted by the project. A total of 8.5 acres (7.1 acres for roadway and 1.4 acres for ponds) of property will be reclassified for transportation use with this project. The project is comprised of a bridge replacement on similar alignment; therefore, no land use or growth patterns in the study area or surrounding communities are expected to change as a result of the project. 6.1.4 Mobility The analysis in the EA (Section 3.3.4) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to mobility. The project will enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Proposed bicycle improvements include buffered bicycle lanes on the roadway approaches and a buffered outside 10-foot shoulder on the bridge that could be used by cyclists. The proposed pedestrian improvements feature a six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the bridge and roadway



approaches. The proposed bridge will increase the vertical clearance to 75 feet, an increase of 25 feet, thereby improving the navigation along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway under the Dupont Bridge and access to the Panama City Port located approximately eight miles northwest of the Dupont Bridge. The proposed project will accommodate an ultimate future typical section of three travel lanes in each direction, when vehicular traffic warrants, thereby improving the long-term mobility in the area.

6.1.5 Aesthetic Effects The analysis in the EA (Section 3.3.5) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to aesthetics. The Preferred Alternative will not obstruct or hinder the scenic vista of Saint Andrew Bay. The replacement bridge provides enhanced opportunities to enjoy the bay by virtue of the sidewalks on both bridges and bicycle accommodations, both of which are not currently present on the existing bridge. Construction cranes and equipment will be visible for the duration of construction, temporarily altering the aesthetic landscape. On February 21, 2020, the Bay County Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution supporting aesthetic features and energy efficient lighting for the Dupont Bridge. The resolution specifically stated that the new Dupont Bridge provides an opportunity to create a symbol reflecting the US Air Force and Bay County’s pride in its military community. This resolution is included in Appendix B of the EA. At the Public Hearing, a comment was received by a representative of Bay County requesting blue lighting on the bridge. Bridge aesthetics will be determined at a later time in coordination with project stakeholders. 6.1.6 Relocation Potential The analysis in the EA (Section 3.3.6) concluded that the project will not result in any relocation impacts. The Preferred Alternative (roadway and pond) impacts seven parcels, affecting three property owners, for a total of 8.5 acres. No residential or commercial relocations are anticipated as a result of the roadway or pond improvements. The proposed project, as presently conceived, will not displace any residences or businesses within the community. Should this change over the course of the project, the FDOT will carry out a Right-of-Way and Relocation Assistance Program in accordance with Florida Statute



421.55, Relocation of displaced persons, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17).

6.2 Cultural Resources 6.2.1 Section 4(f) The analysis in the EA (Section 3.4.1) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to Section 4(f) resources. Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp is a Section 4(f) resource, but the project will not have any direct or indirect use of the resource. The Preferred Alternative is located over 1,000 feet west of Earl Gilbert Park. The project will not affect the access to Earl Gilbert Park (via US 98) in either the permanent or temporary condition. The FDOT commits to providing access to the entrance road to Earl Gilbert Park during construction. The FDOT OEM approved the Section 4(f) No Use Determination on August 9, 2019. The Section 4(f) documentation for the project is contained in Appendix H of the EA. 6.2.2 Historic Sites / Districts The analysis in the EA (Section 3.4.2) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to historic sites or districts. A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) was conducted for the project in accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR Part 800. The terrestrial Area of Potential Affect (APE) was defined to include the existing and proposed right‐of‐way and was extended to the back or side property lines of parcels adjacent to the proposed improvements, or a distance of no more than 328 feet from the US 98 centerline. The historic structures survey included the entire terrestrial APE. Architectural survey resulted in the identification of one previously recorded bridge (8BY01632), one previously recorded building (8BY01165), and four newly recorded resources (8BY02677, 8BY02678, 8BY02679, 8BY02681) within the APE. A Florida Master Site File (FMSF) review indicated one previously recorded bridge (8BY01806) and one previously recorded building (8BY01152) have been demolished since previous recordation. No NRHP‐eligible or ‐listed resources were identified within the APE. The proposed construction is not anticipated to have an effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. SHPO concurred with the findings of the CRAS on April 6, 2020,



included in the project file and Appendix B of the EA. Therefore, FDOT, in consultation with SHPO, has determined that the proposed project will result in No Historic Properties Affected. 6.2.3 Archaeological Sites The analysis in the EA (Section 3.4.3) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to archaeological sites. An archaeological survey was completed as part of the above-mentioned CRAS effort. The terrestrial archaeological survey was limited to the existing and proposed right‐of‐way. The APE for the maritime archaeological remote‐sensing survey was defined as the existing Dupont Bridge plus a 500‐foot buffer to the east and west sides of the bridge. All shovel tests were negative for cultural resources. Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the archaeological APE (8BY00092 and 8BY00138). Five shovel tests were excavated within the mapped site boundaries of 8BY00092; none produced any evidence of the site. Shovel testing was not possible within the mapped boundaries of 8BY00138 due to an existing retention pond and paved parking lot. No artifacts were recovered, and no archaeological sites or occurrences were identified within the APE. During the marine remote‐sensing survey, magnetic data as well as side‐scan sonar and sub‐bottom profiler imagery were collected within the APE in order to assess the presence or absence of potential submerged cultural resources. Based upon the results of the remote‐sensing survey and subsequent data processing and analysis, a relic channel (Reflector R001), and two remote‐sensing targets (Target 01 and 02) were identified that resemble potential submerged cultural resources. Reflector R001 extends the width of the maritime APE. An avoidance zone that encompasses Acoustic Contact S029 for Target 01 is recommended. Additionally, a 33‐foot avoidance zone is recommended from the edge of the acoustic imagery for Target 02. Target 01 is located on the northern boundary of the maritime APE, while Target 02 is located 30 feet from the southern APE boundary. Both targets and their associated avoidance zones are located outside of the proposed construction easement for the Preferred Alternative. The FDOT commits to avoidance of maritime archaeological Targets 01 and 02.



Maritime archaeologists identified submerged portions of the previously recorded Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806). However, the truss superstructure and decking has been removed; therefore, the bridge is no longer intact. Since the Old Dupont Bridge no longer constitutes an example of a historic‐aged bridge structure, the Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806) lacks significant data potential and is still recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No NRHP‐eligible or ‐listed resources were identified within the APE. The proposed construction is not anticipated to have an effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, conditional upon avoidance of remote-sensing Targets 01 and 02. SHPO concurred with the findings of the CRAS on April 6, 2020. SHPO noted that “due to the recorded, but unsubstantiated, submerged potential resources and the unevaluated archaeological site (8BY00092) within the APE, and conditional upon avoidance of Targets 1 and 2 as stated above, our office finds that this project will have No Adverse Effect on the identified historic properties. Further, we find the submitted CRAS report complete and sufficient. If avoidance of Targets 1 and 2 is not possible, additional work and consultation with our office is needed.” The FDOT commits to performing a cultural resource survey for the proposed pond site and documenting in a CRAS during the final design phase due to the high probability for archaeology. 6.2.4 Recreational Areas The analysis in the EA (Section 3.4.4) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to recreational areas. The project will require the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida (TIITF) easement on TAFB to be increased by 110 to 170 feet on the west side of the existing Dupont Bridge, in the vicinity of Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center. Coordination with TAFB confirmed that Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center is not open to the public and is not a Section 4(f) protected resource. A Determination of Applicability (DOA) was prepared for this resource to document that Section 4(f) does not apply; the DOA was approved by the FDOT OEM on July 11, 2019. Further coordination with TAFB has revealed that the recreation center is anticipated to be relocated to a different location on the base.



In addition to the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center and the Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp, there are two Office of Greenways and Trails paddling trail opportunities in the study area: Panhandle Intracoastal Waterway Paddling Trail, and Saint Andrew Bay Paddling Trail. These paddling trails are not on the designated trails list but are currently shown on the Florida Greenways and Trails Paddling Trails Opportunity Map (2018). The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to impact the paddling trails. An alternate route of Segment 3 of the Florida Circumnavigational Saltwater Paddling Trail crosses under the Dupont Bridge. The main route which traverses the Gulf of Mexico will be available should construction temporarily impact the alternate route.

6.3 Natural 6.3.1 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters The analysis in the EA (Section 3.5.1) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to wetlands or other surface waters. The Preferred Alternative bridge spans 9.73 acres of bay and estuary and 1.28 acres of seagrass bed. The fill associated with new bridge piles total approximately 0.05 acres. Seagrass impacts due to shading from the proposed bridge will be 1.28 acres. An additional 0.42 acres of seagrass beds are located within the 25-foot buffer and subject to secondary impacts. Only the seagrass beds on the west side of the existing bridge will be impacted. In addition, with removal of the existing bridge, the area beneath the bridge will be available for seagrass recruitment. In order to construct the Preferred Alternative, two 225 linear feet of 40-foot wide temporary trestles are anticipated. The trestle will result in an additional 0.41 acres of temporary impact to the north shore seagrass beds. No wetlands or surface waters are located within the proposed pond sites. The project has been evaluated in accordance with Federal Executive Order 11990 - "Protection of Wetlands." Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. As the project advances through subsequent phases, avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts will continue to be considered to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in no significant impacts to wetlands or surface waters.



Permanent wetland and surface water impacts which will result from the construction of this project will be mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137, F.S., to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and 33 U.S.C. §1344. Compensatory mitigation for this project will be completed through the use of mitigation banks and any other mitigation options that satisfy state and federal requirements. Temporary impacts will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally. Section 3.5.1.8 of the EA contains more detailed information on the potential mitigation options. 6.3.2 Water Quality and Stormwater The analysis in the EA (Section 3.5.3) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to water quality. The Dupont Bridge is located in the Saint Andrew Bay watershed and is under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). The tidally-influenced waterway is subject to storm surge as it is located in close proximity to the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. According to FDEP, the project is within Water Body Identification number (WBID) 1061D, East Bay (West) and WBID 1061F, East Bay (East). WBID 1061D is not impaired; however, WBID 1061F is verified impaired for nutrients and bacteria based on shellfish classifications. Dry retention was chosen for stormwater management due to the predominantly well-drained soils and seasonal depths to groundwater ranging from four to six feet below ground. Pond W1 was selected as the preferred pond site since it has lower archaeological site potential, lower estimated right-of-way cost, and does not require a drainage easement. Pond W1 is located on the northern approach to the Dupont Bridge, adjacent to the western right-of-way line of US 98 and impacts three vacant commercial sites (all with a common owner and also impacted by the roadway Preferred Alternative). The design of the project stormwater management facilities will comply with the requirements of Chapter 62-330, F.A.C as required by the NWFWMD. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause water quality impacts based on stormwater design guidelines that will be implemented.



6.3.3 Floodplains The analysis in the EA (Section 3.5.5) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to floodplains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has designated locations of the 100-year base floodplain within the project corridor on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 12005C0426H (Effective Date: 06/02/2009). The project has the potential to impact the following special flood hazard (100-year flood) areas: Zone AE (Elevations 8 and 9), Zone VE (Elevations 10 and 11). No flooding problems associated with the bridge or roadway approaches have been identified by FDOT, nor indicated through field review. No FEMA regulatory floodways are located within the project limits. The project will encroach on the base floodplain; however, since the floodplain is associated with a tidal surge, the encroachment will not result in adverse impact to the base floodplain. Therefore, the floodplain encroachments will not pose a risk to highway users (loss of life, service disruption) or risks to property owners (damages, service disruption, property loss). It has been determined, through consultation with local, state, and federal water resources and floodplain management agencies that there is no regulatory floodway involvement on the project and that the project will not support base floodplain development that is incompatible with existing floodplain management programs.

6.3.4 Coastal Zone Consistency The analysis in the EA (Section 3.5.6) concluded that the project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program. The State of Florida determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program on March 20, 2018; Appendix D of the EA contains the documentation for this determination. 6.3.5 Protected Species and Habitat The analysis in the EA (Section 3.5.8) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to protected species and habitat. A Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) was prepared to document the natural resources analysis and summarize potential impacts to



wetlands, federal and state protected species, protected habitats, and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The NRE was transmitted to US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) requesting concurrence on the summary table of effect determination provided in Table 3.5.6 of the EA. In a letter dated July 1, 2020, the NMFS recommended that the green, loggerhead, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, as well as the smalltooth sawfish be addressed in the Section 7 consultation with NMFS. Due to unavailable project design details, particularly information regarding pile driving, NMFS stated that they cannot conduct an analysis as part of the Section 7 consultation at this time. However, Section 7 consultation can be completed when these project details are provided, and conservation measures are finalized. NMFS recommended adding a commitment to perform in-water pile driving activities during daylight hours. The feasibility of this commitment will be evaluated during the final design phase, and further consultation with NMFS will occur. In an email dated June 29, 2020, the USFWS noted that gulf sturgeon frequently cross this portion of Saint Andrew Bay as an alternative migratory pathway in the winter. USFWS stated that to achieve a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination, the agency requests commitments that eliminate blasting, include no pile driving from October 15 to March 15, and limit pile driving to eight-hours per day. Additional design information and construction coordination is needed to determine the feasibility of eliminating blasting from the project. In a follow-up email on July 15, 2020, USFWS stated that they had no objections to the project proceeding to the design phase when additional information would be available to assist in determining the appropriate level of consultation required. Based on coordination with USFWS and NMFS to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, FDOT commits to reinitiate consultation and provide information necessary to complete consultation on the telephus spurge (Euphorbia telephioides), Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate), Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Red knot (Calidris



canutus rufa), Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Manatee (Trichechus manatus), prior to advancing the project to construction. The correspondence from USFWS and NMFS is intended to provide reasonable assurance, per 23 CFR § 771.133, that requirements of the Endangered Species Act are able to and will be met prior to construction. The status of this commitment will be updated in any subsequent project re-evaluations. In a letter dated July 24, 2020, FWC stated that they had previously provided technical assistance through the ETDM Screening and have no additional comments regarding the NRE and agree with the determinations of effect and project commitments for protected species. Section 6.0 of the EA contains commitments that FDOT has made to minimize impacts on protected species. 6.3.6 Essential Fish Habitat The analysis in the EA (Section 3.5.9) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to EFH resources protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Permanent loss of EFH due to fill is approximately 0.05 acres. Approximately 1.28 acres of seagrass habitat is impacted and will be lost due to shading; however, these impacts do not constitute a complete loss of EFH, as this area will remain bay and estuarine EFH habitat. Secondary impacts to wetlands within a 25-foot buffer of the bridge account for 0.42 acres but will not result in the permanent loss of EFH. Approximately 0.41 acres of temporary impacts are associated with construction activities. None of the species with EFH present in the project study area, or any of their life stages, are exclusive to the EFH habitats present in the project study area. On July 1, 2020, the NMFS sent a letter to FDOT stating that they had reviewed the information regarding permanent and temporary impacts to seagrasses due to the project. The agency concluded that the preliminary assessment of impacts to seagrasses is accurate. Therefore, if appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided for unavoidable seagrass impacts, the project will not have an adverse impact on EFH. The FDOT commits to further coordination with NMFS to identify appropriate mitigation for seagrass impacts.



6.4 Physical 6.4.1 Highway Traffic Noise The analysis in the EA (Section 3.6.1) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts from highway traffic noise. Design year traffic noise levels (2048) for the Preferred Alternative approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) at one residence within the project limits. A noise barrier was considered at the impacted residence but was determined to not be a feasible abatement measure. The impacted site represents an isolated residence, so a noise barrier was not considered acoustically feasible. Based on the noise analyses performed to date, there appears to be no feasible solutions available to mitigate the noise impacts at the location represented by one residence where a noise barrier was not recommended. The traffic noise impact to this noise sensitive site is an unavoidable consequence of the project. Because of the low number of unavoidable impacts (i.e., one), the noise impacts associated with this project are not considered significant. During construction of the project, the potential for noise impacts is substantially greater than those resulting from normal traffic operations because heavy equipment is typically used in road and bridge construction. In addition, construction activities may result in vibration impacts. Construction related noise and vibration impacts to these sites will be minimized by adherence to the controls listed in the latest edition of the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 6.4.2 Air Quality The analysis in the EA (Section 3.6.2) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to air quality. The project is located in an area that is designated in attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the criteria provided in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Clean Air Act conformity requirements do not apply to the project. 6.4.3 Contamination A Level I Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER) was prepared for this PD&E Study. Based on the historical research, review of environmental record databases, site reconnaissance, and detailed regulatory file reviews, a total of 13 sites were identified within



a half mile from the existing US 98 centerline. Of the 13 sites, the potential contamination impacts are as follows:

• Seven rated as High;

• Three rated as Medium; and

• Three rated as Low. The Preferred Alternative impacts three high rated sites: TAFB Docking Facility, Amerada Hess Formal Terminal, and Inland #598. Level II testing will be performed during final design for all High and Medium risk rated sites, as warranted. For more information on potential contamination impacts, refer to Section 3.6.3 of the EA.

6.4.4 Utilities The Preferred Alternative avoids the existing underwater constraints of remnants of the previous bridge. Eleven existing utilities have been identified through the project corridor; the existing utilities include:

• Overhead and underground electric lines;

• Fiber optic cables;

• Water;

• Wastewater; and

• Gas mains. The exact locations of the existing utilities and the extent of impacts will be determined during the final design phase of this project. Coordination with the known Utility Agency Owners (UAOs) during the final design phase will assist in minimizing relocation adjustments and disruptions of service to the public. For more information on potential utility impacts, refer to Section 3.6.4 of the EA. 6.4.5 Construction The analysis in the EA (Section 3.6.5) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts from construction. The construction phasing for the Preferred Alternative is the least complex of the build alternatives considered. The Preferred Alternative provides additional driver safety during construction because traffic remains on the existing bridge during the



course of construction until the new twin bridges are built. The Preferred Alternative also includes lower construction costs for construction phasing, improves traffic operations during construction, and has the shortest construction duration. The Preferred Alternative is on new alignment and therefore, has no potential pier conflicts with either the old (1920s) bridge or the current Dupont bridge. Construction methods and staging locations have not been identified and will be determined by the Design-Build contractor. Short-term impacts during construction such as noise, vibration, and minor construction detours are anticipated. Demolition of the existing bridge includes removal of the existing dolphins. Demolition methods are not yet known but may include blasting to remove the main channel foundation unit. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT commits that their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan will be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. 6.4.6 Bicycles and Pedestrians The analysis in the EA (Section 3.6.6) concluded that the project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Currently, no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations are present along US 98 within the project limits. The Preferred Alternative includes 6.5-foot buffered bicycle lanes and six-foot sidewalk on the roadway approaches. On the proposed Dupont Bridge, a six-foot concrete barrier wall separated sidewalk is included on the outside of each bridge, and 10-foot outside shoulders can accommodate bicyclists. In the interim, when only four travel lanes are warranted, a 12-foot buffer (the future third lane) will be located between the outside shoulder / bicycle facility and the outer most travel lane, providing additional protection for cyclists and comfort for pedestrians.

6.4.7 Navigation The analysis in the EA (Section 3.6.6) concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts to navigation. A Navigation and Vessel Survey Report was prepared for review and



coordination with United Stated Coast Guard (USCG). The report was submitted to USCG on March 16, 2020. A letter was received from USCG on March 30, 2020 stating that the proposed horizontal and vertical clearances (150 feet and 65 feet, respectively) meet the reasonable needs of navigation and would therefore be approved. During the navigation user interview and during the Public Hearing formal comment period, Eastern Shipbuilding Group expressed a desire for the vertical clearance of the Dupont Bridge to be raised to 75 feet to facilitate all of their vessel fabrication in a single location. After considering the Public Hearing comments and coordination with TAFB, FDOT agreed to increase the vertical clearance to 75 feet.

7.0 Public Involvement A Public Involvement Program has been developed and is being carried out as an integral part of this project. The purpose of this program is to establish and maintain communication with the public and agencies concerned with the project and its potential impacts. To ensure open communication, and agency and public input, the FDOT provided an Advanced Notification package to State and Federal agencies and other interested parties defining the project and, in cursory terms, describing anticipated issues and impacts. In an effort to resolve identified issues, the FDOT has conducted an extensive interagency coordination and consultation effort, and public participation process.

7.1 Native American Tribal Coordination There are no federally recognized Native American lands within the study area. The following federally recognized Native American Tribes were included in the Advance Notification:

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama;

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma;

• Seminole Tribe of Florida;

• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;

• Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and

• Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.



No comments were received from any of the Native American Tribes in response to the AN. On June 11, 2020, FDOT electronically sent the CRAS to the Native American Tribes for their review and comment. The Seminole Tribe of Florida responded on July 14, 2020, that the project area does fall within the Seminole Tribe of Florida area of interest, but that they have no objections to the project at this time. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation responded on July 29, 2020 that the project does fall within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s historic area of interest. However, since no archaeological materials were recovered, Muscogee (Creek) Nation concurs that there should be no adverse effects and work should continue as planned. Muscogee (Creek) Nation requested that if any human remains or related Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) items are discovered, all work should cease, and their office should be contacted immediately. No other comments have been received from the other Native American Tribes.

7.2 Alternatives Public Meeting An Alternatives Public Meeting was held Thursday, November 21, 2019 from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Central Daylight Time (CDT) at the Parker United Methodist Church (908 S. Tyndall Parkway, Panama City, FL 32404). Meeting invitations were sent by e-mail to 20 elected officials and 43 appointed officials and sent by mail to six Native American Tribes and seven property owners. The invitations included date, time, and location for the Alternatives Public Meeting. The Alternatives Public Meeting was advertised in advance with a display ad in the Panama City News Herald on Monday, November 11, 2019. A meeting notification was placed in the Florida Administrative Register’s Thursday, November 14, 2019 edition. A press release was distributed by the FDOT to major local media outlets. The meeting was conducted in an open house format. The public was invited to attend at any time between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM CDT. Parking was available to accommodate all of the attendees, including the disabled. Signs were placed at the major intersecting roads to direct attendees to the meeting location and from the parking lot to the meeting room. Display boards and large roll plots (1 inch = 50 feet) of the project alternatives were available for public review.



Twenty-three people signed the sign-in sheet at the meeting. Fourteen of those signing in were project representatives (consultant or FDOT) and nine were members of the public. Project representatives were present to discuss the project, receive public input, and answer questions. Two comment forms were received at the November 21, 2019 meeting. One additional comment was received by email. The two comment forms were completed by representatives of Bay County and TAFB. The comments from the Bay County representative focused on potential enhancements to the proposed bridge including: conduit in the bridge, aesthetic lighting, and a shared use path or wide sidewalk. The TAFB representative provided positive feedback regarding the sidewalk and bicycle lanes and expressed an interest in keeping part of the existing bridge. The email comment requested that the meeting minutes from the Public Alternatives Meeting be sent to him (project stakeholder). Response letters and emails were sent on January 8, 2020.

7.3 Public Hearing A Public Hearing was held Tuesday, February 9, 2021 from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Central Standard Time (CST) at the Parker United Methodist Church (908 S. Tyndall Parkway, Panama City, FL 32404). Meeting invitations were sent by e-mail to 17 elected officials and 40 appointed officials and sent by mail to six Native American Tribes and seven property owners. The invitations included date, time, and location for the hybrid Public Hearing. The invitation also included information for how attendees could participate in the Public Hearing remotely via GoToWebinar, or by calling in on their phones. The Public Hearing was advertised in advance with a display ad in the Panama City News Herald on Friday, January 22, 2021 and on Saturday, January 30, 2021. A hybrid Public Hearing notification was placed in the Florida Administrative Register’s Monday, February 1, 2021 edition. A press release was distributed by the FDOT to major local media outlets and also posted to the FDOT project website seven days in advance of the Hearing.



Prior to the Public Hearing, the Draft EA was transmitted to the Cooperating Agencies on the project, TAFB and USCG, for a 30-day review on June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2020, respectively. On June 26, 2020, TAFB provided Draft EA comments, which were incorporated into the document. On September 16, 2020, USCG provided Draft EA comments, which were incorporated into the document. The Draft EA was approved by OEM for Public Availability on November 17, 2020. Hard copies of all engineering and environmental documents were available for public review at the Public Hearing and also at the City of Parker Library beginning January 19, 2021 through February 19, 2021. Project documents were also available electronically on the project website. The hybrid Public Hearing began with an informational open house, followed by a formal Public Hearing. The public was invited to attend the open house session in-person, remotely, or by phone anytime between 5:30 PM and 6:00 PM. At the in-person session, project staff were available to answer questions at the display boards. At the virtual session, a brief (seven-minute) presentation was aired explaining how to participate in the virtual Public Hearing, where to view the Public Hearing displays on the project website, and how to ask questions. At 6:00 PM the Public Hearing officially started, and a pre-recorded presentation was played for both in-person and virtual attendees. Comments were then taken from in-person attendees first, followed by virtual attendees. Parking was available to accommodate all of the in-person attendees, including the disabled. Signs were placed at the major intersecting roads to direct attendees to the meeting location and from the parking lot to the meeting room. Display boards and large roll plots (1 inch = 50 feet) of the Preferred Alternative were available for public review at the in-person location and also on the project website (dupontbridge.com). Twenty people signed the sign-in sheet at the hearing. Fourteen of those signing in were project representatives (consultant or FDOT) and six were members of the public. An additional 50 attendees joined the hearing virtually (the majority were engineering consultants). Also in attendance was a court reporter from Baytowne Reporting in Panama City.



Two comment forms and two verbal comments were received at the February 9, 2021 hearing. During the formal comment period, two additional comments were received by email, and one comment was received through the project website. One of the email comments was from Eastern Shipbuilding Group, who asked for the vertical clearance of the bridge to be further raised to 75 feet to better facilitate their shipping operations. The website comment expressed support for the project and was pleased with the proposed increase in vertical clearance. One of the comment forms received at the hearing was from a representative of Bay County who asked for the county waterline to be included in the final design plans and for consideration of blue lighting on the bridge. The second comment form received at the hearing was from a representative of the developer of East Bay Flats. The developer submitted comments in multiple methods: comment form, verbally, and email. Although three comments were officially received, the comments were all similar in nature asking for coordination between the East Bay Flats development and FDOT to minimize impacts to this newly proposed development. The second verbal comment was submitted by a representative of Tyndall Air Force Base, who wanted to thank FDOT for their coordination on the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center access point and for including bicycle and pedestrian amenities in the project. Responses to comments were mailed and emailed on March 16, 2021 and are contained in Appendix F of the EA.

7.4 Post-Public Hearing Agency Coordination During the Public Hearing formal comment period, Eastern Shipbuilding Group requested that the FDOT increase the proposed vertical clearance to 75 feet. FDOT sent TAFB an email on March 16, 2021 to ask if they had any concerns with increasing the vertical clearance to 75 feet. The Airspace Study showed that the bridge and associated features would still be significantly lower than the FAA Part 77 runway surface. On April 1, 2021, TAFB stated that raising the proposed bridge height by 10 feet should still be outside of the approach / departure clearance surface (horizontal) and outer horizontal surface. TAFB requested that FDOT follow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for obstructions and send a copy of the Airspace Study to TAFB during the design phase. TAFB also recommended awareness signage on the proposed Dupont Bridge indicating that the proposed bridge is located in an aircraft accident potential zone. After considering the Public Hearing comments and TAFB response, FDOT agreed to increase the vertical clearance to 75 feet.



Correspondence with TAFB regarding increasing the proposed vertical clearance is contained in Appendix B of the EA. The EA with FONSI was transmitted to TAFB on April 21, 2021. TAFB provided a couple of minor comments which were incorporated, and on June 7, 2021, TAFB concurred with responses. The EA with FONSI was also transmitted to USCG on May 7, 2021. No response was received from USCG. The correspondence with USCG and TAFB are contained in Appendix B of the EA and in the project file.

8.0 Commitments The Draft EA (Section 6.0) identified 12 commitments. No commitments were modified or added as a result of the Public Hearing.


Environmental Assessment


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 ii

Environmental Assessment For the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Project Status ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Roadway and Bridge Deficiencies........................................................................ 1-4

2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 No-Build Alternative................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Transportation Systems Management and Operational Alternative ................. 2-2 2.2.2 Bridge Rehabilitation .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Build Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1 West 1 Alternative (Preferred) ............................................................................ 2-7 2.3.2 West 2 Alternative ............................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.3 East 3 Alternative .............................................................................................. 2-12

2.4 Drainage Alternatives .............................................................................................. 2-14

2.5 Project Cost Evaluation ............................................................................................ 2-16

2.6 Construction Considerations .................................................................................... 2-17

2.7 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................ 2-20

3.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Efficient Transportation Decision Making Degree of Effect Determination ............. 3-1

3.2 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Social and Economic Resources .................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.1 Social .................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.2 Economic ............................................................................................................ 3-20 3.3.3 Land Use Changes ............................................................................................. 3-23 3.3.4 Mobility .............................................................................................................. 3-27 3.3.5 Aesthetic Effects ................................................................................................ 3-27 3.3.6 Relocation Potential ........................................................................................... 3-29 3.3.7 Farmland ............................................................................................................ 3-30


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 iii

3.4 Cultural ..................................................................................................................... 3-31 3.4.1 Section 4(f) ......................................................................................................... 3-31 3.4.2 Historic Sites / Districts ..................................................................................... 3-32 3.4.3 Archaeological Sites ........................................................................................... 3-35 3.4.4 Recreational Areas ............................................................................................. 3-38

3.5 Natural ...................................................................................................................... 3-39 3.5.1 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters................................................................. 3-39 3.5.2 Aquatic Preserves and Outstanding Florida Waters ........................................ 3-50 3.5.3 Water Quality and Stormwater ......................................................................... 3-51 3.5.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers ...................................................................................... 3-56 3.5.5 Floodplains ......................................................................................................... 3-56 3.5.6 Coastal Zone Consistency .................................................................................. 3-61 3.5.7 Coastal Barrier Resources ................................................................................. 3-62 3.5.8 Protected Species and Habitat .......................................................................... 3-62 3.5.9 Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................................... 3-76

3.6 Physical ..................................................................................................................... 3-80 3.6.1 Highway Traffic Noise ....................................................................................... 3-80 3.6.2 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 3-81 3.6.3 Contamination ................................................................................................... 3-83 3.6.4 Utilities and Railroads ....................................................................................... 3-91 3.6.5 Construction ....................................................................................................... 3-94 3.6.6 Bicycles and Pedestrians ................................................................................... 3-97 3.6.7 Navigation .......................................................................................................... 3-98

4.0 Anticipated Permits ................................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 Comments and Coordination ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Discussion of ETDM Programming Screen and Advance Notification ...................... 5-1

5.2 Native American Tribal Coordination ........................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Agency Coordination and Consultation ...................................................................... 5-2

5.4 Alternatives Public Meeting ....................................................................................... 5-5

5.5 Public Hearing ............................................................................................................ 5-6

6.0 Commitments .......................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 List of Technical Reports ......................................................................................... 7-1


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 iv

LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page

Table 2.4.1: Pond Site Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................... 2-16 Table 2.5.1: Alternatives Cost Estimates ........................................................................... 2-16 Table 3.2.1: Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................ 3-3 Table 3.3.1: Demographic Comparison: Population ............................................................. 3-8 Table 3.3.2: Demographic Comparison: Density ................................................................... 3-8 Table 3.3.3: Demographic Comparison: Income ................................................................... 3-9 Table 3.3.4: Demographic Comparison: Transportation ...................................................... 3-9 Table 3.3.5: Demographic Comparison: Language ............................................................. 3-10 Table 3.3.6: Demographic Comparison: Education ............................................................. 3-10 Table 3.3.7: Annual Taxable Value Lost ............................................................................. 3-21 Table 3.3.8: Summary of Right-of-Way Impacts ................................................................. 3-29 Table 3.3.9: Summary of Pond Right-of-Way Impacts........................................................ 3-30 Table 3.4.1: Cultural Resource Pond Matrix ...................................................................... 3-38 Table 3.5.1: Wetlands and Surface Water Impacts: West 1 Alternative ............................ 3-43 Table 3.5.2: Wetlands and Surface Water Impacts: West 2 Alternative ............................ 3-45 Table 3.5.3: Wetlands and Surface Water Impacts: East 3 Alternative ............................ 3-46 Table 3.5.4: UMAM Assessment ......................................................................................... 3-49 Table 3.5.5: Pond Site Evaluation Matrix ........................................................................... 3-55 Table 3.5.6: Effect Determination for Federally Listed Species ......................................... 3-72 Table 3.5.7: Effect Determination for State Listed Species................................................ 3-73 Table 3.5.8: EFH Impacts .................................................................................................... 3-78 Table 3.6.1: Summary of Potential Contamination Sources .............................................. 3-86 Table 3.6.2: Summary of Contamination Impacts .............................................................. 3-91 Table 3.6.3: List of Utility Agencies / Owners .................................................................... 3-92 Table 3.6.4: List of Utility Agencies / Owners .................................................................... 3-93 Table 3.6.5: Bridges Crossing over Gulf Intracoastal Waterway ....................................... 3-99 Table 5.3.1: Agency and Government Coordination ............................................................. 5-3 Table 5.3.2: Agency Meetings ................................................................................................ 5-5 Table 7.1.1: Technical Documents Prepared for this Study ................................................. 7-1


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page

Figure 1.1.1: Project Location Map ....................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2.3.1: Proposed Roadway Typical Section ................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2.3.2: Proposed Dupont Bridge Structural Typical Section ...................................... 2-5 Figure 2.3.3: West 1 Alternative ........................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2.3.4: West 2 Alternative ......................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2.3.5: East 3 Alternative .......................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2.4.1: Pond Site Alternatives (North Landfall) ....................................................... 2-15 Figure 2.7.1: Preferred Alternative (Plan / Profile) ............................................................ 2-22 Figure 3.3.1: Census Block Groups ....................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3.3.2: Percent Minority in the Study Area .............................................................. 3-11 Figure 3.3.3: Percent of the Population above Age 65 in the Study Area .......................... 3-13 Figure 3.3.4: Percent of Households Below the Poverty Line in the Study Area .............. 3-14 Figure 3.3.5: Community Focal Points ............................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3.3.6: Existing Land Use ......................................................................................... 3-24 Figure 3.3.7: Future Land Use ............................................................................................ 3-26 Figure 3.4.1: Architectural Resources Identified in the APE ............................................. 3-34 Figure 3.5.1: Wetlands and Surface Waters Map ............................................................... 3-42 Figure 3.5.2: Wetland and Surface Water Impacts ............................................................ 3-44 Figure 3.5.3: Pond Site Alternatives (North Landfall) ....................................................... 3-54 Figure 3.5.4: Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) Areas ................................................ 3-58 Figure 3.5.5: Build Alternative Impacts on Special Flood Zones ....................................... 3-60 Figure 3.5.6: Sea Turtle Strandings and Nesting Map ...................................................... 3-67 Figure 3.6.1: Potential Contamination Sites ...................................................................... 3-85 Figure 3.6.2: Construction Phasing Typical Section for West 2 and East 3 Alternatives . 3-96 Figure 3.6.3: Bridges Adjacent to Dupont Bridge ............................................................. 3-100 Figure 3.6.4: Location of Port and Other Major Facilities ............................................... 3-102 Figure 3.6.5: Location of Navigation Users Interviews .................................................... 3-104


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 vi

APPENDICES

Appendix A Preferred Alternative Concept Plans Appendix B Agency / Government Consultation Letters Appendix C Tribal Coordination Appendix D Coastal Zone Management Act Determination Appendix E Planning Consistency Documentation Appendix F Agency and Government Meeting Minutes Appendix G Section 4(f) Documentation


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347 1-1

1.0 Introduction The FDOT is preparing a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for the replacement of the Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019). The Dupont Bridge carries SR 30 (US 98) from the City of Parker on the north to the Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB) on the south. The bridge is structurally deficient and in need of replacement. The project has received Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) bridge replacement funds which requires a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis resulting in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has assumed NEPA responsibility (also known as NEPA Assignment) from FHWA effective December 14, 2016. Since FDOT has been assigned NEPA responsibility, FDOT is the Lead NEPA Agency within the context and meaning of NEPA. FDOT has identified the United Stated Coast Guard (USCG) and the United States Department of Defense (Tyndall Air Force Base) as Cooperating Agencies under NEPA. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is designated as a Participating Agency. This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Dupont Bridge Replacement Project and was developed consistent with the requirements of the FDOT PD&E Manual. Technical information has been summarized and incorporated by reference. Technical documents are included in the project file.

1.1 Project Description This PD&E Study involves the replacement of the Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) on US 98 in Bay County. The project limits are from south of the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center to Oak Shore Drive, a distance of approximately one mile. The Dupont Bridge spans over Saint Andrew Bay (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway) between TAFB on the south and the City of Parker on the north, as shown in Figure 1.1.1.

Project Limits

Project Limits

Saint Andrew Bay

Tyndall Air Force Base

City of Parker

Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center

SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge(No. 460019) ReplacementProject Development and

Environment Study

PageNumber:

1-2Figure 1.1.1:

Project Location Map

0 0.250.125Miles

LEGENDProject Limits

City of Parker

Tyndall AirForce Base

£¤98



The existing US 98 roadway is a four-lane divided facility with 12-foot travel lanes along the Dupont Bridge and on the adjacent approaches. The typical section features a curb and gutter drainage system and does not have bicycle or pedestrian facilities. There are no shoulders on the roadway approaches and the bridge has no inside shoulders and 2.5-foot outside shoulders. The Dupont Bridge is structurally deficient1 and, over the existing navigational channel, has a vertical clearance of 50 feet, which does not meet the USCG guide vertical clearance for this waterway. The proposed Dupont Bridge will be capable of accommodating six lanes of traffic but will be striped as a four-lane divided facility to accommodate for future capacity when needed. The proposed structure will have a six-foot sidewalk for pedestrians and 10-foot shoulders that can accommodate bicyclists. Over the navigational channel, the proposed bridge will have a 75-foot vertical clearance.

1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to address the structural issues related to the Dupont Bridge. The current bridge was constructed in 1965 and is considered structurally deficient by the FDOT and therefore, must be scheduled for replacement. The need for the project is based on the above-mentioned structural deficiency. 1.2.1 Project Status The project is listed in the FDOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with funding for PD&E in 2020 and 2021, Preliminary Engineering in 2021 and 2024, Right-of-way in 2023 and 2024, and Design-Build in 2024. The project is listed in the Bay County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) under Amendment 2 with funding for PD&E between 2015 and 2020 and Design and Construction between 2021 and 2025. The project is also included in the Bay County TPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for fiscal years 2021 to 2025 with funding for Preliminary Engineering in 2020/2021, Right-of-Way in 2022 to 2024, and Design-Build in 2023/2024. The STIP, TIP, and LRTP Amendment 2 funding are all consistent as shown in Appendix E.

1 The FHWA defines a structurally deficient bridge to have a poor (numerical rating of 4), or worse, condition rating for the deck, superstructure, or substructure component, or culvert.



1.2.2 Roadway and Bridge Deficiencies The Dupont Bridge is structurally deficient and has a sufficiency rating2 of 49.5 (based on the January 31, 2020 inspection report) and an operating rating of 1.004. Although the bridge is not currently posted for load (weight) limits, if the operating rating drops below 1.0, then the bridge would require posting to limit the truck loads which can safely use the facility. The project will correct the current structural deficiencies.

2 A sufficiency rating is a FHWA index that provides a 0 to 100 “grade” for the overall bridge structure. Sufficiency ratings are used exclusively to determine a bridge’s eligibility for use of federal bridge construction funds. Bridges with sufficiency ratings less than 50 generally qualify for replacement using federal bridge construction funds.



2.0 Alternatives The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to identify, study, develop, and describe alternatives and recommend a course of action. This chapter explains how the project alternatives were developed and evaluated. Alternatives that were not carried forward for further consideration are also briefly explained. The public and stakeholder involvement component that helped shape the project and the alternatives is referenced in this Chapter but is more fully explained in Chapter 5 of this EA.

2.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative retains the existing roadway and bridge. Under this scenario, the existing Dupont Bridge and the approaches would not be improved, but both would be maintained. The No-Build Alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the No-Build Alternative include:

• No new expenditures for roadway and bridge design, utility relocations, right-of-way acquisition, or construction costs;

• No inconveniences to the motoring public during construction;

• No business or residential damages or displacements; and

• No impacts to the natural environment. The disadvantages of the No-Build Alternative include:

• Continued degradation of the Dupont Bridge;

• Increasing maintenance costs;

• High likelihood for a reduction in load carrying capacity, resulting in the posting of a load limit on the bridge which could restrict roadway safety and evacuation;

• Continued risk from catastrophic storm damage;

• Inadequate shoulder width for disabled vehicles;

• No pedestrian or bicycle connectivity across Saint Andrew Bay; and

• No improvements to the existing deficient vertical clearance. Due to the deteriorating condition of the existing structure and the need for a functional bridge at this location, the No-Build Alternative is considered neither a viable nor a practical



alternative. However, it will be fully considered throughout the PD&E process and used as a baseline condition against which to compare and measure the effects of the Build Alternatives.

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Several alternatives were evaluated but were eliminated from further study. The description of the alternatives and justification for eliminating the alternatives is summarized below. 2.2.1 Transportation Systems Management and Operational Alternative Transportation Systems Management and Operational (TSM&O) alternatives include improvements such as separate turn lanes, traffic signal timing optimization, and pavement marking improvements to enhance traffic safety and mobility. TSM&O improvements on and adjacent to the Dupont Bridge do not sufficiently address the structural deficiency of the Dupont Bridge or the other disadvantages of the No-Build Alternative. The TSM&O Alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project and therefore is not considered a viable option. No further evaluation of the TSM&O Alternative is conducted in this study. 2.2.2 Bridge Rehabilitation The January 31, 2020 bridge inspection report documents the condition of the superstructure as "poor." Several girders exhibit cracking, spalling, and in some cases exposed strands. The existing load rating shows controlling strength rating factors well below 1.0. With similar span lengths and strand patterns throughout the existing bridge, insufficient rating factors can reasonably be expected to exist for many of the girders throughout this structure. A bridge rehabilitation alternative could consider girder replacement, which would be cost prohibitive, since it requires deck replacement. A less invasive alternative is Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) strengthening. FRP may not be as effective given the spalling and cracking on the Dupont Bridge. The majority of the concrete traffic railing length shows minor spalling, cracking and failed patch work, some areas with exposed steel. Patching would be required at all of these locations. The majority of the deck exhibits reinforcing steel exposure and insufficient concrete cover. A deck overlay might be required with hydrodemolition to more than 75% of the entire deck



surface to ensure proper overlay adherence to the existing reinforcement. Several areas show cracking up to 0.125 inches. The deck immediately adjacent to these locations would need to be fully removed and a new deck cast in its place. A rehabilitation alternative was analyzed and determined to be an impractical alternative for the following reasons:

• The Dupont Bridge is classified as “structurally deficient” and has a sufficiency rating of 49.5 (as of January 2020). The Dupont Bridge is designated as “structurally deficient” due to the superstructure receiving a condition rating of poor (4). Nearly 1,900 linear feet of girder exhibit some sort of delamination or cracking.

• Rehabilitating the existing bridge is not considered feasible because the structure is at the end of its 50-year design life. The Dupont Bridge was constructed in 1965, making it more than 50 years old.

• The existing bridge typical section does not meet current FDOT design standards for shoulder width, barrier wall, or sidewalk for this type of facility.

• The Dupont Bridge has a vertical clearance of 50 feet over the navigational channel and the current USCG guide vertical clearance is 65 feet. Raising the existing bridge to meet the required 65-foot clearance above the navigational channel is not feasible through rehabilitation.

Furthermore, maintaining the existing bridge is costly. The Dupont Bridge has received approximately $3.3 million worth of repair and rehabilitation since 2010. The majority of the repair / rehabilitation projects are related to the rip rap stabilization and the fender system (dolphins). Even with the increased expenditures and continued maintenance of the bridge, the bridge can reasonably be expected to continue to deteriorate and become non-operational due to its age and condition, therefore, the bridge rehabilitation alternative is not considered a viable alternative. The FDOT District 3 Structures Maintenance Department concurred with this determination.



2.3 Build Alternatives The Build Alternatives comply with the USCG navigational guide clearances (150-foot horizontal and 65-foot vertical clearances over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway). The alternatives are designed to a 50 miles per hour (mph) design speed in order to be consistent with a recently completed US 98 resurfacing project. This resurfacing project from the Dupont Bridge to the Gulf County Line (FPID 4269501-52-01) requested concurrence from TAFB to increase the posted speed limit from 45 mph to 50 mph. TAFB concurred with the request, and therefore, all alternatives considered in this PD&E Study use a 50 mph design speed. Once the design speed was established, the roadway and bridge typical sections were developed. The roadway and bridge typical sections are identical for each of the proposed Build Alternatives. The proposed bridge is designed to accommodate six travel lanes (three in each direction). The proposed typical section for the Dupont Bridge roadway approaches is based on the FDOT high speed urban typical section and consists of three 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction. Although design year (2048) traffic requires only four lanes, the bridge and approaches are being designed to ultimately accommodate six lanes, and the outside lane will be striped out in the opening year. The opposing travel lanes are separated by a 30-foot raised median that includes 6.5-foot inside shoulders and a 17-foot grassed / curb and gutter area. A 6.5-foot buffered bicycle lane is adjacent to each outside lane and is separated from the six-foot sidewalk by curb and gutter and an eight-foot grass strip (10 feet total). The eight-foot grass strip is reduced to a minimum of 3’-3” in the vicinity of the planned East Bay Flats development in order to minimize potential right-of-way impacts. The overall right-of-way width required from the high speed urban typical is a minimum of 160 feet. The proposed roadway typical section is shown in Figure 2.3.1.



Figure 2.3.1: Proposed Roadway Typical Section

The typical section for the Dupont Bridge includes three 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction (the outside lane will be striped out in the opening year) and 10-foot inside and outside shoulders. The 10-foot outside shoulder would function as a bicycle lane. A six-foot sidewalk is separated from the outside shoulder by concrete barrier wall. As shown in Figure 2.3.2, the proposed bridge will consist of dual structures separated by at least 20 feet.

Figure 2.3.2: Proposed Dupont Bridge Structural Typical Section



A minimum 20-foot distance between the twin structures is desirable to facilitate construction of the adjacent span, accommodate future maintenance, and inspection requirements. Constructing a single structure similar to the existing bridge is not desirable due to the total width of the bridge deck (~130 feet). Per the 2020 FDOT Design Manual (FDM), if a single structure exceeds the capacity of the FDOT district maintenance equipment, typically a 60-foot reach, then twin structures are preferred. Including the barrier walls, each bridge deck is 65’-5.5” wide as measured between the inside and outside copings. The total bridge footprint, including a minimum of a 20-foot spacing between bridges, is 150’-11”. Design elements common to all alternatives include:

• The roadway and bridge typical section shown in Figures 2.3.1 and 2.3.2;

• Project begins at the intersection of Oak Shore Drive and ends approximately 50 feet prior to the bayou south of Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center;

• Realigned bridges will maintain a minimum offset of 30 feet from the existing dolphins;

• US 98 southbound right turn lane into Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center will be extended;

• US 98 northbound left turn lane into Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center will be extended; and

• US 98 southbound left turn lane onto Jefferson Boulevard will be extended. None of the alternatives considered propose changes to the current FDOT Access Management Classification, Class 5. The only proposed access management modification is the combination of two driveways into Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center into one driveway with a longer turn lane. A meeting was held with TAFB in June 2020 to refine the median opening and turn lane configuration into the Bonita Bay parcel. Minor refinements were made to minimize impacts to the new boat maintenance facility that will be built on this parcel. The access management changes are identical for each of the alternatives. All of the proposed alternatives contain the same multi-modal accommodations which include 6.5-foot buffered bicycle lanes and six-foot sidewalk on the roadway approaches. On the



proposed Dupont Bridge, a six-foot concrete barrier wall separated sidewalk is included on the outside of each bridge and 10-foot outside shoulders can accommodate bicyclists. In the interim, when only four travel lanes are warranted, a 12-foot buffer (the future third lane) will be located between the outside shoulder / bicycle facility and the outer most travel lane, providing additional protection for cyclists and comfort for pedestrians. This PD&E Study focuses on the replacement of the Dupont Bridge in the vicinity of the existing bridge. The project limits are related to the tie-in points for the horizontal and vertical geometry on each approach. The alternatives considered for additional study include two alternatives to the west and one to the east of the existing Dupont Bridge and include alignments that are co-located atop the existing bridge footprint as well as alignments away from the existing bridge and dolphins. 2.3.1 West 1 Alternative (Preferred) The West 1 Alternative has a bridge footprint located entirely west of the existing bridge and dolphins’ footprint. The West 1 Alternative is based on the premise that the existing bridge would be retained to carry traffic across Saint Andrew Bay during the construction of the new twin bridges. The existing bridge would be removed after traffic is transferred to the new bridges. In order to provide working space for the demolition of the existing bridge, a distance of 30 feet is retained between the outside of the existing dolphins and the edge of the proposed bridge. The footprint of the West 1 Alternative is approximately 151 feet wide. The proposed structures are parallel to the existing Dupont Bridge at the channel crossing, then curve to tie-in to the existing alignment on the approaches. West 1 Alternative begins approximately 1,730 feet north of the existing US 98 bridge approach in the City of Parker. The replacement structure begins approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge abutment and continues for 3,582 feet, ending approximately 280 feet south of the existing bridge abutment. The alternative ties into the south approach approximately 1,380 feet south of the existing bridge abutment on TAFB. Figure 2.3.3 shows an overview of the West 1 Alternative. This alternative requires an approximate 100-foot wide expansion of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida (TIITF) easement over Saint Andrew Bay. The West 1 Alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages as described below.



Primary Advantages • Meets USCG guide clearances and FDOT geometric design standards;

• Impacts the fewest number of parcels and requires no relocations;

• Simplest construction phasing;

• Avoids old (1920’s) and current Dupont Bridge footings;

• Best horizontal alignment on TAFB;

• Positions bridge abutments and retaining walls to the west, where they are better protected and less vulnerable to storm surge and wave action, given the contours of the existing landfalls (particularly the south landfall);

• Furthest away from existing bridge if blasting is used for main channel pier removal;

• Furthest away from TAFB runways;

• Shortest construction duration;

• Lowest construction and total cost;

• Preferred by TAFB; and

• Avoids disruption to water main attached to current Dupont Bridge.

Primary Disadvantages • Requires the most right-of-way; and

• Impacts the most seagrass (1.28 acres).

ENVIRONMENT STUDY



SHEET

$D

AT

E$

$TIM

E$

$FIL

E$

$US

ER$

120 125

130

135140 145 150 155 160

165

170

175

180

RIP RAP


PROPOSED SIDEWALK


PROPOSED MEDIAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPERTY LINE





0

Feet

N

40080

2-9WEST 1 ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 2.3.3

APPROXIMATE NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL

ST. ANDREW BAY

Oak Sh

ore

Dr

Tyndall Pkwy

W C

ooper D

r

E C

ooper D

r

Jeffers

on Blvd

PARK & BOAT RAMPEARL GILBERT


PARKER



2.3.2 West 2 Alternative The West 2 Alternative utilizes part of the existing bridge footprint. The premise for this alternative is that only one of the new twin bridges would be built prior to the demolition of the existing bridge. After the initial twin bridge is constructed west of the existing bridge, traffic would be switched to the new bridge, demolition of the old bridge would occur, and the second twin bridge would utilize the horizontal location of the demolished bridge. As with the West 1 Alternative, to allow for bridge demolition, a distance of 30 feet separates the initial new twin bridge and the existing dolphins. The footprint width of the West 2 Alternative is approximately 270 feet. The proposed westbound structure is parallel to the existing Dupont Bridge at the channel crossing, then curves to tie-in to the existing alignment on the approaches. The proposed eastbound structure follows the alignment of the existing Dupont Bridge. The West 2 Alternative begins approximately 1,730 feet prior to the existing US 98 bridge abutment in the City of Parker. The replacement westbound structure begins approximately 370 feet prior to the existing bridge abutment and continues for 3,411 feet, ending approximately 290 feet south of the existing bridge abutment. The replacement eastbound structure begins approximately 225 feet north of the existing bridge abutment and continues for 3,249 feet, ending approximately 280 feet south of the existing bridge abutment. The alternative ties into the south approach approximately 1,380 feet south of the existing bridge abutment on TAFB. Figure 2.3.4 shows an overview of the West 2 Alternative. This alternative requires the TIITF easement to be expanded to the west by approximately 30 feet over Saint Andrew Bay. The West 2 Alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages as described below. Primary Advantages

• Meets USCG guide clearances and FDOT geometric design standards;

• Requires no relocations and requires the least amount of right-of-way;

• Impacts less seagrass (0.33 acres);

• Avoids existing Dupont Bridge footings; and

• Bridge alignment utilizes an already-disturbed portion of the bay bottom.

ENVIRONMENT STUDY



SHEET

$D

AT

E$

$TIM

E$

$FIL

E$

$US

ER$

120 125130

135 140 145 150 155 160 165170 175

180

200205

210 215 220 225 230235

240

RIP RAP


PROPOSED SIDEWALK


PROPOSED MEDIAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPERTY LINE





0

Feet

N

40080

2-11 WEST 2 ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 2.3.4


ST. ANDREW BAY

Oak Sh

ore

Dr

Tyndall Pkwy

W C

ooper D

r

E C

ooper D

r

Jeffers

on Blvd



PARKER



Primary Disadvantages • Requires a more complex construction phasing;

• Highest construction and total cost;

• Results in narrow, substandard shoulders during construction;

• Less desirable alignment on TAFB landfall;

• Conflicts with current Dupont Bridge footings are possible; and

• Impacts the water main attached to current Dupont Bridge during construction. 2.3.3 East 3 Alternative The East 3 Alternative is similar to the West 2 Alternative in that it has a bridge footprint that utilizes part of the existing bridge footprint. The premise for this alternative is that only the easternmost twin bridge would be built prior to the demolition of the existing bridge. After the initial twin bridge is constructed east of the existing bridge, traffic would be switched to the new bridge, demolition of the old bridge would occur, and the second twin bridge would utilize the horizontal location of the demolished bridge. As with the previous alternatives, to allow for bridge demolition, a distance of 30 feet separates the initial eastbound twin bridge and the existing dolphins. The footprint of the East 3 Alternative is approximately 260 feet wide. The proposed eastbound structure is parallel to the existing Dupont Bridge at the channel crossing, then curves to tie-in to the existing alignment on the approaches. The proposed westbound structure follows the alignment of the existing Dupont Bridge. The East 3 Alternative begins approximately 1,730 feet north of the existing US 98 bridge approach in the City of Parker. The replacement structure begins approximately 225 feet prior to the existing bridge abutment and continues for 3,273 feet, ending approximately 285 feet south of the existing bridge abutment. The alternative ties in on the south approach approximately 1,380 feet south of the existing bridge abutment on TAFB. Figure 2.3.5 shows an overview of the East 3 Alternative. This alternative requires the TIITF easement to be expanded to the east by approximately 20 feet over Saint Andrew Bay. All of the alternatives under consideration will require the easement from TAFB to be expanded by 20 to 40 feet on the west and approximately 12 feet on the east.

ENVIRONMENT STUDY



SHEET

$D

AT

E$

$TIM

E$

$FIL

E$

$US

ER$

120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175

180

235240

230215 220 225210

205200

RIP RAP


PROPOSED SIDEWALK


PROPOSED MEDIAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPERTY LINE





0

Feet

N

40080

EAST 3 ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 2.3.5

ST. ANDREW BAY


2-13

Oak Sh

ore

Dr

Tyndall Pkwy

W C

ooper D

r

E C

ooper D

r

Jeffers

on Blvd



PARKER



The East 3 Alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages as described below. Primary Advantages

• Meets USCG guide clearances and FDOT geometric design standards;

• Requires no relocations; and

• Impacts the least seagrass (0.19 acres).

Primary Disadvantages • Requires a more complex construction phasing;

• Results in narrow, substandard shoulders during construction;

• Least desirable horizontal alignment on TAFB;

• Impacts the most parcels;

• Conflicts with old (1920’s) and current Dupont Bridge footings are possible; and

• Impacts the water main attached to current Dupont Bridge during construction.

2.4 Drainage Alternatives Stormwater pond sites are proposed as part of the Dupont Bridge project. Dry retention is recommended due to the predominately well-drained soils and seasonal depths to groundwater. The proposed bridge will provide scuppers for direct drainage to Saint Andrew Bay. One new pond is needed to provide stormwater treatment for the proposed Dupont Bridge replacement and associated roadway improvements. The proposed pond is located on the north side of the proposed bridge, in the City of Parker. Since the southern end of the bridge is on federal lands (TAFB), ponds are not proposed within this basin. Instead, all impervious area on the north side of the bridge will be captured and treated, thereby providing compensating treatment for the southern end of the bridge. Per Part II, Chapter 2.9 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume II for use within the geographic limits of the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD), compensating stormwater treatment is acceptable when it is impractical to construct a stormwater management system to capture the runoff from a portion of the project. In addition, Section 373.413 (6), F.S. states that flexibility in the permitting of stormwater management systems associated with the construction or alteration of systems serving state transportation projects and facilities should be exercised.



Four pond site alternatives were evaluated to provide stormwater management for the project as shown in Figure 2.4.1. All pond sites require right-of-way acquisition and are located on vacant commercial parcels.

Figure 2.4.1: Pond Site Alternatives (North Landfall)

A pond site evaluation matrix, Table 2.4.1, was developed to present a comparison of the alternative pond sites with respect to environmental impacts and right-of-way costs.



Table 2.4.1: Pond Site Evaluation Matrix

Pond Name

Potential for Wetland/

Surface Water Involvement

Potential for Protected Species

Involvement

Archeological Site Potential

Contamination Risk Ranking

Right-of-Way Cost Estimate

($ million)

W1 Low Moderate Moderate Low 1.20 W2 Low Moderate High Low 1.29 E1 Low Moderate High Medium 1.35 E2 Low Moderate High Low 1.35

A preferred pond site for each roadway alternative was recommended based on the ranking of critical site selection parameters shown in Table 2.4.1. The preferred pond site for the West roadway alternatives is Pond W1 since it has lower archaeological site potential, lower estimated right-of-way cost, and does not require a drainage easement. The preferred pond site for the East roadway alternative is Pond E2 since it has a lower contamination risk ranking than Pond E1. Therefore, Pond W1 is considered the preferred pond site for the Preferred Alternative.

2.5 Project Cost Evaluation Construction cost estimates were prepared for each alternative using FDOT’s Long Range Estimate (LRE) system. The construction costs include the cost of the preferred pond site. Detailed reports for each LRE for each alternative can be found in the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), available under separate cover. The project costs for each of the alternatives are summarized in Table 2.5.1.

Table 2.5.1: Alternatives Cost Estimates Alternative

West 1 Alternative

West 2 Alternative

East 3 Construction Cost ($ million) 189.7 201.0 198.1 Right-of-way Cost ($ million) 11.9 11.4 12.0 Engineering and CEI Costs ($ million) (1) 28.4 30.2 29.8

Wetland Mitigation Cost ($ million) (2) 0.6 0.4 0.3 Total Costs ($ million) 230.6 243.0 240.2

(1) Based on 15% of Construction Cost (2) Estimated Cost (actual mitigation costs during permitting may vary)



The Engineering and CEI costs are estimated based on 15% of construction costs. The wetland mitigation costs are an estimate and may vary during permitting. The costs in Table 2.5.1 do not include the cost to relocate utilities. Utility costs are not expected to vary much between alternatives. Determination of which utilities will require relocation will be determined with detailed survey information during the preliminary design phase of this project. The right-of-way cost includes the cost of the proposed pond site.

2.6 Construction Considerations For the purpose of assessing potential impacts, the following is a brief summary of potential construction sequencing. The locations of construction staging areas and construction means and methods are not yet known and will be determined by the Design-Build team however, all construction activities will be performed in compliance with FDOT standard specifications. The West 1 Alternative proposes construction of two 65’-5.5” wide bridges to the west of the existing Dupont Bridge. The proposed easternmost bridge will be located approximately 30 feet from the nearest existing dolphins. The TIITF easement will need to be expanded west by approximately 100 feet over Saint Andrew Bay. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic would be shifted to the new permanent bridges as shown in Figure 2.3.2. The existing bridge would then be demolished. Demolition would include removal of the existing dolphins. Demolition methods are not yet known but, may include blasting to remove the main channel foundation unit. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT and their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to minimize potential effects on species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. In order to construct the West 1 Alternative, two 225-foot long by 40-foot wide temporary trestles (one from the north and one from the south) are anticipated to be required. The majority of the bridge (where the water depth exceeds approximately 15 feet) will be



constructed from a barge. A 100-foot buffer on either side of the proposed bridges is anticipated to be needed for constructability, including barge construction staging. The proposed TIITF easement on the west side of the proposed bridges will be approximately 100 feet from the outer coping of the westernmost bridge until the bridge transitions to roadway to allow room for construction staging and barge placement. Approximately 445 feet exists between the existing TIITF easement on the east side and the outer coping of the easternmost bridge over Saint Andrew Bay. Not all of this space will be needed for construction staging. However, the project study area extends from right-of-way to right-of-way, which provides a 700-foot swath for the West 1 Alternative. The West 2 and East 3 Alternatives have a bridge footprint that utilize part of the existing bridge footprint. These alternatives are based on the premise that only one of the new twin bridges will be built prior to the demolition of the existing bridge. After the initial twin bridge is constructed, traffic (vehicular, pedestrian, and cyclist) will be switched to the new bridge, and the existing bridge will be removed. The second twin bridge will then be built, utilizing the location of the existing demolished bridge. As with the West 1 Alternative, to allow for demolition, a distance of 30 feet separates the initial new twin bridge and the existing dolphins. The TIITF easement will need to be expanded west by approximately 30 feet over Saint Andrew Bay for the West 2 Alternative and 20 feet to the east for the East 3 Alternative. In order to construct the West 2 and East 3 Alternatives, four 225-foot long by 40-foot wide temporary trestles will be required. The majority of the bridge (where water depth exceeds 15 feet) will be constructed from a barge. A 100-foot buffer on either side of the proposed bridges is anticipated to be needed for constructability, including barge staging. For the West 2 Alternative, the proposed TIITF easement on the west side of the proposed bridges will be approximately 100 feet from the outer coping of the westernmost bridge until the bridge transitions to roadway to allow room for construction staging and barge placement. Approximately 260 feet exists between the existing TIITF easement on the east side and the outer coping of the easternmost bridge over Saint Andrew Bay. The entirety of this space is not anticipated to be needed for construction staging. However, the project study area extends from right-of-way to right-of-way, which provides a 630-foot swath for the West 2 Alternative.



For the East 3 Alternative, the proposed TIITF easement on the east side of the proposed bridges will be approximately 100 feet from the outer coping of the easternmost bridge until the bridge transitions to roadway to allow room for construction staging and barge placement. As with the West 2 Alternative, approximately 260 feet exists between the existing TIITF easement on the west side and the outer coping of the westernmost bridge over Saint Andrew Bay. Again, the entirety of this space will not be needed for construction staging. Similar to the West 2 Alternative, the project study area extends from right-of-way to right-of-way, which provides a 620-foot swath for the East 3 Alternative. The construction advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives are discussed below. The No-Build Alternative has certain construction advantages and disadvantages as described below. Construction Advantages – No-Build Alternative

• No inconveniences to the motoring public during construction; and

• No impacts to the natural environment.

Construction Disadvantages – No-Build Alternative

• Not Applicable (see Section 2.1 for non-construction related disadvantages). The West 1 Alternative has certain construction advantages and disadvantages as described below. Construction Advantages – West 1 Alternative

• Can build new dual structures while vehicles remain on existing structure;

• Safest construction staging option;

• Requires only two temporary trestles which results in the least seagrass impacts (0.41 acres).

Construction Disadvantages – West 1 Alternative

• None (see Section 2.3.1 for non-construction related disadvantages).



The West 2 and East 3 Alternatives the same construction advantages and disadvantages as described below. Construction Advantages – West 2 and East 3 Alternatives

• None (see Section 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 for non-construction related advantages). Construction Disadvantages – West 2 and East 3 Alternatives

• Requires four-lanes of traffic to be moved to one of the new dual bridges. This results in two-foot inside shoulders and 3.5-foot outside shoulders.

• Moving traffic to one of the new dual bridges requires temporary barrier wall to be placed at the centerline to divide traffic and in front of the pedestrian railing. This results in an increase in construction cost.

• There is no room for pedestrian or bicycles during this phase of construction. Similarly, if an accident occurred on the bridge, the shoulders are not wide enough to accommodate a disabled vehicle (similar to the current bridge).

• Requires four temporary trestles which results in the largest seagrass impacts (0.82 acres).

• Construction could be delayed if any of the existing (1920s) or current bridge foundations conflict with any of the proposed piers.

2.7 Preferred Alternative After considering the various social, cultural, environmental, and engineering issues with all of the alternatives, Alternative West 1 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. Although Alternative West 1 has the most seagrass impacts (0.95 to 1.09 acres more than West 2 or East 3, respectively), it results in better horizontal geometry, simpler construction staging, safer roadway conditions during construction, and has the lowest cost. This westernmost alignment is located further away from the narrow shoreline on the eastern side of the TAFB landfall, allowing a wider shoreline between the water's edge and the bridge abutment / retaining walls, thereby offering better protection from future wave action and storm surge. Alternative West 1's second primary advantage is the avoidance of the old (1920’s) and current bridge footprint and the significant construction staging benefit briefly described in Section 2.6 and further described in Section 3.6.5.



The West 1 Alternative locates both bridges on new alignment which allows those new bridges to be constructed while traffic remains on the existing bridge. This is a significant benefit over the construction staging for the West 2 and East 3 Alternatives which have one of the dual bridges over the existing alignment. As a result, only the one bridge on new alignment is constructed, then four lanes of traffic are moved to one structure resulting in substandard shoulder widths until the existing bridge can be demolished and the second bridge can be constructed. Thirdly, TAFB, a major project stakeholder and a cooperating federal agency, supports Alternative West 1 as the Preferred Alternative. At the Public Hearing, a representative of the developer of East Bay Flats commented that a new apartment complex and two restaurants are being planned on the northeast quadrant of the existing Dupont Bridge. The Preferred Alternative resulted in minor impacts to this planned development including impacts to a proposed parking lot and dry retention pond. As a result, the alignment was shifted slightly and the buffer between the curb and gutter and sidewalk were reduced to a minimum of 3’-3” in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot. During the Public Hearing formal comment period, Eastern Shipbuilding Group expressed a desire for the vertical clearance of the Dupont Bridge to be raised to 75 feet to facilitate all of their vessel fabrication in a single location. FDOT reached out to TAFB to confirm increasing the vertical clearance would not be a problem. On April 1, 2021, TAFB stated that raising the proposed bridge height by 10 feet should still be outside of the approach / departure clearance surface (horizontal) and outer horizontal surface. TAFB requested that FDOT follow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for obstructions and send a copy of the Airspace Study to TAFB during the design phase. TAFB also recommended awareness signage on the proposed Dupont Bridge indicating that the proposed bridge is located in an aircraft accident potential zone. After considering the Public Hearing comments and TAFB response, FDOT agreed to increase the vertical clearance to 75 feet.

The Preferred Alternative, including the preferred pond site is shown in Figure 2.7.1. Appendix A contains the conceptual plan and profile sheets for the Preferred Alternative.

11.6

6

PI +70.2

7E

L.

14.5

7

365' V.C.

PI +83.9

9E

L.

105.3

3

1,238' V.C.

PI +29.3

5E

L.

13.0

7

451' V.C.

11.4

6

+87.8

7 E

L.

14.0

2

+52.6

7 E

L.

22.0

5

+65.1

9 E

L.

79.9

6

+02.7

9 E

L.

74.3

9

+03.7

4 E

L.

24.3

5

+54.9

5 E

L.

12.3

9

ENVIRONMENT STUDY



SHEET

$D

AT

E$

$TIM

E$

$FIL

E$

$US

ER$

120125

130

135140 145 150 155 160

165

170

175

180

130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00125+00120+00

RIP RAP


PROPOSED SIDEWALK


PROPOSED MEDIAN

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

PROPERTY LINE





0

Feet

N

40080

ST. ANDREW BAY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Superstructure

Proposed

Oak S

hore Drive

Ground

ExistingCrest = 12.6'

Maximum Wave

Water = 0.78'

Mean High

Clearance

75' Vertical

(150' Minimum)

Channel Location

Approximate

Center / Jeffers

on Blvd

Bonita B

ay R

ec

Preferred Alternative Profile1" = 100' Horizontal

1" = 20' Vertical

PROPOSED POND

(PLAN / PROFILE)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 2.7.1

2-22

1' MIN

1' MIN

Oak Sh

ore

Dr

Tyndall Pkwy

W C

ooper D

r

E C

ooper D

r

Jeffers

on Blvd


PARKER



3.0 Environmental Analysis This Chapter describes the environmental resources that could be affected by the Build and No-Build Alternatives. Where possible, impacts are quantified or measured. Where measuring an impact is not possible, a qualitative discussion is provided to explain the basis for whether the impact would be considered “significant” within the context of NEPA. Significant impacts are those that have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Per 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1508.27, dated July 1, 2012, whether or not a proposed action “significantly” affects the quality of the human environment is determined by considering the context in which it will occur and the intensity of the action. The context of the action is determined by studying the affected region, the affected locality, and the affected interests within both. Significance varies depending on the setting of the proposed action. The intensity of an action refers to the severity of the impacts, both regionally and locally. The level at which an impact is considered significant varies for each environmental resource. The discussion of environmental impacts is based on the initial evaluation provided by the environmental resource agencies, a description of the resource, and an assessment of the potential impact. More discussion is provided for those resources where the impact would be greater, and less discussion is provided where the impact is not as great, or where the resource is not present.

3.1 Efficient Transportation Decision Making Degree of Effect Determination The Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process is FDOT’s procedure for reviewing qualifying transportation projects to consider potential environmental effects in the Planning phase. This process provides stakeholders the opportunity for early input, involvement, and coordination, provides for the early identification of potential project effects, and informs the development of scopes for projects advancing to the PD&E phase. Stakeholders involved in the ETDM process generally include TPOs, county and municipal governments, federal and state agencies, Native American tribes, and the public. To facilitate intergovernmental interaction, each of the seven geographic FDOT districts has an Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT). ETAT members and the public have the



opportunity to provide input to the FDOT regarding a project's potential effects on the natural, physical, cultural, and community resources throughout the planning phase of project delivery. These comments help to determine the feasibility of a proposed project; focus the issues to be addressed during the PD&E phase; allow for early identification of potential avoidance, minimization, and mitigation opportunities; and promote efficiency and consistency during project development. For this study, the ETAT included representatives from the following agencies:

• Federal Transit Administration;

• US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA);

• US Department of Interior – USFWS;

• USACE – Regulatory Branch;

• US Department of Commerce – NMFS – Southeast Regional Superintendent Conservation District;

• US Department of Interior – National Park Service (NPS) – Southeast Regional Office;

• USCG – Eighth District – Commander;

• US Forest Service;

• FWC;

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP);

• Florida Department of State;

• Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (FDEO);

• Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service (FDACS); and

• NWFWMD. FDOT informs agencies, tribal representatives, elected officials, and other interested stakeholders of a proposed action through the Advance Notification (AN) process. AN was initiated on January 18, 2018 as ETDM Project 14347. A Final Programming Screen Summary Report was published on May 2, 2019. The Final Programming Screen Summary Report includes a list of all agencies and organizations that provided comments. The Navigation category was assigned a “Substantial” Degree of Effect. The remaining categories were “Moderate” or below.



3.2 Summary of Impacts Table 3.2.1 summarizes the engineering, and environmental effects for the project. The matrix evaluates the No-Build Alternative and the three Build Alternatives (West 1, West 2, and East 3). The matrix compares the alternatives as required by the FDOT PD&E manual.

Table 3.2.1: Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Evaluation Criteria No-Build West 1 West 2 East 3

Social and Economic Impacts Total Parcels Impacted 0 7 9 10 Total Acres Impacted 0 7.1 6.4 6.5 Total Relocations 0 0 0 0 Number of Recreation Areas Impacted 0 1 1 1

Cultural Resource Impacts Archaeological Terrestrial Sites Potentially Impacted 0 1 1 1

Archaeological Marine Sites Potentially Impacted 0 0 0 0

National Register of Historic Places Eligible Properties Potentially Impacted

0 0 0 0

Natural Resource Impacts Wetlands and Surface Waters Impacted (acres) 0 0.05 0.05 0.05

Seagrass Impacted (acres) 0 1.28 0.33 0.19 Seagrass Temporarily Impacted (acres) 0 0.41 0.82 0.82

Physical Resource Impacts Potential Contamination Sites Impacted 0 3 3 4

Water Quality Impacts None Minimal Minimal Minimal Air Quality Impacts No Change Improved Improved Improved Impacts to Existing Utilities None Low Moderate Moderate Construction Complexity N/A Low High High Potential Conflict with 1920s Dupont Bridge N/A None None High

Potential Conflict with Current Dupont Bridge N/A None Moderate Moderate



Evaluation Criteria No-Build West 1 West 2 East 3 Costs

Estimated Construction Cost ($ million)

0 189.7 201.0 198.1

Estimated Right-of-way Cost ($ million) 0 11.9 11.4 12.0

Engineering and CEI Costs ($ million) 0 28.4 30.2 29.8

Wetland Mitigation Cost ($ million) 0 0.6 0.4 0.3

Total Costs ($ million) 0 230.6 243.0 240.2 Overall, the West 1 Alternative results in better horizontal geometry, simpler construction staging, safer roadway conditions during construction, and has the lowest cost. The West 1 Alternative does have the most seagrass impacts, which is the primary environmental impact with the bridge replacement. The project does not result in any relocations. No disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income communities are identified. Although construction noise impacts from pile driving are likely, no noise barrier walls were identified as reasonable and feasible. Additional Level II contamination assessments will be required for the three high rated sites that will be impacted. Additional information on the environmental impacts in contained in the following sections.

3.3 Social and Economic Resources Social and economic considerations include: nondiscrimination, community cohesion, community focal points, business and employment impacts, land use changes, mobility, aesthetics, and potential relocations. This section describes specific agency comments received as part of the ETDM process and the analysis completed during the PD&E Study relating to social and economic issues.



3.3.1 Social During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to social resources based on review comments from USEPA. The USEPA commented that the project may lead to disruption in traffic patterns (i.e. lane reductions, detours) during the project construction and an increase in noise to surrounding homes and businesses. A proactive public involvement program has been implemented to ensure that all residents and businesses along the proposed corridor can provide input to the project. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study:

3.3.1.1 Demographics Demographic data describes a community's structure and is primarily collected by local, state, or federal agencies such as the Census Bureau and other local government departments. Demographic data covers a range of topics about communities, including population size, age composition, ethnic backgrounds, household characteristics, and geographic distribution. This data assists in designing public participation, outreach, and education strategies that reflect the age, education, and economic backgrounds of the community. The 2010 Census Block Group Data, which contains the most recent decennial demographic profile, was used to complete the demographic comparison and analysis contained in this document. Block groups are defined by the United States Census Bureau as “statistical divisions of census tracts and are generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people.” Census blocks are statistical areas bounded by visible features, such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracks, and by nonvisible boundaries, such as selected property lines and city, township, school district, and county limits. The one-mile buffer around the existing Dupont Bridge centerline intersects four census block groups in Bay County as shown in Figure 3.3.1. One census block group exists for TAFB which is Census Tract 700 Block Group 1, and three census block groups are located north of the Dupont Bridge and include: Census Tract 900 Block Group 1, Census Tract 806 Block Group 1, and Census Tract 806 Block Group 2.


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-6Figure 3.3.1:

Census Block Groups

0 2.51.25Miles

LegendProject LocationCensus Block GroupsOne-Mile SCE Study Area

City ofParker


Gulf of Mexico

£¤98Census Tract 700Block Group 1

Census Tract 900Block Group 1 Census Tract 806

Block Group 2

Census Tract 806Block Group 1



Within the 500-foot study area buffer there are only two census block groups: Census Tract 700 Block Group 1 (TAFB), and Census Tract 900 Block Group 1. The people within these census block groups are the most likely to be impacted by the project. The demographic information for each of the four census block groups that intersect the Dupont Bridge Sociocultural Effects (SCE) study area was compared to the demographic information for all of Bay County. The most relevant demographic information for each census block group is compared to that for Bay County and is shown in Tables 3.3.1 to 3.3.6. The demographic data for the census block groups within 500 feet of the study area are highlighted in light blue. As shown in Table 3.3.1, the Census Tract 700 Block Group 1, which covers all of TAFB, is typically different than the three census block groups in the City of Parker and Bay County. The percent of the population that is considered White is 77.4% in Bay County and ranges from 60.6% to 79.4% in the study area. Census Tract 700 Block Group 1 and Census Tract 806 Block Group 1 have a similar percent of the population that is considered Black at 13.9% and 14.2%, respectively, while Census Tract 806 Block Group 2 and Census Tract 900 Block Group 1 are 8.5% and 8.4%, respectively. The percent of population that is considered Black in Bay County is 10.8%. One of the largest differences in nationalities is Hispanic, which is 13.1% for TAFB while the percent in Bay County is 4.8%. The City of Parker census block groups range from 4.0% to 7.0% for the percent of population considered Hispanic. In Census Tract 806 Block Group 1, 6.0% of the population is considered Asian, which is significantly higher than Bay County, 2.0%, and the remaining three census block groups which range from 2.3% to 3.2%. The percent of population that is Other is highest in Bay County at 5.1%, followed by TAFB at 2.5%. The percent of population that is considered minority is 21.3% in Bay County and is the highest in TAFB, 34.8%, and lowest in Census Tract 900 Block Group 1, 18.9%. Figure 3.3.2 shows the percent minority in the study area.



Table 3.3.1: Demographic Comparison: Population

Evaluation Criteria Bay County Census

Tract 700 Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 2

Census Tract 900

Blk Group 1 Total population 168,852 2,995 2,184 658 1,718

Percent of the population that is White 77.4% 60.6% 68.6% 74.0% 79.4% Percent of the population that is Black 10.8% 13.9% 14.2% 8.5% 8.4% Percent of the population that is Hispanic 4.8% 13.1% 5.6% 7.0% 4.0% Percent of the population that is Asian 2.0% 2.4% 6.0% 3.2% 2.3% Percent of the population that is Other1 5.1% 2.5% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7%

Percent of the population that is considered ‘Minority’ 21.3% 34.8% 29.1% 25.1% 18.9%

Median population age 40.3 22.0 37.0 41.0 46.0 Percent of the population that is above 65 years old 15.6% 0.5% 10.7% 13.1% 19.6%

1 Other nationalities include: American Indian or Alaska native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander, or 2 or more races.

Table 3.3.2: Demographic Comparison: Density



Census Tract 806

Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 2

Census Tract 900

Blk Group 1 Total acres 661,217 47,608 1,621 201 1,732 Population density (persons per acre) 2.18 0.06 1.35 3.27 0.99 Household density (houses per acre) 1.33 0.01 0.60 1.58 0.62 Percent of housing units occupied 76.2% 81.5% 85.0% 83.0% 75.0% Percent of housing units vacant 22.9% 18.5% 15.0% 17.0% 25.0% Average family size 2.9 3 3 3 3 Average household size 2.3 3 3 2 2



Table 3.3.3: Demographic Comparison: Income



Census Tract 806

Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 2

Census Tract 900

Blk Group 1 Median Household Income ($) $47,446 $44,676 $56,772 $14,141 $55,143 Median Family Income ($) $55,277 $44,676 $67,222 $42,222 $72,600 Percent of households below the poverty line2 12.0% 6.1% 6.3% 32.3% 5.8% Percent of the population below the poverty line2 12.4% 5.8% 9.3% 28.9% 3.5%

2 The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty.

Table 3.3.4: Demographic Comparison: Transportation



Census Tract 806

Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 2

Census Tract 900

Blk Group 1 Percent of the population that commute to / from work via a car, truck or van 92.8% 97.6% 90.0% 100.0% 94.2%

Percent of the population that does not commute to / from work 2.2% 0.9% 2.7% 0.0% 5.8%

Percent of the population that bikes, walks, or takes public transportation to / from work 2.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Percent of the population that travels to / from work via a motorcycle 0.5% 1.2% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Percent of the population that travels to work / from via “other” means 1.7% 0.00% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Percent of occupied housing units that do not have a vehicle 5.0% 2.4% 0.0% 4.6% 7.3%



Table 3.3.5: Demographic Comparison: Language



Census Tract 806

Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 2

Census Tract 900

Blk Group 1 Percent of the population that speaks only English 92.3% 88.2% 89.8% 89.8% 97.8% Percent of the population that speaks a language other than English and also speaks English “very well”

5.1% 8.4% 7.4% 10.2% 2.2%

Percent of the population that is considered to be Limited English Proficient 2.6% 3.3% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Note: People with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) speak English “less than very well” or “not at all.” These people have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English.

Table 3.3.6: Demographic Comparison: Education



Census Tract 806

Blk Group 1

Census Tract 806

Blk Group 2

Census Tract 900

Blk Group 1 Percent of the population that is over 25 years old and has less than a 9th grade education 4.0% 0.00% 9.2% 11.6% 0.0%

Percent of the population that is over 25 years old and has completed more than 9th grade but does not have a high school diploma

9.7% 2.2% 10.% 0.0% 16.0%

Percent of the population that is over 25 years old and has a high school diploma 86.3% 97.8% 80.9% 88.4% 84.0%

Percent of the population that has some college or an associate’s degree 34.4% 60.8% 34.1% 13.8% 39.4%

Percent of the population that has a bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate, or professional degree 20.4% 20.9% 21.0% 15.9% 15.7%


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-11

Figure 3.3.2:Percent Minority in

Study Area

Tyndall Pkwy

0 0.50.25Miles

LegendProject LocationCensus Block Groups

Percent Minority< 20%20-30%> 30%

One-M

ile Bu

ffer

34.8%

18.9%

29.1%

£¤98

25.1%





St. Andrew Bay




The median population age in Bay County is 40.3 years old compared to 37 to 46 for the City of Parker census block groups. The median population age for TAFB is 22 years old, significantly younger than Bay County or the other census block groups. This relatively young age range is consistent with the over-age 65 population percentage, which is 15.6% in Bay County and only 0.5% for TAFB. The census block group with the highest percentage of the population over age 65 is Census Tract 900 Block Group 1 with 19.6%. Figure 3.3.3 shows the percent of population above 65 in the study area. TAFB has the lowest population and household density at 0.06 and 0.01, respectively, a characteristic which is likely due to the land use needs of the base. Census Tract 806 Block Group 2 has the highest population and household density at 3.27 and 1.58, respectively, as compared with Bay County at 2.18 and 1.33, respectively. The median household income of $14,141 is the lowest in Census Tract 806 Block Group 2 and has a direct correlation to this census block group having the highest percent (32.3%) of households below the poverty line. The median household income in Bay County is $47,446, while the highest median household income of $56,772 is in Census Tract 806 Block Group 1. The percent of households below the poverty line is 12.0% in Bay County and 6.1% at TAFB. Figure 3.3.4 shows the percent of households below the poverty line in the study area. The percent of population that speaks only English in Bay County is 92.3%. Census Tract 900 Block Group 1 has the highest percentage that speaks only English at 97.8%, while the three remaining groups range from 88.2% to 89.8%. The percent of population that is considered to be Limited English Proficient (LEP) is 2.6% in Bay County, 3.3% in TAFB, 2.8% in Census Tract 806 Block Group 1, and 0.00% in Census Tract 806 Block Group 2 and Census Tract 900 Block Group 1. Due to the low percent of the LEP population, translation services at public meetings or for public notices will not be required. The percent of the population that is over 25 years old and has a high school diploma is similar between all four census block groups and Bay County. The highest percentage is 97.8% at TAFB, while the lowest is 80.9% in Census Tract 806 Block Group 1. The percent of population that has some college or an associate’s degree is 34.4% in Bay County a number that is similar to Census Tract 806 Block Group 1 (34.1%) and Census Tract 900 Block Group 1 (39.4%). Census Tract 806 Block Group 2 has a percent of population with some college as 13.8%, while TAFB has 60.8%.


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-13

Figure 3.3.3:Percent of the Population

Above Age 65 in the Study Area

Tyndall Pkwy

0 0.50.25Miles


Percent Above 65< 10%10-15%> 15%

One-M

ile Bu

ffer

£¤98



Census Tract 806Block Group 10.5%

19.6%

10.7%

13.1%



St. Andrew Bay


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-14

Figure 3.3.4:Percent of the Households

Below the Poverty Line in the Study Area

Tyndall Pkwy

0 0.50.25Miles


Households Below thePoverty Line

< 10 %> 10%

One-M

ile Bu

ffer

£¤98



Census Tract 806Block Group 16.1%

5.8%

6.3%

32.3%



St. Andrew Bay



This project has been developed without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Although minority or low-income populations have been identified that may be affected, the environmental analysis described above demonstrates that they will not be adversely affected in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and FHWA 6640.23A. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.1.2 Community Cohesion A community is made up of residents, businesses, and institutions within a defined geographic area. The people who comprise a community often share similar social, cultural, ethnic, economic, political, and / or religious characteristics and they may attend the same schools, churches, or social clubs, and often have similar values. After Hurricane Michael devastated this portion of Florida’s panhandle in October 2018, very little community cohesion exists around the project corridor. Over time, businesses and schools have reopened and the community is steadily recovering. This project provides an opportunity to enhance the community cohesion with improved bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and connectivity. For bicyclists, 10-foot outside shoulders on both the eastbound and westbound bridge can be used as a bicycle lane that connects to the buffered bicycle lanes proposed on the roadway approaches. For pedestrians, six-foot sidewalks are provided on both sides of US 98, including a barrier-separated sidewalk on the outside of both the eastbound and westbound bridges, thereby improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the City of Parker and TAFB. All of the alternatives for this project are in the same general vicinity as the existing Dupont Bridge. Adverse effects towards community cohesion are therefore not anticipated. With the No-Build Alternative, the project corridor would continue to have no pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Furthermore, the decline of the existing bridge will result in a posting for loads in the short-term, and the bridge closing in the long-term. The loss of the Dupont Bridge would disconnect TAFB from the City of Parker, and Bay County. If the Dupont Bridge is closed, those trying to reach TAFB from the City of Parker would need to traverse an approximately 80-mile long detour requiring approximately one hour and 35 minutes under



normal traffic conditions. The detour would utilize SR 22 and SR 71 before reconnecting to US 98 at Port Saint Joe. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.1.3 Community Focal Points Community focal points are public or private locations, facilities, or organizations that are important to local residents and communities. Community focal points include schools, worship centers, community centers, parks, cemeteries, fire stations, law enforcement facilities, government buildings, healthcare facilities, and social service facilities. Although the project corridor is located in a relatively undeveloped portion of US 98, there are some community focal points in the study area. Within one mile of the project study area, nine community focal points are present, as shown in Figure 3.3.5:

• Tyndall Elementary School;

• Agape Korean Presbyterian Church;

• Marine Corps League Detachment 65;

• Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center;

• Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp;

• Under the Oaks Park;

• Coral Bean Addition Under Oaks Park;

• Donaldson Point Boat Ramp; and

• National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. The Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center is the only community focal point located within 500 feet of the project corridor.

b

bæ

õôó

õôóõôó

õôó

õôó

nm

£¤98


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-17Figure 3.3.5:

Community Focal Points

0 0.50.25Miles

LegendProject Location500-foot BufferOne-mile Buffer

æ Agape Korean Presbyterian Churchb National Alliance for the Mentallyb Marine Corps League #65

nm Tyndall Elementary School

Parksõôó Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center

õôó Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp

õôó Donaldson Point Boat Ramp

õôó Under the Oaks

õôó Under the Oaks - Coral Bean Addition



Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center is located adjacent to US 98 just southwest of the existing Dupont Bridge. The property is located within TAFB and prior to Hurricane Michael in 2018, provided a number of amenities for military employees and family members including a paintball field, skeet range, archery range, boat docks, a pool, and boat rental services. The property is owned by the United States Air Force; therefore, the Bay County Property Appraiser lists the zoning for the parcel as “military.” Coordination with TAFB confirmed that Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center is not open to the public and is not a Section 4(f) resource. A Determination of Applicability (DOA) was prepared for this resource to document that Section 4(f) does not apply; the DOA was approved by the FDOT Office of Environmental Management (OEM) on July 11, 2019. This documentation is contained in Appendix G and the project file. As part of this project, the TIITF easement on TAFB will need to be increased by approximately 90 to 170 feet on the west side of the existing Dupont Bridge, in the vicinity of Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center. The acquisition will not impact the building, parking, or recreation area. The two driveways into Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center will be combined into one driveway with a longer turn lane. After damage caused by Hurricane Michael (2018), the building and facilities are currently unoccupied and unused. Coordination with TAFB has revealed that the recreation center is anticipated to be relocated to a different location on the base. As of a meeting in June 2020, a new boat maintenance facility is planned to be rebuilt on this parcel. The proposed improvements were configured as to not impact base operations. Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp is located on the southern tip of the City of Parker, approximately 1,000 feet east of the existing Dupont Bridge. The park has 1,500 feet of shoreline, a boat ramp, a fishing pier, and numerous pavilions with picnic benches. The property is comprised of three different parcels: two owned by the TITTF / State of Florida and one owned by the City of Parker. The City of Parker leases the two TIITF properties from the State of Florida. The Bay County Property Appraiser lists the zoning for the parcels as “vacant government” and “state, other than military, forest, parks, recreational areas, colleges, hospitals.” Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp is publicly held land and a significant recreation area for the City of Parker. Therefore, Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp is a Section 4(f) resource, as documented in DOA, which was approved by OEM on July 11, 2019.



The project will have no direct or indirect use of this resource. All of the Build Alternatives are at least 700 feet away from Earl Gilbert Park. The project will not affect the access to Earl Gilbert Park (via US 98) in either the permanent or temporary condition. The FDOT commits to providing access to the entrance road to Earl Gilbert Park during construction. The FDOT Office of Environmental Management (OEM) approved the Section 4(f) No Use Determination on August 9, 2019. This documentation is contained in Appendix G and the project file.

No other community focal points will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. In comparison, the No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to community focal points. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.1.4 Consistency with Community Goals and Plans The project is listed in the Bay County TPO 2040 LRTP under Amendment 2 with funding for PD&E between 2015 and 2020, and Design and Construction between 2021 and 2025. The project is also included in the Bay County TIP for fiscal years 2020 to 2024 with funding for Preliminary Engineering in 2020/2021, Right-of-Way in 2022 to 2024, and Design-Build in 2023/2024. The STIP, TIP, and LRTP Amendment 2 funding are all consistent as shown in Appendix E. The project is consistent with the community goals and plans. Due to the extensive impacts of Hurricane Michael, TAFB is undergoing a significant rehabilitation. Coordination with the TAFB is ongoing to ensure that the access and right-of-way impacts associated with the Dupont Bridge Replacement will be compatible with the new base master plan. On June 24, 2020, a meeting was held with TAFB staff and consultants to discuss the newly proposed boat maintenance facility on the Bonita Bay parcel. The access configuration was revised to better accommodate the new boat maintenance facility and access requirements. Eastern Shipbuilding Group requested a 75-foot vertical clearance in the navigational channel to facilitate all of their vessel fabrication in a single location. The FDOT has agreed



to increase the proposed navigational vertical clearance to meet Eastern Shipbuilding Group’s needs. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.2 Economic During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 1 (Enhanced) was assigned to economic resources based on review comments from FDEO. The FDEO commented that the project is important to maintaining the operational status of TAFB because it connects the base to the US 98 corridor and the surrounding area. TAFB is very important to the economy of the region and is one of the largest employers in the county. The project may help to retain jobs in Bay County by supporting the mission of TAFB. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: 3.3.2.1 Business and Employment According to the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), the population in Bay County is expected to increase by approximately 22% from 2016 to 2040. Traffic volumes will continue to increase with increases in population growth. Consequently, a long-term mobility option is needed that will not only serve current traffic volumes but will also accommodate the population growth anticipated between 2016 and 2040. The primary driver of capacity increases results from operation changes at TAFB. The current Dupont Bridge is structurally deficient and in need of replacement. The bridge is in danger of being posted for maximum traffic loads, a restriction that would hinder military operations and ultimately compromise America’s defense network. This project is vital to maintaining access to TAFB, which is the largest economic driver in Bay County. The proposed construction activities will generate a number of construction-related jobs. Construction activity will contribute to regional economic output and household incomes. However, these potential positive effects will be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction. Ultimately, business and employment impacts associated with the project are beneficial, with temporary adverse, but not significant, impacts during construction.



If the No-Build Alternative were selected, there would not be an expenditure of money for bridge construction. However, bridge maintenance and repair would continue. Routine maintenance costs are anticipated to increase as bridge conditions continue to deteriorate. Even with the increased expenditures and continued maintenance of the bridge, it is likely to become non-operational due to its age and condition. As described in Section 3.3.1.2, this would result in TAFB being disconnected from the City of Parker and Bay County. As a result, an extremely long detour would be needed to reach TAFB which would result in significant disruption in military operations and would be detrimental to the employment in Bay County. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.

3.3.2.2 Tax Base Negligible impacts on the tax base are anticipated since the project will result in minimal right-of-way acquisition from vacant properties and from unimproved portions of TAFB. Although right-of-way acquisition is minimal, any of the property acquired and converted to roadway right-of-way will reduce the tax revenue for Bay County. Table 3.3.7 shows the potential changes in annual taxable value lost for the alternatives considered, assuming that any land acquisition would result in no future taxable value for that parcel. Considering that the properties impacted are large parcels, the effects of the proposed road right-of-way will not reduce the taxable value to zero, but this analysis provides a very conservative estimate of the tax base impacts. As shown below, Alternative West 1 has the least impact on the tax base, and Alternative East 3 has the most impact of the Build Alternatives.

Table 3.3.7: Annual Taxable Value Lost No-Build Alternative

West 1 Alternative

West 2 Alternative

East 3 Annual Taxable Value Lost from Lands within the Proposed Roadway Right-of-Way ($ millions)

0 3.3 4.4 4.6

Source: Bay County Property Appraiser’s Office, February 2020



The pond alternatives are located on parcels that are already impacted by the roadway improvements; therefore, the costs in Table 3.3.7 include any tax revenue loss from proposed pond sites. In comparison, no impacts to the tax base would result from the No-Build Alternative. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.2.3 Traffic Patterns This PD&E Study examines replacement bridges in the vicinity of the existing Dupont Bridge. No changes are proposed to the current vehicular traffic patterns. However, an increase in vessel traffic may occur due to the increase in vertical clearance above the navigational channel for the proposed Dupont Bridge. The existing vertical clearance over the navigational channel is only 50 feet, which is 15 feet lower than the adjacent bridges also crossing the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. This potential increase in vessel traffic could be an economic driver for the area. Furthermore, the increase in vertical clearance will continue to promote the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway as a regionally significant conduit for commercial, industrial, and military shipping interests. The addition of a sidewalk and full-width shoulders along the proposed Dupont Bridge may also facilitate additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic. No changes to traffic patterns would occur with the No-Build Alternative. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.2.4 Business Access As a result of proposed improvements, the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center, located south and west of the existing Dupont Bridge on US 98, will have its two existing access points consolidated into a single access point. The consolidation of access points allows for the right turn lane to extend approximately 100 feet further than the existing turn lane. On June 24, 2020, a meeting was held with TAFB staff and consultants to discuss the newly proposed boat maintenance facility on the Bonita Bay parcel. The access configuration was revised to better accommodate the new boat maintenance facility and access requirements. Access to Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center (and/or any of the military installations on



this property) will be maintained throughout the entirety of the project. No other businesses are proposed to have their access modified with the proposed improvements. No changes to business access would occur with the No-Build Alternative. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.

3.3.3 Land Use Changes During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to land use changes based on review comments from FDEO. The FDEO noted that the project’s purpose is to replace an existing failing bridge facility, which is compatible with community development goals and consistent with the applicable comprehensive plans. The project is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern. Although the bridge connects TAFB with the US 98 corridor, the project involves the replacement of an existing facility and will not negatively impact its operations. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: 3.3.3.1 Existing Land Use The Dupont Bridge Replacement study area is in a suburban corridor that connects TAFB with the City of Parker. Consequently, the primary land uses are institutional and residential. At the south end of the project corridor, the land use within the study area is exclusively institutional since it is military property. The north end of the project corridor is a mixture of primarily residential, retail / office, vacant, and public / semi-public land. The land for all of the parks on the north end (Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp, Under the Oaks, Under the Oaks – Coral Bean Addition, and Donaldson Point Boat Ramp) are all classified as public / semi-public land. Figure 3.3.6 shows the existing land use map for the project corridor. This project is not anticipated to result in changes in land use or growth patterns in the study area or surrounding communities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.

£¤98


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-24Figure 3.3.6:

Existing Land Use

0 0.50.25Miles

LegendProject LocationOne-mile BufferCity of Parker

Existing Land UseIndustrialInstitutionalParcels with No Value

Public / Semi-PublicResidentialRetail / OfficeVacant



3.3.3.2 Future Land Use Bay County’s future land use map shows minimal changes in land use in the project corridor. TAFB is shown as institutional in the existing land use plan and public / institutional in the future land use plan. The majority of the property within the City of Parker is shown as mixed use in the future land use plan with the exception of a section of land on the west side of US 98 designated as residential. Earl Gilbert Park is anticipated to remain as a recreational land use. This project is not expected to change or affect land use patterns. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Figure 3.3.7 shows the Bay County Future Land Use plan. 3.3.3.3 Growth Trends and Issues The Project Traffic Analysis Report (PTAR) for this project, included in the project file, evaluated the existing and future traffic conditions on US 98 over the Dupont Bridge to ensure that the bridge and roadway approaches provide sufficient capacity for the safe and efficient movement of traffic volumes through the design year (2048). The findings of the PTAR indicate that US 98 can sufficiently accommodate traffic volumes under the existing conditions and through the design year with four travel lanes. The existing AM and PM peak hour Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) results in US 98 operating at Level of Service (LOS) B. Future traffic volumes were forecasted with a 1% annual growth rate. The design year (2048) AADT and PM peak direction forecasted traffic volumes result in US 98 operating at LOS B. The design year AM peak direction forecasted traffic results in US 98 operating at LOS C. However, the design life of the bridge is 75 years which extends well beyond the traffic design year. Consequently, a sensitivity analysis was completed to determine when US 98 may need additional lanes to accommodate the future traffic volumes. Based on the 1% annual traffic growth rate, the AM peak hour traffic volume would exceed the four-lane LOS D capacity in 2089 (approximately 61 years beyond the opening year). A secondary sensitivity analysis was completed to determine when the four-lane LOS D capacity may be exceeded if traffic grows more quickly than anticipated; if traffic grows 2% annually, the roadway would need to be widened in 2054, and if traffic grows 3% annually, the roadway would need to be widened in

£¤98


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-26Figure 3.3.7:

Future Land Use

0 0.50.25Miles

LegendProject LocationOne-mile BufferCity of Parker

Future Land UseCommercialConservationResidential

Mixed UsePublic / InstitutionalRecreation



2042. Based on the results of the sensitivity analysis, a decision was made to stripe the proposed bridge as a four-lane highway but have the capacity to be re-striped as a six-lane highway as population growth and military activities increase. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.4 Mobility During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 1 (Enhanced) was assigned to mobility. All of the Build Alternatives contain the same multi-modal accommodations, which will provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Proposed bicycle improvements include buffered bicycle lanes on the roadway approaches and a buffered outside 10-foot shoulder on the bridge that could be used by cyclists. The proposed pedestrian improvements feature a six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the bridge and roadway approaches. The proposed bridge will increase the vertical clearance to 75 feet, an increase of 25 feet, which will improve the navigation along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway under the Dupont Bridge and access to the Panama City Port located approximately eight miles northwest of the Dupont Bridge. The proposed project will accommodate an ultimate future typical section of three travel lanes in each direction, when vehicular traffic warrants, thereby improving the long-term mobility in the area. Under the No-Build Alternative, no mobility changes would be implemented. No pedestrian facilities would exist to connect the City of Parker and TAFB and cyclists would continue to “share the road” or use the 2.5-foot wide shoulder on the Dupont Bridge. Vessel traffic on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway would continue to be limited by the 50-foot vertical clearance. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.

3.3.5 Aesthetic Effects During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Aesthetic Effects.



The existing Dupont Bridge does not have any unique features, but passage over the bridge provides views of Saint Andrew Bay. Pedestrians and bicyclists may traverse the bridge using the existing 2.5-foot shoulder, but this narrow width was not designed for pedestrians or cyclists and provides little refuge from vehicular hazards. Therefore, the Dupont Bridge is not considered to be a walking destination to view the water. The Dupont Bridge is a utilitarian structure that is visually unremarkable for viewers looking towards it. The bridge is visible from adjacent landfalls, including, vacant commercial property and Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp to the north, and TAFB to the south. For motorists, the most dominant aesthetic feature when traveling on or near the existing Dupont Bridge is the scenic vista of Saint Andrew Bay. The view is relatively unobstructed by railings and light poles. Prior to October 2018, two single-arm light poles were located along the northbound / east side of US 98 spaced approximately 800 feet apart within the City of Parker. These light poles were destroyed during Hurricane Michael and have not yet been replaced. On the Dupont Bridge, single-arm light poles are mounted on the outside of each bridge structure and have a 300-foot spacing. No lighting is present along US 98 on TAFB. No major overhead traffic signs are located within the study limits. A single Dynamic Message Sign is located approximately 200 feet south of Oak Shore Drive on the southbound / west side of US 98. No other existing aesthetic features are present within the project limits. None of the Build Alternatives will obstruct or hinder the scenic vista of Saint Andrew Bay. The replacement bridge provides enhanced opportunities to enjoy the bay by virtue of the sidewalks on both bridges and bicycle accommodations, both of which are not currently present on the existing bridge. With any of the build alternatives, construction cranes and equipment will be visible for the duration of construction, temporarily altering the aesthetic landscape. During the course of public involvement for this project, no comments were received regarding the aesthetic design of the bridge. However, on February 21, 2020, the Bay County Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution supporting aesthetic features and energy efficient lighting for the Dupont Bridge. The resolution specifically stated that the new Dupont Bridge provides an opportunity to create a symbol reflecting the US Air Force and Bay County’s



pride in its military community. This resolution is included in Appendix B. Bridge aesthetics will be determined at a later time in coordination with project stakeholders. The No-Build Alternative offers no change to the aesthetic features. The bridge would continue to deteriorate and require maintenance such as painting, rip-rap stabilization, and dolphin repairs. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.

3.3.6 Relocation Potential During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Relocation Potential. The proposed alternatives are not anticipated to result in any residential or commercial relocations. The West 1 Alternative (Preferred Alternative) impacts seven parcels, affecting three property owners, for a total of 6.8 acres. After the Public Hearing, the Preferred Alternative alignment was shifted to minimize impacts to a planned development on the northeast quadrant of the bridge referred to as East Bay Flats. The resulting geometry modifications require acquisition of a total of 7.1 acres of right-of-way. The total number of parcels and property owners impacted did not change. The West 2 Alternative impacts nine parcels, affecting three property owners, for a total of 6.4 acres. The East 3 Alternative impacts 10 parcels, affecting four property owners, for a total of 6.5 acres. Table 3.3.8 shows the right-of-way impacts for each alternative. Additional information to support the right-of-way analysis in included in the project file.

Table 3.3.8: Summary of Right-of-Way Impacts Evaluation Criteria No-Build West 1 West 2 East 3 Total Parcels Impacted 0 7 9 10 Total Property Owners Impacted 0 3 3 4 Total Acres Impacted 0 7.1 6.4 6.5 Total Relocations 0 0 0 0



The pond alternatives are also not anticipated to result in any residential or commercial relocations. The pond alternatives impact between one and three parcels for a total impact of 1.4 to 1.5 acres. Additional information to support the pond siting right-of-way analysis in included in the project file. Table 3.3.9 shows the right-of-way impacts for each pond alternative.

Table 3.3.9: Summary of Pond Right-of-Way Impacts Evaluation Criteria No-Build W1 W2 E1 E2 Total Parcels Impacted 0 3 1 1 1 Total Property Owners Impacted 0 1 1 1 1

Total Acres Impacted 0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 Total Relocations 0 0 0 0 0

The proposed project, as presently conceived, will not displace any residences or businesses within the community. Should this change over the course of the project, the FDOT will carry out a Right-of-Way and Relocation Assistance Program in accordance with Florida Statute 421.55, Relocation of displaced persons, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17). Environmental Justice impacts are evaluated in terms of project impacts to minority communities and low-income communities. The anticipated right-of-way impacts do not disproportionately affect minority, or low-income communities; therefore, no Environmental Justice impacts are expected. Similarly, no relocations are required for the No-Build Alternative. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.3.7 Farmland During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of No Involvement was assigned to the Farmland Issue since the Environmental Screening Tool (EST) Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis did not identify any prime farmlands or agricultural uses



within the 500-foot project buffer area. The project is entirely within the Panama City Urbanized Area. The project was evaluated for farmland impacts pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658). The land within the project vicinity do not meet the definition of farmland as defined in 7 CFR Part 658 and the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 do not apply because the entire project area is located in the urbanized area of Panama City with no designated farmlands adjacent to the project corridor.

3.4 Cultural This section describes the existing conditions and potential effects on parks and recreation areas, historic properties and districts, and archaeological sites. 3.4.1 Section 4(f) During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Section 4(f) Potential. The EST GIS analysis did not identify any parks or recreational facility boundaries within the 500-foot project buffer area. The EST GIS analysis did identify one Florida Master Site File (FMSF) historic standing structure (8BY01165) and two FMSF archaeological sites (8BY00138 and 8BY00092) which are described in Section 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: As described in Section 3.3.1.3, Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center is not a Section 4(f) resource. Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp is a Section 4(f) resource, but the project will not have any direct or indirect use of the resource. All of the alternatives are located a minimum of 700 feet away from Earl Gilbert Park. The project will not affect the access to Earl Gilbert Park (via US 98) in either the permanent or temporary condition. The FDOT commits to providing access to the entrance road to Earl Gilbert Park during construction. The FDOT OEM approved the Section 4(f) No Use Determination on August 9, 2019. The Section 4(f) documentation for the project is contained in Appendix G.



Furthermore, the project does not involve the conversion of land or facilities funded under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). No impacts to Section 4(f) resources would result from the No-Build Alternative. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.

3.4.2 Historic Sites / Districts During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 3 (Moderate) was assigned to Historic and Archaeological Sites based on review comments from the Florida Department of State – State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The EST GIS analysis identified one historic bridge and one historic standing structure within the 500-foot project buffer area. The Dupont Bridge (8BY01632) was constructed in 1965 and carries US 98 over Saint Andrew Bay. The Dupont Bridge was recorded during the Historic Highway Bridges of Florida Update survey in 2012. At that time, there was insufficient information to evaluate the bridge for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, the recorder suggested that the bridge is noteworthy for its length, vertical clearance, and fixed-span design. The bridge has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by SHPO (as of the time of the ETDM screening). The single historic standing structure, Building 5008 (8BY01165), is a masonry vernacular recreation and office building constructed circa 1955 by TAFB. The building has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO (as of the time of the ETDM screening). SHPO commented during the ETDM review process that after they review the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS), an effects finding will be made. No comments were received from any of the Native American Tribes during the ETDM Screening. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: A CRAS was conducted for the project in accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR Part 800. The terrestrial Area of Potential Affect (APE) was defined to include the existing and proposed right‐of‐way and was extended to the back or side property lines of parcels adjacent to the proposed improvements, or a distance of no more than 328 feet from the US 98 centerline. The historic structures survey included the entire terrestrial APE.



Architectural survey resulted in the identification of one previously recorded bridge (8BY01632), one previously recorded building (8BY01165), and four newly recorded resources (8BY02677, 8BY02678, 8BY02679, 8BY02681) within the APE and are shown in Figure 3.4.1. A FMSF review indicated one previously recorded bridge (8BY01806) and one previously recorded building (8BY01152) have been demolished since previous recordation. No NRHP‐eligible or ‐listed resources were identified within the APE. The proposed construction is not anticipated to have an effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP with any of the proposed Build Alternatives. No further terrestrial architectural work is recommended in support of the US 98 Bridge Replacement associated with the roadway and bridge footprint. SHPO concurred with the findings of the CRAS on April 6, 2020, included in Appendix B and in the project file. Therefore, FDOT, in consultation with SHPO, has determined that the proposed project will result in No Historic Properties Affected. A cultural resource desktop analysis of the four potential pond locations and two access easements was performed for this PD&E Study. A FMSF review indicates that one previously recorded historic bridge, Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806), is located within the current pond study area. Although it is no longer extant, the Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806) is recorded east of the current bridge. The northern approach of the Old Dupont Bridge extends along the eastern edge of Pond E2 study area. All that remains of the bridge are concrete piling remnants on the southwestern tip of the Long Point peninsula on the Bay bottom. SHPO evaluated 8BY01806 ineligible for the NRHP in 2015. The desktop analysis for the pond sites was sent to SHPO on July 29, 2020 and on August 17, 2020 SHPO concurred that the four proposed pond sites have a high probability for archaeology and should be surveyed accordingly, this correspondence is contained in Appendix B. No impacts to the historic sites or districts would result from the No-Build Alternative.



Figure 3.4.1: Architectural Resources Identified in the APE



3.4.3 Archaeological Sites During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 3 (Moderate) was assigned to Historic and Archaeological Sites based on review comments from SHPO. The EST GIS analysis identified two archaeological sites within the 500-foot project buffer area. One of the archaeological sites, Marina Services Facility (8BY00138), is a prehistoric midden site located near the south end of the Dupont Bridge, outside the existing US 98 right-of-way. Following extensive archaeological site delineation and evaluation completed by TAFB, the site was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO on May 16, 2006 (per ETDM screening). The other archaeological site, Long Point Midden (8BY00092), is a prehistoric midden site located near the north end of the Dupont Bridge, within the existing US 98 right-of-way. Shovel testing within the US 98 right-of-way conducted in 1976 resulted in no artifacts being recovered. The site has not been evaluated for listing in the NRHP by the SHPO (as of the time of the ETDM screening). SHPO commented during the ETDM review process that after they review the CRAS, an effects finding will be made. No comments were received from any of the Native American Tribes during the ETDM Screening. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: The terrestrial archaeological survey was limited to the existing and proposed right‐of‐way. The APE for the maritime archaeological remote‐sensing survey was defined as the existing Dupont Bridge plus a 500‐foot buffer to the east and west sides of the bridge for a total project length of approximately 2,900 feet within the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The terrestrial archaeological survey consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance and subsurface testing. A total of 57 shovel test locations were examined within the project APE. Disturbance, mainly from buried utilities and previous roadway construction, restricted excavation to 17 of these shovel test locations. All tests were negative for cultural resources. Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the archaeological APE (8BY00092 and 8BY00138). Five shovel tests were excavated within the mapped site boundaries of 8BY00092; none produced any evidence of the site. Shovel testing was not possible within the mapped boundaries of 8BY00138 due to an existing retention pond and paved parking lot. In addition, one previously recorded archaeological site (8BY01774) falls within the overall APE but outside the proposed right‐of‐way. Pedestrian survey of the right‐



of‐way within proximity to the site produced no evidence of that resource. No artifacts were recovered, and no archaeological sites or occurrences were identified within the APE. No further terrestrial archaeological survey is recommended in support of the proposed US 98 Dupont Bridge Replacement associated with the roadway and bridge footprint. The historical background and environmental setting of Saint Andrew Bay were researched, previous maritime archaeological investigations were reviewed, and reported cultural resources were identified in the vicinity of the APE to guide the development of the research design and help interpret remote‐sensing data. During the marine remote‐sensing survey, magnetic data as well as side‐scan sonar and sub‐bottom profiler imagery were collected within the APE in order to assess the presence or absence of potential submerged cultural resources. Based upon the results of the remote‐sensing survey and subsequent data processing and analysis, a relic channel (Reflector R001), and two remote‐sensing targets were identified that resemble potential submerged cultural resources. Reflector R001 extends the width of the maritime APE as shown in the CRAS, Figure 30. An additional investigation is required to determine the archaeological potential of this geomorphic feature. The additional investigation would begin with coring to extract material from the feature for a series of specialized laboratory analyses. If the laboratory results indicate archaeological potential, a systematic subsurface investigation would follow in order to determine the presence or absence of potential archaeological sites atop the feature. Systematic subsurface investigation would involve a series of three-inch diameter cores throughout the feature. This investigation has a low probability of success, given the environmental conditions within the APE, including water depth and depth of burial feature, and currently available methods. In the unlikely event that systematic testing did identify an archaeological resource, extensive deep excavation in a submerged environment would then be required to determine NRHP eligibility. Considering the effort involved and the low probability of success, the additional investigation of Reflector R001 is beyond the scope of the current project and recommends no further work relating to Reflector R001.



The two remote-sensing targets, Target 01 and 02 are shown in the CRAS, Figure 33. An avoidance zone that encompasses Acoustic Contact S029 for Target 01 is recommended. Additionally, a 33‐foot avoidance zone is recommended from the edge of the acoustic imagery for Target 02. If avoidance is not feasible, then further archaeological investigation will be needed for these targets. Target 01 is located on the northern boundary of the maritime APE, while Target 02 is located 30 feet from the southern APE boundary. Both targets are located 75 to 110 feet outside of the proposed construction easement for any of the proposed Build Alternatives. None of the proposed Build Alternatives will impact the avoidance zones for Target 01 or Target 02. The FDOT commits to avoidance of maritime archaeological Targets 01 and 02 (refer to pages 54 to 56 of the Final CRAS dated March 2020 for locations and information). If these targets cannot be avoided, further marine archaeological investigation will be required. Maritime archaeologists identified submerged portions of the previously recorded Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806). However, the truss superstructure and decking has been removed; therefore, the bridge is no longer intact. Since the Old Dupont Bridge no longer constitutes an example of a historic‐aged bridge structure, the Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806) lacks significant data potential and is still recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No NRHP‐eligible or ‐listed resources were identified within the APE. The proposed construction is not anticipated to have an effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP, conditional upon avoidance of remote-sensing Targets 01 and 02. SHPO concurred with the findings of the CRAS on April 6, 2020. SHPO noted that “due to the recorded, but unsubstantiated, submerged potential resources and the unevaluated archaeological site (8BY00092) within the APE, and conditional upon avoidance of Targets 1 and 2 as stated above, our office finds that this project will have No Adverse Effect on the identified historic properties. Further, we find the submitted CRAS report complete and sufficient. If avoidance of Targets 1 and 2 is not possible, additional work and consultation with our office is needed.”

The cultural resource desktop analysis for the four potential pond locations and two access easements indicates that one previously recorded archaeological site (8BY00092), is located



within the current pond study area. Resource 8BY00092, the Long Point Midden site, is located on the north end of the Dupont Bridge on either side of US 98. The entirety of Pond E1 is located within the boundary of 8BY00092, the site also intersects the southwest corner of Pond E2. The findings of the desktop analysis relative to each proposed pond are summarized in Table 3.4.1. The desktop analysis for the pond sites was sent to SHPO on July 29, 2020 and on August 17, 2020 SHPO concurred that the four proposed pond sites have a high probability for archaeology and should be surveyed accordingly, this correspondence is contained in Appendix B.

Table 3.4.1: Cultural Resource Pond Matrix

Pond Previous Surveys Recorded Resources Historic Parcels Archaeological Site

Potential E1 FMSF Survey No. 284 BY00092 None High E2 FMSF Survey No. 284 BY00092 None High W1 FMSF Survey No. 284 None None Moderate W2 FMSF Survey No. 284 None None High

Once a preferred location is selected for the proposed pond in the final design phase, the project APE will be refined, and a Phase I CRAS will be conducted. The construction area will be subjected to subsurface testing according to probability for archaeological resources to determine if any prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are present. Given the lack of adequate previous archaeological testing performed within the proposed pond locations and considering the presence of 8BY00092 near the footprints of Ponds E1 and E2, archaeological survey will include excavation within all selected pond alternatives. Archaeological sites identified during survey of the study area will be assessed for their potential eligibility for listing in the NRHP. The resulting CRAS report will be submitted to the SHPO for review and comment during the design phase. No impacts to archaeological sites would result from the No-Build Alternative.

3.4.4 Recreational Areas During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Recreational Areas based on review comments from FDEP, and NPS. The FDEP



commented on the presence of two paddling trail opportunities and the lack of recreational areas within the 500-foot project buffer area. The NPS provided a degree of effect of No Involvement with no comments. In addition to the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center and Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp, there are two Office of Greenways and Trails paddling trail opportunities in the study area: Panhandle Intracoastal Waterway Paddling Trail, and Saint Andrew Bay Paddling Trail. These paddling trails are not on the designated trails list but are currently shown on the Florida Greenways and Trails Paddling Trails Opportunity Map (2018). The Build Alternatives are not anticipated to impact the paddling trails. If this changes, further coordination with FDEP will be completed. An alternate route of Segment 3 of the Florida Circumnavigational Saltwater Paddling Trail crosses under the bridge. The main route which traverses the Gulf of Mexico will be available should construction temporarily impact the alternate route. No impacts to recreational areas would result from the No-Build Alternative.

3.5 Natural This section describes the natural resources present and potentially affected by the project: wetlands and surface waters, water quality and stormwater, floodplains, coastal zone resources, protected habitat and species, and essential fish habitat. 3.5.1 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 3 (Moderate) was assigned to Wetlands and Surface Waters based on review comments from USACE, USEPA, NMFS, FDEP, NWFWMD, and USFWS. The USACE assigned a moderate degree of effect for wetlands and other surface waters. The USACE recommended a continued emphasis on wetland avoidance and minimization opportunities throughout the planning process. USACE also noted that none of the federally approved mitigation banks or in-lieu fee program in the study area have estuarine credits available. Mitigation alternatives may have to include consideration of out-of-kind wetland functional credits. USACE also commented on permits that may be required for the project.



The USEPA assigned a moderate degree of effect for wetlands and other surface waters. The USEPA stated that every effort should be made to maximize the collection and treatment of stormwater. Stormwater runoff should be diverted away from surface waters and Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be implemented during construction. The NMFS assigned a moderate degree of effect for wetlands and other surface waters. The NMFS stated that staff conducted a site inspection of the project area on January 17, 2018, to assess potential concerns related to living estuarine resources within East Bay and the greater Saint Andrew Bay system. Certain estuarine habitats within the project area are designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). During the ETDM screening, NMFS requested that an EFH Assessment be prepared, and provided guidance concerning the documentation of the assessment. Upon review of the EFH Assessment, NMFS will determine if it is necessary to provide EFH Conservation Recommendations on the project. Additionally, NMFS recommends that stormwater treatment systems be upgraded to prevent degraded water from reaching estuarine habitats within this system. The FDEP assigned a moderate degree of effect for wetlands and other surface waters. The FDEP commented that the proposed project may require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the NWFWMD for stormwater management. If any wetlands are affected, the ERP applicant will be required to eliminate or reduce the proposed wetland impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The NWFWMD assigned a moderate degree of effect for wetlands and other surface waters. The NWFWMD stated that the proposed project has the potential to impact wetlands within the watershed and will increase the likelihood of adverse secondary impacts on wetland functions. Stormwater management considerations should include an analysis of pond siting in consideration of the proximity to and the protection of wetlands. The NWFWMD also stated that wetland impacts from the project will require permitting in compliance with the ERP program. In accordance with the Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation Under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. Between the NWFWMD and FDEP, the NWFWMD will be the permitting agency for the bridge crossing due to in water activities and the presence of submerged lands associated with East Bay.



The USFWS assigned a minimal degree of effect for wetlands and other surface waters. The USFWS commented that effects to wetland resources are expected to be minimal due to the small acreage of wetlands present in the study area and with the use of standard protection measures. Examples of protection measures include the use of wetland BMPs during construction; and incorporation of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: A Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) was prepared in accordance with Presidential Executive Order 11990 entitled "Protection of Wetlands" and United States Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A, “Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands” and the PD&E Manual. The project study area was reviewed to identify, quantify, and map wetland communities that are located within the proposed project boundaries. In order to protect, preserve, and enhance wetlands to the fullest extent possible, the FDOT has assessed wetlands that may be affected by the proposed roadway improvements. In April and May 2019, field reviews were conducted of the project study area. The purpose of the reviews was to verify and / or refine preliminary wetland boundaries and classification codes established through in-office literature reviews and photo interpretation. During field investigations, wetlands within the project study area were visually inspected. Attention was given to identifying plant species composition for each wetland and adjacent upland habitats. Exotic plant infestations shifts in historical plant communities, and any other disturbances such as, soil subsidence, clearing, canals, power lines, etc. were noted. Attention was also given to identifying wildlife and signs of wildlife usage at each wetland and adjacent upland community. In addition, a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) assessment was performed on any wetlands proposed to be impacted. Based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), land use and cover data, and field reviews of the project study area, two wetland and surface water community types were identified within the project area: Bays and Estuaries and Seagrass. The locations and approximate boundaries of each habitat are shown in Figure 3.5.1.



Figure 3.5.1: Wetlands and Surface Waters Map



Impacts associated with the bridge replacement will include fill from new pier locations, shading of seagrasses from the new bridge deck, and temporary impacts associated with construction activities. In addition, wetlands within a 25-foot buffer of the bridge alternatives are subject to secondary impacts. The proposed wetland and surface water impacts are discussed below, and the permanent impacts are depicted in Figure 3.5.2.

3.5.1.1 Alternative West 1 (Preferred) For Alternative West 1, the proposed bridge will span 9.73 acres of bay and estuary and 1.28 acres of seagrass bed. The fill associated with new bridge piles total approximately 0.05 acres. Seagrass impacts due to shading from the proposed bridge will be 1.28 acres. An additional 0.42 acres of seagrass beds are located within the 25-foot buffer and subject to secondary impacts. Only the seagrass beds on the west side of the existing bridge will be impacted. In addition, with removal of the existing bridge, the area beneath the bridge will be available for seagrass recruitment. In order to construct the West 1 Alternative, two 225 linear feet of 40-foot wide temporary trestles (one from the north and one from the south) are anticipated. The majority of the bridge (where water depth exceeds approximately 15 feet) will be constructed from barge. The trestle will result in an additional 0.41 acres of temporary impact to the north shore seagrass beds. Table 3.5.1 summarizes the wetlands and surface waters within the footprint of the proposed alternative as well as the anticipated impacts associated with the West 1 Alternative.

Table 3.5.1: Wetlands and Surface Water Impacts: West 1 Alternative

FLUCFCS Code Description USFWS Code

Bridge Impacts

Size (Acres) Size (Acres) /

Type 540 Bays and Estuaries E1UBL 9.73 0.05 / Fill

911 Seagrass E2AB3M 1.28 1.28 / Shade

0.41 / Temporary 0.42 / Secondary



Figure 3.5.2: Wetland and Surface Water Impacts



3.5.1.2 Alternative West 2 For the West 2 Alternative, the proposed bridge will span 8.49 acres of bay and estuary and 0.33 acres of seagrass bed. The fill associated with new bridge piles total approximately 0.05 acres. Seagrass impacts due to shading from the proposed bridge will be 0.33 acres. An additional 0.35 acres of seagrass beds are located within the 25-foot buffer and subject to secondary impacts. Only the seagrass beds on the west side of the existing bridge will be impacted. In order to construct the West 2 Alternative, four 225 linear feet of 40-foot wide temporary trestle (two from the north and two from the south) are anticipated. The majority of the bridge (where water depth exceeds approximately 15 feet) will be constructed from barge. The trestle will result in an additional 0.82 acres of temporary impact to the north shore seagrass beds. Table 3.5.2 summarizes the wetlands and surface waters within the footprint of the proposed alternative as well as the anticipated impacts associated with the West 2 Alternative.

Table 3.5.2: Wetlands and Surface Water Impacts: West 2 Alternative


Bridge Impacts

Size (Acres) Size (Acres) / Type

540 Bays and Estuaries E1UBL 8.49 0.05 / Fill



3.5.1.3 Alternative East 3 For the East 3 Alternative, the proposed bridge will span 8.28 acres of bay and estuary and 0.19 acres of seagrass bed. The fill associated with new bridge piles total approximately 0.05 acres. Seagrass impacts due to shading from the proposed bridge will be 0.19 acres. An additional 0.19 acres of seagrass beds are located within the 25-foot buffer and subject to secondary impacts. Only the seagrass beds on the east side of the existing bridge will be impacted.



In order to construct the East 3 Alternative, it is anticipated that four 225 linear feet of 40-foot wide temporary trestle (two from the north and two from the south) will be required. The majority of the bridge (where water depth exceeds approximately 15 feet) will be constructed from barge. The trestle will result in an additional 0.82 acres of temporary impact to the north shore seagrass beds. Table 3.5.3 summarizes the wetlands and surface waters within the footprint of the proposed alternative as well as the anticipated impacts associated with the East 3 Alternative.

Table 3.5.3: Wetlands and Surface Water Impacts: East 3 Alternative


Bridge Impacts

Size (Acres) Size (Acres) / Type

540 Bays and Estuaries E1UBL 8.28 0.05 / Fill



Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to existing surface water or wetland conditions. 3.5.1.4 Proposed Pond Sites No wetlands or surface waters are located within the proposed pond sites. No impacts will result from the pond site locations. 3.5.1.5 Avoidance and Minimization Given that the project involves the replacement of a bridge, opportunities to avoid impacts to wetlands and surface waters were limited. However, fill impacts have been minimized by not utilizing fill in wetlands and surface waters and beginning the bridge structures landward of the existing surface water boundaries. No long-term adverse effects are anticipated for functions and values associated with wetland and surface water systems in the region as a result of this project. The loss of wetlands and surface waters will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. Water supplies will



not be affected, and no flood or storm hazards are anticipated. Design plans for the proposed project will not disturb the existing hydrologic dynamics of non-impacted wetlands and surface waters in the area. While short-term adverse impacts are possible during the construction of the roadway project, none are anticipated. Specific permit conditions and a project specific erosion control plan will be followed to ensure maximum protection to wetlands and surface waters and to minimize construction-related water quality impacts. Furthermore, BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce short-term degradation of water quality. The BMPs will be developed as part of the Erosion Control Plan, which is required for the ERP. The project has been evaluated in accordance with Federal Executive Order 11990 - "Protection of Wetlands." Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. As the project advances through subsequent phases, avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts will continue to be considered to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in no significant impacts to wetlands or surface waters. For more information on avoidance and minimization measures, refer to the NRE, available under separate cover. 3.5.1.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects The area surrounding the project area is urban with numerous anthropogenic impacts to the remaining natural habitat. Capacity improvements could result in an increase in the amount of sediment, oil and grease, metals, and other pollutants reaching estuarine habitats. However, significant hydrological and water quality impacts are not expected to occur as a result of the proposed project because the proposed improvements are to an existing facility, minimization and avoidance of wetland impacts has been demonstrated, and the bridge and roadway design will be required to meet the latest water quality standards.



Indirect impacts that could occur include noise, dust, and vibration. Besides hydrological effects, other indirect impacts can occur from:

• Temporary disturbance and displacement of fish species;

• Increased sediment loads and turbidity in the water column; and

• Limited sediment transport and re-deposition. Most of these impacts are temporary and can be offset by environmental protection guidelines, such as implementation of standard protection measures for protected species and BMPs to avoid siltation. BMPs include the use of siltation barriers, dewatering structures, and containment devices that will minimize adverse effects to water quality during construction by controlling turbid water discharges outside the construction limits. Unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed construction will be mitigated for, if required, during the permitting process. All practicable measures and BMPs will be employed during construction to minimize the potential for indirect impacts. Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project under consideration as well as other projects that may be proposed within the general vicinity in the foreseeable future. Due to the extent of urban development in Panama City and the prior disturbance and planned development of the shoreline on the north side of Dupont Bridge and the military ownership and control of the land on the south side of Dupont Bridge, subsequent development of the surrounding areas and resulting impacts are anticipated to be minimal. The proposed project is a bridge replacement on similar alignment and with similar travel lanes. The bridge is not contributing to growth nor is it providing a new conduit for growth. However, the proposed bridge configuration will be able to accommodate an increase in traffic caused by growth should it occur. The project is consistent with the Bay County TPO 2040 LRTP. Therefore, no cumulative effects are anticipated with this project.

3.5.1.7 Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Assessment The UMAM (Chapter 62-345, F.A.C.) provides a standardized procedure used by federal and state regulatory agencies for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and surface waters, the amount that those functions are reduced by a proposed impact, and the amount



of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. The wetland function indicators measured by UMAM include the following:

• Location and Landscape Support (L&LS);

• Water Environment (WE); and

• Community Structure: Vegetation and / or Benthic Community (CS). The UMAM assessment of the proposed impacts is discussed below by Build Alternative. The detailed UMAM worksheets are provided in the NRE. Table 3.5.4 summarizes the UMAM analysis and the resulting functional unit loss calculation for the Build Alternatives.

Table 3.5.4: UMAM Assessment

FLUCFCS Code

Description Impact Type West 1 West 2 East 3

Acres Functional Loss / Gain Acres Functional

Loss / Gain Acres Functional Loss / Gain

911 Seagrass Shading 1.28 -0.42 0.33 -0.11 0.19 -0.06

Secondary 0.42 -0.04 0.35 -0.04 0.19 -0.02 Reestablishment 0.10 0.02 - - - -

TOTAL -0.44 -0.15 -0.08

Alternative West 1 The 1.28 acres of shade impact to seagrasses result in a 0.42 functional unit loss. The 0.42 acres of secondary impact to seagrasses result in a 0.04 functional unit loss. With this alternative, shading will be removed from approximately 0.10 acres of bay bottom at the north end of the bridge and will therefore be available for seagrass reestablishment. The seagrass reestablishment will provide approximately 0.02 functional units gain. Bottom depths at the south end of the bridge are not conducive for seagrass establishment. The net loss is 0.44 functional units. Alternative West 2 The 0.33 acres of shade impact to seagrasses result in a 0.11 functional unit loss. The 0.35 acres of secondary impact to seagrasses result in a 0.04 functional unit loss. The total loss is 0.15 functional units.



Alternative East 3 The 0.19 acres of shade impact to seagrasses result in a 0.06 functional unit loss. The 0.19 acres of secondary impact to seagrasses result in a 0.02 functional unit loss. The total loss is 0.08 functional units. 3.5.1.8 Conceptual Mitigation Plan Permanent wetland and surface water impacts which will result from the construction of this project will be mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137, F.S., to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and 33 U.S.C. §1344. Compensatory mitigation for this project will be completed through the use of mitigation banks and any other mitigation options that satisfy state and federal requirements. Temporary impacts will be allowed to re-vegetate naturally. Currently, the proposed project is located within the service area of four mitigation banks: Bear Creek Mitigation Bank, Sweetwater Mitigation Bank, Breakfast Point Mitigation Bank, and Horseshoe Creek Mitigation Bank. Bear Creek Mitigation Bank has no available credits. Sweetwater Mitigation Bank, and Breakfast Point Mitigation Bank provide Federal and state palustrine forested and emergent wetland mitigation credits. Horseshoe Creek Mitigation Bank provides Federal and state credits including Estuarine, Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Emergent, and Estuarine Intertidal Emergent. The mitigation for the seagrass impacts are anticipated to address Essential Fish Habitat impacts as further discussed in Section 3.5.9. For more information on wetlands and other surface waters, reference the NRE, available under separate cover.

3.5.2 Aquatic Preserves and Outstanding Florida Waters During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 0 (None) was assigned to the Special Designations Issue based on review comments from USEPA. The EST GIS analysis did not identify any Outstanding Florida Water, or Aquatic Preserves within the 500-foot project buffer area.



The project is not located within or adjacent to a Marine Protected Area (MPA). The closest MPA to the project, Saint Andrew State Park Aquatic Preserve, is 1.9 miles from the southern project limit. No impacts to this aquatic preserve are expected as a result of this project. 3.5.3 Water Quality and Stormwater During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 3 (Moderate) was assigned to Water Quality and Quantity based on review comments from FDEP, USEPA, and NWFMWD. The FDEP assigned a moderate degree of effect for water quality and quantity. The FDEP stated that stormwater treatment should be designed to maintain the natural pre-development hydroperiod and water quality, as well as to protect the natural functions of adjacent wetlands. The USEPA assigned a minimal degree of effect for water quality and quantity. The USEPA commented that road and bridge construction techniques should be designed to provide for the maximum protection of water quality, including both short-term and long-term impacts. Indirect and cumulative effects on water quality should be evaluated to identify and quantify incremental and cumulative impacts on natural resources as a result of the proposed project. Every effort should be made to maximize the collection and treatment of stormwater. Stormwater runoff should be diverted from surface waters. The NWFWMD assigned a minimal degree of effect for water quality and quantity. The NWFWMD stated that stormwater discharge into East Bay has the potential to impact water quality in the vicinity of the project area. Assurances should be provided that stormwater management and treatment will be sufficient to prevent long-term, cumulative degradation of adjacent waterbodies. The NWFWMD recommended that in designing the proposed project, appropriate nonpoint source pollution controls and / or BMPs be incorporated within the design and construction phases to avoid and minimize new impacts to the fullest practical extent. This project requires stormwater permitting in compliance with the ERP program, which may involve compensatory stormwater treatment for direct runoff from bridge spans that cannot direct runoff to stormwater treatment BMPs. Any compensating treatment must occur within the same sub-basin, and as close to the non-treated areas as possible.



The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: The Dupont Bridge is located in the Saint Andrew Bay watershed and is under the jurisdiction of the NWFWMD. The tidally-influenced waterway is subject to storm surge as it is located in close proximity to the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. According to FDEP, the project is within Water Body Identification number (WBID) 1061D, East Bay (West) and WBID 1061F, East Bay (East). WBID 1061D is not impaired; however, WBID 1061F is verified impaired for nutrients and bacteria based on shellfish classifications. The existing bridge has scuppers that drain directly into the bay below. Existing stormwater runoff from the bridge approaches is collected and conveyed by curb, which extends beyond the ends of the bridge, and discharges to Saint Andrew Bay, a Class III waterbody. Currently, there is no permitted water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from US 98 within the project limits. Several stormwater management facility types were considered including wet detention systems, dry detention systems, retention systems, swale systems and underground exfiltration trench systems. Due to the groundwater table elevations along the project, retention was selected as the most feasible method for stormwater treatment. Dry retention was chosen due to the predominantly well-drained soils and seasonal depths to groundwater ranging from four to six feet below ground. The project was divided into two roadway basins, Basin A (south) and Basin B (north). Basin A begins at the southern end of the project and extends to the high point on the bridge. The drainage area consists of the roadway right-of-way and bridge between these points. The existing impervious area is 3.46 acres. The proposed impervious area is as follows:

• West 1 Alternative = 5.82 acres;

• West 2 Alternative = 5.68 acres; and

• East 3 Alternative = 5.69 acres.



The proposed improvements associated with the West 1 Alternative will generate the greatest area of new pavement, approximately 2.36 acres. Treatment of the new pavement area in Basin A has been accounted for in Basin B. No stormwater management facility is proposed on TAFB. Basin B begins at the high point on the bridge and extends to the northern project limit just south of Cooper Drive. The drainage area consists of the roadway right-of-way and bridge between these points. The existing impervious area is 3.50 acres. The proposed impervious area is as follows:

• West 1 Alternative = 6.50 acres;

• West 2 Alternative = 6.50 acres; and

• East 3 Alternative = 6.47 acres. The proposed improvements associated with the West 1 and West 2 Alternatives will generate the greatest area of new pavement, approximately 3.00 acres. A dry retention pond will be utilized to provide the required treatment volume. Treatment has been provided for all of the impervious area within Basin B (6.50 acres), which is greater than the required treatment area of 5.36 acres (2.36 acres from Basin A and 3.0 acres from Basin B). The basin drains to an existing storm drain system and discharges into the Intracoastal Waterway. The total area required for each of the pond alternatives is 1.33 acres. Four pond site alternatives were evaluated to provide stormwater management for the project as shown in Figure 3.5.3. All pond sites require right-of-way acquisition and are located on vacant commercial parcels. Pond W1 is located adjacent to the western right-of-way line of US 98 and impacts three vacant commercial sites (all with a common owner). This site is accessible from the US 98 right-of-way. Pond W2 is located approximately 250 feet west of US 98 on a vacant commercial site. This pond site alternative will require an easement for maintenance access and conveyance. Pond W1 or Pond W2 would provide stormwater management for either the



West 1 Alternative or the West 2 Alternative. These pond alternatives utilize parcels that are already being impacted by the West Build Alternatives.

Figure 3.5.3: Pond Site Alternatives (North Landfall)



Pond E1 is located adjacent to the eastern right-of-way line of US 98 on a vacant commercial site. This site is accessible from the US 98 right-of-way. Pond E2 is located approximately 400 feet east of US 98 on a vacant commercial site. This pond site alternative will require an easement for maintenance access and conveyance. Pond E1 or Pond E2 would provide stormwater management for the East 3 Alternative. These pond alternatives utilize parcels that are already being impacted by Alternative East 3. A pond site evaluation matrix, Table 3.5.5, was developed to compare the alternative pond sites with respect to environmental impacts and right-of-way costs.

Table 3.5.5: Pond Site Evaluation Matrix

Pond Name

Potential for Wetland/

Surface Water Involvement

Potential for Protected Species

Involvement

Archeological Site Potential

Contamination Risk Ranking

Right-of-Way Cost Estimate

($ million) W1 Low Moderate Moderate Low 1.20 W2 Low Moderate High Low 1.29 E1 Low Moderate High Medium 1.35 E2 Low Moderate High Low 1.35

The preferred pond site for the West roadway alternatives is Pond W1 since it has lower archaeological site potential, lower estimated right-of-way cost, and does not require a drainage easement. The preferred pond site for the East roadway alternative is Pond E2 since it has a lower contamination risk ranking than Pond E1. Therefore, Pond W1 is considered the preferred pond site for the Preferred Alternative. Please refer to the Pond Siting Report (PSR), available under separate cover and included in the project file, for more information regarding drainage and stormwater management. A Water Quality Impact Evaluation (WQIE) has been completed for this project and is included in the project file. The design of the project stormwater management facilities will comply with the requirements of Chapter 62-330, F.A.C as required by the NWFWMD. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause water quality impacts based on stormwater design guidelines that will be implemented. An Environmental Look Around (ELA) teleconference was held on October 8, 2019 and included attendees from FDOT, the City of



Parker, NWFWMD, and TAFB. A Water Quality Certification will be obtained during the design and permitting phase of the project. Under the No-Build Alternative, no construction would occur and there would be no change to the existing drainage or water quality.

3.5.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 0 (None) was assigned to the Special Designations Issue based on review comments from USEPA. The EST GIS analysis did not identify any Wild and Scenic Rivers within the 500-foot project buffer area. During the PD&E Study, the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) was reviewed and confirmed that no potentially eligible rivers for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers list are in the project vicinity. The closest potentially eligible river, Econfina Creek, is located over 1.5 miles from the begin project. 3.5.5 Floodplains During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Floodplains based on review comments from NWFWMD. The NWFWMD recommended that impervious surfaces be minimized where possible, and that runoff be directed to local depressional areas and directed away from the receiving waters. Project work will require stormwater permitting in compliance with the ERP program. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: A Location Hydraulics Report (LHR) was prepared for the project and is available under separate cover, and in the project file. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has designated locations of the 100-year base floodplain within the project corridor on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 12005C0426H (Effective Date: 06/02/2009). The FIRM map is contained in Appendix D of the LHR. Zone VE is defined as a coastal flood area with velocity hazard (wave action) and base flood elevations determined. Zone VE is considered a tidal floodplain. Zone AE is defined as a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance (100-year) flood with



base flood elevations determined. Flood elevations are referenced to the North America Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). No FEMA regulatory floodways are located within the project limits.

The north approach and abutment of the Dupont Bridge is located within the following special flood hazard (100-year flood) areas:

• West side: Zone AE (ELs 8 and 9) and Zone VE (EL 10); and

• East side: Zone AE (EL 9) and Zone VE (EL 11). The south approach and abutment of the Dupont Bridge is located within the following special flood hazard (100-year flood) areas:

• West side: Zone AE (EL 9) and Zone VE (EL 11); and

• East side: Zone AE (ELs 8 and 9) and Zone VE (EL 10). Figure 3.5.4 shows the special flood hazard (100-year flood) areas. A field inspection was conducted to identify obvious drainage or flooding problems. Additionally, FDOT Panama City Operations staff members, knowledgeable about local drainage conditions, were contacted. No flooding problems associated with the bridge or roadway approaches have been identified by FDOT, nor indicated through field review. The project has the potential to impact the following special flood hazard (100-year flood) areas: Zone AE (ELs 8 and 9), Zone VE (ELs 10 and 11). Zone VE is considered a tidal floodplain associated with a storm surge. Therefore, floodplain compensation is not required for any impacts. Zone AE is defined as a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance (100-year) flood with base flood elevations determined. Due to its proximity to Saint Andrew Bay, any minor encroachments into this base floodplain will be considered tidal, and, as a result, will not require compensation.

Saint Andrew Bay


City of Parker

Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-58Figure 3.5.4:

Special Flood Hazard (100-year flood) Areas

0 0.250.125Miles

LegendStudy Area

Flood ZoneAE

VE

£¤98



The proposed project will encroach on the base floodplain; however, since the floodplain is associated with a tidal surge, the encroachment will not result in adverse impact to the base floodplain. Although this project involves work within the limits of the 100-year floodplain, the floodplain is associated with tidal surge and, thus, this project does not encroach upon the base floodplain. Therefore, the encroachments do not create:

• A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community’s only evacuation route;

• A significant flood risk; or

• A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Therefore, the floodplain encroachments will not pose a risk to highway users (loss of life, service disruption) or risks to property owners (damages, service disruption, property loss). It has been determined, through consultation with local, state, and federal water resources and floodplain management agencies that there is no regulatory floodway involvement on the project and that the project will not support base floodplain development that is incompatible with existing floodplain management programs. For more information on the floodplain analysis for this project, reference the LHR, available under separate cover and included in the project file. Figure 3.5.5 shows how the Build Alternatives impact the special flood hazard zones. No impacts to floodplains would result from the No-Build Alternative.

Saint Andrew Bay


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-60Figure 3.5.5:

Build Alternative Impacts on Special Flood Zones

0 0.150.075Miles

LegendWest 1

West 2

East 3

Flood ZoneAE

VE

£¤98



3.5.6 Coastal Zone Consistency The AN Package was distributed to State agencies to conduct Federal consistency reviews in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and Presidential Executive Order 12372. The following agencies found the project consistent:

• FDACS – February 23, 2018;

• FDEO – March 5, 2018;

• Florida Department of State – February 26, 2018; and

• NWFWMD – February 27, 2018. The FWC found the project “Consistent, with Comments” on March 5, 2018. FWC commented through the ETDM screening that plant community mapping and wildlife surveys for the occurrence of wildlife species listed by the Federal Endangered Species Act as Endangered or Threatened, or by the State of Florida as Threatened should be performed along the right-of-way and within sites proposed for drainage, equipment staging, and storage of materials. Based on the survey results, a plan should be developed to address direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project on wildlife and habitat resources, including listed species. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures should also be formulated and implemented. A compensatory mitigation plan should include the replacement of wetland, upland, or aquatic habitat functional values for listed species which are lost due to the project. Replacement habitat for mitigation should be type for type, as productive, and equal to or of higher functional value. FWC recommends that FDOT make a commitment to adhere to the NMFS and USFWS Construction Special Provisions, Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines, commit and adhere to the most current guidelines for protection of the Florida manatee within FWC’s Manatee and Sea Turtle Construction Condition for In-Water Work associated with FDOT Projects and that the applicant refer to FWC’s Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines for survey methodology and permitting guidance. These commitments were made for the project, as shown in Chapter 6. FDEP did not comment on the federal consistency for this project within the 30-day comment period.



The State of Florida determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program on March 20, 2018; Appendix D contains the documentation for this determination. 3.5.7 Coastal Barrier Resources The Final Programming Screen Summary Report, published on May 2, 2019, indicated no Coastal Barrier Resource Systems within the 500-foot project buffer area. It has been determined that this project is neither in the vicinity of, nor leads directly to a designated coastal barrier resource unit pursuant to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 and the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 3.5.8 Protected Species and Habitat During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 3 (Moderate) was assigned to Wildlife and Habitat based on review comments from FWC, USFWS, and FDACS. The FWC assigned a moderate degree of effect for wildlife and habitat. The FWC noted that their GIS analysis revealed several specific characteristics associated with lands and waters along the project area that provide an indication of the potential habitat quality or sensitivity that will require field studies to verify the presence or absence of listed wildlife species and define the quality of wildlife habitat resources. FWC's Wetland Habitats of High Priority to Endangered and Threatened Species database indicates that 72.3 acres (50.9%) of wetland habitat can support one to three focal species, while 12.0 acres (8.5 percent) can potentially support four to six focal species along the alignment. The FWC added that primary wildlife issues associated with this project include: potential loss of upland and wetland habitat and potential adverse impacts to species listed by the Federal Endangered Species Act as Endangered and Threatened, or by the State of Florida as Threatened. Project impacts to wildlife and habitat resources could have a potentially high moderate effect due to in-water work associated with removal of the old bridge and construction of the new structure. These impacts could be more severe if proper avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are not followed. The FWC commented that they would appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Endangered



Species Biological Assessment (now referred to as a Natural Resources Evaluation). Secondary impacts of the project could also involve increased residential and commercial development resulting in additional habitat loss and degradation. Mitigation for reductions in offsite water quality may also be necessary. The FWC also made recommendations for the project which are summarized in Section 3.5.6. The USFWS assigned a minimal degree of effect for wildlife and habitat. The USFWS provided information on protected and "at risk" species that may potentially occur within the project area and specifically recommended incorporating Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake as a conservation measure during construction of this project. USFWS stated that surveys should be conducted for other federally protected species wherever suitable habitat is present. USFWS stated that further coordination should occur for additional guidance for listed species identified within the study area as a result of surveys. To reduce effects to migratory birds, land clearing activities could be timed to avoid nesting periods. Mitigation of habitat loss should be considered to reduce overall effects. The FDACS assigned a degree of effect of none for wildlife and habitat. The FDACS commented that the Chipola Forestry Center is close to this project and requested that their operation not be impacted. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: The Build Alternatives will all have identical impacts regarding protected species since the proposed footprints are so similar. An assessment of federally and state protected wildlife and plant species involvement was conducted in accordance with 50 CFR Part 402, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the PD&E Manual, and Chapters 5 and 68 of the Florida Administrative Code. Literature searches and a field review (April 30 – May 2, 2019) were conducted to identify suitable habitat, evidence of protected species use, and critical habitat that might be expected to occur within the project study area.



A review of USFWS, FWC, FDACS, and Florida Natural Areas Inventory’s (FNAI) data indicates 77 species of protected plants and animals are known to occur in Bay County. Twenty-two of the species are federally listed endangered or threatened with one additional species being a candidate species for listing. Seventy-five of the 77 listed species are state listed endangered or threatened. In addition, two species are not listed, but are still managed and protected. One is the bald eagle, which was delisted from protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2007. However, the bald eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and State law (F.A.C. 68A-16.002). The second is the Florida black bear, which is no longer state listed by the FWC; however, it is afforded protection under the Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule 68A-4.009 F.A.C. The project is located within the USFWS Consultation Area for the red-cockaded woodpecker and manatee. Coordination was conducted with the FNAI requesting information regarding the location of, or the potential for, protected species in the vicinity of the proposed project. The FNAI response did not identify any element occurrences within one mile of the project study area. Based on a review of the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, no critical habitat is within the project study area. Therefore, the project will not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The project is also not within or adjacent to a National Marine Sanctuary and therefore, the project will not result in any impacts to National Marine Sanctuaries. Migratory birds may traverse through the project area. Only small impacts to natural habitat are proposed. Disturbance to the beach and shoreline will be limited in nature (approximately 200 linear feet on both the northern and southern shorelines). An abundance of suitable habitat will remain in the vicinity of the project after completion. The project should have no effect on migratory birds. No invasive species were observed in the project area.



Federally Listed Species Twenty-two species are listed by the USFWS as endangered or threatened. In-house research and field reviews were conducted evaluating the habitat requirements for each species and the types of habitats present within the project study area. Eleven of the 22 species were determined to have a low probability of occurrence due to a lack of preferred habitat within the project study area. The proposed project will have no effect on these species. This determination includes the wood stork. The September 2008 Effect Determination Key for the Wood Stork in Central and North Peninsular Florida was utilized, and because the project does not affect suitable foraging habitat, it was determined that the project will have no effect on the wood stork. The project study area includes the consultation area for the red-cockaded woodpecker. However, no preferred habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker is found in the project study area. Therefore, the red-cockaded woodpecker was determined to have a low probability of occurrence due to a lack of preferred habitat within the project study area. The proposed project will have no effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker. A description of the 11 remaining federally listed species is provided below. A summary of the federally listed species and effect determinations is provided in Table 3.5.6. Telephus Spurge The telephus spurge (Euphorbia telephioides), listed by the USFWS as Threatened and FDACS as Endangered, is a perennial herb with numerous, erect stems up to one foot tall. The stems and leaves are smooth and fleshy, with milky sap. Its leaves are one to two inches long, alternate, without leaf stalks, and are widest above the middle, usually with maroon midribs and margins. Flowers are in reddish-green cyathia (cup-like structures) with one female flower and several male flowers (one stamen each) on short stalks, surrounded by four to five-minute, petal-like glands. It is found in longleaf pine savannas, scrubby and mesic flatwoods, and coastal scrub on low sand ridges near the Gulf of Mexico. The probability of occurrence within the project study area for telephus spurge was designated as moderate due to available habitat within the project study area. While none were observed during the field reviews, and small areas of preferred habitat may be affected by this project, large areas will remain in the vicinity of the project area. Surveys will be conducted prior to construction



during the appropriate survey season. If plants are located, coordination with USFWS and FDACS will be initiated. Therefore, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the telephus spurge. Gulf Sturgeon The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Threatened, is a large anadromous species that occurs in the lower sections of large rivers and estuaries along the Gulf coast. The species spends most of the year in brackish and saline water and migrates in the spring up coastal rivers to freshwater in order to spawn. The Gulf sturgeon is a bottom feeder, rooting along the bottom with their snouts and ingesting food by “vacuuming” the substrate with their protrusible mouths. The probability of occurrence for gulf sturgeon within the project study area was designated as moderate due to the project’s location on Saint Andrew Bay. No Gulf sturgeon were observed during the field reviews. While habitat will be impacted by the project, an abundance of foraging habitat will remain in the vicinity of the project after completion. NMFS and USFWS Construction Special Provisions, Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines will be utilized during construction to minimize impacts to the species. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT and their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on this species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. Contractor adherence to the agency- approved project blasting plan (if necessary) and implementation of the USFWS and NMFS’ Construction Special Provisions, Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines are expected to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the species. Therefore, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Gulf sturgeon. Sea Turtles Five species of sea turtles have potential for involvement with this project, including the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta carreta) and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Threatened, and the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Endangered. These medium to large turtles are



generally found in marine and coastal waters, including bays and inlets, except during migration. Marine algae and grasses are the primary dietary items obtained in shallow water areas; however, small mollusks, sponges, crustaceans, and jellyfish may also be consumed. Open beaches with minimal disturbance are prime nesting sites. The probability of occurrence for sea turtles within the project study area was designated as moderate due to the project’s location on Saint Andrew Bay. No sea turtles were observed during the field reviews. While turtle strandings are documented in the vicinity of the project, with limited suitable nesting habitat, no nestings are reported within Saint Andrew Bay (see Figure 3.5.6). NMFS approved Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions will be utilized during construction to minimize impacts to these species. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT and their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on this species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. As a result of the previously described actions, it is anticipated that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Hawksbill sea turtle, or Kemp’s ridley sea turtle.

Figure 3.5.6: Sea Turtle Strandings and Nesting Map



Eastern Indigo Snake The Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Threatened, is a large, stout-bodied, shiny black snake reaching lengths up to eight feet. Its chin, throat, and sides of head may be reddish or sometimes white. The Eastern indigo snake utilizes a wide variety of habitats ranging from mangrove swamps to xeric scrub communities. The Eastern indigo snake prefers upland / wetland ecotone breaks for feeding, and often lives in association with gopher tortoise burrows, especially in the winter. The probability of occurrence for Eastern indigo snake was designated as moderate due to available habitat within the project study area. No Eastern indigo snakes were observed during the field reviews. However, the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake alerting the contractor of the potential presence and its protected status will be utilized during construction to minimize the probability of any species involvement. The August 2013 addendum to the January 2010 Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key (North Florida) was used for this project. Because permits will be conditioned for use of the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake, the project will impact less than 25 acres of xeric habitat supporting less than 25 active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows, FWC Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines will be followed, and if an indigo snake is encountered, the snake will be allowed to vacate the area prior to additional site manipulation in the vicinity, it was determined the project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Eastern indigo snake. Red Knot The red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Threatened, is a little (nine inches long) shorebird with a small head and eyes, a short neck and a slightly tapering bill that is no longer than its head. It has short dark legs and a medium thin dark bill. The red knot is a master of long-distance aviation. On wingspans of 20 inches, red knots fly more than 9,300 miles from south to north every spring and repeat the trip in reverse every autumn, making this bird one of the longest-distance migrants in the animal kingdom. The probability of occurrence for red knot within the project study area was designated as moderate due to the project’s location on Saint Andrew Bay. No red knot were observed during the field reviews. While habitat will be impacted by the project, an abundance of preferred habitat will remain in the vicinity of the project after completion. Surveys to determine presence of red knot within the project area will be conducted during the



permitting phase of the project and coordination with USFWS will take place as necessary. Therefore, the proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the red knot. Piping Plover The piping plover (Charadrius melodus), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Threatened, is a small plover with a short, stout, black bill, yellow to greenish-olive legs, and very pale upperparts. Piping plovers do not breed in Florida but spend a large portion of their year “wintering” here. In Florida, this species is usually encountered in winter plumage. The black band across the forehead and a dark ring partly around the neck, present in breeding birds, fade in winter birds and are not present in juveniles. Nesting habitat consists of dry sandy beaches and coastal dunes. Foraging occurs on tidal flats along inlets and creeks. The probability of occurrence for piping plover within the project study area was designated as moderate due to the project’s location on Saint Andrew Bay. No piping plover were observed during the field reviews. While habitat will be impacted by the project, disturbance to the beach and shoreline will be limited in nature (approximately 200 linear feet on both the northern and southern shorelines). An abundance of suitable habitat will remain in the vicinity of the project after completion. Surveys to determine presence of piping plover within the project area will be conducted during the permitting phase of the project coordination with USFWS will take place, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the piping plover. Manatee The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Threatened, inhabits coastal areas throughout Florida. The population generally disperses in the warmer summer months, then becomes concentrated at springs and thermal discharges from power plants during the winter. The species is an herbivore, eating a variety of submerged and emergent vegetation. Reasons for the decline of the species include habitat loss, accidental collisions with watercraft, and mortality associated with canal lock operation. Adequate suitable foraging habitat is present in and around the project area. The probability of occurrence for manatee was designated as moderate due to available habitat within the project study area. No manatee were observed during the field reviews. While habitat will be impacted by the project, an abundance of foraging habitat will remain in the vicinity of the project after completion. USFWS and FWC approved Standard Manatee Construction



Conditions for In-Water Work will be utilized during construction to minimize impacts to the species. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT and their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on this species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. The April 2013 Effect Determination Key for Manatee in Florida in conjunction with the May 2019 USFWS and USACE letter with revisions to the 2013 Key were utilized to assess the impact of the project on the West Indian Manatee. As a result of the previously described actions, it is anticipated that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian Manatee. In an email dated June 25, 2020 (included in Appendix B and the project file), the NMFS noted that smalltooth sawfish were not included in the analysis. As a result of that comment, a description, and an effects determination for the smalltooth sawfish was added below and to Table 3.5.6. In a letter dated July 1, 2020 (included in Appendix B and the project file), the NMFS recommended that the green, loggerhead, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, as well as the smalltooth sawfish be addressed in the Section 7 consultation with NMFS. Due to the lack of sufficiently detailed project information, particularly information regarding pile driving (type/material, size, number, installation methods, and total number of hammer strikes per day), NMFS stated that they cannot conduct an analysis as part of the Section 7 consultation at this time. However, Section 7 consultation can be completed when these project details are provided, and conservation measures are finalized. NMFS recommended adding a commitment to perform in-water pile driving activities during daylight hours. The feasibility of this commitment will be evaluated during the final design phase, and further consultation with NMFS will occur. In an email dated June 29, 2020 (included in Appendix B and the project file), the USFWS noted that gulf sturgeon frequently cross this portion of Saint Andrew Bay as an alternative migratory pathway in the winter. USFWS stated that to achieve a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination, they would want to see commitments that eliminate blasting, include no pile driving from October 15th to March 15th, and limit pile driving to eight-hours per day. Additional design information and construction coordination is needed to determine the



feasibility of eliminating blasting from the project. In a follow-up email on July 15, 2020 (included in Appendix B and the project file), USFWS stated that they had no objections to the project proceeding to the design phase when additional information would be available to assist in determining the appropriate level of consultation required. In a letter dated July 24, 2020, FWC stated that they had previously provided technical assistance through the ETDM Screening and have no additional comments regarding the NRE and agree with the determinations of effect and project commitments for protected species. The FWC coordination letter is located in Appendix B and in the project file. Smalltooth Sawfish The smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate), listed by the USFWS and FWC as Endangered, inhabit shallow coastal waters of tropical seas and estuaries throughout the world. They are usually found in shallow waters (less than 32 feet), very close to shore over muddy and sandy bottoms. They are often found in sheltered bays, on shallow banks, and in estuaries or river mouths. They prefer warmer water temperature of 22 to 28 degrees Celsius. They are known to ascend inland in river systems and have been shown to have a salinity preference of 18 to 24 parts per thousand. While smalltooth sawfish are not common in the Florida Panhandle region, they have been documented to occur there. No smalltooth sawfish were observed during the field reviews. NMFS approved Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions will be utilized during construction to minimize impacts to these species. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT and their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on this species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. As a result of the previously described actions, it is anticipated that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish.



Table 3.5.6: Effect Determination for Federally Listed Species

Scientific Name Common Name USFWS

Designation Effect

Determination PLANTS

Euphorbia telephioides Telephus spurge T MANLAA Harperocallis flava Harper’s beauty E No Effect Macbridea alba White birds-in-a-nest T No Effect Paronychia chartacea minima

Papery whitlow-wort T No Effect

Pinguicula ionantha Godfrey's butterwort T No Effect Scutellaria floridana Florida skullcap T No Effect

FISH Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon T MANLAA Pristis pectinate Smalltooth sawfish E MANLAA

AMPHIBIANS Ambystoma bishopi Reticulated

flatwoods salamander

E No Effect

REPTILES Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T

(S/A) No Effect

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle T MANLAA Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T MANLAA Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea

turtle E MANLAA

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake T MANLAA Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle E MANLAA

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle E MANLAA

BIRDS Calidris canutus rufa Red knot T MANLAA Charadrius melodus Piping plover T MANLAA Mycteria americana Wood stork T No Effect

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker

E No Effect

MAMMALS Peromyscus polionotus allophrys

Choctawahatchee beach mouse E No Effect

Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis

Saint Andrew beach mouse E No Effect

Trichechus manatus Manatee T MANLAA

T = Threatened; E = Endangered; (S/A) = Listed due to similarity of appearance to a listed species; MANLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect



3.5.8.1 State Listed Species Seventy-five species are listed by FWC and FDACS as endangered or threatened. Twenty-two of these species are also federally listed. In-house research and field reviews were conducted evaluating the habitat requirements for each species and the types of habitats present within the project study area. Thirty-nine of the 53 remaining species were determined to have no probability of occurrence due to a lack of suitable habitat within the project study area. Therefore, these species have been assigned a no effect anticipated determination for this project. A summary of the state listed species and effect determinations is provided in Table 3.5.7.

Table 3.5.7: Effect Determination for State Listed Species

Scientific Name Common Name FDACS Designation Effect Determination

PLANTS Andropogon arctatus Pinewoods bluestem T No Effect Anticipated

Arnoglossum album Chalky Indian- plantain E No Effect Anticipated

Asclepias viridula Southern milkweed T No Effect Anticipated Calamintha dentata Toothed savory T No Effect Anticipated Calamovilfa curtissii Curtiss' sandgrass T No Effect Anticipated Carex baltzellii Baltzell's sedge T No Effect Anticipated

Chrysopsis godfreyi Godfrey's goldenaster E No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Chrysopsis gossypina cruiseana Cruise's goldenaster E No Effect Anticipated

Coelorachis tuberculosa Piedmont jointgrass T No Effect Anticipated

Dichanthelium nudicaule Naked-stemmed panic grass T No Effect Anticipated

Drosera filiformis Thread-leaf sundew E No Effect Anticipated Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum Dark-headed hatpins E No Effect Anticipated Eurybia spinulosa Pinewoods aster E No Effect Anticipated Gentiana pennelliana Wiregrass gentian E No Effect Anticipated Hymenocallis henryae Henry's spider-lily E No Effect Anticipated

Hypericum lissophloeus Smooth barked Saint John’s wort E No Effect Anticipated

Juncus gymnocarpus Coville's rush E No Effect Anticipated

Justicia crassifolia Thick-leaved water- willow E No Effect Anticipated

Kalmia latifolia Mountain laurel T No Effect Anticipated Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland bogbutton T No Effect Anticipated Liatris provincialis Godfrey's blazing star E No Effect Anticipated




Lupinus westianus Gulf Coast lupine T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Lythrum curtissii Curtiss' loosestrife E No Effect Anticipated Macranthera flammea Hummingbird flower E No Effect Anticipated Magnolia ashei Ashe's magnolia E No Effect Anticipated Magnolia pyramidata Pyramid magnolia E No Effect Anticipated Najas filifolia Narrowleaf naiad T No Effect Anticipated

Phoebanthus tenuifolius Narrow-leaved phoebanthus T No Effect Anticipated

Physostegia godfreyi Apalachicola dragon- Head T No Effect Anticipated

Pinguicula primuliflora Primrose-flowered butterwort E No Effect Anticipated

Platanthera integra Yellow fringeless Orchid E No Effect Anticipated

Polygonella macrophylla Large-leaved jointweed T No Adverse Effect

Anticipated

Rhexia parviflora Small-flowered meadowbeauty E No Effect Anticipated

Rhexia salicifolia Panhandle meadowbeauty T No Effect Anticipated

Ruellia noctiflora Nightflowering wild petunia E No Effect Anticipated

Silene virginica Fire pink E No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Stachydeoma graveolens Mock pennyroyal E No Effect Anticipated Stewartia malacodendron Silky camellia E No Effect Anticipated Tiedemannia filiformis greenmanii Giant water cowbane E No Effect Anticipated

Xyris isoetifolia Quillwort yellow-eyed grass E No Effect Anticipated

Xyris longisepala Karst pond xyris E No Effect Anticipated

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's yellow-eyed grass T No Effect Anticipated

REPTILES

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Pituophis melanoleucus Pine snake T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

BIRDS Ammodramus maritimus peninsulae

Scott's seaside sparrow T No Effect Anticipated

Charadrius nivosus Snowy plover T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Egretta rufescens Reddish egret T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel T No Adverse Effect

Anticipated




Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher T No Adverse Effect

Anticipated

Rynchops niger Black skimmer T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

Sternula antillarum Least tern T No Adverse Effect Anticipated

T = Threatened; E = Endangered; SSC = Species of Special Concern Listed due to similarity of appearance to a listed species Gopher Tortoise The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), listed by the FWC as Threatened and is a candidate species for federal listing by the USFWS. The probability of occurrence for gopher tortoise was designated as moderate due the presence of preferred habitat within the project study area. While no gopher tortoises or burrows were observed during field reviews or identified by TAFB survey data, impacted habitats will need to be surveyed during design in accordance with FWC Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines. If any gopher tortoises are found, permitting, and relocation in accordance with FWC Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines will be required. Commensal species will also be addressed in accordance with the Guidelines. Due to all gopher tortoise issues being addressed in accordance with FWC Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines, the gopher tortoise has been assigned a no adverse effect anticipated determination for this project. 3.5.8.2 Managed and Protected Species Bald Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from protection under the Endangered Species Act in 2007. However, the bald eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and State law. It is a large bird with dark plumage, a white head (in adults), a white tail, and a large bright yellow bill. It is usually found near large open water habitats such as rivers, lakes, and the coast. The bald eagle nests in large pine trees near water bodies that can provide a dependable food source. The location and activity of bald eagle nest sites throughout the state are closely monitored by FWC. No nests are located within one mile of the project study area and no proposed activities are occurring within the established protection buffer zones for bald eagle nests. Surveys to determine presence of bald eagle nests within the project area will be



conducted during the permitting phase of the project and coordination with USFWS and FWC will take place, as necessary.

Florida Black Bear The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) is no longer state listed by the FWC; however, it is afforded protection under the Florida Black Bear Conservation Rule 68A-4.009 F.A.C. The Florida black bear is the largest land mammal in Florida and prefers a variety of forested habitats that provide an assortment of nutritional benefits. The range of black bears has been reduced to six core areas in Florida, all of which are considered to be important areas for bears. The project is located within bear range in which bear are abundant. While no bear were observed during field reviews, four bears were killed along the project area between 1988 and 2014, and five sightings have been documented. While small areas of preferred habitat may be affected by this project, large areas will remain in the vicinity of the project area. Due to the black bear range being abundant in this area, the FDOT will commit to requiring the contractor to remove garbage daily from the construction site or use bear proof containers. Sightings of black bears during construction will be reported to the FWC Alert Hot Line. For more information on protected species and habitat, reference the NRE, available under separate cover. Under the No-Build Alternative, no impacts to protected species or habitat would occur. 3.5.9 Essential Fish Habitat The AN process was initiated through the FDOT ETDM on January 18, 2018 and completed with the publication of a Final Programming Screen Summary Report on May 2, 2019. During the ETDM Screening, input was received from the NMFS with respect to EFH evaluation. The NMFS stated that staff conducted a site inspection of the project area on January 17, 2018, to assess potential concerns related to living estuarine resources within East Bay and the greater Saint Andrew Bay system. Certain estuarine habitats within the project area are designated as EFH. Estuarine habitats which exist in the project area, have been identified as EFH for postlarval / juvenile penaeid shrimp; postlarval / juvenile, subadult, and adult red



drum; juvenile Spanish and king mackerel; juvenile and adult gray snapper; and juvenile gag grouper by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). Also, a number of other species using these areas are prey species for federally-managed fish species. Seagrass, salt marsh, estuarine water column, and mud, sand, shell, and rock substrates are specific categories of EFH that may be directly impacted by the project. During the ETDM screening, NMFS requested that an EFH Assessment be prepared, and provided guidance concerning the documentation of the assessment. Upon review of the EFH Assessment, NMFS will determine if it is necessary to provide EFH Conservation Recommendations on the project. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: The proposed project is within the GMFMC area of jurisdiction, which extends from the Texas / Mexico border to the Florida Keys and seaward to the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea). The GMFMC separates EFH into estuarine and marine components. For the estuarine component, EFH is defined as all estuarine waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock and associated biological communities), including the sub-tidal vegetation (seagrasses and algae) and adjacent inter-tidal vegetation (marshes and mangroves). In marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico, EFH is defined as all marine waters and substrates (mud, sand, shell, rock, hardbottom, and associated biological communities) from the shoreline to the seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial sea), which extends from the Texas / Mexico border to the Florida Keys. Within the project study area, EFH present includes the habitats associated with Saint Andrew Bay: Bays and Estuaries (FLUCFCS – 540) and Seagrasses (FLUCFCS – 911). The MSFCMA required that each Fishery Management Council amend their existing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to identify and describe EFH for each species under management. The GMFMC has identified and described EFH for 55 representative managed species and the coral complex. The project area has been reviewed to determine if EFH for the managed species are present. Although not managed by the GMFMC, certain species of highly migratory species have NMFS-designated EFH requirements and occur within the Gulf of



Mexico. The project area has also been reviewed to determine if EFH for these managed species are present. EFH for 18 of the 55 representative managed species and the coral complex were identified in the project study area. In addition, EFH for eight of the 49 highly migratory species were also identified in the project area. Permanent loss of EFH due to fill is approximately 0.05 acres. While 0.19 to 1.28 acres of seagrass habitat is impacted and will be lost due to shading, however, these impacts due not constitute a complete loss of EFH, as this area will remain bay and estuarine EFH habitat. Secondary impacts to wetlands within a 25-foot buffer of the bridge alternatives will range from 0.19 to 0.42 acres but will not result in the permanent loss of EFH. Temporary impacts associated with construction activities range from 0.41 to 0.82 acres but will not result in the permanent loss of EFH. In addition, any EFH impacts will be mitigated as described in Section 3.5.1.8. None of the species with EFH present in the project study area, or any of their life stages, are exclusive to the EFH habitats present in the project study area. Table 3.5.8 summarizes the amount of EFH within the footprint of each alternative as well as the proposed impact acreages.

Table 3.5.8: EFH Impacts

FLUCFCS Code

West 1 West 2 East 3 Bridge Impacts Bridge Impacts Bridge Impacts

Size (Acres)

Size (Acres) / Type

Size (Acres)

Size (Acres) / Type

Size (Acres)

Size (Acres) / Type

540 9.73 0.05 / Fill 8.49 0.05 / Fill 8.28 0.05 / Fill

911 1.28 1.28 / Shade

0.33 0.33 / Shade

0.19 0.19 / Shade

0.42 / Secondary 0.35 / Secondary 0.19 / Secondary 0.41 / Temporary 0.82 / Temporary 0.82 / Temporary

Total 11.01 2.16 8.82 1.55 8.47 1.25 Any EFH impacts will be mitigated as described in Section 3.5.1.8 of this report. None of the species with EFH present in the project study area, or any of their life stages, are exclusive to the EFH habitats present in the project study area.



The proposed stormwater management system will utilize ponds to meet water quality and quantity requirements. The design of the project stormwater management facilities will comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Chapter 62-330, F.A.C., 373.413 F.S., and the Design Standards set forth in Volume II of the ERP Applicants Handbook for use within the geographic limits of the NWFWMD. Specific permit conditions and project specific erosion control plan will be followed to ensure maximum protection to wetlands and to minimize construction-related water quality impacts. Furthermore, BMPs will be employed during construction to reduce short-term degradation of water quality as required per the Erosion Control Plan, which is part of the ERP. BMPs may include the use of sediment barriers, dewatering structures, and containment devices that will minimize adverse effects to water quality during construction by controlling turbid water discharges outside construction limits. With the avoidance and minimization of impacts to EFH habitat (see Section 3.5.1.5), the quantity of EFH habitats remaining in the vicinity of the project, none of the species with EFH present in the project study area, or any of their life stages, are exclusive to the EFH habitats present in the project study area, stormwater treatment will address potential water quality degradation and mitigation will be provided for any impacts to EFH; the proposed project will have minimal adverse effect on EFH. For more information on the EFH, reference the NRE, available under separate cover. On July 1, 2020, the NMFS sent a letter to FDOT (included in Appendix B and the project file) stating that they had reviewed the information regarding permanent and temporary impacts to seagrasses due to the project. The NMFS concluded that the preliminary assessment of impacts to seagrasses is accurate. Therefore, if appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided for unavoidable seagrass impacts, the project will not have an adverse impact on EFH. The FDOT commits to further coordination with NMFS to identify appropriate mitigation for seagrass impacts. Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to EFH.



3.6 Physical This section describes the physical environment potentially affected by the project: highway traffic noise, air quality, contamination, utilities, construction, bicycle and pedestrian considerations, and navigation. 3.6.1 Highway Traffic Noise During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 3 (Moderate) was assigned to Noise. A traffic noise study was performed in accordance with 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (July 13, 2010), and the FDOT’s PD&E Manual and documented in a Noise Study Report (NSR) dated March 2021. Design year traffic noise levels (2048) for the Build Alternatives will approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) at one residence within the project limits. All three Build Alternatives locate the centerline of the closest travel lane approximately 105 feet away from the single-family home. The next closest receptor site is approximately 115 feet away from the closest travel lane for each of the Build Alternatives and the predicted noise levels are therefore identical, and well below the impact criteria for residential land uses (63.3 dB(A)). None of the receptor sites will experience a substantial increase in noise levels [i.e., 15 dB(A) or greater] above the existing conditions. A noise barrier was considered at the impacted residence but was determined to not be a feasible abatement measure. The impacted site represents an isolated residence, so a noise barrier was not considered acoustically feasible. For a noise barrier to be considered an acoustically feasible abatement measure, it must benefit at least two impacted receptor sites. Since a noise barrier was not found feasible at the impacted residence, a noise barrier is not recommended at this location. Based on the noise analyses performed to date, there appears to be no feasible solutions available to mitigate the noise impacts at the location represented by one residence where a noise barrier was not recommended. The traffic noise impact to this noise sensitive site is an unavoidable consequence of the project. Because of the low number of unavoidable impacts (i.e., one), the noise impacts associated with this project are not considered significant. For



more information on the noise analysis, reference the NSR, available under separate cover and in the project file. During construction of the project, the potential for noise impacts is substantially greater than those resulting from normal traffic operations because heavy equipment is typically used in road and bridge construction. In addition, construction activities may result in vibration impacts. Therefore, early identification of potential noise and vibration sensitive sites along the project corridor is important in minimizing noise and vibration impacts. The project area does include residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. Construction related noise and vibration impacts to these sites will be minimized by adherence to the controls listed in the latest edition of the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. If noise-sensitive land uses develop adjacent to the roadway prior to construction, additional impacts could result. The application of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction will minimize or eliminate most of the potential construction noise and vibration impacts. However, should unanticipated noise or vibration issues arise during the construction process, the Project Manager, in concert with the District Noise Specialist and the Contractor, will investigate additional methods of controlling these impacts. No noise impacts would result from the No-Build Alternative. 3.6.2 Air Quality During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Air Quality based on review comments from USEPA. The USEPA stated that Bay County has not been designated as nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), or any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The project was reviewed for air quality impacts consistent with the guidance provided by the FHWA as described in the FDOT PD&E Manual and documented in an Air Quality Technical Memorandum (AQTM) which is included in the project file. The proposed project is located in Bay County, which is currently designated as being in attainment for the



following criteria air pollutants: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (2.5 microns in size and 10 microns in size), sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The No Build and Preferred Alternatives were subjected to a CO screening model that makes various conservative worst-case assumptions related to site conditions, meteorology, and traffic. All of the Build Alternatives result in identical future traffic volumes, so although the analysis was done for the Preferred Alternative, it would apply to any of the Build Alternatives. The FDOT’s screening model for CO uses the latest USEPA-approved software to produce estimates of one-hour and eight-hour CO at default air quality receptor locations. The one-hour and eight-hour estimates can be directly compared to the one- and eight-hour NAAQS for CO that are 35 parts per million (ppm) and 9 ppm, respectively. The highest total approach traffic volume for the No-Build and Preferred Build Alternative was associated with the US 98 and Oak Shore Drive unsignalized intersection. Both the No-Build Alternative and Preferred Build Alternative were evaluated for the opening year (2028) and design year (2048). Estimates of CO were predicted for the default receptors that are located 10 feet to 150 feet from the edge of the roadway. Based on the results from the screening model, the highest project-related CO one- and eight-hour levels are not predicted to meet or exceed the one- or eight-hour NAAQS for this pollutant with either the No-Build Alternative or Preferred Build Alternative. As such, the project “passes” the screening model. The project is located in an area that is designated in attainment for all of the NAAQS under the criteria provided in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Clean Air Act conformity requirements do not apply to the project. Construction activities will cause short-term air quality impacts in the form of dust from earthwork and unpaved roads. These impacts will be minimized by adherence to applicable State and local regulations and to the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The purpose of this project is to examine bridge replacement alternatives to replace the existing structurally deficient Dupont Bridge. This project has been determined to generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked



with any special Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) concerns. As such, this project will not result in changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, basic project location, or any other factor that would cause a meaningful increase in MSAT impacts of the project from that of the No-Build alternative. Moreover, USEPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSAT emissions to decline significantly over the next several decades. Based on regulations now in effect, an analysis of national trends with USEPA’s MOVES2014 model forecasts a combined reduction of over 90 percent in the total annual emissions rate for the priority MSAT from 2010 to 2050 while vehicle-miles of travel are projected to increase by over 45 percent (Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA documents, FHWA, October 12, 2016). This will both reduce the background level of MSAT as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from this project. Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to air quality.

3.6.3 Contamination During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 2 (Minimal) was assigned to Contamination based on review comments from USEPA, and FDEP. The USEPA and FDEP commented that the PD&E Study should include at least a Phase I and possibly a Phase II contamination site assessment. The USEPA added that during the assessment, a survey of the area to identify any contaminated site features not listed in the GIS analysis data which may have been or are currently located in the project buffer distances should be conducted, as well as an assessment of known sites and features. The FDEP added that in the event contamination is detected during construction, the FDEP needs to be notified and the FDOT may need to address the problem through additional assessment and remediation activities. A Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER) was prepared for this PD&E Study and is included in the project file. The objectives of this Level I Assessment were to identify and evaluate potential contamination sources that could impact the proposed project.



A Radius Report of the federal and state environmental databases for the project corridor was conducted on May 9, 2019 and is included in Appendix B of the CSER. The Radius Report identifies sites that have real or potential environmental issues related to previous or existing land use activities conducted on site. The Radius Report contains a summary of the environmental records from various local, state, and federal agencies. The Radius Report was verified by reviewing the FDEP Consolidated Electronic Document Management System (OCULUS) database and the FDEP Map Direct on-line database. In addition to the regulatory database search, a site reconnaissance and limited investigation of the properties on or immediately adjacent to the US 98 corridor was conducted. The field review was conducted on May 11, 2019. The reconnaissance consisted of a visual inspection for evidence of potential contamination or environmental violations at the locations identified during the regulatory database search. Furthermore, the reconnaissance included visual investigations of potential sites that appeared to store or use hazardous materials that were not included on any regulatory database. The investigation revealed four sites that were not identified by the regulatory database review. After gathering and reviewing all readily available public information and conducting site reconnaissance, contamination risk rankings were assigned to sites of potential concern. The rating system is divided into four categories of risk as defined by the FDOT in the PD&E Manual: No, Low, Medium, or High. Based on the historical research, review of environmental record databases, site reconnaissance, and detailed regulatory file reviews, a total of 13 sites were identified within a half mile from the existing US 98 centerline as shown in Figure 3.6.1 and Table 3.6.1.

b

b

bbbbb

b

b

b

b

b

Saint Andrew Bay


1

3

67

810

11

12

2

5

9

4


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-85Figure 3.61:

Potential ContaminationSites

0 0.250.125Miles

LegendStudy AreaProject LimitsTyndall AirForce Base

Risk Rating

b High

b Medium

b Low

£¤98



Table 3.6.1: Summary of Potential Contamination Sources Site ID Name Parcel Number Likely Contaminant Risk Rating

1 TAFB Docking

Facility 26219-000-000 petroleum High

2 Amerada Hess Formal Terminal 26219-000-000 diesel fuel, other

petroleum High

3 Old Dupont Bridge N/A lead based paint, asbestos Low

3B Dupont Bridge N/A lead based paint, asbestos

Low

4 North Florida Contracting Inc. 26214-010-000 – Medium

5 Earl Gilbert Park Public Boat Ramp 26214-000-00 petroleum Low

6 Inland #598 26216-010-000 leaded and unleaded gasoline, diesel

High

7 Domestic Laundry & Cleaners 26240-010-000 petroleum, dry

cleaning chemicals High

8 Radio Station 26266-000-000 vehicular diesel, unleaded gasoline High

9 Unknown Storage Property

26239-010-000 various automotive fluids, lead based

paint Medium

10 Ohm Express 26297-000-000 vehicular diesel, unleaded gasoline High

11 Racetrac #940 26304-000-000 vehicular diesel,

unleaded gasoline, motor oil

High

12 James F Rodgers 25826-000-000 petroleum Medium Of the 13 sites, seven were rated as having a High potential for contamination impact and three sites were rated as having a Medium potential for contamination impact. The remaining three sites were rated as having a Low potential for contamination impact.



A brief description of each of the Medium and High risk sites follows: Site 1: TAFB Docking Facility – High Risk Rating This site, not currently in operation, is not listed within the Radius Report, but was found on the FDEP Map Direct database. The address within OCULUS is listed as 119 Alabama Avenue, however, that is the address for all storage tanks within the entire TAFB. The FDEP inspection conducted on August 29, 2018 clearly shows the docking facility is located just south of the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and US 98. A discharge was reported in January 2012, but very little information is available concerning the 2012 discharge. On October 6, 2018, a large Category 5 hurricane, Hurricane Michael, struck this area of the Florida Panhandle. Severe damage occurred throughout the entire project corridor. No discharge was reported as a result of the storm; however, the tanks suffered major damage to the containment unit and piping systems. As a result, the tanks have been temporarily taken out of service yet remain on site. As of March 2020, no investigation has been conducted to determine if a spill occurred as a result of the damage to the tank system. This site has been assigned a ranking of HIGH. This contamination site is part of the large TAFB parcel and property near this site is proposed to be acquired (via easement) for this project.

Site 2: Amerada Hess Formal Terminal – High Risk Rating This site, previously the Amerada Hess Oil Property, was located at the southern edge of the old Dupont Bridge. The facility, with an unknown start date, ceased operations and was demolished prior to 1969. The actual demolition date is unknown; however, Amerada Hess opened a second terminal at the location of Site 6 in October of 1965. A site assessment was conducted in October of 2000 as a result of a possible property transition. The activities were conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice E-1527. Hand augers were installed where petroleum storage tanks were thought to be located. Of the six hand augers, only one showed petroleum above the target cleanup levels. Petroleum was also encountered within the groundwater. Minor remediation was conducted, but little is known of those efforts. The site received a Site Rehabilitation Completion Order (SRCO) in December of 2001. The site investigation was localized, and as a result, the SRCO is localized. Thus, the potential for contamination still exists within the site. The site has been assigned a ranking of HIGH.



This site was used for the staging of hurricane debris in the year following Hurricane Michael. As a result, there is also a potential for contamination at this location due to hazardous materials that were stored on site during the hurricane clean-up activities. This contamination site is part of the large TAFB parcel and property near this site is proposed to be acquired (via easement) for this project.

Site 4: North Florida Contracting Inc. – Medium Risk Rating

This site was the location of a stormwater facility that was taken out of operation in 2011. No reported violations were recorded. Similar to Site 2, this site was utilized as a hurricane debris storage area after Hurricane Michael. As a result, there is a potential for contamination at this location due to hazardous materials that were staged and stored on the site during the hurricane clean-up activities. Site 4 has been assigned a ranking of MEDIUM for its use as a hurricane debris storage area. Based on the recent nature of the hurricane, OCULUS has no information regarding the potential contamination. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for the Preferred Alternative; Alternative East 3 would require property from this site.

Site 6: Inland #598 – High Risk Rating This site, currently closed, has been occupied by two separate gasoline service stations. The Amerada Hess opened at this location in October of 1965. It was previously located at Cooper Drive and US 98 as indicated above under Site 2. Amerada Hess contained four 6,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) containing both leaded and unleaded gasoline that were installed in October of 1965. In January of 1983, two additional 10,000 USTs containing unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel were installed. There is little information within OCULUS for this site; however, it appears in April of 1998 a leak of unleaded gasoline was discovered from the piping system during removal efforts. The leak was a result of a puncture within the fuel lines. Petroleum contaminated soils were excavated and stored on site for an extended period of time. The actual length of time is unknown; however, documentation shows a period of longer than two months. A site assessment for this site was recommended in November of 1998, however, no documentation or evidence of a site assessment exists. As a result, Site 6 has been assigned a ranking of HIGH. Property from this site is required for all of the Build Alternatives.



Site 7: Domestic Laundry & Cleaners – High Risk Rating This site, currently closed, is listed on the FDEP Storage Tank Contamination Monitoring (STCM) database. A review of the FDEP file for this location does not include any site history or documentation about any source of contamination. Historically, this site has also been a dry cleaner drop off site, though no dry-cleaning contamination is known at this site. The site is currently owned by the Gulf County Electric Cooperative Inc. Based on the STCM listing and the lack of available information, this site has been assigned a ranking of HIGH. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for any of the Build Alternatives.

Site 8: Radio Station – High Risk Rating This site, currently closed, contained four USTs installed at an unknown date and removed in June of 1992. The site contained one 500 gallon, one 8,000 gallon and two 10,000-gallon USTs all documented as containing a small amount of gasoline at the time of removal. During the removal process, contamination was encountered. In August of 2017, the site became eligible for State Funding for a Site Assessment. As of October of 2018, FDEP had been unable to contact the property owner, and unable to gain access to the site to conduct the assessment. As a result, the site has been assigned a ranking of HIGH. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for any of the Build Alternatives.

Site 9: Unknown Storage Property – Medium Risk Rating This site, currently in use, was found during the field visit. Prior to Hurricane Michael, the site was a storage facility for older automobiles and recreational vehicles. Post Hurricane Michael, the front of the property has become a collection location for hurricane debris. As a result, there is a potential for contamination at this location due to hazardous materials that were stored on site during the hurricane clean-up activities. This site has been assigned a ranking of MEDIUM. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for any of the Build Alternatives.

Site 10: Ohm Express – High Risk Rating This site, currently closed, contained four 6,000 USTs installed in July of 1991 and removed in 2012. In July of 2012, FDEP awarded the site a Contamination Score of 10, making the site eligible for state funding. Between the time of the tank closure report and December of



2018, FDEP has attempted to contact the property owner numerous times to gain site access in order to conduct a Site Assessment. No contact was successful, and a Site Assessment has yet to be conducted. As a result the site has been assigned a ranking of HIGH. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for any of the Build Alternatives. Site 11: Racetrac #940 – High Risk Rating This site, currently open, originally contained three 5,000-gallon USTs containing unleaded gasoline, one 2,000-gallon UST containing diesel and one 250-gallon UST containing used oil. All five tanks were installed in 1982 and were removed in December of 1998. During the tank closure activities petroleum odor was detected, and as a result, samples were collected and sent for screening. Approximately 100 cubic feet of soil was excavated and disposed of in a secure landfill facility. During closure activities it was determined that the petroleum encountered was a result of a reported spill in April of 1994. Very little information is available about this discharge. In March of 1999, three 12,000-gallon USTs were installed approximately 60 feet from the location of the old tank pit. In January of 2019, Taylor Environmental Consulting conducted a supplement to a limited site assessment report. This report stipulates there is conflicting information about the location of known contamination, the location of reported 1994 discharge, and the location of the original UST pit. As a result, several soil borings were installed to determine if contamination exists. Those samples did reveal contamination, and the report recommended more borings to delineate the soil and groundwater contamination plumes. As a result the site has been assigned a ranking of HIGH. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for any of the Build Alternatives. Site 12: James F Rodgers – Medium Risk Rating This site, currently open, contains one 300-gallon UST installed at an unknown date prior to 1989. Very little information is available in the FDEP OCULUS concerning the tank; however, the database does indicate that the UST contained fuel oil for the use of the property owner. Post Hurricane Michael, the site was inspected, and no obvious violations were discovered. This site has been assigned a ranking of MEDIUM due to the unknown status of the 300-gallon tank. Property from this site is not proposed to be acquired for any of the Build Alternatives.



As discussed above, the Build Alternatives impact three high rated sites:

• Site 1 – TAFB Docking Facility;

• Site 2 – Amerada Hess Formal Terminal; and

• Site 6 – Inland #598. In addition, Alternative East 3 also impacts one medium site, Site 4 – North Florida Contracting Inc. Table 3.6.2 shows a summary of the potential contamination impacts for each Build Alternative. The Preferred Alternative, West 1, impacts three high rated sites as indicated below.

Table 3.6.2: Summary of Contamination Impacts Risk Rating West 1 West 2 East 3 Low 0 0 0 Medium 0 0 1 High 3 3 3

Level II testing will be performed during final design for all High and Medium risk rated sites, as warranted. In comparison, the No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to contamination sites.

3.6.4 Utilities and Railroads No specific agency comments were received regarding utilities during the ETDM process. As part of the PD&E Study, a utility coordination effort was conducted. A Sunshine 811 call occurred on January 24, 2018 and a copy of the call request can be found in the Utility Assessment Report, available under separate cover and in the project file. The Sunshine 811 design ticket requested information regarding the utility owners within the right-of-way on either side of US 98 from Oak Shore Drive to Jefferson Boulevard in Bay County, Florida. The utility owners determined by the design ticket are summarized in Table 3.6.3.



Table 3.6.3: List of Utility Agencies / Owners Utility Owners Utility Type AT&T Florida Cable & Fiber Bay County Traffic Engineering Traffic / Fiber Optic Bay County Public Utilities Water / Sewer City of Parker City Streets Comcast Cablevision Coax & Fiber Optic Cable Consolidated Communications (Formerly: Fairpoint Communications) Cable & Fiber

Gulf Coast Electric Coop. Electric / Water Gulf Power Company Electric Mediacom Cable Teco Peoples Gas Gas Uniti Fiber (Formerly: Southern Light) Fiber Optic

Preliminary utility coordination was initiated with the Utility Agency Owners (UAOs) through written communications to the listed utility contacts. The letters informed the UAOs of the PD&E Study and requested that the UAOs identify all major existing and proposed surface and subsurface facilities that could be affected by the proposed improvements. The UAOs were requested to reply with a narrative of major utilities and an estimated cost if relocation would be required. The utility coordination was initiated via email on July 10, 2019 and followed up with a letter on December 9, 2019. Eleven existing utilities have been identified through the project corridor as shown in Table 3.6.3. The existing utilities include:

• Overhead and underground electric lines;

• Fiber optic cables;

• Water;

• Wastewater; and

• Gas mains. Table 3.6.4 displays which UAOs have responded to the initial utility request for information. Based on the initial utility coordination effort, utility facilities were identified within the existing or proposed right-of-way. The general location of the existing utility facilities is based on the UAOs response through the utility contact process, and plan sheets showing the existing utilities. These plan sheets are contained in the Utility Assessment Report, available



under separate cover. A preliminary assessment of which utilities will require relocations was assessed based on the plan information and mark-ups received from the UAOs compared to footprints of the Build Alternatives. A comparative analysis between the three Build Alternatives is not feasible at this stage in the project based on the limited utility information provided from the UAOs. Therefore, each of the alternatives is assumed to have the same impact to the utilities in the corridor, since they have very similar landfall footprints. The exact locations of the existing utilities and the extent of impacts will be determined during the final design phase of this project. Coordination with the known UAOs during the final design phase will assist in minimizing relocation adjustments and disruptions of service to the public.

Table 3.6.4: List of Utility Agencies / Owners

Utility Owners Utility Type Response (Yes / No)

Anticipated Conflict (Yes / No)

AT&T Florida Cable & Fiber No TBD Bay County Traffic Engineering Traffic / Fiber Optic Yes* TBD Bay County Public Utilities Water / Sewer Yes* Yes City of Parker City Streets Yes No

Comcast Cablevision Coax & Fiber Optic Cable No TBD

Consolidated Communications (Formerly: Fairpoint Communications)

Cable & Fiber No TBD

Gulf Coast Electric Coop. Electric / Water Yes Yes

Gulf Power Company Electric No TBD Mediacom Cable Yes No Teco Peoples Gas Gas Yes Yes Uniti Fiber (Formerly: Southern Light) Fiber Optic Yes Yes

* Denotes that the only response is from Sunshine 811 call prior to Utility Request Package No utility impacts would be experienced under the No-Build Alternative.



3.6.5 Construction Although there is no separate section for Construction, several agencies commented during the ETDM Programming Screen that construction-related impacts must be considered for effects such as noise, vibration, construction detours, and travel pattern disruptions, in addition to resource-related impacts such as wetlands, and sediment and turbidity issues associated with water quality. Construction methods and staging locations have not been identified and will be determined by the Design-Build contractor. Short-term impacts during construction such as noise, vibration, and minor construction detours are anticipated. Conceptual construction phasing of the replacement structure is outlined below. The West 1 Alternative proposes construction of two 65’-5.5” wide bridges to the west of the existing Dupont Bridge. The proposed easternmost bridge will be located approximately 30 feet from the nearest existing dolphins. The TIITF easement will need to be expanded west by approximately 100 feet over Saint Andrew Bay. Vehicular and bicycle and pedestrian traffic would be shifted to the new permanent bridges as shown in Figure 2.3.2. The existing bridge would then be demolished. Demolition would include removal of the existing dolphins. Demolition methods are not yet known but, may include blasting to remove the main channel foundation unit. If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT and their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida. In order to construct the West 1 Alternative, two 225-foot long by 40-foot wide temporary trestles (one from the north and one from the south) are anticipated to be required. The majority of the bridge (where the water depth exceeds approximately 15 feet) will be constructed from a barge. A 100-foot buffer on either side of the proposed bridges is anticipated to be needed for constructability, including barge construction staging. The proposed TIITF easement on the west side of the proposed bridges will be approximately 100 feet from the outer coping of the westernmost bridge until the bridge transitions to roadway



to allow room for construction staging and barge placement. Approximately 445 feet exists between the existing TIITF easement on the east side and the outer coping of the easternmost bridge over Saint Andrew Bay. Not all of this space will be needed for construction staging. However, the project study area extends from right-of-way to right-of-way which provides a 700-foot swath for the West 1 Alternative. The West 2 and East 3 Alternatives have a bridge footprint that utilize part of the existing bridge footprint. These alternatives are based on the premise that only one of the new twin bridges will be built prior to the demolition of the existing bridge. After the initial twin bridge is constructed, traffic (vehicular, pedestrian, and cyclist) will be switched to the new bridge, and the existing bridge will be removed. The second twin bridge will then be built, utilizing the location of the existing demolished bridge. As with the West 1 Alternative, to allow for demolition, a distance of 30 feet separates the initial new twin bridge and the existing dolphins. The TIITF easement will need to be expanded west by approximately 30 feet over Saint Andrew Bay for the West 2 Alternative and 20 feet to the east for the East 3 Alternative. In order to construct the West 2 and East 3 Alternatives, four 225-foot long by 40-foot wide temporary trestles will be required. The majority of the bridge (where water depth exceeds 15 feet) will be constructed from a barge. A 100-foot buffer on either side of the proposed bridges is anticipated to be needed for constructability, including barge staging. For the West 2 Alternative, the proposed TIITF easement on the west side of the proposed bridges will be approximately 100 feet from the outer coping of the westernmost bridge until the bridge transitions to roadway to allow room for construction staging and barge placement. Approximately 260 feet exists between the existing TIITF easement on the east side and the outer coping of the easternmost bridge over Saint Andrew Bay. The entirety of this space is not anticipated to be needed for construction staging. However, the project study area extends from right-of-way to right-of-way, which provides a 630-foot swath for the West 2 Alternative. For the East 3 Alternative, the proposed TIITF easement on the east side of the proposed bridges will be approximately 100 feet from the outer coping of the easternmost bridge until the bridge transitions to roadway to allow room for construction staging and barge placement. As with the West 2 Alternative, approximately 260 feet exists between the existing TIITF



easement on the west side and the outer coping of the westernmost bridge over Saint Andrew Bay. Again, the entirety of this space will not be needed for construction staging. Similar to the West 2 Alternative, the project study area extends from right-of-way to right-of-way, which provides a 620-foot swath for the East 3 Alternative. The construction phasing for Alternative West 1 is the least complex of the alternatives considered. The West 1 Alternative provides additional driver safety during construction because traffic remains on the existing bridge during the course of construction until the new twin bridges are built. Other benefits to the construction phasing of Alternative West 1 include lower construction costs for construction phasing, improved traffic operations during construction, and shorter construction duration. The shorter construction duration and maintaining normal lane widths during construction will benefit TAFB, especially as the base begins numerous construction projects to repair damage from Hurricane Michael. By comparison, the West 2 and East 3 Alternatives require traffic to be shifted to one of the twin bridges while the existing bridge is removed, and the second twin bridge is constructed. Placing four lanes of traffic on one of the two proposed bridges will result in reduced shoulder width as shown in Figure 3.6.2. As shown in this figure, two sets of temporary concrete barrier must be placed and subsequently removed, adding construction costs. Moreover, the concrete barrier wall between the outside lane and the pedestrian railing cannot be slipformed during deck construction and must be retrofitted under traffic as one of the last construction phases, thereby adding construction time and complexity.

Figure 3.6.2: Construction Phasing Typical Section for West 2 and East 3 Alternatives



Another construction factor to consider is that Alternative West 1 is on new alignment and therefore, has no potential pier conflicts. Alternatives West 2 and East 3 have one of the twin bridges located over the existing bridge footprint, which has the potential for conflicts (unanticipated obstructions and / or leftover debris from bridge demolition) and increases the construction complexity. Furthermore, the easternmost bridge for Alternative East 3 also has the potential to conflict with the old (1920s) Dupont Bridge footings. No construction impacts would be experienced under the No-Build Alternative.

3.6.6 Bicycles and Pedestrians During the ETDM Programming Screen, there were no specific agency review comments regarding bicycles and pedestrians. Currently, no pedestrian or bicycle accommodations are present along US 98 within the project limits. The shoulders on the current Dupont Bridge are only 2.5 feet wide and cannot safely accommodate pedestrians or bicycles. North of the Dupont Bridge, approximately 25 feet of sidewalk is located on the northbound side (east side) of US 98 just south of Oak Shore Drive. The sidewalk continues along US 98 outside of the project limits. Approximately 1,800 feet south of the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center, sidewalk begins on the northbound (east side) of US 98 and continues south, outside of the project limits. A single crosswalk is located within the project limits on Oak Shore Drive at US 98 along the east side of US 98 connecting the short 25-foot stub of sidewalk with the sidewalk that extends north of the project limits along US 98. There are no differentiating features between the Build Alternatives with respect to bicycle and pedestrian impacts. All of the Build Alternatives include 6.5-foot buffered bicycle lanes and six-foot sidewalk on the roadway approaches. On the proposed Dupont Bridge, a six-foot concrete barrier wall separated sidewalk is included on the outside of each bridge, and 10-foot outside shoulders can accommodate bicyclists. In the interim, when only four travel lanes are warranted, a 12-foot buffer (the future third lane) will be located between the outside shoulder / bicycle facility and the outer most travel lane, providing additional protection for cyclists and comfort for pedestrians.



Under the No-Build Alternative, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would remain absent. 3.6.7 Navigation During the ETDM Programming Screen, a Summary Degree of Effect of 4 (Substantial) was assigned to Navigation based on review comments from USACE. The USACE noted that the new bridge is required to comply with bridge clearances to support institutional, commercial, and recreational navigation. Temporary impacts to navigation may occur during construction activities. The USCG will be the agency charged with ensuring the clearance is met as it will also be the lead federal permitting agency. During the ETAT review and during the start of the PD&E Study, the USCG provided comments to FDOT regarding the vertical and horizontal clearance requirements for bridges that overpass the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Additionally, any bridge project that crosses the GIWW will require a Coast Guard bridge permit. This coordination is included in Appendix B and in the project file. The following analysis was completed as part of the PD&E Study: A Navigation and Vessel Survey Report was prepared for review and coordination with USCG and is included in the project file. The Navigation and Vessel Survey Report included a USCG Bridge Project Questionnaire. The report was submitted to USCG on March 16, 2020. A letter was received from USCG on March 30, 2020 stating that the proposed horizontal and vertical clearances (150 feet and 65 feet, respectively) meet the reasonable needs of navigation and would therefore be approved. This correspondence is included in Appendix B and in the project file. After the Public Hearing, the FDOT agreed to further raise the vertical clearance to 75 feet. The results of the navigation study are summarized below. The Dupont Bridge (FDOT Bridge No. 460019) spans over Saint Andrew Bay (Gulf Intracoastal Waterway). In addition to the Dupont Bridge, there are 16 bridges other bridges along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Carrabelle to Pensacola as shown in Table 3.6.5.



Table 3.6.5: Bridges Crossing over Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

Bridge Name Bridge No. Vertical Clearance (feet)

Horizontal Clearance (feet)

Bryant Grady Patton Bridge 490100 65 150 US 98 over Apalachicola Bay 490032 65 150 Apalachicola Northern Railroad Swing Bridge CSX Bridge 11* 119

White City Bridge 510951 65 200 Overstreet Bridge (WG Hardy Senior Bridge) 510048 65 150

Dupont Bridge 460019 50 150

Hathaway Bridge 460112 and 460113 65 287

BV Buchanan Bridge 460077 65 150

Clyde B Wells Bridge 600224 and 600108 66 150

Mid-Bay Bridge 570091 64 180 Brooks Bridge 570034 50 125 Navarre Beach Bridge 580951 50 125

Bob Sikes Bridge 480123 and

480139 65 150

Gulf Beach Highway Bridge 480118 73 150 * Denotes a moveable bridge. Of the seventeen bridges that cross the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in this area, the Dupont Bridge, Brooks Bridge, and Navarre Beach Bridge have the lowest fixed vertical clearance at 50 feet. All other bridges crossing the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway have a minimum vertical clearance of 64 feet. Construction for a replacement Brooks Bridge is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2022 and the proposed bridge will have a vertical clearance of 65 feet. Currently, no projects are identified by the county or FDOT to replace the Navarre Beach Bridge. The Apalachicola Northern Railroad Swing Bridge has a vertical clearance of 11 feet when the bridge is closed. The bridge is automated and remains open unless there is railroad traffic approaching from both directions. Figure 3.6.3 shows the two bridges adjacent to the Dupont Bridge, the Overstreet Bridge, and the Hathaway Bridge.


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-100

Figure 3.6.3:Bridges Adjacent to

Dupont Bridge

0 52.5Miles


Gulf of Mexico

Hathaway Bridge (Bridge No. 460112 and 460113)Horizontal Clearance: 287 feet

Vertical Clearance: 65 feet

Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019)Horizontal Clearance: 150 feet


Overstreet Bridge (Bridge No. 510048)Horizontal Clearance: 150 feet


LegendBridgesGulf Intracoastal WaterwayTyndall Air Force Base



Ports and Other Major Facilities The Panama City Port Authority administers the Port Panama City, located to the immediate east of the Hathaway Bridge. The port is located approximately nine miles northwest of the Dupont Bridge. Port Panama City land includes the core 138-acre port property on Dyers Point, located just off US 98 at the southwestern boundary of the City of Panama City, in Bay County, and the 250-acre Intermodal Distribution Center, located about 10 miles to the northeast on US 231. Port Panama City is situated on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which bisects Saint Andrew Bay. The port has easy access to the Gulf of Mexico by means of an 8.9-mile channel that runs from Saint Andrew Pass (known as the West Pass) to the port. To accommodate today’s larger ocean carriers, the port has completed the deepening of its channel and berthing areas to 36 feet. The port’s cargo base consists of imported, exported, and domestic general cargo and bulk cargo. Vessels entering Saint Andrew Bay do not cross under the Dupont Bridge to access the port. The Intermodal distribution center cannot be accessed by water and is served by the Bay Line Railroad. In addition to the port, there are two major facilities near the Dupont Bridge: TAFB and Eastern Shipbuilding. TAFB is located directly south of the Dupont Bridge. The Dupont Bridge provides the primary access to TAFB from the City of Parker and Bay County. There is also a major shipyard in the Panama City area, Eastern Shipbuilding. The shipyard has two locations: one approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Dupont Bridge (Nelson Street Location), and the other on the southeast part of East Bay approximately nine miles from the Dupont Bridge (Allanton Facility). Figure 3.6.4 shows the location of the port and other major facilities in relation to the Dupont Bridge.

Panama City Port

Eastern Shipbuilding Nelson Street Location

Dupont Bridge


Eastern Shipbuilding Allanton Location


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-102Figure 3.6.4:

Location of Ports and Other Major Facilities

0 31.5Miles

Gulf of Mexico

LegendBridgesEastern Shipbuilding - AllantonEastern Shipbuilding - NelsonPanama City PortTyndall Air Force Base



Navigation Users Interviews The Navigation and Vessel Survey Report included a navigation user interview component. This series of interviews was conducted to establish trends, user patterns, and the nature of the users most likely to be affected by the proposed bridge replacement. A review of the commercial, industrial, and maritime businesses surrounding the Dupont bridge were examined to determine which businesses may be impacted due to the proposed bridge replacement and attributes. A review of aerial photography, internet research, and field reviews were used to identify navigation dependent users for interviews. Two distinct types of users were identified within the study area, marina operators and industrial / commercial facilities. Some interviews were conducted on site, and others were contacted by telephone. A total of four marinas were contacted. Three of the four marinas are in close proximity to each other, and all provided similar comments in the interview process. The three marinas in close proximity are located on Pitts Bayou just north of the Dupont Bridge and include: Smuggler’s Cove Marina, Hurricane Harbor Marina, and Hideaway Haven Yacht Club. Five industrial and commercial businesses located near the Dupont Bridge were also contacted for further information regarding vessel activity. Figure 3.6.5 shows the location of the businesses contacted for the marine industry interviews.

_G$+

XY")G_

#*

XW

#*


Environment Study

PageNumber:

3-104Figure 3.6.5:

Location of Navigation Users Interviews

0 1.50.75Miles

Gulf of Mexico

LEGENDTyndall Air Force BaseDupont Bridge

Navigation User Interviews

_ Bay County Boatyard

XWDoghouse at CookBayou Marina

#*Eastern Shipbuilding -Allanton

$+Eastern Shipbuilding -Nelson

XYHideaway Haven YachtClub

")Hurricane HarborMarina

G Smugglers Cove Marina#* TAFB Fam Camp

_Tail Raiser Charters andPier 98 Tackle

GWestRock / KratonChemical



Detailed notes of each interview are contained in the Navigation and Vessel Survey Report and are summarized below:

• Hideaway Haven Yacht Club and Marina – Marina users stated that they do not usually pass under the Dupont Bridge unless they are out for a leisure boat trip. Marina users also stated that the marina has had significantly less use since Hurricane Michael.

• Smuggler’s Cove Marina – Marina users stated that it is one of the few marinas that is licensed for live-a-board ships however, many marina residents moved after Hurricane Michael due to the debris in the harbor.

• Hurricane Harbor Marina – The office manager explained that the marina was not in working-order due to the damage from Hurricane Michael.

• Dawghouse at Cook Bayou Marina – The general manager stated that only a few small boats are docked and stay at the marina permanently. The majority of users come to the campground and restaurant and leave the same day in small watercrafts.

• Eastern Shipbuilding – This shipbuilding company has two shipyards in Panama City: Allanton facility and Nelson Street facility. The Allanton facility is located east of the Dupont Bridge and is where the majority of vessel fabrication is completed. The Nelson Street facility is located west of the Dupont Bridge and is home to the Eastern Shipbuilding corporate office. Eastern Shipbuilding builds a wide range of vessels including: USCG cutters, supply vessels, tug barges, towboats, ferries, and barges. The General Manager and Vice President of Sales and Marketing were interviewed and stated that when vessel height exceeds the clearance of the Dupont Bridge, they assemble the vessel in pieces and complete the construction at the Nelson Street facility. The Vice President of Sales and Marketing stated that Eastern Shipbuilding would prefer the Dupont Bridge have a vertical clearance of 75 feet. Of the six projects under construction (as of June 2019), one would exceed the proposed 65-foot vertical clearance. After the Public Hearing, FDOT agreed to raise the vertical clearance to 75 feet based on additional coordination with Eastern Shipbuilding Group.

• TAFB Fam Camp – The manager stated that the boating traffic around the campsite has been significantly lighter since Hurricane Michael.



• Tail Raiser Charters / Pier 98 Tackle – The store owner stated that the company has three 35 to 45-foot Cabo vessels and the only time that the charter operators travel under the Dupont Bridge is to catch live bait.

• Bay County Boatyard – This boatyard houses and repairs a variety of boats including: 70-foot sailboats, 40 to 50-foot yachts, and other large vessels. According to an employee, most of the vessels leave the boatyard and go to the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore, do not cross under the Dupont Bridge. When sailboats do travel under the Dupont Bridge, the sailboats cut their masts.

• WestRock / Kranton Chemical – The Sergeant on duty stated that both companies receive a few shipments a week from barges, but that the barges do not travel under the Dupont Bridge. The Sergeant stated that the bridge replacement would have no effect on either company.

From a navigation perspective, there is no discernable difference between alternatives. All Build Alternatives will have the following features:

• A fender system on both sides of the channel opening to protect the bridge pier structures;

• The vertical navigational clearance at the main span will be increased to a minimum of 65 feet above the mean high water elevation to be consistent with the USCG guide clearances;

• The horizontal navigational clearance (clear space between the fender systems) will be maintained at 150 feet; and

• All Build Alternatives will significantly improve the navigation compared to the No-Build Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative allows the vertical clearance to be raised to 75 feet to better accommodate the needs of Eastern Shipbuilding Group. The other Build Alternatives (West 2 and East 3) cannot accommodate a vertical clearance higher than 65 feet due to geometric constraints. Under the No-Build Alternative, the bridge would not be replaced and therefore, the bridge would continue to operate with a substandard vertical navigational clearance.



4.0 Anticipated Permits The following permits are currently anticipated and will be obtained prior to construction:

• USCG Bridge permit;

• USACE Individual or Nationwide Permit;

• FDEP Environmental Resource Permit;

• FDEP National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The USCG is responsible for issuing permits for bridges and causeways in or over navigable waters of the United States, and for causeway construction in all tidal waters of the United States. Pile-supported structures (such as bridges) are delegated to the USCG, which serves as the lead federal permitting agency under the terms of the General Bridge Act of 1946. Under this Act, the USCG’s mission is to administer the bridge program, under which it approves the location and plans of bridges and causeways and imposes any necessary conditions relating to the construction, maintenance, and operation of these bridges in the interest of public navigation. The rules and regulations governing the USCG bridge permit program are listed in 33 CFR Parts 114 and 115. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899), the USACE is required to evaluate potential impacts to navigable waters to ensure that the proposed activities do not affect navigation. As defined in 33 CFR § 329, navigable waters are “those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and / or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” In Florida, these waters generally include the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, bays, estuaries, rivers, and canals connected to tidal waters. FDOT projects that require evaluation under this rule include bridges, shoreline stabilization (including seawalls and riprap), and causeways. For FDOT projects, USACE jurisdiction within navigable waters applies to bridge approaches, bridge abutments, fenders, shoreline stabilization, riprap and aids to navigation, and temporary structures such as coffer dams. While the USACE jurisdiction covers bridge abutments and other in-water structures, the USCG bridge permit authorizes the actual bridge construction or bridge modifications to ensure adequate horizontal and vertical clearances and bridge lighting for navigation.



During the ETDM screening, the USACE commented that the proposed project would require a Department of the Army (DA) authorization for any discharge of fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with the bridge replacements under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Standard Individual Permit review would be applicable for any estuarine wetland impacts associated with the new bridge replacement construction. A Nationwide 3 (Maintenance) and / or a Nationwide 15 (USCG Approved Bridges) could potentially be utilized. In Northwest Florida, the ERP program is jointly implemented by FDEP and NWFWMD. An ERP is required when construction of any project results in the creation of a new, or modification of an existing surface water management system or results in impacts to waters of the State or isolated wetlands. In accordance with the approved operating agreement because the project involves activities in, on, or over submerged lands, FDEP would process the ERP for this project. In addition to potential wetland impacts, FDEP will review water quality issues relating to the operation of the proposed project and water quantity attenuation resulting from project related changes in land use. An Individual ERP will be required by FDEP. Federal law 40 CFR Part 122 prohibits point source discharges of stormwater associated with large construction activities (as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)) and small construction activity (as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)(x)) to waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Under the State of Florida’s delegated authority to administer the NPDES program, operators that have stormwater discharge associated with construction activity to surface waters of the State must file for and obtain coverage under an appropriate generic permit contained in Chapter 62-621, F.A.C., or an individual permit issued pursuant to Chapter 62-620, F.A.C. A major component of the NPDES permit is the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP discusses good engineering practices that will be used to reduce the pollutants.



5.0 Comments and Coordination A Public Involvement Program has been developed and is being carried out as an integral part of this project. The purpose of this program is to establish and maintain communication with the public and agencies concerned with the project and its potential impacts. To ensure open communication, and agency and public input, the FDOT provided an Advanced Notification package on January 18, 2018 to State and Federal agencies and other interested parties defining the project and, in cursory terms, describing anticipated issues and impacts. In an effort to resolve identified issues, the FDOT has conducted an extensive interagency coordination and consultation effort, and public participation process. These efforts began during project planning through the ETDM process. This section of the document details the FDOT’s program to fully identify, address, and resolve all project-related issues identified through the Public Involvement Program.

5.1 Discussion of ETDM Programming Screen and Advance Notification The AN was initiated on January 18, 2018 as ETDM Project 14347. A Final Programming Screen Summary Report was published on May 2, 2019. More information on the ETDM Programming Screen and Advance Notification process for this project can be found in Section 3.1.1. A summary of the comments and FDOT response can be found in the applicable environmental sections in Chapter 3.

5.2 Native American Tribal Coordination There are no federally recognized Native American lands within the study area. The following federally recognized Native American Tribes were included in the Advance Notification:

• Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama;

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma;

• Seminole Tribe of Florida;

• Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;

• Seminole Nation of Oklahoma; and

• Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.



No comments were received from any of the Native American Tribes in response to the AN. The federally recognized Native American Tribes were sent notice on October 31, 2019 of the Alternatives Public Meeting. No correspondence was received from the Tribes after the Alternatives Public Meeting notices were sent. On June 11, 2020, FDOT electronically sent the approved CRAS to the Native American Tribes for their review and comment. The Seminole Tribe of Florida responded on July 14, 2020, that the project area does fall within the Seminole Tribe of Florida area of interest, but that they have no objections to the project at this time. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation responded on July 29, 2020 that the project does fall within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s historic area of interest. However, since no archaeological materials were recovered, Muscogee (Creek) Nation concurs that there should be no adverse effects and work should continue as planned. Muscogee (Creek) Nation requested that if any human remains or related Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) items are discovered, all work should cease, and their office should be contacted immediately. No other comments have been received from the other Native American Tribes. Coordination with the Native American Tribes is contained in Appendix C and in the project file.

5.3 Agency Coordination and Consultation Table 5.3.1 provides a chronology of the agency coordination that has occurred on the project. Appendix B contains the agency correspondence for the project, to date. The Bay County Chamber of Commerce resolution supporting aesthetic features and energy efficient lighting for the proposed Dupont Bridge is also included in Appendix B. Agency coordination that occurred as part of the AN review is provided in the ETDM Programming Screen Summary Report (and not included in Appendix B). Agency notification was provided in advance of the Alternatives Public Meeting and Public Hearing as further discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively.



Table 5.3.1: Agency and Government Coordination Date To From Description

City of Parker

3/19/2019 City of Parker FDOT Earl Gilbert Park – Section 4(f) Official with

Jurisdiction Coordination

3/28/2019 FDOT City of Parker

Earl Gilbert Park – Section 4(f) Official with Jurisdiction Statement of Significance

11/21/2019 FDOT City of Parker Comments at Alternatives Public Meeting *

United States Coast Guard 6/3/2019 FDOT USCG Navigational guide clearance coordination

3/16/2020 USCG FDOT Navigation and Vessel Survey Report Transmittal

3/30/2020 FDOT USCG Navigation and Vessel Survey Report Concurrence

6/9/2020 USCG FDOT Draft EA Transmittal 9/16/2020 FDOT USCG Comments on Draft EA

10/29/2020 USCG FDOT Responses to Draft EA Comments 5/7/2021 USCG FDOT Draft EA with FONSI Transmittal

State Historic Preservation Officer 1/28/2020 SHPO FDOT CRAS Transmittal 2/17/2020 FDOT SHPO Request for additional information in CRAS 3/26/2020 SHPO FDOT Revised CRAS Transmittal 4/6/2020 FDOT SHPO Concurrence with CRAS

7/29/2020 SHPO FDOT Cultural Resource Desktop Analysis of Pond

Sites Transmittal to SHPO 8/17/2020 FDOT SHPO SHPO response to Desktop Analysis for Ponds

Tyndall Air Force Base 2/5/2020 TAFB FDOT CRAS Transmittal 2/18/2020 FDOT TAFB No comments on CRAS

11/21/2019 FDOT TAFB Comments at Alternatives Public Meeting * 4/28/2020 TAFB FDOT NRE Transmittal 4/28/2020 TAFB FDOT Draft PER Transmittal 5/14/2020 FDOT TAFB Comments / Questions on NRE and PER

5/20/2020 TAFB FDOT Responses to Comments / Questions on NRE and PER

5/20/2020 FDOT TAFB 2019 Gopher Tortoise Survey Data 5/20/2020 FDOT TAFB 2020 Bald Eagle Survey Data 6/4/2020 TAFB FDOT Draft EA Transmittal



Date To From Description 6/26/2020 FDOT TAFB Comments on Draft EA 7/21/2020 TAFB FDOT Responses to Draft EA Comments 2/9/2021 FDOT TAFB Verbal Comment at Public Hearing * 3/16/2021 TAFB FDOT Vertical Clearance Coordination 4/1/2021 FDOT TAFB Vertical Clearance Coordination 4/21/2021 TAFB FDOT Draft EA with FONSI Transmittal 5/13/2021 FDOT TAFB Draft EA with FONSI Comments 6/7/2021 TAFB FDOT Draft EA with FONSI Responses to Comments

6/7/2021 FDOT TAFB TAFB Concurrence with Draft EA with FONSI Responses

US Fish and Wildlife Service 6/25/2020 USFWS FDOT NRE Transmittal 6/29/2020 FDOT USFWS Request for Additional Information 6/30/2020 FDOT USFWS Concern regarding Capacity Increase 7/15/2020 USFWS FDOT Response to Capacity Increase 7/15/2020 FDOT USFWS No Objections to Proceeding to Design

US Army Corps of Engineers 6/25/2020 USACE FDOT NRE Transmittal 6/25/2020 FDOT USACE Response to receiving NRE

National Marine Fisheries Service 6/25/2020 NMFS FDOT NRE Transmittal 6/25/2020 FDOT NMFS Response to receiving NRE 7/1/2020 FDOT NMFS Response to NRE

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 6/25/2020 FWC FDOT NRE Transmittal 7/24/2020 FDOT FWC Response to NRE

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 6/25/2020 FDEP FDOT NRE Transmittal

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service 8/4/2020 FDACS FDOT NRE Transmittal

* Denotes that the agency provided comments during the Alternatives Public Meeting or Public Hearing. These comments are contained in Public Involvement Summary (not Appendix B).

FDOT coordinated with various state, regional, and local agencies, and governments throughout the course of the study. A table summarizing agency meetings is included in Table 5.3.2 and the meeting minutes are included in Appendix F.



Table 5.3.2: Agency Meetings Agency (s) Description of Meeting Date

TAFB, FDOT Kickoff Meeting 3/12/2019 TAFB, FDOT Alternatives Update 9/13/2019 City of Parker, TAFB, NWFWMD, FDOT

Environmental Look Around Teleconference 10/8/2019

TAFB, FDOT, GM Hill Engineering, Thompson Engineering, USACE

Bonita Bay Site Coordination Meeting 6/24/2020

5.4 Alternatives Public Meeting An Alternatives Public Meeting was held Thursday, November 21, 2019 from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Central Daylight Time (CDT) at the Parker United Methodist Church (908 S. Tyndall Parkway, Panama City, FL 32404). Meeting invitations were sent by e-mail to 20 elected officials and 43 appointed officials and sent by mail to six Native American Tribes and seven property owners. The invitations included date, time, and location for the Alternatives Public Meeting. The Alternatives Public Meeting was advertised in advance with a display ad in the Panama City News Herald on Monday, November 11, 2019. A meeting notification was placed in the Florida Administrative Register’s Thursday, November 14, 2019 edition. A press release was distributed by the FDOT to major local media outlets. The meeting was conducted in an open house format. The public was invited to attend at any time between 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM CDT. Parking was available to accommodate all of the attendees, including the disabled. Signs were placed at the major intersecting roads to direct attendees to the meeting location and from the parking lot to the meeting room. The following display boards and large roll plots (1” = 50 feet) of the project alternatives were available for public review:

• Roll Plot – Alternative West 1;


• Roll Plot – Alternative East 3;

• Board – Evaluation Matrix;

• Board – Profile;

• Board – Project Location;



• Board – Purpose and Need;

• Board – Schedule and Process;

• Board – Title VI;

• Board – Typical Section;

• Board – Welcome;

• Board – Rendering – Alternative West 1;

• Board – Rendering – Alternative West 2;

• Board – Rendering – Alternative East 3;

• Board – Rendering – Saint Andrew Bay; and

• Board – Rendering – TAFB Looking North. Twenty-three people signed the sign-in sheet at the meeting. Fourteen of those signing in were project representatives (consultant or FDOT) and nine were members of the public. Project representatives were present to discuss the project, receive public input, and answer questions. Two comment forms were received at the November 21, 2019 meeting. One additional comment was received by email. The two comment forms were completed by representatives of Bay County and TAFB. The comments from the Bay County representative focused on potential enhancements to the proposed bridge including: conduit in the bridge, aesthetic lighting, and a shared use path or wide sidewalk. The TAFB representative provided positive feedback regarding the sidewalk and bicycle lanes and expressed an interest in keeping part of the existing bridge. The email comment requested that the meeting minutes from the Public Alternatives Meeting be sent to him (project stakeholder). Response letters and emails were sent on January 8, 2020 and those responses are contained in the Public Involvement Summary Report, available in the project file.

5.5 Public Hearing A Public Hearing was held Tuesday, February 9, 2021 from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM Central Standard Time (CST) at the Parker United Methodist Church (908 S. Tyndall Parkway, Panama City, FL 32404).



Meeting invitations were sent by e-mail to 17 elected officials and 40 appointed officials and sent by mail to six Native American Tribes and seven property owners. The invitations included date, time, and location for the hybrid Public Hearing. The invitation also included information for how attendees could participate in the Public Hearing remotely via GoToWebinar, or by calling in on their phones. The Public Hearing was advertised in advance with a display ad in the Panama City News Herald on Friday, January 22, 2021 and on Saturday, January 30, 2021. A hybrid Public Hearing notification was placed in the Florida Administrative Register Monday, February 1, 2021 edition. A press release was distributed by the FDOT to major local media outlets and also posted to the FDOT project website seven days in advance of the Hearing. The Draft EA was transmitted to the Cooperating Agencies on the project, TAFB and USCG, for a 30-day review on June 4, 2020 and June 9, 2020, respectively. On June 26, 2020, TAFB provided Draft EA comments, which were incorporated into the document. On September 16, 2020, USCG provided Draft EA comments, which were incorporated into the document. The comments from the cooperating agencies are contained in Appendix B and in the project file. The Draft EA was approved by OEM for Public Availability on November 17, 2020. Hard copies of all engineering and environmental documents were available for public review at the Public Hearing and also at the City of Parker Library beginning January 19, 2021 through February 19, 2021. Project documents were also available electronically on the project website. The hybrid Public Hearing began with an informational open house, followed by a formal Public Hearing. The public was invited to attend the open house session in-person, remotely, or by phone anytime between 5:30 PM and 6:00 PM. At the in-person session, project staff were available to answer questions at the display boards. At the virtual session, a brief (seven-minute) presentation was aired explaining how to participate in the virtual Public Hearing, where to view the Public Hearing displays on the project website, and how to ask questions. At 6:00 PM the Public Hearing officially started, and a pre-recorded presentation was played for both in-person and virtual attendees, then comments were taken from in-person attendees first, followed by virtual attendees.



Parking was available to accommodate all of the in-person attendees, including the disabled. Signs were placed at the major intersecting roads to direct attendees to the meeting location and from the parking lot to the meeting room. The following display boards and large roll plots (1” = 50 feet) of the Preferred Alternative were available for public review at the in-person location and also on the project website (dupontbridge.com):

• Board – Welcome;

• Board – Sign-in;

• Board – Health and Safety Reminders;

• Board – Project Location;

• Board – Purpose and Need;

• Board – Schedule and Process;

• Board – Roadway Typical Sections;

• Board – Bridge Typical Sections;

• Board – Profile;


• Board – Rendering – Cameras 1 and 2;

• Board – Rendering – Cameras 3 and 4;

• Board – Evaluation Matrix;

• Board – Title VI; and

• Board – Contact Information. Twenty people signed the sign-in sheet at the hearing. Fourteen of those signing in were project representatives (consultant or FDOT) and six were members of the public. An additional 50 attendees joined the hearing virtually (the majority were engineering consultants). Also in attendance was a court reporter from Baytowne Reporting in Panama City. Two comment forms and two verbal comments were received at the February 9, 2021 hearing. During the formal comment period, two additional comments were received by email, and one comment was received through the project website. One of the email comments was from Eastern Shipbuilding Group, who asked for the vertical clearance of the bridge to be further raised to 75 feet to better facilitate their shipping operations. The website comment expressed



support for the project and was pleased with the proposed increase in vertical clearance. One of the comment forms received at the hearing was from a representative of Bay County who asked for the county waterline to be included in the final design plans and for consideration of blue lighting on the bridge. The second comment form received at the hearing was from a representative of the developer of East Bay Flats. The developer submitted comments in multiple methods: comment form, verbally, and email. Although three comments were officially received, the comments were all similar in nature asking for coordination between the East Bay Flats development and FDOT to minimize impacts to this newly proposed development. The second verbal comment was submitted by a representative of Tyndall Air Force Base, who wanted to thank FDOT for their coordination on the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center access point and for including bicycle and pedestrian amenities in the project. Response letters and emails were sent on March 16, 2021 and those responses are contained in the Public Involvement Summary Report, available in the project file.



6.0 Commitments The following text describes the commitments the FDOT has made during the course of this PD&E Study:

• The FDOT commits to providing access to the Earl Gilbert Park entrance road during construction.

• The NMFS and USFWS Construction Special Provisions, Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines will be utilized during construction.

• The NMFS approved Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions will be utilized during construction.

• The USFWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake will be utilized during construction.

• The USFWS and FWC approved Standard Manatee Construction Conditions for In-Water Work will be utilized during construction.

• If the contractor proposes blasting for any bridge demolition, the FDOT commits that their contractor will submit a blasting plan and acquire appropriate approvals from the USFWS, NMFS, and FWC to minimize potential effects on species prior to proceeding with construction activities. The blasting plan is expected to be consistent with the USFWS Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Animals During the Use of Explosives in the Waters of the State of Florida.

• The FDOT commits to reinitiate consultation with USFWS and NMFS and provide the information necessary to complete consultation prior to advancing to construction on the following species: telephus spurge (Euphorbia telephioides), Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate), Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Manatee (Trichechus manatus).

• The FDOT commits to further coordination with NMFS to identify appropriate mitigation for seagrass impacts.

• Plants surveys for telephus spurge (Euphorbia telephioides), Godfrey’s goldenaster (Chrysopsis godfreyi), Gulf coast lupine (Lupinus westianus), Large-leaved jointweed



(Polygonella macrophylla), Fire pink (Silene virginica), will be conducted prior to construction during the appropriate survey season. If protected species are located, coordination with the USFWS, FWC and/or the FDACS will be initiated to determine permit requirements or modifications to construction activities that may be required.

• FDOT will require contractors to remove garbage daily from the construction site or use bear proof containers for securing of food and other debris from the project work area which may act as an attractant for the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), and report nuisance bears to the FWC Wildlife Alert hotline.

• The FDOT commits to avoidance of maritime archaeological Targets 01 and 02 (refer to pages 54 to 56 of the Final CRAS dated March 2020 for locations and information). If these targets cannot be avoided, further marine archaeological investigation will be required.

• The FDOT commits to performing a cultural resource survey for the proposed pond site and documenting in a CRAS during the final design phase due to the high probability for archaeology.



7.0 List of Technical Reports Table 7.1.1 lists the technical documents that were prepared as part of this PD&E Study.

Table 7.1.1: Technical Documents Prepared for this Study Report Date Completed Traffic Analysis Methodology Report October 2018 Wave Crest Technical Memorandum December 2018 Project Traffic Analysis Report January 2019 Determination of Applicability – Earl Gilbert Park July 2019 Determination of Applicability – Bonita Bay Recreation Center July 2019

No Use Form – Earl Gilbert Park August 2019 Location Hydraulics Report January 2020 Geotechnical Memorandum January 2020 Water Quality Impact Evaluation February 2020 Pond Siting Report February 2020 Soil Survey Report March 2020 Contamination Screening Evaluation Report March 2020 Vessel Survey and Navigational Evaluation March 2020 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey March 2020 Air Quality Technical Memorandum March 2020 Utility Assessment Package May 2020 Bridge Development Report May 2020 Natural Resources Evaluation June 2020 Sociocultural Effects Evaluation Report March 2021 Noise Study Report March 2021 Typical Section Package April 2021 Preliminary Engineering Report June 2021


SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01 / ETDM #: 14347

Appendices Appendix A Preferred Alternative Concept Plans Appendix B Agency / Government Consultation Letters Appendix C Tribal Coordination Appendix D Coastal Zone Management Act Determination Appendix E Planning Consistency Documentation Appendix F Agency and Government Meeting Minutes Appendix G Section 4(f) Documentation



Appendix A

Preferred Alternative Concept Plans (PER Appendix B)



Appendix B

Agency / Government Consultation Letters



City of Parker Coordination



Earl Gilbert Park Section 4(f) Official with Jurisdiction Coordination

3/19/2019


RON DESANTIS

GOVERNOR 1074 Highway 90

Chipley, FL 32428

KEVIN J. THIBAULT, P.E.

SECRETARY

www.fdot.gov

March 19, 2019 Tony Summerlin Public Works Supervisor City of Parker 1001 West Park Street Parker, FL 32404 Subject: State Road 30 (U.S. 98) – Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement

Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) from Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center to Oakshore Drive, Bay County Financial Project Identification Number: 442667-1-22-01 Section 4(f) Coordination: Earl Gilbert Park

Dear Tony Summerlin: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to investigate replacing the existing Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019) that carries State Road 30 (US 98) across the St. Andrews Bay (Intracoastal Waterway). The FDOT may utilize federal dollars to assist in the funding for the project. As such, meeting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations is required. One of the objectives of the PD&E Study is to identify properties that may be protected under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The FDOT is required by this legislation to coordinate with the owners of public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites that may be impacted by a proposed transportation project. The FDOT has identified Earl Gilbert Park, located at the southern tip of Parker, as publicly held land and a potential Section 4(f) resource. It appears that Earl Gilbert Park is a significant recreation area for the City of Parker. The FDOT’s policy is to avoid or minimize impacts to potential Section 4(f) resources. The first step in this coordination effort is to determine whether Earl Gilbert Park and its facilities meet the requirements for protection by the federal Section 4(f) legislation. Once a determination of significance has been established, the next step is to evaluate how Section 4(f) applies to the portion of the park that may be potentially affected by the Dupont Bridge replacement project. The FDOT District 3 office will then prepare a formal document entitled the “Determination of Applicability” for a decision by the FDOT Office of Environmental Management.

www.fdot.gov

The FDOT has identified the following park features:

• Fishing Pier • Boat Ramp

• 1,500 feet of shoreline • 14 pavilions with picnic benches

As the official having jurisdiction over the facility, the FDOT requests your concurrence that Earl Gilbert Park is considered significant (sign the signature block below). In addition, the FDOT requests the following information (if available):

• Frequency of use / estimated users per year • Copy of Management Plan • Park Characteristics

o Size o Amenities o Ownership /leasing agreements (any information about joint ownership of the

parcel) o Access to the public o Noteworthy capital improvements (past or planned)

The FDOT will continue to coordinate with you throughout this PD&E Study. Additional coordination with your office will occur during the design and construction, neither of which are funded at this time. Should you have questions regarding the project, please contact the Department’s Project Manager, J. Brandon Bruner, at (850) 297-2939, or via e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Joy Swanson Pleas Environmental Manager Concurrence of Significance of Earl Gilbert Park:

(Signature) (Date) Tony Summerlin

Public Works Supervisor



Earl Gilbert Park Section 4(f) Official with Jurisdiction Statement of

Significance 3/28/2019



Bay County Chamber of Commerce



Resolution Supporting Aesthetic Features and Energy Efficient Lighting

2/21/2020

A RESOLUTION OF THE BAY COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

SUPPORTING AESTHETIC FEATURES AND ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING

FOR THE DUPONT BRIDGE.

WHEREAS, there are plans for construction of a new Dupont Bridge to be built on Tyndall Parkway;

and

WHEREAS, the Bay County Chamber takes pride in the presence and support for Tyndall AFB; and

WHEREAS, the installation of a new bridge brings the opportunity to create a symbol reflecting the U.S.

Air Force and Bay County’s pride in our military community; and

WHEREAS, the Bay County Chamber supports the inclusion of aesthetic features and energy efficient

lighting for the bridge to improve its visual image.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BAY COUNTY CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE SUPPORTS AESTHETIC FEATURES, INCLUDING ENERGY EFFICIENT

LIGHTING, FOR INCLUSION IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUPONT BRIDGE.

THIS RESOLUTION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2020.

Andrew Rowell,

Chairman of the Board

ATTEST:

Carol A. Roberts

President/CEO



United States Coast Guard



Navigational Guide Clearance Coordination

6/3/2019



Navigation and Vessel Survey Report Transmittal

3/16/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: US 98 DuPont Bridge Navigation and Vessel Survey Report - 442667-1Date: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:32:05 AMAttachments: image001.png

442667-1-22-01 Navigation and Vessel Survey Report March 2020.pdf

fyi

J. Brandon Bruner, P.E.d +1 (850) 297-2939 | c +1 (850) 557-6402An Equal Opportunity Employer

From: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 9:28 AMTo: [email protected]; D8DPBAll <[email protected]>; '[email protected]'<[email protected]>Cc: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>; Brookman, Erica <[email protected]>Subject: US 98 DuPont Bridge Navigation and Vessel Survey Report - 442667-1 Dear Mr. Blakemore, Please find attached the Navigation and Vessel Survey Report for the US 98 DuPontBridge in Panama City, Florida. The Florida Department of Transportation is conducting aPD&E Study to evaluate the replacement of this bridge. Please review and providecomments to the attached report. Sincerely,

Joy Swanson Pleas FDOT Environmental ManagerDistrict 31074 Hwy 90Chipley, FL 32428 850-330-1505 Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color ornational origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement ofmaterials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies willensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not bediscriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachmentsare intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not theintended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that anydissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify thesender immediately.

mailto:[email protected]





Navigation and Vessel Survey Report Concurrence

3/30/2020



Draft Environmental Assessment Transmittal

6/9/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Lucas KelseySubject: FW: 442667-1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study - draft EADate: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:46:23 PMAttachments: image001.png


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 3:40 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>Subject: 442667-1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study - draft EA

You have received 3 secure files from [email protected] the secure links below to download.

Dear US Coast Guard,

The Florida Department of Transportation is conducting a study for the replacement of the DuPont Bridge on US 98in Panama City, Florida. The US Coast Guard is a Cooperating Agency as a Coast Guard permit is required whenthe bridge is replaced. A Navigation Study was submitted to the Coast Guard in March 2020 and your response isincluded.

Please find attached the draft Environmental Assessment, and its Appendices, dated May 2020. Please review andprovide comments within 30 days.

A hard copy CD will be mailed to your address, in addition to this email. If you have any questions, please contact meor the Project Manager, Brandon Bruner at [email protected].

Sincerely,Joy Swanson PleasDistrict 3 FDOT Environmental Manager Secure File Downloads:Available until: 23 June 2020 Click links to download:

44266712201-EA-D3-USCG Concurrence with Vessel Survey-2020-0330.pdf500.66 KB

442667-1-22-01_Dupont_EA_Appendices_May 2020.pdf82.22 MB

442667-1-22-01_Dupont_EA_May 2020.pdf12.67 MB

Thank you for sharing files securely.

Secured by Accellion

Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selectionand retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit





https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui240620201bb7444f9f193c40eb21bbe0c39b9b82&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C9e8edd7ae7654686449008d80cb54375%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637273319950337549&sdata=04XAJnoneNZc8l%2BW3omossF4SOG%2FqiEAWZ%2B%2B1Du1bgo%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui24062020e29279e1c86ff058bbd5d67729715cc7&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C9e8edd7ae7654686449008d80cb54375%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637273319950337549&sdata=we99EKXvR0WaNZfICkDKX3HkRX8KajiXhYgLuBgtGwQ%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui2406202029b5a2aab2aa2e5b028ebba9536c6061&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C9e8edd7ae7654686449008d80cb54375%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637273319950347546&sdata=%2F0VZttRITdbJoIwPI20hkxbc%2FI0618Dz%2F5cLnArryA8%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C9e8edd7ae7654686449008d80cb54375%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637273319950347546&sdata=4yMVVAUh1gNZIyNm4sPOBNFfoAbC9%2FINSEQupB%2FPoqY%3D&reserved=0

proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and anyattachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipientor such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure ofthis communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment 9/16/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: 442667-1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study - draft EA

BDS.EmailID: ff4914e3b78b4435ae48870aa93fc495

From: Balthazar, Earl A CIV <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:20 PM To: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; Blakemore, Douglas A CIV <[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

Good Afternoon Mrs. Joy, I have attached the Coast Guard Headquarters comments on the draft EA. V/R Earl A. Balthazar Jr. Bridge Management Specialist, USCG (dpb), 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA. 70130-3310 Office: 504-671-2129 FAX: 504-671-2133 [email protected]

From: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:29 PM To: Blakemore, Douglas A CIV <[email protected]>; Balthazar, Earl A CIV <[email protected]>; D08‐DG‐District‐DPB <D08‐DG‐District‐[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] FW: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA Dear Coast Guard, I have not seen a response to the draft EA submitted in June. Please let me know if I need to resend the information as the links are no longer active. Thanks.

Joy Swanson Pleas Environmental Manager

2

850-330-1505

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 3:40 PM To: D08‐DG‐District‐[email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA

You have received 3 secure files from [email protected]. Use the secure links below to download.

Dear US Coast Guard, The Florida Department of Transportation is conducting a study for the replacement of the DuPont Bridge on US 98 in Panama City, Florida. The US Coast Guard is a Cooperating Agency as a Coast Guard permit is required when the bridge is replaced. A Navigation Study was submitted to the Coast Guard in March 2020 and your response is included. Please find attached the draft Environmental Assessment, and its Appendices, dated May 2020. Please review and provide comments within 30 days. A hard copy CD will be mailed to your address, in addition to this email. If you have any questions, please contact me or the Project Manager, Brandon Bruner at [email protected]. Sincerely, Joy Swanson Pleas District 3 FDOT Environmental Manager

Secure File Downloads: Available until: 23 June 2020 Click links to download:

44266712201-EA-D3-USCG Concurrence with Vessel Survey-2020-0330.pdf 500.66 KB

442667-1-22-01 Dupont EA Appendices May 2020.pdf 82.22 MB

442667-1-22-01 Dupont EA May 2020.pdf 12.67 MB



Commandant (CG-BRG-2) United States Coast Guard

2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE Stop 7418 Washington, DC 20593-7418 Phone: (202) 372-1511 Fax: (202) 372-1914 16591 25 August 2020

MEMORANDUM

From: Shelly H. Sugarman COMDT (CG-BRG-2)

Reply to Attn of:

CG-BRG-2 S. Sugarman (202) 372-1521

To: CGD EIGHT (dpb)

Subj: REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (DEA) FOR THE DUPONT BRIDGE (SR 30) ACROSS ST. ANDREW BAY ON THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (GIWW) IN BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

1. We have completed our review of the DEA prepared by the Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) and provide the following comments. Please provide these

comments to the applicant as appropriate, with copy to CG-BRG-2, including any comments

from both D8(dpb).

2. The DEA does not indicate it is a draft. As currently presented one could easily confuse it

for a final document.

3. The DEA does not clearly indicate what Federal agency is lead Federal agency (LFA) for

NEPA. On page 4-1 the document states the Coast Guard is LFA. FDOT has NEPA

assignment authority (stated clearly in the second paragraph on the DEA cover sheet). The

EA is written by FDOT and the cover page states “in cooperation with” Coast Guard and

Tyndall AF Base. Furthermore Appendix C shows that FDOT completed the CZMA

determination, and that document states there is FHWA funding. The LFA for NEPA must

be clearly identified early in the DEA.

4. Page 4-1 of the DEA states “When the Coast Guard serves as the lead federal agency, it is

also required by law to perform interagency consultation(s) with USFWS and/or NMFS for

each bridge permitting decision.” Per item 3 above, please identify who is the LFA for

NEPA to determine which agency is responsible for these consultations.

5. Page 4-1 also states the (Coast Guard) serves as the lead federal agency under the terms of

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and the General Bridge Act of 1946. Please

remove the reference to Section 9 as it was superseded by the General Bridge Act.

6. If it is determined the Coast Guard is a cooperating agency, please provide a copy of the

letter accepting cooperating agency status in accordance with the Environmental TTP, page

2-4.

7. The DEA states on the cover page (and in several other locations in the document) that the

bridge does not meet Coast Guard requirements for horizontal clearance. While the bridge

currently does not meet established guide clearances for the GIWW, the Coast Guard is not

requiring the applicant replace the existing bridge for any reason. The purpose and need

Subj: REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT (DEA) FOR THE DUPONT BRIDGE ON SR 30

IN BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA

25 August 2020

2

speaks to the bridge being structurally deficient. Please remove all references to the bridge

not meeting Coast Guard requirements. The permitting process is where clearance

determinations are made, not the NEPA document.

8. Remove section 3.6.7 Navigation from the document. There are no environmental impacts

associated with current or proposed navigation on the waterway and are not part of the NEPA

decision.

9. Section 7 consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries

Service have not been completed, so it is believed neither has a biological assessment (BA).

If informal consultations determine a BA is required it should be included as part of the DEA

and the CG case file. Please provide any consultation and coordination with the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in the FEA.

10. The DEA does not adequately evaluate the following environmental control laws:

a) There is no reference made in the document to the status of Water Quality Certification

(WQC). WQC is commonly authorized in FDEP Environmental Resource Permits, when

issued. Page 3-4 of the Environmental TTP discusses identifying WQC status when

preparing a NEPA document.

b) There is no mention of whether the proposed project involves the conversion of land or

facilities funded under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

(LWCFA).

c) There is no mention of any impacts to National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Please indicate

if the proposed project is adjacent to any National Marine Sanctuary and if there will be

any impacts.

d) There is no mention of any impacts to Marine Protected Areas (MPA). Please indicate if

the proposed project is adjacent to any MPA and if there will be any impacts.

e) Although Manatees were listed under the Endangered Species Act, coordination with the

Marine Mammal Protection Act is still required.

f) There is no discussion of any potential take of migratory birds in accordance with the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Please provide a description of migratory birds within the

project area. Executive Order 13186, requires Federal agencies to ensure the

environmental analyses of Federal actions or other established environmental review

processes, evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds.

g) There is no discussion regarding any potential affects from Invasive species. Please

provide a description of any invasive species within the project area per Executive Order

13112.

#



Responses to Draft Environmental Assessment Comments

10/29/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:17 AMTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: 442667-1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study - draft EAAttachments: CG-BRG-2 Comments on St. Andrews Bay_Final.pdf; USCG Comment and Responses.pdf; USCG-

NEPA Assignment_2017-0530.pdf; MOA_USCG_bridge_permits.pdf; first page of revised draft EA - 442667-1-22-01_EA_Draft_and_Appendices.pdf

J. Brandon Bruner, P.E. FDOT D3 GEC Project Manager Office 850.845.0304 Cell 850.557.6402

From: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 10:13 AM To: Balthazar, Earl A CIV <[email protected]>; Blakemore, Douglas A CIV <[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA


Dear Earl, Thank you for your comments. I have prepared a response. Please see attached. I apologize the submittal of the draft EA sent to the US Coast Guard in June did have the word ‘draft’ in it! We have updated the document to reflect this. I will send you the full updated Draft EA in a separate email using the File Transfer program. It will also include these other attachments so you have it all together. Sincerely,

Joy Swanson Pleas Environmental Manager 850-330-1505

From: Balthazar, Earl A CIV <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 2:20 PM To: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; Blakemore, Douglas A CIV <[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA

2

EXTERNALSENDER: Use caution with links and attachments.

Good Afternoon Mrs. Joy, I have attached the Coast Guard Headquarters comments on the draft EA. V/R Earl A. Balthazar Jr. Bridge Management Specialist, USCG (dpb), 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA. 70130-3310 Office: 504-671-2129 FAX: 504-671-2133 [email protected]

From: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 2:29 PM To: Blakemore, Douglas A CIV <[email protected]>; Balthazar, Earl A CIV <[email protected]>; D08‐DG‐District‐DPB <D08‐DG‐District‐[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] FW: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA Dear Coast Guard, I have not seen a response to the draft EA submitted in June. Please let me know if I need to resend the information as the links are no longer active. Thanks.


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 3:40 PM To: D08‐DG‐District‐[email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA


3

Dear US Coast Guard, The Florida Department of Transportation is conducting a study for the replacement of the DuPont Bridge on US 98 in Panama City, Florida. The US Coast Guard is a Cooperating Agency as a Coast Guard permit is required when the bridge is replaced. A Navigation Study was submitted to the Coast Guard in March 2020 and your response is included. Please find attached the draft Environmental Assessment, and its Appendices, dated May 2020. Please review and provide comments within 30 days. A hard copy CD will be mailed to your address, in addition to this email. If you have any questions, please contact me or the Project Manager, Brandon Bruner at [email protected]. Sincerely, Joy Swanson Pleas District 3 FDOT Environmental Manager


44266712201-EA-D3-USCG Concurrence with Vessel Survey-2020-0330.pdf 500.66 KB

442667-1-22-01 Dupont EA Appendices May 2020.pdf 82.22 MB

442667-1-22-01 Dupont EA May 2020.pdf 12.67 MB



1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:27 AMTo: Lucas, Kelsey; Kristoff, DanSubject: FW: resending - 442667-1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study - draft EA - responses to comments


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 10:25 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: resending ‐ 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA ‐ responses to comments



resending - no password required on this one Dear US Coast Guard, Thank you for your comments. I have prepared a response. Please see attached. I apologize the submittal of the draft EA sent to the US Coast Guard in June did have the word ‘draft’ in it! We have updated the document to reflect this. I am sending you the full updated Draft EA and 'Responses to Comments' with attachments. Sincerely, Joy Swanson Pleas Environmental Manager 850-330-1505

Secure File Downloads: Available until: 12 November 2020 Click links to download:

2

442667-1-22-01 EA Draft and Appendices.pdf 71.83 MB

MOA USCG bridge permits.pdf 129.27 KB

USCG Comment and Responses.pdf 69.81 KB

USCG-NEPA Assignment 2017-0530.pdf 1.14 MB



No. Comment Response

1

We have completed our review of the DEA prepared by the

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and provide the

following comments. Please provide these comments to the

applicant as appropriate, with copy to CG-BRG-2, including any

comments from both D8 (dpb).

2 The DEA does not indicate it is a draft. As currently presented

one could easily confuse it for a final document.

Will add “Draft” to header and header for Table of

Contents.

3

The DEA does not clearly indicate what Federal agency is lead

Federal agency (LFA) for NEPA. On page 4-1 the document states

the Coast Guard is LFA. FDOT has NEPA assignment authority

(stated clearly in the second paragraph on the DEA cover sheet).

The EA is written by FDOT and the cover page states “in

cooperation with” Coast Guard and Tyndall AF Base. Furthermore

Appendix C shows that FDOT completed the CZMA

determination, and that document states there is FHWA funding.

The LFA for NEPA must be clearly identified early in the DEA.

Will add an opening statement in Chapter 1 stating

that FDOT is the lead agency and that TAFB, and USCG

are Cooperating Agencies and USACE is a Participating

Agency.

Chapter 4 will be clarified to state that USCG is the lead

federal permitting agency.

4

Page 4-1 of the DEA states “When the Coast Guard serves as the

lead federal agency, it is also required by law to perform

interagency consultation(s) with USFWS and/or NMFS for each

bridge permitting decision.” Per item 3 above, please identify

who is the LFA for NEPA to determine which agency is

responsible for these consultations.

The lead federal agency for NEPA is FDOT. Chapter 4

was referring to lead permitting agency, will clarify.

5

Page 4-1 also states the (Coast Guard) serves as the lead federal

agency under the terms of Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors

Act of 1899, and the General Bridge Act of 1946. Please remove

the reference to Section 9 as it was superseded by the General

Bridge Act.

Will remove reference to Section 9.

6

If it is determined the Coast Guard is a cooperating agency,

please provide a copy of the letter accepting cooperating agency

status in accordance with the Environmental TTP, page 2-4.

Per Memorandum of Agreement between USCG and

FHWA, USCG will serve as a Cooperating Agency for


this project because it has a federal Class of Action and

requires a bridge permit.

7

The DEA states on the cover page (and in several other locations

in the document) that the bridge does not meet Coast Guard

requirements for horizontal clearance. While the bridge currently

does not meet established guide clearances for the GIWW, the

Coast Guard is not requiring the applicant replace the existing

bridge for any reason. The purpose and need speaks to the

bridge being structurally deficient. Please remove all references

to the bridge not meeting Coast Guard requirements. The

permitting process is where clearance determinations are made,

not the NEPA document.

The information regarding vertical clearance is

pertinent to the physical (engineering) aspects of the

bridge replacement and therefore is key to include in

the NEPA document. Will change Coast Guard

requirements to Coast Guard guide clearances.

Will revise language in purpose and need to state the

need for the project is to fix structural issues but the

improvements will also comply with USCG guide

clearances.

8

Remove section 3.6.7 Navigation from the document. There are

no environmental impacts associated with current or proposed

navigation on the waterway and are not part of the NEPA

decision.

Navigation is an issue/resource that must be covered

in the NEPA document. Therefore, this section must

remain.

9

Section 7 consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the

National Marine Fisheries Service have not been completed, so it

is believed neither has a biological assessment (BA). If informal

consultations determine a BA is required it should be included as

part of the DEA and the CG case file. Please provide any

consultation and coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service

and the National Marine Fisheries Service in the FEA.

The NMFS and USFWS both concluded that at this

phase in the study there is not enough information on

pile driving to complete a Section 7 consultation.

These consultations will be completed during the

design phase when more information is available.

The letters from these agencies were received after the

initial draft was sent to USCG for review. Current draft

EA includes a summary of this correspondence.

10 The DEA does not adequately evaluate the following

environmental control laws:

a

There is no reference made in the document to the status of

Water Quality Certification (WQC). WQC is commonly authorized

in FDEP Environmental Resource Permits, when issued. Page 3-4

A Water Quality Certification will be obtained during

design and permitting, a statement to that effect will

be added to Section 3.5.3.


of the Environmental TTP discusses identifying WQC status when

preparing a NEPA document.

b

There is no mention of whether the proposed project involves

the conversion of land or facilities funded under Section 6(f) of

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA).

The project does not involve the conversion of land or

facilities funded under Section 6(f) of the LWCFA. A

statement to this effect will be added to Section 3.4.1.

c

There is no mention of any impacts to National Marine

Sanctuaries Act. Please indicate if the proposed project is

adjacent to any National Marine Sanctuary and if there will be

any impacts.

The project is not within or adjacent to any National

Marine Sanctuary and therefore, there will be no

impacts. A statement to this effect will be added to

Section 3.5.8.

d

There is no mention of any impacts to Marine Protected Areas

(MPA). Please indicate if the proposed project is adjacent to any

MPA and if there will be any impacts.

The project is not located within a Marine Protected

Area. The St. Andrew State Park Aquatic Preserve is

located approximately 1.9 miles from the southern

project limit. No impacts to this Marine Protected Area

are anticipated. A statement to this effect will be added

to Section 3.5.2.

e

Although Manatees were listed under the Endangered Species

Act, coordination with the Marine Mammal Protection Act is still

required.

Text in Section 3.5.8 was modified to include Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

“An assessment of federally and state protected

wildlife and plant species involvement was conducted

in accordance with 50 CFR Part 402, the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended, the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the PD&E Manual,

and Chapters 5 and 68 of the Florida Administrative

Code.”

f

There is no discussion of any potential take of migratory birds in

accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Please provide a

description of migratory birds within the project area. Executive

Order 13186, requires Federal agencies to ensure the

environmental analyses of Federal actions or other established

The following text will be added to Section 3.5.8:

Migratory birds may traverse through the project area.

Only small impacts to natural habitat are proposed.

Disturbance to the beach and shoreline will be limited

in nature (approximately 200 linear feet on both the

northern and southern shorelines). An abundance of


environmental review processes, evaluate the effects of actions

on migratory birds.

suitable habitat will remain in the vicinity of the project

after completion. The project should have no effect on

migratory birds.

g

There is no discussion regarding any potential affects from

Invasive species. Please provide a description of any invasive

species within the project area per Executive Order 13112.

The following text will be added to Section 3.5.8:

No invasive species were observed in the project area.


Draft Environmental Assessment For the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.1 Project Status ....................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Roadway Deficiencies........................................................................................... 1-4

2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 No-Build Alternative................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Transportation Systems Management and Operational Alternative ................. 2-2 2.2.2 Bridge Rehabilitation .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Build Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 West 1 Alternative (Preferred) ............................................................................ 2-7 2.3.2 West 2 Alternative ............................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.3 East 3 Alternative .............................................................................................. 2-12

2.4 Drainage Alternatives .............................................................................................. 2-14

2.5 Project Cost Evaluation ............................................................................................ 2-16

2.6 Construction Considerations .................................................................................... 2-17

2.7 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................ 2-20

3.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Efficient Transportation Decision Making Degree of Effect Determination ............. 3-1

3.2 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Social and Economic Resources .................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.1 Social .................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.2 Economic ............................................................................................................ 3-19 3.3.3 Land Use Changes ............................................................................................. 3-22 3.3.4 Mobility .............................................................................................................. 3-26 3.3.5 Aesthetic Effects ................................................................................................ 3-27 3.3.6 Relocation Potential ........................................................................................... 3-28 3.3.7 Farmland ............................................................................................................ 3-30



Draft Environmental Assessment with FONSI Transmittal

5/7/2021

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: 442667-1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study - draft EA/FONSI

BDS.EmailID: 0afa55d77a7d487eaaaf03a0bd8a9e4b

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 8:28 AM To: D08‐DG‐District‐[email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: 442667‐1 DuPont Bridge Replacement Study ‐ draft EA/FONSI


You have received 1 secure file from [email protected]. Use the secure link below to download.

Dear US Coast Guard, The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development & Environment Study (PD&E study) for the replacement of the DuPont Bridge on US 98, in Panama City, Florida. FDOT received your comments on the draft EA on September 16, 2020. Please find attached the draft FONSI and EA that has subsequently been developed. The US Coast Guard is a Cooperating Agency as a Coast Guard permit is required for the replacement of this bridge. Please find attached the draft EA/FONSI, and its Appendices, dated April 2021. Please review and provide comments within 30 days. A hard copy CD will be mailed to your address, in addition to this email. If you have any questions, please contact me or the Project Manager, Brandon Bruner at [email protected]. Sincerely, Joy Swanson Pleas District 3 FDOT Environmental Manager 850-330-1505 office

Secure File Downloads: Available until: 21 May 2021 Click link to download:

442667-1-22-01 EA with draft FONSI April 2021.pdf 142.64 MB





State Historic Preservation Officer



Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Transmittal

1/28/2020


RON DESANTIS GOVERNOR

1074 Highway 90 Chipley, FL 32428

KEVIN J. THIBAULT, P.E. SECRETARY

www.fdot.gov

January 28, 2020 Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Florida Division of Historical Resources Florida Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Attn: Ms. Alyssa McManus, Transportation Compliance Review Program RE: Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

Replacement of the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019) over St. Andrews Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW), Bay County, Florida Financial Management No.: 442667-1

Dear Dr. Parsons, Enclosed please find one copy of the report titled Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the Replacement of the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019) over St. Andrews Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW), Escambia County, Florida. This report presents the findings of a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) conducted in support of the proposed Dupont Bridge replacement in Bay County, Florida. This project is federally funded. The terrestrial Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined to include the existing and proposed right-of-way and was extended to the back or side property lines of parcels adjacent to the proposed improvements, or a distance of no more than 328 feet (100 meters) from the US 98 centerline. The terrestrial archaeological survey was limited to the existing and proposed right-of-way. The historic structures survey included the entire terrestrial APE. The APE for the maritime archaeological remote-sensing survey was defined as the existing Dupont Bridge plus a 500-foot (152-meter) buffer to the east and west sides of the bridge for a total project length of approximately 2,900 feet (884 meters) within the Intracoastal Waterway.

Dr. Parsons, SHPO January 28, 2020 Page 2 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §327 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated December 14, 2016, and executed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FDOT. This CRAS was conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, found in 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). The studies also comply with Chapter 267 of the Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code and Section 267.12, Florida Statutes, Chapter 1A-32. All work was performed in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 8 of FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual (revised January 2019), FDOT’s Cultural Resources Management Handbook, and the standards stipulated in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operations Manual, Module Three: Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals. The Principal Investigator for this project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716-42). This study also complies with Public Law 113-287 (Title 54 U.S.C.), which incorporates the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1979, as amended. The terrestrial archaeological survey consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance and subsurface testing. A total of 57 shovel test locations were examined within the project APE. Disturbance, mainly from buried utilities and previous roadway construction, restricted excavation to 17 of these shovel test locations. All tests were negative for cultural resources. Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the archaeological APE (8BY00092 and 8BY00138). Five shovel tests were excavated within the mapped site boundaries of 8BY00092; none produced any evidence of the site. Shovel testing was not possible within the mapped boundaries of 8BY00138 due to an existing retention pond and paved parking lot. No artifacts were recovered, and no archaeological sites or occurrences were identified within the APE. No further terrestrial archaeological survey is recommended in support of the proposed US 98 Dupont Bridge replacement. Architectural survey resulted in the identification of one previously recorded bridge (8BY01632), one previously recorded building (8BY01165), and four newly recorded resources (8BY02677, 8BY02678, 8BY02679, and 8BY02681) within the US 98 Dupont Bridge APE. A Florida Master Site File (FMSF) review indicated one previously

Dr. Parsons, SHPO January 28, 2020 Page 3 recorded bridge (8BY01806) and one previously recorded building (8BY01152) have been demolished since previous recordation. The District recommends the previously recorded resources and newly recorded resources ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Based upon the results of the remote-sensing survey and subsequent data processing and analysis, two remote-sensing targets (Targets 01 and 02) that resemble potential submerged cultural resources were identified. The District recommends an avoidance zone that encompasses Acoustic Contact S029 for Target 01. Additionally, the District recommends 33-foot (10-meter) avoidance zone from the edge of the acoustic imagery for Target 02. If avoidance is not feasible, then further archaeological investigation for these targets is recommended. Project maritime archaeologists identified submerged portions of the previously recorded Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806). However, the truss superstructure and decking has been removed; therefore, the bridge is no longer intact. Since the Old Dupont Bridge no longer constitutes an example of a historic-aged bridge structure, it is the opinion of the District that the Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806) lacks significant data potential and is still not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No NRHP-eligible or -listed resources were identified within the US 98 Dupont Bridge APE. In the opinion of the District, the proposed construction will have no effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further terrestrial archaeology or architectural work is recommended. Project maritime archaeologists identified Targets 01 and 02 as potential submerged cultural resources. If avoidance of Targets 01 and 02 is not feasible, the District recommends further archaeological investigation for these targets. I respectfully request your concurrence with the findings of the enclosed report. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact me at (850) 330-1507. Sincerely, Zena Riley-Taylor District Cultural Resources Coordinator

Dr. Parsons, SHPO January 28, 2020 Page 4

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer finds the attached Cultural Resource

Assessment Survey Report complete and sufficient and ☐ concurs / ☐ does not concur

with the recommendations and findings provided in this cover letter for SHPO/FDHR Project File Number _____________________________. Or, the SHPO finds the attached document contains _______ insufficient information.

In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement among the ACHP, SHPO and FDOT Regarding Implementation of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in Florida, if providing concurrence with a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for a project as a whole, or to No Adverse Effect on a specific historic property, SHPO shall presume that FDOT may approve the project as de minimis use under Section 4(f) under 23 CFR 774.

SHPO Comments:

Timothy A. Parsons, PhD, Director Florida Division of Historical Resources

Date



Request for additional information for Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

2/17/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: 442667-1 Requested Information

BDS.EmailID: 2380d545f2874d9eae670ff45e72370f

From: McManus, Alyssa M. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2020 2:26 PM To: Riley‐Taylor, Zena <Zena.Riley‐[email protected]> Subject: 442667‐1 Requested Information


Hey Zena, Lindsay has some requests for additional info for the underwater survey of the Dupont Bridge project. RAI for archaeological survey items: 1. please include R001 in the conclusions and recommendation section and the cover letter ‐ even though avoidance and additional archaeological work is not recommended it is still a potential resource that bears mention 2. please summarize the number of each type of remote sensing target (M)/reflector (R)/acoustic hit (S); discuss the number associated with previously identified resources and discuss the remaining targets that do not represent potential submerged resources ‐ SEARCH typically includes this in their summary for each of the type of targets identified but it was omitted from this reporting. 3. please address the general project activities planned for the bridge replacement (how's it going to be replaced), and specifically what will be happening in reference to the two avoidance areas and the relict channel area. 3. update determination of effects to be something along the lines of "Conditional upon avoidance of the potential submerged resources (Target 01 and Target 02 and its buffer) the proposed project will have no adverse effect..." as the appropriate recommendation. LR 2/14/20. Thanks,

Alyssa McManus Architectural Historian | Bureau of Historic Preservation | Division of Historical Resources | Florida Department of State | 500 South Bronough Street | Tallahassee, Florida 32399 | 850.245.6368 | 1.800.847.7278 | Fax: 850.245.6439 |[email protected] | dos.myflorida.com/historical

2

Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



Revised Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Transmittal

3/26/2020


RON DESANTIS


Chipley, FL 32428


SECRETARY

www.fdot.gov

March 26, 2020 Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Florida Division of Historical Resources Florida Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Attn: Ms. Alyssa McManus, Transportation Compliance Review Program RE: Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Revised Report

Replacement of the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019) over St. Andrew Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW), Bay County, Florida Financial Management No.: 442667-1

Dear Dr. Parsons, Enclosed please find one copy of the report titled Cultural Resource Assessment Survey for the

Replacement of the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019) over St. Andrew

Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW), Escambia County, Florida. This report presents the findings of a cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) conducted in support of the proposed Dupont Bridge replacement in Bay County, Florida. The report has been revised to address comments received from your office on February 17, 2020. This project is federally funded. The terrestrial Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined to include the existing and proposed right-of-way and was extended to the back or side property lines of parcels adjacent to the proposed improvements, or a distance of no more than 328 feet (100 meters) from the US 98 centerline. The terrestrial archaeological survey was limited to the existing and proposed right-of-way. The historic structures survey included the entire terrestrial APE. The APE for the maritime archaeological remote-sensing survey was defined as the existing Dupont Bridge plus a 500-foot (152-meter) buffer to the east and west sides of the bridge for a total project length of approximately 2,900 feet (884 meters) within the Intracoastal Waterway. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §327 and a Memorandum of

Dr. Parsons, SHPO March 26, 2020 Page 2 Understanding (MOU) dated December 14, 2016, and executed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FDOT. This CRAS was conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, found in 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection

of Historic Properties). The studies also comply with Chapter 267 of the Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative Code and Section 267.12, Florida Statutes, Chapter 1A-32. All work was performed in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 8 of FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual (revised January 2019), FDOT’s Cultural Resources Management Handbook, and the standards stipulated in the Florida Division of Historical Resources’ (FDHR) Cultural Resource Management Standards & Operations Manual,

Module Three: Guidelines for Use by Historic Preservation Professionals. The Principal Investigator for this project meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for

Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716-42). This study also complies with Public Law 113-287 (Title 54 U.S.C.), which incorporates the provisions of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1979, as amended. The terrestrial archaeological survey consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance and subsurface testing. A total of 57 shovel test locations were examined within the project APE. Disturbance, mainly from buried utilities and previous roadway construction, restricted excavation to 17 of these shovel test locations. All tests were negative for cultural resources. Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the archaeological APE (8BY00092 and 8BY00138). Five shovel tests were excavated within the mapped site boundaries of 8BY00092; none produced any evidence of the site. Shovel testing was not possible within the mapped boundaries of 8BY00138 due to an existing retention pond and paved parking lot. No artifacts were recovered, and no archaeological sites or occurrences were identified within the APE. No further terrestrial archaeological survey is recommended in support of the proposed US 98 Dupont Bridge replacement. Architectural survey resulted in the identification of one previously recorded bridge (8BY01632), one previously recorded building (8BY01165), and four newly recorded resources (8BY02677, 8BY02678, 8BY02679, and 8BY02681) within the US 98 Dupont Bridge APE. A Florida Master Site File (FMSF) review indicated one previously recorded bridge (8BY01806) and one previously recorded building (8BY01152) have been demolished since previous recordation. The District recommends the previously recorded resources and newly recorded resources ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Based upon the results of the remote-sensing survey and subsequent data processing and analysis, project maritime archaeologists identified two remote-sensing targets (Targets 01 and 02) that resemble potential submerged cultural resources and one remote-sensing target that resembles a potential relict channel (Reflector R001). The District recommends an avoidance zone that encompasses Acoustic Contact S029 for Target 01. Additionally, the District

Dr. Parsons, SHPO March 26, 2020 Page 3 recommends 33-foot (10-meter) avoidance zone from the edge of the acoustic imagery for Target 02. If avoidance is not feasible, then further archaeological investigation for these targets is recommended. Considering the effort involved and in view of the low probability of success from additional research (i.e., submerged subsurface testing/coring), the District maintains that additional investigation of Reflector R001 is beyond the scope of the current bridge replacement project and recommends no further work relating to Reflector R001. Project maritime archaeologists also identified submerged portions of the previously recorded Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806). However, the truss superstructure and decking has been removed; therefore, the bridge is no longer intact. Since the Old Dupont Bridge no longer constitutes an example of a historic-aged bridge structure, it is the opinion of the District that the Old Dupont Bridge (8BY01806) lacks significant data potential and is still not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No NRHP-eligible or -listed resources were identified within the US 98 Dupont Bridge APE. In the opinion of the District, the proposed construction will have no effect on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further terrestrial archaeology or architectural work is recommended. Project maritime archaeologists identified Targets 01 and 02 as potential submerged cultural resources. If avoidance of Targets 01 and 02 is not feasible, the District recommends further archaeological investigation for these targets. I respectfully request your concurrence with the findings of the enclosed report. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact me at (850) 330-1507. Sincerely, Zena Riley-Taylor District Cultural Resources Coordinator

Dr. Parsons, SHPO March 26, 2020 Page 4

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer finds the attached Cultural Resource

Assessment Survey Report complete and sufficient and ☐ concurs / ☐ does not concur

with the recommendations and findings provided in this cover letter for SHPO/FDHR

Project File Number _____________________________. Or, the SHPO finds the

attached document contains _______ insufficient information.

In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement among the ACHP, SHPO and FDOT

Regarding Implementation of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in Florida, if providing

concurrence with a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for a project as a whole, or

to No Adverse Effect on a specific historic property, SHPO shall presume that FDOT may

approve the project as de minimis use under Section 4(f) under 23 CFR 774.

SHPO Comments:

Timothy A. Parsons, PhD, Director

Florida Division of Historical Resources

Date



Concurrence with Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

4/6/2020

April 6, 2020

Due to the recorded, but unsubstantiated, submerged potential resources and theunevaluated archaeological site (8BY00092) within the APE, and conditional uponavoidance of Targets 1 and 2 as stated above, our office finds that this project willhave No Adverse Effect on the identified historic properties. Further, we find thesubmitted CRAS report complete and sufficient. If avoidance of Targets 1 and 2 isnot possible, additional work and consultation with our office will be needed.



Cultural Resource Desktop Analysis for Pond Sites Transmittal to SHPO

7/30/2020

From: Steven RabbySmithTo: CompliancePermitsCc: Riley-Taylor, Zena; Lucas, Kelsey; Kristoff, DanSubject: CRAS Report Digital SubmissionDate: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 5:26:04 PMAttachments: FM#442667 1 Ponds Desktop transmittal letter for SHPO.pdf

180151 Ponds SEARCH Desktop Analysis.pdf

FDOT District 3 submittal:

CRAS report title: CULTURAL RESOURCE DESKTOP ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED POND SITES FORTHE SR 30 (US 98) DUPONT BRIDGE (BRIDGE NO. 460019) OVER ST. ANDREW BAY/GULFINTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (ICWW) REPLACEMENT

Project FM# and name: 442667-1, Dupont Bridge Replacement

List of submitted documents: Transmittal Letter and desktop review are attached.

Note: A hard copy of this desktop review will be provided upon request. Hello,We are submitting the above referenced pond site desktop review behalf of FDOT, District 3. Thisdesktop screening was conducted in support of CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SURVEY FORTHE REPLACEMENT OF THE SR 30 (US 98) DUPONT BRIDGE (BRIDGE NO. 460019) OVER ST. ANDREWBAY/ GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY (ICWW), BAY COUNTY, FLORIDAYour office provided concurrence on the results and recommendations of this CRAS on April 6, 2020(SHPO/FDHR Project File No. 2018-517C). Thank you and please let me know if you need anything else.Steve Steven RabbySmith, M.A., RPAPrincipal Investigator

SEARCH - SEARCH2O

700 North 9th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32501850-776-3744 cell 850-607-2846 phone [email protected] [email protected] www.searchinc.com

Archaeology—Maritime Archaeology—Architectural History—History & Archives—Heritage Design








https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.searchinc.com_%26d%3DDwMFAg%26c%3DTQzoP61-bYDBLzNd0XmHrw%26r%3DPaFekey6RvsAr2fuB-YEs1Axx9wHCldOIwH3OlYbyZI%26m%3DBq3GrOB-YAvBeWy_nl3__NlUgPeUS6DBRoJVaoH8GBA%26s%3DKVsSdw1bX-YixpIjtfdT-GvSyDlRxGu-fMnGXCeS8VY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7CJohn.Wimberly%40hdrinc.com%7Cea8ba1536ef74cf962c108d7daf6f3da%7C3667e201cbdc48b39b425d2d3f16e2a9%7C0%7C0%7C637218626508054816&sdata=qH%2BCrS2SwuB%2B0ufKJS4MXH2JtZdOMz73ydnkrDlJM2Q%3D&reserved=0


RON DESANTIS


Chipley, FL 32428


SECRETARY

www.fdot.gov

July 24, 2020 Timothy A. Parsons, Ph.D., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Florida Division of Historical Resources Florida Department of State R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Attn: Ms. Alyssa McManus, Transportation Compliance Review Program RE: Cultural Resource Desktop Analysis of Proposed Pond Sites for the

Replacement of the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge (Bridge No. 460019) over St. Andrew Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) Replacement, Bay County, Florida Financial Management No.: 442667-1

Dear Dr. Parsons, Enclosed for your records and review please find one copy of the desktop analysis titled Cultural

Resource Desktop Analysis of Proposed Pond Sites for the SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge

(Bridge No. 460019) over St. Andrew Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) Bridge

Replacement Project Development and Environment Study, Bay County, Florida. This technical memorandum presents the findings of a pond site cultural resource desktop analysis conducted in support of the proposed Dupont Bridge replacement project in Bay County, Florida. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact me at (850) 330-1507. Sincerely, Zena Riley-Taylor District Cultural Resources Coordinator



SHPO Response to Desktop Analysis for Ponds

8/17/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: SHPO response (email) - DuPont Bridge

BDS.EmailID: 3070609fb1f6476c9a0ffab498a3ed72

From: McManus, Alyssa M. <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 12:44 PM To: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; Riley‐Taylor, Zena <Zena.Riley‐[email protected]> Cc: Steve Karacic <[email protected]>; Daggett, Adrianne <[email protected]> Subject: DuPont Bridge


Good Afternoon, In response to the desktop review regarding the DuPont Bridge ponds, we have the following comment: Our office concurs that all 4 proposed ponds are high probability for archaeology and should be surveyed accordingly. Judgmental testing should not be used despite the fact that they are ponds sites. We look forward to reviewing the CRAS for this project. Thanks! Alyssa






Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Transmittal

2/5/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: Dupont Bridge PD&E - CRAS

BDS.EmailID: f8967bb32bc14624ad1cd3a39e2bfa71

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 8:27 AM To: CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]> Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]> Subject: Dupont Bridge PD&E ‐ CRAS Jose, Good Morning – hope all is well. I will be sending you (through a separate email/link) the Final CRAS for the proposed bridge alternatives as well as analysis for the potential pond sites for review and comment. If possible, we would like to receive any comments by the end of this month. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

J. Brandon Bruner, P.E. Assistant Vice President / Senior Project Manager

1273 Office Park Drive, Chipley, FL 32428 d +1 (850) 297-2939 | c +1 (850) 557-6402 [email protected] | www.gpinet.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer




No Comments on Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

2/18/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: Dupont Bridge PD&E - CRAS

BDS.EmailID: d24c0aa2882940fab2b7ee599d54119b

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:30 AM To: CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]> Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Dupont Bridge PD&E ‐ CRAS Thank you Jose for the quick turnaround!

J. Brandon Bruner, P.E. d +1 (850) 297-2939 | c +1 (850) 557-6402 An Equal Opportunity Employer

From: CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 9:26 AM To: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Dupont Bridge PD&E ‐ CRAS Brandon, We reviewed the Final CRAS and have no comments. V/r, Jose

From: CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:18 PM To: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Dupont Bridge PD&E ‐ CRAS Brandon, Received….will review and let you know if we have comments. V/r, Jose

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 7:27 AM

2

To: CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]> Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Dupont Bridge PD&E ‐ CRAS Jose, Good Morning – hope all is well. I will be sending you (through a separate email/link) the Final CRAS for the proposed bridge alternatives as well as analysis for the potential pond sites for review and comment. If possible, we would like to receive any comments by the end of this month. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!

J. Brandon Bruner, P.E. Assistant Vice President / Senior Project Manager

1273 Office Park Drive, Chipley, FL 32428 d +1 (850) 297-2939 | c +1 (850) 557-6402 [email protected] | www.gpinet.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



Natural Resource Evaluation Transmittal 4/28/2020

From: Kristoff, DanTo: Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: Dupont Bridge Replacement PD&E Natural Resources EvaluationDate: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:33:00 AMAttachments: image001.png

image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage006.png442667-1-22-01 NRE 2020-04-23.pdf

FYI

Daniel Kristoff, PESenior Transportation Engineer10748 Deerwood Park Blvd South, Jacksonville, FL 32256O 904‑256‑2139 | M 904‑307‑0252

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:22 AMTo: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff,Dan <[email protected]>Subject: Dupont Bridge Replacement PD&E Natural Resources Evaluation Jose,Good morning. Hope you guys are doing well. Please find attached the NRE for Dupont for your

review and comment. We would like to have any input back by May 15th if possible. Additionally, Iwill be sending the Preliminary Engineering Report for review via file transfer (due to size). Let meknow if you need any additional information. Thanks. J. Brandon Bruner, P.E.Assistant Vice President / Senior Project Manager

1273 Office Park Drive, Chipley, FL 32428d +1 (850) 297-2939 | c +1 (850) [email protected] | www.gpinet.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color ornational origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materialsand leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure thatminorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated againstin consideration for an award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for theuse of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is




http://www.gpinet.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/greenman-pedersen-inc-?trk=top_nav_home

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ7XgY1qUwHqmA0vDO0xADQ

https://twitter.com/GPI1966

https://www.facebook.com/GPI1966/?ref=hl

privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or suchrecipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure ofthis communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



Preliminary Engineering Report Transmittal

4/28/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Dupont Bridge PD&E Preliminary Engineering Report

BDS.EmailID: 9043dc2c55054832b99520276254e5ec

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:48 AM To: CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Dupont Bridge PD&E Preliminary Engineering Report Please find attached the Dupont PER for review and comment. We would like to have comments back to us by May 15th. Let me know if you need additional information. Thanks. Attachment: 442667-1-22-01 _PER_April 2020.pdf Please use the following URL and your username/password to download any associated attachments. Note: Your username is the email address you received this message with. If you do not know your password, you can request a password change on the sign on screen and you will receive an email where you can reset it.

( https://fileshare.gpinet.com/human.aspx?OrgID=9528&Arg12=message&Arg06=667472340&Arg08=tkx968wzu7s63q2s&username=jose.cintron.1%40us.af.mil ) NOTE: This URL will only work for the original recipient. It will NOT work for someone you forward it to. It is associated with the original recipients email address for added security. Please contact the sender if this information needs to be securely shared with others. Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



Comments / Questions on PER and NRE 5/14/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: DuPont Bridge ReplacementDate: Thursday, May 14, 2020 9:06:35 AMAttachments: image001.png

image002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage005.pngAF Form 600 FDOT Dupont Bridge Replacement.docx

fyi


From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:42 AMTo: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: DuPont Bridge Replacement Mr. Bruner, Please see attached comments for both documents submitted for review for the DuPont Bridgereplacement project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAFProgram Manager LBP/Asbestos,NEPA325 CES/CEIEC540 Mississippi AveTyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403850-283-4346 DSN 523-4346 “EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under FOIA,Exemption 5, deliberative process applies. Further distributionis prohibited without the approval of AFCEC/CZN or SAF/IEIP.”

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:22 AMTo: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff,Dan <[email protected]>








Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Dupont Bridge Replacement PD&E Natural Resources Evaluation Jose,Good morning. Hope you guys are doing well. Please find attached the NRE for Dupont for your



An Equal Opportunity Employer Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color ornational origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement ofmaterials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies willensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not bediscriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachmentsare intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not theintended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that anydissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify thesender immediately.







AETC FORM 600, JAN 94 (EF-V1) (Microsoft Word) REPLACES ATC FORM 600, NOV 63, WHICH IS OBSOLETE.

ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS ACTIVITY DATE

FDOT Dupont Bridge Replacement 4/29/2020 TYPE OF REVIEW AREA OF REVIEW 1. CIVIL 3. STRUCTURAL 5. ELECTRICAL PRELIMINARY FINAL 2. ARCHITECTURAL 4. MECHANICAL 6. SPECIFICATIONS

PROJECT ITEM NUMBER PREPARED BY

Edwin Wallace

LEGEND A - Concur D - Do Not Concur E - Exception, see comment X - Delete Comment

DRAWING NO OR

PARA NO

COMMENT NO COMMENT (Type or Print) ACTION BY REVIIEW AGENCIES

Melanie Kaeser Comments(USFWS) BASE COMND

2.2.1.2 1 Presence of Gulf Sturgeon in the project area is highly seasonal and have been observed in that area during the winter in low numbers. Pile driving or blasting will require consultation with the USFWS

Figure 2.2.1 2 Map of sea turtle nesting and stranding is very out of date. It shows the “Old Pass” as still existent and barrier island configuration incorrect

2.2.3 Bald Eagle

3 There are active nests in close proximity to the proposed bridge project. Can provide coordinates for all Bald Eagle nests on the installation

Table 2.2.1 4 Perhaps change bald eagle “probability of occurrence” to high? They nest often in close proximity to the project area and there is a currently an active nest

Table 2.2.1

5 Change wading birds (ex: egrets and herons) “probability of occurrence” the high? Important wading bird habitat in and around the project area

Appendix 6 FNAI Element of Occurrence Report – USFWS has more up to date plant occurrences for the installation. FNAI occurrences are dated 2013

Appendix 6 FNAI Element of Occurrence Report – USFWS has more up to date (2019 surveys) Gopher Tortoise occurrences for the installation. FNAI occurrences are dated 2011

Jason Lockwood (325 CES Water Program Manager) Fig. 1.5.3 1 On the TAFB side, it appears an existing Stormwater pond will

be impacted on the western boundary. Is there an idea at this time where the additional compensation for this area will take place?

Fig. 1.1.3 2 Is there an idea where additional new Stormwater compensation will take place, including new swale/ditches, outfalls, etc.?

Fig. 3.2.1 3 If impacts to estuarine vegetation is found on the southern end on the TAFB side, what mitigation measures are proposed to offset impacts?

4 Is additional shoreline stabilization proposed along the corridor on the TAFB side due to the approach or any other part of this design?

Append B, Sheet 5

5 There are existing and proposed utility lines located within the footprint of the proposed roadway along the western portion of the TAFB side. If these lines are to be impacted, will FDOT be responsible for moving them?

Append B 6 Have staging areas on the TAFB side been proposed? If so, what size/area? Please modify any drawings to include proposed staging area if possible.



Responses to Comments / Questions on PER and NRE

5/20/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: DuPont Bridge ReplacementDate: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:11:09 AMAttachments: image007.png

image008.pngimage009.pngimage010.pngimage011.pngimage001.pngAF Form 600 FDOT Dupont Bridge Replacement Response to Comments 2020 05 17.pdf


From: Brandon Bruner Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:20 AMTo: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: RE: DuPont Bridge Replacement Good Morning Edwin,Please find attached responses to the comments. Let me know if you need anything else.


From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:42 AMTo: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: DuPont Bridge Replacement Mr. Bruner, Please see attached comments for both documents submitted for review for the DuPont Bridgereplacement project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAFProgram Manager LBP/Asbestos,NEPA325 CES/CEIEC540 Mississippi AveTyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403850-283-4346 DSN 523-4346






“EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under FOIA,Exemption 5, deliberative process applies. Further distributionis prohibited without the approval of AFCEC/CZN or SAF/IEIP.”

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:22 AMTo: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff,Dan <[email protected]>Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Dupont Bridge Replacement PD&E Natural Resources Evaluation Jose,Good morning. Hope you guys are doing well. Please find attached the NRE for Dupont for your















ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS ACTIVITY DATE

FDOT Dupont Bridge Replacement 5/17/2020 TYPE OF REVIEW AREA OF REVIEW 1. CIVIL 3. STRUCTURAL 5. ELECTRICAL PRELIMINARY FINAL 2. ARCHITECTURAL 4. MECHANICAL 6. SPECIFICATIONS

PROJECT ITEM NUMBER PREPARED BY

Edwin Wallace

LEGEND A - Concur D - Do Not Concur E - Exception, see comment X - Delete Comment

DRAWING NO OR

PARA NO

COMMENT NO COMMENT (Type or Print)

Response to Comments Melanie Kaeser Comments(USFWS)

2.2.1.2 1 Presence of Gulf Sturgeon in the project area is highly seasonal and have been observed in that area during the winter in low numbers. Pile driving or blasting will require consultation with the USFWS

Agreed. The submittal of the NRE will initiate the consultation process.

Figure 2.2.1 2 Map of sea turtle nesting and stranding is very out of date. It shows the “Old Pass” as still existent and barrier island configuration incorrect

While the base map may be dated as inlets and barrier islands are constantly changing, the data and intent of the graphic holds true: sea turtles are known to be in the waters in and around Dupont Bridge, and nesting takes place on the barrier islands, not the beaches in and around the bridge.

2.2.3 Bald Eagle

3 There are active nests in close proximity to the proposed bridge project. Can provide coordinates for all Bald Eagle nests on the installation

FWC Bald Eagle Nest Locator shows the closest nests to Dupont Bridge being nests BA005, BA011, and BA018. None are located within one mile of the project study area and no proposed activities are occurring within the established protection buffer zones for bald eagle nests. Surveys to determine presence of bald eagle nests within the project area will be conducted during the permitting phase of the project. Additional coordination with USFWS and FWC will take place, as necessary. Please provide any available bald eagle nest data.

Table 2.2.1 4 Perhaps change bald eagle “probability of occurrence” to high? They nest often in close proximity to the project area and there is a currently an active nest

Probability of Occurrence was established as moderate because the species does not meet the definition for high as established on Page 2-3. No nests were observed, nor do databases indicate presence within the project study area.

Table 2.2.1

5 Change wading birds (ex: egrets and herons) “probability of occurrence” the high? Important wading bird habitat in and around the project area

Probability of Occurrence was established as moderate because the species do not meet the definition for high as established on Page 2-3. No nests or individuals were observed, nor do databases indicate presence within the project study area. The initial assessment of Probability of Occurrence does not impact the ultimate MANLAA determination of effect.


Appendix 6 FNAI Element of Occurrence Report – USFWS has more up to date plant occurrences for the installation. FNAI occurrences are dated 2013

Please provide any available species data.

Appendix 6 FNAI Element of Occurrence Report – USFWS has more up to date (2019 surveys) Gopher Tortoise occurrences for the installation. FNAI occurrences are dated 2011

Please provide any available species data.

Jason Lockwood (325 CES Water Program

Manager)

Fig. 1.5.3

1 On the TAFB side, it appears an existing Stormwater pond will be impacted on the western boundary. Is there an idea at this time where the additional compensation for this area will take place?

Any impacts to the existing stormwater pond will be compensated by the project’s proposed pond. Please note that the existing pond provides water quality treatment only; therefore, compensation can be provided in the proposed pond on the north side of the Bridge. The preferred pond site at this time is Pond West 1, which is shown on PER figure 1.4.1. Other ponds evaluated are shown on PER figure 6.1.7.

Fig. 1.1.3

2 Is there an idea where additional new Stormwater compensation will take place, including new swale/ditches, outfalls, etc.?

All stormwater management will occur within the proposed pond on the north side of the bridge.

Fig. 3.2.1

3 If impacts to estuarine vegetation is found on the southern end on the TAFB side, what mitigation measures are proposed to offset impacts?

Mitigation for wetland and surface water impacts will be mitigated as discussed in Section 3.5 of the NRE.

4 Is additional shoreline stabilization proposed along the corridor on the TAFB side due to the approach or any other part of this design?

As shown in Appendix B of the PER, rubble rip rap is proposed on both the TAFB side and the City of Parker side of the bridge. The rubble rip rap was designed at a 40-foot offset from the face of the retaining walls and abutments to protect the bridge and walls during storm events. During final design when more information regarding soil scour levels are available, the footprint of the rip rap may change.

Append B, Sheet 5

5 There are existing and proposed utility lines located within the footprint of the proposed roadway along the western portion of the TAFB side. If these lines are to be impacted, will FDOT be responsible for moving them?

Utilities along or near the project were contacted during the PD&E Study and asked to provide markups showing the location of utilities and areas of potential conflict as documented in the PER. Exact locations of the existing utilities and the extent of impacts will be determined during the final design phase of this project. The FDOT District Utility Coordinator will lead the effort in communicating with the affected utility owners in the next phase of this project.

Append B

6 Have staging areas on the TAFB side been proposed? If so, what size/area? Please modify any drawings to include proposed staging area if possible.

Staging areas are not defined at this level in the study. Staging areas will be determined by the Design-Build team. Coordination with TAFB representatives will occur during all subsequent design and construction phases.



2019 Gopher Tortoise Survey Data 5/20/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: [EXTERNAL] DuPont Bridge Replacement CRM ResponseDate: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:33:52 AMAttachments: image001.png

Tafb GT Surveys2.cpgTafb GT Surveys2.dbfTafb GT Surveys2.prjTafb GT Surveys2.shpTafb GT Surveys2.shx


From: Kaeser, Melanie J <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:15 PMTo: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>; BrandonBruner <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] DuPont Bridge Replacement CRM Response Mr. Bruner, Please see the attached shapefiles containing our 2019 Gopher Tortoise survey data.Melanie

From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIECSent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:27 AMTo: Kaeser, Melanie J; LOCKWOOD, JASON M GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEACc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIESubject: [EXTERNAL] DuPont Bridge Replacement CRM Response Melanie/Jason, Please see FDOT responses to comments submitted from your review of the project. Melanie if youcan provide the requested documents I will forward to Mr. Bruner. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAFProgram Manager LBP/Asbestos,NEPA325 CES/CEIEC540 Mississippi Ave




Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403850-283-4346 DSN 523-4346

From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:20 AMTo: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: DuPont Bridge Replacement Good Morning Edwin,Please find attached responses to the comments. Let me know if you need anything else.


From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:42 AMTo: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: DuPont Bridge Replacement Mr. Bruner, Please see attached comments for both documents submitted for review for the DuPont Bridgereplacement project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAFProgram Manager LBP/Asbestos,NEPA325 CES/CEIEC540 Mississippi AveTyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403850-283-4346 DSN 523-4346 “EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under FOIA,Exemption 5, deliberative process applies. Further distributionis prohibited without the approval of AFCEC/CZN or SAF/IEIP.”







From: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:22 AMTo: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Cc: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; Kristoff,Dan <[email protected]>Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Dupont Bridge Replacement PD&E Natural Resources Evaluation Jose,Good morning. Hope you guys are doing well. Please find attached the NRE for Dupont for your









https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpinet.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C6fb45de885e14285b2c608d7fcf2070a%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637255988759418334&sdata=%2BvS9G2tLO%2Bo4gagsMxK3jBIWKuZqu33OHcqsdUHLfnE%3D&reserved=0



2020 Bald Eagle Survey Data 5/20/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: 2020 Bald Eagle Nest DataDate: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:34:16 AMAttachments: image001.png

metadata.cpgmetadata.dbfmetadata.shpmetadata.shxsurveyPoint.cpgsurveyPoint.dbfsurveyPoint.prjsurveyPoint.shpsurveyPoint.shxBald Eagle Nests 2020.pdf


From: Kaeser, Melanie J <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:21 PMTo: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>; WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC<[email protected]>; CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE<[email protected]>Subject: 2020 Bald Eagle Nest Data Mr. Bruner, Please see attached map of 2020 Bald Eagle nests as well as survey shapefiles. Thereappears to be one active nest within a mile of the bridge.MelaniePer Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color ornational origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement ofmaterials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies willensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not bediscriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachmentsare intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not theintended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that anydissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify thesender immediately.






Draft Environmental Assessment Transmittal

6/4/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Lucas, KelseySubject: Dupont Bridge Draft EADate: Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:48:03 AM

Jose,

Please find attached the Draft EA with Appendices for review and comment. We would like to have all comments backby the end of the month. Let me know if you need anything else.

2 Attachments:

442667-1-22-01_Dupont_EA_Appendices_May 2020.pdf442667-1-22-01_Dupont_EA_May 2020.pdf

Please use the following URL and your username/password to download any associated attachments.Note: Your username is the email address you received this message with. If you do not know your password, you canrequest a password change on the sign on screen and you will receive an email where you can reset it.

( https://fileshare.gpinet.com/human.aspx?OrgID=9528&Arg12=message&Arg06=677300847&Arg08=n4iz970yug91gj53&username=kelsey.lucas%40rsandh.com )

NOTE: This URL will only work for the original recipient. It will NOT work for someone you forward itto. It is associated with the original recipients email address for added security. Please contact the sender if thisinformation needs to be securely shared with others.



https://fileshare.gpinet.com/human.aspx?OrgID=9528&Arg12=message&Arg06=677300847&Arg08=n4iz970yug91gj53&username=kelsey.lucas%40rsandh.com

https://fileshare.gpinet.com/human.aspx?OrgID=9528&Arg12=message&Arg06=677300847&Arg08=n4iz970yug91gj53&username=kelsey.lucas%40rsandh.com



Comments on Draft EA 6/26/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: Dupont Bridge Expansion EADate: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:09:02 PMAttachments: image001.png

CRM (AFLOA)- Tyndall FDOT Bridge Expansion (20200623).docxFDOT Dupont Bridge Expansion Comments Matrix.docx


From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:14 AMTo: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: Dupont Bridge Expansion EA Mr. Bruner, I have attached the review comments for the subject project. Please ensure legal comments arekept separate from other comments. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAFProgram Manager LBP/Asbestos,NEPA325 CES/CEIEC540 Mississippi AveTyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403850-283-4346 DSN 523-4346 Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color ornational origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement ofmaterials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies willensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not bediscriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachmentsare intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not theintended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that anydissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify thesender immediately.




//FOUO – For Official Use Only Page 1 of 1

Comment Response Matrix ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FDOT DUPONT BRIDGE EXPANSION

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA 5 June 2020

# Location Type of

Comment Comment Reviewer Response

Page Line (or Table/Figure #)

Section S, C, A

3-32 17 3.4.2 C

Why is it only the Seminole Tribe of Florida and not all the other Tribes usually consulted with? If on Tyndall property, should be consulting with 6 tribes.

JEM

3-32 3.4.2 C Should include a map of where these historic resources are located JEM

3.4.2 A Reference the survey report as an appendix JEM

3.4.2 S Reference briefly the findings from CRAS JEM

General A Please provide maps IH

General S Please provide more info on potentially impacted site (1) and CRAS

IH

Comment Types: C=Critical; S= Substantive; A=Administrative (See definitions below) DEFINITIONS Critical – Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the document to be insufficient. Substantive – Comments identifying an item in the document that appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Substantive comments may also identify a future requirement (e.g. consultation, public release) which may not currently be critical, but could become critical before completion of the project. Administrative – Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar. Reviewer: Please provide your name, title, commercial phone number, email address, and date of comments Jennifer Moss, Cultural Resources Manager, 850-283-2195, [email protected], 23 Jun 20 Illaria Harrach, Cultural Resources Manager, [email protected], 23 Jun 20





Responses to Draft EA Comments 7/21/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIECCc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE; Lucas, KelseySubject: RE: Dupont Bridge Expansion EADate: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:27:29 AMAttachments: image001.png

FDOT Dupont Bridge EA Comments Matrix - LEGAL REVIEW.docxFDOT Dupont Bridge EA Comments Matrix.docx

Edwin,Please find attached responses to both sets of review comments. Let me know if you have anyquestions or if we need to discuss. Thank you.


From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:14 AMTo: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>Cc: CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>Subject: Dupont Bridge Expansion EA Mr. Bruner, I have attached the review comments for the subject project. Please ensure legal comments arekept separate from other comments. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAFProgram Manager LBP/Asbestos,NEPA325 CES/CEIEC540 Mississippi AveTyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403850-283-4346 DSN 523-4346 Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and itsrelated companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection andretention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and willnot be discriminated against in consideration for an award.

This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as theaddressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are notthe intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copyor disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.






Comment Response Matrix ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR FDOT DUPONT BRIDGE EXPANSION TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

5 June 2020

# Location Type of



Section S, C, A

3-32 17 3.4.2 C

Why is it only the Seminole Tribe of Florida and not all the other Tribes usually consulted with? If on Tyndall property, should be consulting with 6 tribes.

JEM

That statement is from the ETDM Screening Summary Report. All tribes were notified of the project and included on the Advance Notification. Will revise statement to indicate no comments were received from any of the tribes.

3-32 3.4.2 C Should include a map of where these historic resources are located

JEM A map of the historic site locations will be added.

3.4.2 A Reference the survey report as an appendix

JEM The CRAS is a stand-alone document and will be included in the project record, but not as an appendix to the EA. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site locations, that information is classified as sensitive and exempt from Florida’s open record laws and therefore cannot be included in the EA, since it will be available for public display.

3.4.2 S Reference briefly the findings from CRAS

JEM Section 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 are summaries of the CRAS findings.

General A Please provide maps

IH Maps are included in the CRAS. A map of the historic site locations will be added. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site locations, that information is classified as sensitive and exempt from Florida’s open record laws and is therefore not included in the EA,


Comment Response Matrix ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR FDOT DUPONT BRIDGE EXPANSION TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA

5 June 2020

# Location Type of



Section S, C, A

since it will be available for public display.

General S Please provide more info on potentially impacted site (1) and CRAS

IH Remote-sensing target 01 is not anticipated to be impacted by the project. A summary of the site is included on 3-36, for more detailed information, please refer to the CRAS.

To add additional rows, place cursor in the bottom right cell and hit << Tab>>. Comment Types: C=Critical; S= Substantive; A=Administrative (See definitions below) DEFINITIONS Critical – Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the document to be insufficient. Substantive – Comments identifying an item in the document that appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Substantive comments may also identify a future requirement (e.g. consultation, public release) which may not currently be critical, but could become critical before completion of the project. Administrative – Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar. Reviewer: Please provide your name, title, commercial phone number, email address, and date of comments Jennifer Moss, Cultural Resources Manager, 850-283-2195, [email protected], 23 Jun 20 Illaria Harrach, Cultural Resources Manager, [email protected], 23 Jun 20





Vertical Clearance Coordination 3/16/2021

From: Bruner BrandonTo: CHAPMAN TRAYCEE R GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP; kevin.sharkey.4@us af.milCc: Kristoff Dan; Lucas KelseySubject: Dupont Bridge Replacement - Request to raise vertical clearanceDate: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:12:39 AMAttachments: image002 png

FDOT Comment Form 112921.pdf

Good Morning!Hope you are doing well. Wanted to bring to your attention an official request we received from Eastern Shipbuilding associatedwith the Public Hearing (attached). We knew this may be coming as they indicated it early on. They would like the verticalclearance of the main span to be raised from 65’ (min. required by USCG) to 75’ to accommodate ships they are constructing. Nowthat we have settled on Alt West 1, the profile change can be accommodated without any additional impact to the Bonita BayComplex as well as the northern connection. The Department is considering making this accommodation but we want to makesure you are aware and don’t foresee any potential issues. Please, see below excerpt from the Airspace Study that we prepared forFAA review/approval. They had no comments at the time but a new study will need to be submitted during the design phase.

If we make the change to 75’ clearance the new overall structure height moves to 103’, lighting moves to 128’, crane stays at 178’which is still all well below 242.89’. Please let us know if you have any concerns or if you need additional information. Thanks. J. Brandon Bruner, P.E.FDOT D3 GEC Project Manager

1141 E. Jackson Avenue | Chipley, FL 32428Office 850.845.0304 Cell 850.557.6402 Creative People, Practical Solutions. ®Connect with us: Website | Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Moffatt & Nichol will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, includingprocurement of materials and leases of equipment Moffatt & Nichol will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to present proposals and will not be discriminatedagainst in consideration for an award For additional information go to: http://www moffattnichol com/content/small-business-outreach






http://www.moffattnichol.com/

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fmoffattnichol&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40moffattnichol.com%7C12633dfed9fd4e4dfcee08d83223d7fb%7Ce56883ae3b824b47993a9166c2cff860%7C1%7C0%7C637314476835535513&sdata=f30zUmk36DrqqDPpEb85lUVBiyS6EzBh3UdO8T2XRAQ%3D&reserved=0

https://www.linkedin.com/company/moffatt-&-nichol

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fmoffattnichol&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40moffattnichol.com%7C12633dfed9fd4e4dfcee08d83223d7fb%7Ce56883ae3b824b47993a9166c2cff860%7C1%7C0%7C637314476835535513&sdata=%2Fbo4%2Fl1kPuWqJl825lPWQEF1%2B%2FszpIlyRmVSuF%2BwrTQ%3D&reserved=0

http://www.moffattnichol.com/content/small-business-outreach

Brian R. D'Isernia, CEO of Eastern Shipbuilding Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 960

Panama City, FL 32401

(850) 763-1900

[email protected]

Eastern Shipbuilding employs approximately 1200 people and is one of the largest

non-governmental employers in the county.

The Dupont Bridge is located between Eastern's two shipyards.

65' bridge air draft is an improvement but 75' is preferred because:

It allows full assembly of the vessel at the Allanton yard.

This enables all the electronics to be activated and tested before transit

under the bridge.

The vessel can transit under the bridge under it's own power.

The above enable our shipyard to be more efficient and competitive which

will enable us to increase our employment.



Vertical Clearance Coordination 4/1/2021

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: Tyndall Comments: Dupont Bridge Replacement (Parker) - Request to Raise Vertical Clearance

BDS.EmailID: fcf02c2dd3464a1ab2861e64ca038694

From: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:35 AM To: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Cc: SHARKEY, KEVIN M GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; RONCAGLIONE, JAMES L GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 OSS/DOAS <[email protected]>; STILLWAGON, JOSHUA S MSgt USAF ACC 325 OSS/OSAA <[email protected]>; SIMONS, MICHAEL A GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 FW/SEF <[email protected]>; ROBERTS, GREGORY L CIV USAF ACC ACC/A3AO <[email protected]> Subject: Tyndall Comments: DuPont Bridge Replacement (Parker) ‐ Request to Raise Vertical Clearance


Brandon, Thank you for giving Tyndall the opportunity to review. Tyndall submits the following comments and recommendations:

As part of the PD&E / Design process follow FAA permitting requirements and submit “new” bridge and lights in OE/AAA https://oeaaa.faa.gov which triggers Air Force TERPs evaluation of those obstacles against the flight procedures at Tyndall.

Follow FAA guidelines for obstruction lighting and mounted light deflectors for towers, buildings, and bridges; and reference UFC 3‐535‐01, Chapter 6.

Provide Tyndall copy of the new Airspace Study FDOT will prepare for FAA review/approval when submitted during the design phase.

Initial evaluation indicates raising proposed bridge height by 10 ft. (from 65 ft. to 75 ft.) should still be out of the approach/departure clearance surface (horizontal) and outer horizontal surface.

It appears the edge of Dupont bridge is about 10,000 ft. from the edge of overruns and is within Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) for outside runway (per UFC 3‐260‐01 figure 3‐5).

Consider public notification/awareness signage on new DuPont bridge indicating aircraft accident potential zone.

o AFH 32‐7084 paragraph 2.11 states: The percentage of accidents that have historically occurred within APZ’s I and II is such that the purchase of the property within the APZs by the Air Force is not necessary; however, some type of land use control is essential.

o 2.11.2. The accident potential in APZ II is less than APZ I but APZ II still possesses a significant potential for accidents. Within APZ II, acceptable uses include those compatible within APZ I (such as industrial/manufacturing, transportation, communication/utilities, wholesale trade, open space, recreation, and agriculture), as well as low‐density single family residential, personal and business services, and commercial/retail trade uses of low intensity or low scale of operation. High‐density functions such as multi‐story buildings, places of assembly (theaters, churches, schools, restaurants, etc.), and high‐density office uses are not considered compatible.

2

o Considering the DuPont bridge already exists all precautions should be taken to sufficiently and properly mark obstructions and notify the public of potential risks associated with the bridge being within the Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II) of Tyndall’s outside runway.

//SIGNED// Ms. Traycee Verdun Chapman Installation Master Planning & Design, AICUZ, Mission Sustainment, Community Partnership Programs Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 325 Civil Engineer Squadron (325 CES/CEN) Email: [email protected] Mobile: 314‐737‐3088 *INSTALLATION FACILITY STANDARDS (IFS) https://www.tyndallifs.com *Tyndall AFB‐ Bay County COMPATIBLE USE PLAN (CUP): https://www.tyndalljlus.com *COASTAL RESILIENCE Pilot Projects http://tyndallcoastalresilience.com *F‐35 AND MQ‐9 MISSION BEDDOWN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) https://www.f‐35wingandmq‐9wingeis.com

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 8:09 AM To: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: Dupont Bridge Replacement ‐ Request to raise vertical clearance Hi Traycee, Just checking in on this….


From: Bruner, Brandon Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:12 AM To: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]>; Lucas, Kelsey <[email protected]> Subject: Dupont Bridge Replacement ‐ Request to raise vertical clearance Good Morning! Hope you are doing well. Wanted to bring to your attention an official request we received from Eastern Shipbuilding associated with the Public Hearing (attached). We knew this may be coming as they indicated it early on. They would like the vertical clearance of the main span to be raised from 65’ (min. required by USCG) to 75’ to accommodate ships they are constructing. Now that we have settled on Alt West 1, the profile change can be accommodated without any additional impact to the Bonita Bay Complex as well as the northern connection. The Department is considering making this accommodation but we want to make sure you are aware and don’t foresee any potential issues. Please, see below excerpt from the Airspace Study that we prepared for FAA review/approval. They had no comments at the time but a new study will need to be submitted during the design phase.

3

If we make the change to 75’ clearance the new overall structure height moves to 103’, lighting moves to 128’, crane stays at 178’ which is still all well below 242.89’. Please let us know if you have any concerns or if you need additional information. Thanks.

J. Brandon Bruner, P.E. FDOT D3 GEC Project Manager

1141 E. Jackson Avenue | Chipley, FL 32428 Office 850.845.0304 Cell 850.557.6402 Creative People, Practical Solutions. ® Connect with us: Website | Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Moffatt & Nichol will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Moffatt & Nichol will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to present proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. For additional information go to: http://www.moffattnichol.com/content/small‐business‐outreach



Draft Environmental Assessment with FONSI Transmittal

4/21/2021

1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:52 AMTo: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP; WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325

CES/CEIEC; CINTRON, JOSE J GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE; SHARKEY, KEVIN M GS-13 USAF ACC 325 CES/325 CES/CENP

Cc: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI

All, Good morning! Momentarily, I will be sending via OneDrive the Draft Final EA with FONSI for your review/comment. We would like to have all comments back by May 14th If possible. Please contact me with any questions and thanks for your cooperation..



1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 9:59 AMTo: Lucas, Kelsey; Kristoff, Dan; [email protected]; [email protected]; jose.cintron.1

@us.af.mil; [email protected]: Bruner, Brandon shared the folder "Dupont EA with FONSI" with you.

Bruner, Brandon shared a folder with you

Here's the folder that Bruner, Brandon shared with you.

Dupont EA with FONSI

This link only works for the direct recipients of this message.

Privacy Statement

Open



TAFB Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment with FONSI

5/13/2021

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: FW: Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSIAttachments: CRM FDOT Draft Final Environmental Assessment Dupont Bridge Replacement.docx

BDS.EmailID: 88ca008037ca40f79c1254d2811706fc

From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 7:25 AM To: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Subject: Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI


Mr. Bruner, Attached are the review comments for the Subject EA. Please let me know if you have any questions. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAF Program Manager LBP/Asbestos, NEPA 325 CES/CEIEC 540 Mississippi Ave Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 850-283-2714 DSN 523-2714

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:52 AM To: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; WALLACE, EDWIN B GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>; CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>; SHARKEY, KEVIN M GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/325 CES/CENP <[email protected]> Cc: Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]>; Lucas, Kelsey <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI All, Good morning! Momentarily, I will be sending via OneDrive the Draft Final EA with FONSI for your review/comment. We would like to have all comments back by May 14th If possible. Please contact me with any questions and thanks for your cooperation..


2


Reviewer Information FDOT Draft Final Environmental Assessment for Dupont Bridge Replacement

Initials Name Organization Commercial # Email Date gl Gerald Laver 325 FW/JA 850-283-3238 [email protected] 4 May 21

ebw Edwin Wallace 325 CES/CEIEC 850-283-2714 [email protected] 4 May 21

Comment Response Matrix

Installation or Organization Name – Tyndall AFB Draft Final Environmental Assessment FDOT Dupont Bridge Replacement

DEFINITIONS Critical – Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the EIAP document to be insufficient. Substantive – Comments identifying an item in the document that appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Substantive comments may also identify a future requirement (e.g. consultation, public release, FONPA requirements) which may not currently be critical, but could become critical before completion of the project (e.g. completion of consultation is not required for a preliminary draft EA, but would be needed before signing a FONSI in most cases). Administrative – Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar.

# Location Type of

Comment Comment Reviewer

Initials Response Page Line Sectio

n S, C, A

1 23 6 7.3 A “received by a representative of TAFB” should this be “received from” or “submitted by”?

gl

2 5-9 9-10 A “received by a representative of TAFB” should this be “received from” or “submitted by”?

gl

3 3-18 2-4 3.3.1.3 S “The property is located within TAFB and provides a number of amenities for military employees and family members including a paintball field, skeet range, archery range, boat docks, a pool, and boat rental services”. Is this accurate? Are all these outdoor rec activities provided at that property?

gl

4 3-23 Last A “affect” vice “effect” gl


Comment Response Matrix Installation or Organization Name – Tyndall AFB Draft Final Environmental Assessment FDOT Dupont Bridge

Replacement DEFINITIONS Critical – Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the EIAP document to be insufficient. Substantive – Comments identifying an item in the document that appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Substantive comments may also identify a future requirement (e.g. consultation, public release, FONPA requirements) which may not currently be critical, but could become critical before completion of the project (e.g. completion of consultation is not required for a preliminary draft EA, but would be needed before signing a FONSI in most cases). Administrative – Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar.

# Location Type of

Comment Comment Reviewer

Initials Response Page Line Sectio

n S, C, A

5 3-32 17 3.4.2 A Delete the first “the” - “No comments were received from the any of the Native American Tribes”

gl

6 5-9 9 A “received by a representative of TAFB” should this be “received from” or “submitted by”?

gl

7 3-52 A “No stormwater management facility is proposed on TAFB since it is federal land.” Change to: “No stormwater management facility is proposed on TAFB.

EBW

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16



Responses to TAFB Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment with FONSI

6/7/2021

1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 8:33 AMTo: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIECCc: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: RE: Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSIAttachments: CRM FDOT Draft Final Environmental Assessment Dupont Bridge Replacement.pdf

Hi Edwin, Please find attached our responses to your comments. Let me know if you have any questions.




Mr. Bruner, Attached are the review comments for the Subject EA. Please let me know if you have any questions. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAF Program Manager LBP/Asbestos, NEPA 325 CES/CEIEC 540 Mississippi Ave Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 850-283-2714 DSN 523-2714

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:52 AM To: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; WALLACE, EDWIN B GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>; CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>; SHARKEY, KEVIN M GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/325 CES/CENP <[email protected]> Cc: Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]>; Lucas, Kelsey <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI

2

All, Good morning! Momentarily, I will be sending via OneDrive the Draft Final EA with FONSI for your review/comment. We would like to have all comments back by May 14th If possible. Please contact me with any questions and thanks for your cooperation..



Reviewer Information FDOT Draft Final Environmental Assessment for Dupont Bridge Replacement

Initials Name Organization Commercial # Email Date gl Gerald Laver 325 FW/JA 850-283-3238 [email protected] 4 May 21

ebw Edwin Wallace 325 CES/CEIEC 850-283-2714 [email protected] 4 May 21

Comment Response Matrix

Installation or Organization Name – Tyndall AFB Draft Final Environmental Assessment FDOT Dupont Bridge Replacement

DEFINITIONS Critical – Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the EIAP document to be insufficient. Substantive – Comments identifying an item in the document that appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Substantive comments may also identify a future requirement (e.g. consultation, public release, FONPA requirements) which may not currently be critical, but could become critical before completion of the project (e.g. completion of consultation is not required for a preliminary draft EA, but would be needed before signing a FONSI in most cases). Administrative – Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar.

# Location Type of

Comment Comment

Reviewer

Initials Response

Page Line Section

S, C, A

1 23 6 7.3 A “received by a representative of TAFB” should this be “received from” or “submitted by”?

gl Will change to “Submitted by”

2 5-9 9-10 A “received by a representative of TAFB” should this be “received from” or “submitted by”?


3 3-18 2-4 3.3.1.3 S “The property is located within TAFB and provides a number of amenities for military employees and family members including a paintball field, skeet range, archery range, boat docks, a pool, and boat rental services”. Is this accurate? Are all these outdoor rec activities provided at that property?

gl The outdoor recreation activities provided at the property are based on the website and Facebook page for the property in 2018. The EA notes that this facility is being relocated as part of the Master Plan.

4 3-23 Last A “affect” vice “effect” gl Will change to “affect”


Comment Response Matrix Installation or Organization Name – Tyndall AFB Draft Final Environmental Assessment FDOT Dupont Bridge

Replacement DEFINITIONS Critical – Comments identifying deficiencies that, if not addressed, would cause the EIAP document to be insufficient. Substantive – Comments identifying an item in the document that appears to be, or is potentially, incorrect, misleading, or confusing. Substantive comments may also identify a future requirement (e.g. consultation, public release, FONPA requirements) which may not currently be critical, but could become critical before completion of the project (e.g. completion of consultation is not required for a preliminary draft EA, but would be needed before signing a FONSI in most cases). Administrative – Comments identifying minor inconsistencies between different sections or errors in typography and grammar.

# Location Type of

Comment Comment

Reviewer

Initials Response

Page Line Section

S, C, A

5 3-32 17 3.4.2 A Delete the first “the” - “No comments were received from the any of the Native American Tribes”

gl Agree will delete the first “the”

6 5-9 9 A “received by a representative of TAFB” should this be “received from” or “submitted by”?


7 3-52 A “No stormwater management facility is proposed on TAFB since it is federal land.” Change to: “No stormwater management facility is proposed on TAFB.

EBW Will change as requested.

To add additional rows, place cursor in the bottom right cell and hit << Tab>>.



TAFB Concurrence with Responses to Comments on Draft Environmental

Assessment with FONSI 6/7/2021

1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS-12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 9:10 AMTo: Bruner, BrandonCc: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: RE: Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI

Brandon, We have reviewed your responses and concur. Edwin Wallace, GS‐12, DAF Program Manager LBP/Asbestos, NEPA 325 CES/CEIEC 101 Mississippi Road, B36233 Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 850‐283‐2714 DSN 523‐2714

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 7:33 AM To: WALLACE, EDWIN B GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]> Cc: Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]>; Lucas, Kelsey <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI Hi Edwin, Please find attached our responses to your comments. Let me know if you have any questions.




Mr. Bruner,

2

Attached are the review comments for the Subject EA. Please let me know if you have any questions. Edwin Wallace, GS-12, DAF Program Manager LBP/Asbestos, NEPA 325 CES/CEIEC 540 Mississippi Ave Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403 850-283-2714 DSN 523-2714

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:52 AM To: CHAPMAN, TRAYCEE R GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CENP <[email protected]>; WALLACE, EDWIN B GS‐12 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIEC <[email protected]>; CINTRON, JOSE J GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/CEIE <[email protected]>; SHARKEY, KEVIN M GS‐13 USAF ACC 325 CES/325 CES/CENP <[email protected]> Cc: Kristoff, Dan <[email protected]>; Lucas, Kelsey <[email protected]> Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Dupont Bridge Replacement EA with FONSI All, Good morning! Momentarily, I will be sending via OneDrive the Draft Final EA with FONSI for your review/comment. We would like to have all comments back by May 14th If possible. Please contact me with any questions and thanks for your cooperation..





US Fish and Wildlife Service



Natural Resources Evaluation Transmittal

6/25/2020

From: Alaghemand SherryTo: jeffrey [email protected]: Bruner Brandon; Swanson Pleas Joy; [email protected]; [email protected] milSubject: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development

and Environment Study (PD&E)Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:14:00 PM

You have received 2 secure files from [email protected] the secure links below to download. Dear Dr. Ackley,

Listed species coordination letter and NRE attachment are being provided for your review andcomment/concurrence.

Thank you,Sherry Alaghemand, P.E.Project Development Engineer Environmental Management OfficeFDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-15101074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 [email protected] Secure File Downloads:Available until: 09 July 2020

Click links to download:

442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB

442667-1_Dupont Bridge_NRE_USFWS_TRANS 2020-06-24.pdf128.87 KB









https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui100720201eb94e671b9f140456243598b5a90d62

https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui10072020795fe45d9d34eecd2173d4ad2dd0b192

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CSherry.Alaghemand%40dot.state.fl.us%7C6963eac840174d03e9e708d8192b2635%7Cdb21de5dbc9c420c8f3f8f08f85b5ada%7C0%7C0%7C637287020404655925&sdata=3aQXlLhRNzo0xl%2FQTO%2Fjj34yJ%2BM6bZMmilnAsH469WU%3D&reserved=0



Request for Additional Information on Pile Driving and Blasting

6/29/2020

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff Dan; Lucas KelseySubject: FW: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement

Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)Date: Monday, June 29, 2020 4:14:31 PMAttachments: image001.png


From: Ackley, Jeffrey W <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:09 PMTo: [email protected]: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]: Re: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No.460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) Dear all, We have some concerns about this project given the limited level of detail provided on pile driving and thepotential for blasting. We have tagging data that show this bridge is commonly crossed by sturgeon as aalternative migratory pathway in winter, and the area may well be used by smaller fish for foraging. To get toan NLAA, we would request commitments that eliminate blasting, and include no pile driving from Oct 15-Mar15, ish. As this site is a few minutes from our office, if FDOT has funding for monitoring we (adam) canprobably provide a early warning system that could shorten that window to Nov-Feb, depending onenvironmental conditions if we don't detect tags. This area is a pinch point near the gulf, and I wouldn't wantto see a situation where listed species are trapped on one side or the other during a extended period of piledriving. To avoid this, I would also like to see an 8 hour limit on driving per day, or something to that effect. If we are planning to vibrate small piles, I am much less worried about this than impact driving big ones, but Idon't see that info in the NRE at a first glance. Also would like to know what method (steel piles?) would beused on a temporary work bridge if planned. Please let me know what additional details you can provide,Cheers,jeff Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, EcologistU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:13 PMTo: Ackley, Jeffrey W <[email protected]>Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>Subject: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No.















460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)


Dear Dr. Ackley,


Thank you,Sherry Alaghemand, P.E.Project Development Engineer Environmental Management OfficeFDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-15101074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 [email protected] Secure File Downloads:Available until: 09 July 2020 Click links to download:

442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB




Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selectionand retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submitproposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and anyattachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipientor such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure ofthis communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui100720201eb94e671b9f140456243598b5a90d62&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C5b1c170943014e3f720108d81c68469a%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637290581473991133&sdata=ZBGOWAM11C10o0LyJVf3C8pcCghhEUlBAhIaL4y%2BZsk%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui10072020795fe45d9d34eecd2173d4ad2dd0b192&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C5b1c170943014e3f720108d81c68469a%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637290581474001126&sdata=zrgeko3eouQ9T58wjmOQFLoINrwxgDZ6VTxtbWyqKlg%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C5b1c170943014e3f720108d81c68469a%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637290581474001126&sdata=%2BbU%2Ffng8LiRacmrC2jHFLnu5Z8dKsZXXfvMS%2F4Im%2FEI%3D&reserved=0



Concern regarding Capacity Increase 6/30/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

BDS.EmailID: 5f826ef441814ccab9a9ff758bb55054

From: "Ackley, Jeffrey W" <jeffrey [email protected]> Date: June 30, 2020 at 7:50:06 AM CDT To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

Also, I am all for replacing bridges with structural issues, but why is there a need to double capacity here beyond that of the roadway on either side? The tyndal bypass planned just north of here should reduce the civilian traffic in the area going forward. Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405

From: Ackley, Jeffrey W <jeffrey [email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:08 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

Dear all, We have some concerns about this project given the limited level of detail provided on pile driving and the potential for blasting. We have tagging data that show this bridge is commonly crossed by sturgeon as a alternative migratory pathway in winter, and the area may well be used by smaller fish for foraging. To get to an NLAA, we would request commitments that eliminate blasting, and include no pile driving from Oct 15‐Mar 15, ish. As this site is a few minutes from our office, if FDOT has funding for monitoring we (adam) can probably provide a early warning system that could shorten that window to Nov‐Feb, depending on environmental conditions if we don't detect tags. This area is a pinch point near the gulf, and I wouldn't want to see a situation where listed species are trapped on one side or the other during a extended period of pile driving. To avoid this, I would also like to see an 8 hour limit on driving per day, or something to that effect.

2

If we are planning to vibrate small piles, I am much less worried about this than impact driving big ones, but I don't see that info in the NRE at a first glance. Also would like to know what method (steel piles?) would be used on a temporary work bridge if planned. Please let me know what additional details you can provide, Cheers, jeff Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:13 PM To: Ackley, Jeffrey W <jeffrey [email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)


Dear Dr. Ackley, Listed species coordination letter and NRE attachment are being provided for your review and comment/concurrence. Thank you, Sherry Alaghemand, P.E. Project Development Engineer Environmental Management Office FDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-1510 1074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250 Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486 Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 pm [email protected]

Secure File Downloads: Available until: 09 July 2020 Click links to download:

442667-1-22-01 NRE 2020-06-17.pdf 7.93 MB

442667-1 Dupont Bridge NRE USFWS TRANS 2020-06-24.pdf 128.87 KB


3





Response to Concern regarding Capacity Increase 7/15/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey


BDS.EmailID: 92ca11d2914b485b977a7c3d5a80440d

From: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:24 PM To: Ackley, Jeffrey W <jeffrey [email protected]>; Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]> Cc: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) Dear Dr. Ackley, To best answer your question I will explain the rationale behind the decision. Over the past 50 years, the design of high level bridges has become increasingly more precise, and construction methods and materials have significantly improved. As a result of these advancements, today’s bridges far exceed the lifespan of those that were designed and built 20-50 years ago. Today, it is not uncommon for new bridges to have an estimated life span of 100 years. New bridges have more resilient construction materials and are subject to inspections on two year intervals where preventive maintenance occurs more frequently. The result is the bridges retain their structural integrity for a greater period of time. The proposed Dupont Bridge takes into account both length of service and change in use. The current 4-lane Dupont Bridge was built in the mid-1960s with the life span estimated to be 50-60 years. Using the currently approved transportation model for the area, the long range traffic forecasts indicate the desired capacity of a 4-lane bridge at this location will be exceeded in approximately 40 years - at which time the bridge and the approaching roadway system will require additional lanes. A future widening would be more costly than a one-time construction operation. Material costs and labor will have increased and construction activity will require removing the pedestrian facilities prior to widening the bridge. The marine work will be more piecemeal and more disruptive to the aquatic environment. Department staff have assessed the parameters of completing the bridge for the next hundred years in one operation versus a two-phase process to be more fiscally responsible to taxpayers, be less disruptive to the motorist and non-motorist users, and to minimize overall impact to the aquatic environment. We believe a single one time operation across St. Andrew Bay to be the better option. The proposed DuPont bridge will be striped for 4 lanes until such time in the future when traffic warrants additional travel lanes.


From: Swanson Pleas, Joy Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:27 AM To: Ackley, Jeffrey W <jeffrey [email protected]>; Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]>

2

Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) Let me get with the Project Manager, Brandon Bruner, and get back to you.


From: Ackley, Jeffrey W <jeffrey [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 7:50 AM To: Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>; Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)


Also, I am all for replacing bridges with structural issues, but why is there a need to double capacity here beyond that of the roadway on either side? The tyndal bypass planned just north of here should reduce the civilian traffic in the area going forward. Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405


Dear all, We have some concerns about this project given the limited level of detail provided on pile driving and the potential for blasting. We have tagging data that show this bridge is commonly crossed by sturgeon as a alternative migratory pathway in winter, and the area may well be used by smaller fish for foraging. To get to an NLAA, we would request commitments that eliminate blasting, and include no pile driving from Oct 15‐Mar 15, ish. As this site is a few minutes from our office, if FDOT has funding for monitoring we (adam) can probably provide a early warning system that could shorten that window to Nov‐Feb, depending on environmental conditions if we don't detect tags. This area is a pinch point near the gulf, and I wouldn't want

3

to see a situation where listed species are trapped on one side or the other during a extended period of pile driving. To avoid this, I would also like to see an 8 hour limit on driving per day, or something to that effect. If we are planning to vibrate small piles, I am much less worried about this than impact driving big ones, but I don't see that info in the NRE at a first glance. Also would like to know what method (steel piles?) would be used on a temporary work bridge if planned. Please let me know what additional details you can provide, Cheers, jeff Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405





442667-1-22-01 NRE 2020-06-17.pdf 7.93 MB


4



Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award.

This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



No Objections to Proceeding to Design 7/15/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey


BDS.EmailID: 3602060d7e8148e8b3c882156eba7529

From: Ackley, Jeffrey W <jeffrey [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

Dear Joy, As a follow up to my email on 6/29, we should be able to provide a permit of some kind on this project when additional details become available later in the process. USFWS has no objections to proceeding into the design phase, during which information will become available that will allow us to determine the appropriate level of consultation required under the ESA. Sincerely, Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405


Dear all, We have some concerns about this project given the limited level of detail provided on pile driving and the potential for blasting. We have tagging data that show this bridge is commonly crossed by sturgeon as a alternative migratory pathway in winter, and the area may well be used by smaller fish for foraging. To get to an NLAA, we would request commitments that eliminate blasting, and include no pile driving from Oct 15‐Mar 15, ish. As this site is a few minutes from our office, if FDOT has funding for monitoring we (adam) can probably provide a early warning system that could shorten that window to Nov‐Feb, depending on environmental conditions if we don't detect tags. This area is a pinch point near the gulf, and I wouldn't want to see a situation where listed species are trapped on one side or the other during a extended period of pile driving. To avoid this, I would also like to see an 8 hour limit on driving per day, or something to that effect.

2

If we are planning to vibrate small piles, I am much less worried about this than impact driving big ones, but I don't see that info in the NRE at a first glance. Also would like to know what method (steel piles?) would be used on a temporary work bridge if planned. Please let me know what additional details you can provide, Cheers, jeff Dr. Jeffrey W. Ackley, Ecologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405





442667-1-22-01 NRE 2020-06-17.pdf 7.93 MB



3






US Army Corps of Engineers




6/25/2020







442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB















Response to NRE 6/25/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: FW: [Non-DoD Source] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) (UNCLASSIFIED)

BDS.EmailID: 571f43ea23aa49fca1fc2518335c7ebe

From: Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:53 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; Brandon Bruner <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) (UNCLASSIFIED) Ms. Ovdenk, Thank you for your email. The NRE document and FWS response will be documented within the application submittal to the Corps. Thanks, Sherry Alaghemand, P.E. Project Development Engineer Environmental Management Office FDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-1510 1074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250 Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486 Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 pm [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: OVDENK, CYNTHIA D CIV USARMY CESAJ (US) <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:43 PM To: Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]> Cc: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) (UNCLASSIFIED) EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments. CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

2

Sherry and Joy: Please make sure these documents and subsequent FWS Response are included within the application submittal to the Corps. Thx Thank you, Cynthia Ovdenk, Permits Section Panama City Field Office Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division (850) 287-2045 To find out more about our regulatory program please visit us at: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.saj.usace.army.mil%2FMissions%2FRegulatory.aspx&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C2c6d38330fcf4a8470b408d819416027%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637287115867674849&sdata=FBJ0uJBZvyedu%2B66%2B2SEmJOGvepsAymWMU9mE4TPx4k%3D&reserved=0 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:14 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; OVDENK, CYNTHIA D CIV USARMY CESAJ (US) <[email protected]> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) You have received 2 secure files from [email protected]. Use the secure links below to download. Dear Dr. Ackley, Listed species coordination letter and NRE attachment are being provided for your review and comment/concurrence. Thank you, Sherry Alaghemand, P.E. Project Development Engineer Environmental Management Office FDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-1510 1074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250 Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486 Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 pm [email protected] Secure File Downloads:

3

Available until: 09 July 2020 Click links to download: 442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf <Blockedhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui100720201eb94e671b9f140456243598b5a90d62&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C2c6d38330fcf4a8470b408d819416027%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637287115867674849&sdata=LfIrrjVNeQxWe6tVE7WGMYlCxMivBDpjQM0LqMxmDBc%3D&reserved=0> 7.93 MB 442667-1_Dupont Bridge_NRE_USFWS_TRANS 2020-06-24.pdf <Blockedhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui10072020795fe45d9d34eecd2173d4ad2dd0b192&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C2c6d38330fcf4a8470b408d819416027%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637287115867674849&sdata=YmWf%2FLJTr3fvGoOVvaKLtADozQAi3qH2b1oAvLgjGnc%3D&reserved=0> 128.87 KB Thank you for sharing files securely. Secured by Accellion <Blockedhttps://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C2c6d38330fcf4a8470b408d819416027%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C0%7C637287115867674849&sdata=GcnV%2BuaCu4WKHgd1wF7qDk0gMxSPB3rxLymJsNKFy0o%3D&reserved=0> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.



National Marine Fisheries Service




6/25/2020







442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB















Response to Receiving NRE 6/25/2020

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: FW: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

BDS.EmailID: f73099691d0a47ceb9e94e6fe9b4353f

From: David Rydene ‐ NOAA Federal <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:47 PM To: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: FW: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) Hi Joy, I don't think we necessarily need the letter at this point, it's just that was the way it has usually been done previously. I'm just starting to review the documents, but I notice that smalltooth sawfish were not included. Also, from NMFS perspective we don't really need to do Section 7 consultation on hawksbill or leatherback sea turtles, just green, loggerhead, and Kemp's ridley turtles. USFWS may feel differently about that, although there are no nesting beaches involved with this project. Hope all is well with you, Dave On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:28 PM Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> wrote:

David,

It looked like they only cc:ed in the NMFS. Do I need to have them develop a standalone letter?

Joy Swanson Pleas

Environmental Manager

850-330-1505

From: Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:25 PM To: David Rydene ‐ NOAA Federal <[email protected]> Cc: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>; Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>

2

Subject: RE: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

Dr. Rydene,

There is no transmittal letter to NMFS. A copy of NRE is included, please let us know if you have any comments.

Thanks,

Sherry Alaghemand, P.E.

Project Development Engineer

Environmental Management Office

FDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330‐1510

1074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638‐0250

Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330‐1486

Monday‐ Thursday

6:30 am ‐ 5:00 pm

[email protected]

From: David Rydene ‐ NOAA Federal <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:15 PM To: Alaghemand, Sherry <[email protected]> Subject: Re: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E)

3


Hi Sherry,

The Transmittal Letter in the download was addressed to US Fish and Wildlife. Is there another Transmittal Letter that is specific to NMFS?

Thanks, Dave

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

You have received 2 secure files from [email protected].

Use the secure links below to download.


Secure File Downloads:

Available until: 09 July 2020

4


442667-1-22-01 NRE 2020-06-17.pdf

7.93 MB

442667-1 Dupont Bridge NRE USFWS TRANS 2020-06-24.pdf

128.87 KB



‐‐

David Rydene, Ph.D. Fish Biologist National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Office (727) 824‐5379 Cell (813) 992‐5730 Fax (727) 824‐5300

‐‐ David Rydene, Ph.D. Fish Biologist National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division 263 13th Avenue South

5

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Office (727) 824‐5379 Cell (813) 992‐5730 Fax (727) 824‐5300 Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman‐Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.




July 1, 2020 F/SER46:DR

Ms. Joy Swanson Pleas District 3 Environmental Manager Florida Department of Transportation – District 3 1074 Highway 90 Chipley, Florida 32428-2162 Ref.: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) Financial Project Identification Numbers: 442667-1-22-01, Bay County, Florida Dear Ms. Swanson Pleas: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 3 proposes the replacement of the US 98 (State Road 30) Dupont Bridge from Oakshore Drive to south of the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center in Bay County, Florida. The NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the information you have provided as part of the project’s PD&E phase. This letter responds to your conclusions regarding Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species under NMFS’s purview and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), as part of the reasonable assurance process. You have requested that NMFS review the Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) and provide support for moving the project forward toward determining a finding under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. NMFS believes that, to the extent practicable at this stage of the project, FDOT has addressed NMFS’s previous comments. The NRE proposes to include five species of swimming sea turtles (green, loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and hawksbill); however, we recommend only green, loggerhead, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, as well as smalltooth sawfish be addressed in the Section 7 consultation with NMFS. In addition, compensatory mitigation for the lost ecosystem services due to shading of seagrasses during the time period when the temporary work trestles will be in place should be addressed in the NRE, and monitoring will need to be conducted after the temporary work trestles are removed to demonstrate that the affected seagrasses have, in fact, recovered. The FDOT has determined the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA), Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), and swimming sea turtles including loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). As stated above, NMFS recommends a Section 7 effects determination also be made for smalltooth sawfish (Pristis

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/southeast

2

pectinata). Because FDOT (per NEPA Assignment from the Federal Highway Administration) is requesting the ESA Section 7 consultation for Gulf sturgeon, that consultation will be conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The NMFS cannot provide concurrence or non-concurrence with the NLAA determinations for the ESA-listed species under our purview at this time because sufficiently detailed project information is not yet available for NMFS to conduct an analysis as part of the ESA Section 7 consultation process. In particular, information regarding the pile driving of permanent bridge piles and temporary work trestle piles (e.g., pile type/material, pile size, total number of piles, pile installation methods, and total number of impact hammer strikes or hours of vibratory hammer use per day) should be provided. Uncertainty also remains regarding how construction impacts to ESA-listed species will be minimized. The NMFS would like to see a commitment to only performing in-water pile driving activities during daylight hours. We believe we can provide reasonable assurance that the Section 7 consultation can be completed when sufficient project details are provided and commitments are finalized. The NMFS has reviewed the information regarding permanent and temporary impacts to seagrasses due to the project. It appears the preliminary assessment of impacts to seagrasses is accurate. Therefore, if appropriate compensatory mitigation is provided for unavoidable seagrass impacts, the project will not have an adverse impact on EFH. Further coordination with NMFS will be required to identify appropriate mitigation for seagrass impacts. For the record, we prefer the “East 3” Alternative as it results in the smallest amount of permanent impacts to seagrasses. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact David Rydene at (727) 824-5379, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely, Virginia M. Fay Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division



Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission




6/25/2020

From: Alaghemand SherryTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Swanson Pleas Joy; Bruner Brandon;

[email protected]: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development


You have received 2 secure files from [email protected] the secure links below to download. Dear Agency Commenting Coordinator,


Thank you,

Sherry Alaghemand, P.E.Project Development Engineer Environmental Management OfficeFDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-15101074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 [email protected] Secure File Downloads:Available until: 09 July 2020


442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB

442667-1_Dupont Bridge_NRE_FWC_TRANS 2020-06-24.pdf109.36 KB











https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui100720207b71b0c16c3569fdc416537cf743f9aa

https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui10072020ca24fe470aa4e4b4c976b5a5c7fad50e

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CSherry.Alaghemand%40dot.state.fl.us%7Cbf3173c6368942e14b8c08d8192c41eb%7Cdb21de5dbc9c420c8f3f8f08f85b5ada%7C0%7C0%7C637287025166669278&sdata=rXA680Z1DZvBU1YDsGT7H9UHUGulXqPFBs7FZmlbmHM%3D&reserved=0




Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Commissioners Robert A. Spottswood Chairman Key West Michael W. Sole Vice Chairman Tequesta Rodney Barreto Coral Gables Steven Hudson Fort Lauderdale Gary Lester Oxford Gary Nicklaus Jupiter Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Office of the Executive Director Eric Sutton Executive Director Thomas H. Eason, Ph.D. Assistant Executive Director Jennifer Fitzwater Chief of Staff 850-487-3796 850-921-5786 FAX Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people. 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Voice: 850-488-4676 Hearing/speech-impaired: 800-955-8771 (T) 800 955-8770 (V) MyFWC.com

July 24, 2020 Joy Swanson Pleas Environmental Manager Florida’s Department of Transportation District 3 1074 Highway 90 Chipley, FL 32428 [email protected] Re: State Road 30 (US-98) over St Andrews Bay Intracoastal Waterway, Dupont

Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development and Environmental Study, Natural Resource Evaluation, Bay County

Dear Ms. Swanson Pleas: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff reviewed the Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) for the above-referenced project in accordance with Chapter 379, Florida Statutes and Rule 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code. FWC staff previously provided technical assistance on this project through the Florida Department of Transportation’s Environmental Screening Tool (ETDM #14347) in May 2018. FWC staff have no additional comments regarding the subject NRE and agree with the determinations of effect and project commitments for protected species. If you have specific technical questions regarding this information, please contact Terry Gilbert at (850) 728-1103 or by email at [email protected]. For all other inquiries, please contact our office by email at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Jason Hight Land Use Planning Administrator Office of Conservation Planning Services jh/tg US-98 Dupont Bridge Replacement NRE_42033_07242020





Florida Department of Environmental Protection




6/25/2020

From: Alaghemand SherryTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Swanson Pleas Joy; Bruner Brandon;

[email protected]: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement Project Development




Thank you,

Sherry Alaghemand, P.E.Project Development Engineer Environmental Management OfficeFDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-15101074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 [email protected] Secure File Downloads:Available until: 09 July 2020


442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB

442667-1_Dupont Bridge_NRE_FWC_TRANS 2020-06-24.pdf109.36 KB











https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui100720207b71b0c16c3569fdc416537cf743f9aa

https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui10072020ca24fe470aa4e4b4c976b5a5c7fad50e

https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CSherry.Alaghemand%40dot.state.fl.us%7Cbf3173c6368942e14b8c08d8192c41eb%7Cdb21de5dbc9c420c8f3f8f08f85b5ada%7C0%7C0%7C637287025166669278&sdata=rXA680Z1DZvBU1YDsGT7H9UHUGulXqPFBs7FZmlbmHM%3D&reserved=0



Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service




8/4/2020

From: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected]; Lucas Kelsey; Kristoff DanSubject: State Road (SR) 30 (US 98) over St. Andrew Bay Intracoastal Waterway Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study, Listed

Species Coordination/Transmittal of Natural Resource EvaluationDate: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:37:47 AM


Listed species coordination letter and NRE attachment are being provided for your review and comment. Should youhave any questions or comments concerning the proposed project, please do not hesitate to contact Project ManagerBrandon Bruner at (850) 845-0308 or via email at [email protected].

Thank youSherry Alaghemand, P.E.Project Development Engineer Environmental Management OfficeFDOT District 3 Office: (850) 330-15101074 Hwy 90 Main: (850) 638-0250Chipley, FL 32428 Fax: (850) 330-1486Monday- Thursday 6:30 am - 5:00 [email protected] Secure File Downloads:Available until: 18 August 2020


442667-1_Dupont Bridge_NRE_FDACS_TRANS 2020-08-03.pdf110.42 KB

442667-1-22-01 NRE_2020-06-17.pdf7.93 MB










https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui190820200bcd1f2daec216e5f5572ad70f21d6d5

https://fdotfta.dot.state.fl.us/seos/1084/mpd/ui190820208b5403a4d80325b50d25c1e284004ee2

http://www.accellion.com/



Appendix C

Tribal Coordination



CRAS Transmittal to the Tribes

From: Brandon BrunerTo: Kristoff Dan; Lucas KelseySubject: FW: Coordination on Dupont BridgeDate: Thursday, June 11, 2020 12:35:41 PMAttachments: image001.png


From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 10:12 AMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; Brandon Bruner <[email protected]>; [email protected]: Coordination on Dupont Bridge


Good Morning,

Please see the attached letter and CRAS. Thank you!

-Brittany Bianco Secure File Downloads:Available until: 25 June 2020 Click links to download:

Seminole FL.pdf180.94 KB

442667-1-22-01_Dupont_CRAS_FINAL.pdf20.33 MB



Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.and its related companies will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selectionand retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submitproposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication and anyattachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may containinformation which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipientor such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure ofthis communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.





https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui260620204e8930a3e3f043a5cbf0e4002fbbbb61&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C5a697a43d6554f214f5e08d80e19d520%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C1%7C637274851407425614&sdata=hac1l%2BV7LrK%2FvM0sQt2bc0Obz7CCWIXienFasrzrfwc%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffdotfta.dot.state.fl.us%2Fseos%2F1084%2Fmpd%2Fui260620207772ccfd7f3e85f46018d8e0a2495bbb&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C5a697a43d6554f214f5e08d80e19d520%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C1%7C637274851407435602&sdata=kiM7In2nK%2FS14BCQrTLahAFZRhv6fJRhE9DKKib4Yyc%3D&reserved=0

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accellion.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbbruner%40gpinet.com%7C5a697a43d6554f214f5e08d80e19d520%7C46fdd3b402d24121a5621f51ee5848b4%7C0%7C1%7C637274851407435602&sdata=vLjg7UJmF22LT%2BuQ54jNEctsc7mFUsnXONOcA7GrA5I%3D&reserved=0



Seminole Tribe of Florida Response

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: THPO - FW: Coordination on Dupont Bridge

BDS.EmailID: 7ee8a8f56a934a0eb86d21eb6dcf8f64

From: Victoria Menchaca <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:29 PM To: Bianco, Brittany <[email protected]> Cc: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; Jackson, Roy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Coordination on Dupont Bridge


July 14, 2020 Brittany A. Bianco Project Delivery Coordinator FDOT, Office of Environmental Management 605 Suwannee St. Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850)414-5217 [email protected] Subject: FHWA Replacement of SR 30 (US 90) Dupont Bridge over St. Andrew/Gulf ICWW, Bay County FL THPO #: 0030461 Dear Ms. Bianco,

2

Thank you for contacting the Seminole Tribe of Florida – Tribal Historic Preservation Office (STOF-THPO) regarding the Cultural Resources Assessment Survey for the FHWA Replacement of SR 30 (US 90) Dupont Bridge over St. Andrew/GulfICWW, Bay County FL. The proposed undertaking does fall within the STOF Area of Interest. We have reviewed thedocuments provided and completed our assessment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and itsimplementing authority, 36 CFR 800. We have no objections to the project at this time. However, please notify us if anyarchaeological, historical, or burial resources are inadvertently discovered. Sincerely,

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

From: Victoria Menchaca Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:22 AM To: Bianco, Brittany <[email protected]> Cc: Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]>; Jackson, Roy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Coordination on Dupont Bridge

Hi Brittany, I apologize we have been really swamped lately. Could you please send these again and could we have another week to review? Sincerely, Victoria Menchaca, M.A., RPA Compliance Review Specialist Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Historic Preservation Office 30290 Josie Billie Hwy, PMB 1004 Clewiston, FL 33440 Tel: 863‐983‐6549 Ext: 12216 Email: [email protected]

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:12 AM To: THPO Compliance <[email protected]>

3

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Coordination on Dupont Bridge

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Good Morning, Please see the attached letter and CRAS. Thank you! -Brittany Bianco


Seminole FL.pdf 180.94 KB

442667-1-22-01 Dupont CRAS FINAL.pdf 20.33 MB







Muscogee (Creek) Nation Response

1

Lucas, Kelsey

Subject: RE: Coordination for Dupont Bridge

BDS.EmailID: c1a6f7b01da84cd38808c5ac6a849c2c

From: Section106 <Section106@mcn‐nsn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 10:57 AM To: Bianco, Brittany <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Coordination for Dupont Bridge


Good morning Ms. Bianco, Thank you for sending the correspondence regarding the proposed replacement of Dupont Bridge over St. Andrew Bay/Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Bay County, Florida. Bay County is located within the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's historic area of interest and is of importance to us. After review, the Muscogee Nation is aware of 8BY92 and 8BY132 within the APE. However, since STPs did not recover any archaeological materials from either site, then the Muscogee (Creek) Nation concurs that there should be no adverse effects to the known sites and that work should continue as planned. However, due to the historic presence of Muscogee people in the project areas, inadvertent discoveries of human remains and related NAGPRA items may occur, even in areas of existing or prior development. Should this occur, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation requests that all work cease and our office as well as other appropriate agencies be notified immediately. This stipulation should be implemented into the project plans to ensure that contractors are aware of it. Any changes to the approved scope of work for this project will require re-submission to, and evaluation and approval by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation prior to initiation of any work for compliance with Section 106. I'm sorry for the late response as I am trying to catch back up on these backlogged projects. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Robin Soweka Jr.

Historic and Cultural Preservation Department | Cultural Resource Specialist

Muscogee (Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 580 | Okmulgee, OK 74447

T 918.732.7726

F 918.758.0649

2

http://www.muscogeenation-nsn.gov/

From: Bianco, Brittany <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 9:56 AM To: Section106 <Section106@mcn‐nsn.gov> Cc: Jackson, Roy <[email protected]>; Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>; Swanson Pleas, Joy <[email protected]> Subject: Coordination for Dupont Bridge Good Morning, Please see the attached letter and CRAS. Thank you!

Brittany A. Bianco Project Delivery Coordinator- Sociocultural Effects/PI FDOT, Office of Environmental Management 605 Suwannee St. Tallahassee, FL 32399 (850)414-5217 [email protected]



Appendix D

Coastal Zone Management Act Determination

Category: FHWA Funding Other Federal Permit USCG Bridge Permit Review Type: Consistency Type: State Agency Date Closed: 03/20/2018 Project DescriptionThis project will replace the existing DuPont Bridge (No. 460019) on SR 30 (US 98) in Bay County. The project limits are

from the Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center to Oakshore Drive, a distance of approximately one mile. The current

DuPont bridge is a four lane facility as is SR 30 (US 98) on the approaches to the bridge. The new bridge would be

capable of accommodating six lanes of traffic but it will be striped as a four lane facility until future capacity is needed.

CFDA

Routing / Consistency

Consistency NotesNo Notes Recorded. Applicant Information

Funding Alternative 1

Federal Consistency: Consistent, With Comments Comments:

Track State Clearinghouse Projects Report

#14347 SR 30 (US 98) DuPont Bridge (No. 460019) ReplacementDistrict: District 3 Phase: Programming ScreenCounty: Bay From: Bonita Bay Rec Center EntrancePlanning Organization: FDOT District 3 To: Oakshore DrivePlan ID: Not Available Financial Management No.: 442667-1-22-01Federal Involvement: FHWA Funding Other Federal Permit USCG Bridge Permit

Contact Information: Iris Waters 8503301625 [email protected] Data From: Programming Screen ETAT Review Started on 01/19/2018 by Peggy Kelley

Program Information

Number Department Agency Title

20.205 Department of Transportation Federal Highway AdministrationHighway Planning andConstruction Grant Program

Date Received Routed Comment Due Letter DueExtensionRequested Revision Due 1 Revision Due 2

01/19/2018 01/19/2018 03/05/2018 03/20/2018No ExtensionRequested No Revision Due No Revision Due

Applicant Name Address City State Zip Phone Email

FDOT District 3 Iris Waters 1074 US-90 Chipley FL 32428 8503301625Iris.Waters@dot.

state.fl.us

Segment Funding Sources AmountSegment #1 Funding source not specified --

Federal Consistency Determination

Page 1 of 4 Track State Clearinghouse Projects Report Printed on: 5/14/2019

Please see FWC's comments on the proposed project.

Definitions

Finding Definition

Consistent

Based on the information contained in the Advance Notification and comments submitted by the reviewingagencies, the state has no objections to allocation of federal funds for the subject project and, therefore, thefunding award is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. State agency comments should beconsidered in developing the preliminary project design. For projects subject to coastal managementconsistency review that advance to the work program, the final review of the project's consistency with theFlorida Coastal Management Program will be conducted during the environmental permitting review.

Consistent, WithComments

Although the final alignment and design details have not yet been determined, at this time the State of Floridahas no objections to the project concept described in the Advance Notification and no objections to theallocation of federal funds for the necessary planning, preliminary design and environmental evaluationactivities. Therefore, the funding award is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. Specificcomments and recommendations concerning the project concept have been submitted to the project sponsorthrough the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process. Specific objections to the project, if any,that have been identified during ETDM will be resolved through the ETDM conflict resolution (Part IV, AOA)process prior to the project advancing in the FDOT Five-Year Work Program for any purpose other than technicalstudies and preliminary design to resolve the objections. For projects subject to coastal managementconsistency review that advance to final design, right-of-way acquisition or construction, the final review of theproject's consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program will be conducted during the environmentalpermitting review.

InconsistentThe project has been determined to be inconsistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. Unless theobjections are addressed and the project determined to be consistent, the project shall not proceed further inthe programming and PD&E phases.

Federal Consistency ReviewsFL Department of Agriculture and Consumer ServicesFinding: Consistent on 02/23/2018Comments:The Chipola Forestry Center is close to this project. Please do not impact their operations.

FL Department of Economic OpportunityFinding: Consistent on 03/05/2018Comments:No federal consistency review comments were found.

FL Department of StateFinding: Consistent on 02/26/2018Comments:No federal consistency review comments were found.


The following agencies are required to review federal consistency, but no federal consistency finding has been receivedfor the selected screening event: - FL Department of Environmental Protection

The following agencies were invited to review the AN for consistency, but no general AN comment has been receivedfor the selected screening event: - FDOT Office of Environmental Management- FIHS Central Office- FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services- FL Department of Economic Opportunity- FL Department of Environmental Protection- FL Department of State

FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation CommissionFinding: Consistent, With Comments on 03/05/2018Comments:Plant community mapping and wildlife surveys for the occurrence of wildlife species listed by the Federal EndangeredSpecies Act as Endangered or Threatened, or by the State of Florida as Threatened should be performed along theROW and within sites proposed for DRA's or equipment staging, and storage of materials.

Based on the survey results, a plan should be developed to address direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the projecton wildlife and habitat resources, including listed species. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures should alsobe formulated and implemented. A compensatory mitigation plan should include the replacement of wetland, upland, oraquatic habitat functional values for listed species which are lost due to the project. Replacement habitat for mitigationshould be type for type, as productive, and equal to or of higher functional value.

We recommend that FDOT make a commitment to adhere to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and USFWSConstruction Special Provisions, Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines, commit and adhere to the most current guidelinesfor protection of the Florida manatee within the FWC's Manatee and Sea Turtle Construction Conditions for In-waterWork Associated with Florida Department of Transportation Projects (2012) and thatthe applicant refer to the FWC'sGopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines (Revised January 2017) (<A href="http://www.myfwc.com/license/wildlife/gopher-tortoise-permits/%20">http://www.myfwc.com/license/wildlife/gopher-tortoise-permits/</A>) for survey methodology andpermitting guidance.

Northwest Florida Water Management DistrictFinding: Consistent on 02/27/2018Comments:62-330 F.A.C. ERP permit required. DEP will be the permitting agency for the bridge crossing

Advance Notification / Federal Consistency CommentsNorthwest Florida Water Management District (03/01/2018)N/A

US Army Corps of Engineers (02/22/2018)The purpose and need is understood. The Corps concurs with the initial assessment of Wetlands and Surface Water and

Navigation issues. Further comments on project effects are provided in the Review Project tool.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (02/05/2018)None at this time.


- FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission- Federal Transit Administration- National Marine Fisheries Service- National Park Service- Natural Resources Conservation Service- Seminole Tribe of Florida- US Coast Guard- US Environmental Protection Agency




Appendix E

Planning Consistency Documentation



Planning Consistency Form

Document Information:Date: 6/2/2021 EA Document Status: Draft

Project Name: Dupont Bridge Replacement PD&E Study FM #: 442667-1-22-01

Project Limits: Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center to Oak Shore Drive ETDM #: 14347

Are the limits consistent with the plans?

Identify MPO(s) (if applicable): Bay County TPO Original PD&E FAP#:

CurrentlyAdopted CFP-LRTP

Y

Currently Approved TIP/STIP TIP/STIP

TIP $ FY

PE (Final Design)Y Y $3.3M / $2.6M 2021 & 2024 /

2021 & 2024

R/WY Y $10.0M / $10.0M 2023 & 2024 /

2023 & 2024

ConstructionY Y $178.7M / $182.6M 2024 /

2024

*Attach: LRTP, TIP, STIP pages

The difference is greater than $2,000,000 but less than 20%, so no amendment is required.

COMMENTS

Yes (Page E-6)

Planning Requirements for Environmental Document Approvals

Document Type:

PHASE COMMENTSCurrently Approved

STIP

Yes



Bay County TIP (2021 – 2025)

FY 2021 – 2025

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Adopted: July 22, 2020

Amended:

“…planning for the transportation needs of the Panama City Urbanized Area…”

Bay TPO Transportation Improvement Program - FY 2020/21 - 2024/25

Transportation Improvement Program FY 21-25 (Adopted July 22, 2020)Section 1- Bridge, Page 3

4426671 SR 30 (US 98) SIS

Work Summary:

Lead Agency:

From:

To:

Length:

LRTP #:

Prior Cost < 2020/21:Future Cost > 2024/25:Total Project Cost:Project Description:

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

FDOT

OVER ST ANDREWS BAY ICWWBRIDGE

BRIDGE NO. 460019

.520 MI

#1 in Amend. Report p.E-6

2,304,7060194,313,602SR 30 (US 98) Bridge Replacement over St. Andrews Bay

PhaseFund

Source 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Total

PE ACBR 2,170,000 0 0 1,162,000 0 3,332,000ROW ACBR 0 0 5,100,000 4,900,000 0 10,000,000DSB BNBR 0 0 0 150,000,000 0 150,000,000DSB ACBR 0 0 0 28,676,896 0 28,676,896

Total 2,170,000 0 5,100,000 184,738,896 0 192,008,896



Bay County 2040 LRTP

Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan

Amendment Report

BAY COUNTY 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION

PLAN

Prepared for

Bay County Transportation Planning Organization and

The Florida Department of Transportation, District Three

Prepared by

West Florida Regional Planning Council

Staff to the Bay County

Transportation Planning Organization

August 2018

This report was financed in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, the

Federal Transit Administration, the Florida Department of Transportation, and local participating governments, and

submitted in partial fulfillment of Task C.2 of the FY 2019-2020 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). This

document does not necessarily reflect the official reviews or polices of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Needs Plan and Cost Feasible Plan Amendment E-6

Project From To Improvement U/R Phase 2015-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2040 Totals Beyond 2040Urban PD&E 2,020,000$ 2,020,000$

Design 3,759,680$ 3,759,680$

ROW -$ -$

CST/CEI 136,400,000$ 136,400,000$

142,179,680$

Grand Totals 2,020,000$ 140,159,680$ 142,179,680$

ROW & CST 136,400,000$ 136,400,000$

PE Funds 2,020,000$ 3,759,680$ 5,779,680$

142,179,680$

*The PDE will determine if additonal capacity is needed.

Bridge Replacement Project Listing

SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge *Additional Capacity



FDOT Approved STIP

�� !��"��#�$��

%��$"&��'��($�)��)"��)'�)!"�'�"!$$��$$"�"��$��"�"��$)�"$* ��

+,-,./0�12-�3/4/5,6,47��89��%��:��

�+;<=�>6,.5,4?@�=./A,0�10,.7B��'��%�� !��"��!��C�$��"��D�"��%��'��(��$��")+0E.2-/�;,F/.76,47�EG=H1IJK<H=1=L<IM�N$��"�O��O��$�O��"��P��Q�!��8�� N"��$"�R��''� �" ��'�� "S,T�1FF02?/72E4 �J=LK�K.EU,?7�;,7/20�/4-�JV66/.2,W�<4024,�H,FE.7�XX�H,F/@6,47�KY/W,W�/.,�4E7�24?0V-,-�24�7Y,�=E7/0W�XXJ,0,?72E4�Z.27,.2/�1FF.EA,-�J=LK� �;,7/20��+24/4?2/0�K.EU,?7B[[�\\]��H,0/7,-�L7,6W�JYE 4��ZEV47@_3K<�1.,/B�9� �aLbaS1cJL7,6�IV6T,.B�[[�\\]�� K.EU,?7�;,W?.2F72E4B��#�d��eN��fgh�iM#��j�#M��k��8��#��lM�j)�[\��f m��m;2W7.2?7B��d ZEV47@B��k =@F,�EG�SE.nB�#��lM�#M ��8M�Mj K.EU,?7�o,457YB��)�� +2W?/0�c,/.KY/W,�_�H,WFE4W2T0,�15,4?@ pqrqs qrqs qrqqqrqt qrqu vqrqu100�c,/.WK�;�w�>�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B# ��M�#��lM�#M ��8M�Mj �C��fCg\\ qyqszy{||��P��M��j�PN�M� #�N8��N # ��Cd]� gC\�� qryrrr��M� #��#k�P�lP��k��R� g[C\�� {uy|qqKY/W,BK�;�w�>=E7/0Wqyts}y{|t {y|q} qytquyu{{�KH>oL3LI1Hc�>IbLI>>HLIb�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �C�\�C�� sys|qyrrr�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �C�]�C�� qys~ryrrrKY/W,BKH>oL3LI1Hc�>IbLI>>HLIb=E7/0W qys~ryrrr sys|qyrrr tyttqyrrr�HLba=�<+�S1c�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �C��C�� [Cf��C�� sryrrryrrr;>JLbI�x�Lo;�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �gC\]\Cgf\ q{y|~|y{z|

�� !��"��#�$��

%��$"&��'��($�)��)"��)'�)!"�'�"!$$��$$"�"��$��"�"��$)�"$* ��

+,+#��-,��-,�.�+,��/+#��0-�1 ��2��2�� 34565556555789:;<=>?@AB�CD@E=FGH9I: 3JK6LJL6KML 3JK6LJL6KML@H;N<OOPLLJ�3FGH9I:P6Q346KLQP63JK6LP4 4635565553KO6JQK6KML 3MO6QQQ6QKO7RGS;TH�FGH9I:P6Q346KLQP63JK6LP4 4635565553KO6JQK6KML 3MO6QQQ6QKOU@AUVWX?FGH9I:P6Q346KLQP63JK6LP4 4635565553KO6JQK6KML 3MO6QQQ6QKOAR9YZ�FGH9IP6Q346KLQP63JK6LP4 4635565553KO6JQK6KML 3MO6QQQ6QKO�%�"�"��"��[\��%��''� ��'��]� ��+!��2�� !(��2��2��%�""��2��_�_ )��'��$��"��a!�"��"�� "��&��b\��%��c�&�b\��%��)��c�d��)"��)'�)!"�� e��.�.�...e#�� fgghT;�UGN;<�''� ��'��]� ��b�� i"-�$��\��\��) �� '�� '�� \��[� �� "�j�,�� "� � � � �k��`��$��'��"$��$��'��"$��lGY:h:H;YH6�7R;ZhTH9mI;6�n;o;9H9mI;



FDOT Current STIP

�� !��"��#�$��

%��$"&��'��($�)��)"��)'�)!"�'�"!$$��$$"�"��$��"�"��$)�"$* ��

+,-,./0�12-�3/4/5,6,47��89��%��:��

�+;<=�>6,.5,4?@�=./A,0�10,.7B��'��%�� !��"��!��C�$��"��D�"��%��'��(��$��")+0E.2-/�;,F/.76,47�EG=H1IJK<H=1=L<IM�N$��"�O��O��$�O��"��P��Q�!��8�� N"��$"�R��''� �" ��'�� "S,T�1FF02?/72E4 �J=LK�K.EU,?7�;,7/20�/4-�JV66/.2,W�<4024,�H,FE.7�XX�H,F/@6,47�KY/W,W�/.,�4E7�24?0V-,-�24�7Y,�=E7/0W�XXJ,0,?72E4�Z.27,.2/�ZV..,47�J=LK� �;,7/20��+24/4?2/0�K.EU,?7B[[�\\]��H,0/7,-�L7,6W�JYE 4��ZEV47@_3K<�1.,/B�9� �aLbaS1cJL7,6�IV6T,.B�[[�\\]�� K.EU,?7�;,W?.2F72E4B��#�d��eN��fgh�iM#��j�#M��k��8��#��lM�j)�[\��f m��m;2W7.2?7B��d ZEV47@B��k =@F,�EG�SE.nB�#��lM�#M ��8M�Mj K.EU,?7�o,457YB��)�� +2W?/0�c,/.KY/W,�_�H,WFE4W2T0,�15,4?@ pqrqs qrqs qrqqqrqt qrqu vqrqu100�c,/.WK�;�w�>�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B# ��M�#��lM�#M ��8M�Mj �C��fCg\\ qyqszy{||��P��M��j�PN�M� #�N8��N # ��C\d\ gC\�� qryq|s��M� #��#k�P�lP��k��R� ��Cg]g \�C��f s}syst}KY/W,BK�;�w�>=E7/0Wqytt}yt{r }ty{{u qyussyq|u�KH>oL3LI1Hc�>IbLI>>HLIb�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �C�\�C�� sys|qyrrr�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �C[]fC��\ syu}zys~|KY/W,BKH>oL3LI1Hc�>IbLI>>HLIb=E7/0W syu}zys~| sys|qyrrr qy|usys~|�HLba=�<+�S1c�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h �C��C�� [Cf��C�� sryrrryrrr;>JLbI�x�Lo;�_�31I1b>;�xc�+;<=+V4-�ZE-,B�8 #��i�j8M�8j�#N8�j�e#h d\Cdg]C�g� t|yt{}y~{q

�� !��"��#�$��

%��$"&��'��($�)��)"��)'�)!"�'�"!$$��$$"�"��$��"�"��$)�"$* ��

+,+#��-,��-,�.�+,��/+#��0-�1 �.23��432�� 567895:8799;<=>?@ABCDEF�GHDIAJKL=M> 5N987OP89O6 5N987OP89O6DL?Q@66977P�5JKL=M>98RRP8RNO58SSR8O6O S85OO8OOO5NN877:89O6 5:P87S:8796;TKU?VL�JKL=M>98RRP8RNO58SSR8O6O S85OO8OOO5NN877:89O6 5:P87S:8796WDEWXYZCJKL=M>98RRP8RNO58SSR8O6O S85OO8OOO5NN877:89O6 5:P87S:8796ET=[\�JKL=M98RRP8RNO58SSR8O6O S85OO8OOO5NN877:89O6 5:P87S:8796�%�"�"��"��]��%��''� ��'��_� ��+!��3�� 2��!(��3��3��%�""��3��44)��'��$��"��a!�"��"�� "��&��b��%��c�&�b��%��)��c�d��)"��)'�)!"�� e��.�.�...e#�� fgghV?�WKQ?@�''� ��'��_� ��b�� i"-�$�� ) �� '�� '�� ]� �� "�j�,�� "� � � � �k��442��4��$��'��"$��$��'��"$��lK[>h>L?[L8�;T?\hVL=mM?8�n?o?=L=mM?



Appendix F

Agency and Government Meeting Minutes



3/12/2019 – FDOT and TAFB Kickoff Meeting

RS&H, Inc FL Cert Nos AAC001886•IB26000956•LCC000210

MEETING MINUTES

Project: SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge

Replacement PD&E Study

FPID No: Contract No.:

442667-1-22-02 CA015

Meeting Place: Tyndall Air Force Base Meeting Date: 3/12/2019 Participants:

See participant list

Meeting Time:

2:00 p.m. (CDT)

Purpose: Tyndall Air Force Base – Meeting No.1

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019, a meeting was held at Tyndall Air Force Base in Bay County. The purpose of the meeting was to give Tyndall Air Force representatives an update on the alternatives development and status of the Dupont Bridge PD&E Study and to receive information from Tyndall on the base recovery activities and long term plans. Opening Remarks

• Brandon kicked off the meeting by introducing himself as the FDOT Consultant Project Manager and Alan Vann the FDOT representative for the project as well as the FDOT consultant for the project, RS&H.

• Introductions were made by the Tyndall representatives. • The consultant team responsibilities were explained as follows:

o RS&H – Prime for the project, responsible for concept development and NEPA document.

o H.W. Lochner – Responsible for natural environment, drainage, and utility coordination efforts.

o SEARCH – Responsible for cultural resources (including marine archeological). o EGS – Responsible for contamination and geotechnical effort (including soil borings on

land and over in the bay). o Other consultants for public involvement, surveying, aerial photography, and structural

analysis support but will not involve coordination with Tyndall.

Page 2 of 6

Presentation • Brandon went through a presentation covering some existing condition features, the current

alternatives under consideration, and the schedule (to-date). A summary of the presentation content is as follows:

o The Dupont Bridge PD&E Study started in July but in October the project stalled while efforts were shifted to the recovery effort after Hurricane Michael.

o The Dupont Bridge is structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and has insufficient vertical clearance.

o Adding capacity to the Dupont Bridge is part of the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) and scope for the project.

o The Dupont Bridge was built in 1965 and in mid-1990’s dolphins were added to protect the bridge. The bridge barely avoids being posted for weight loading. Sufficiency continues to decline and repairs to the Dupont Bridge may be necessary prior to the completion of this project.

o The dolphins are likely needed to remain until the new bridge is constructed and in operation. The existing dolphins have a 55-foot diameter and extend to a depth of over a 100 feet in the bay.

o The new foundation cannot be constructed on top of the existing foundation footprint. The main channel piers may require blasting to remove.

o The Dupont Bridge has a history of being hit by vessels and a study was done in 2016. A new vessel study will be required for this project and is anticipated to be performed around Memorial Day.

o The existing horizontal clearance is 150 feet (which meets requirements) but the clearance is not oriented along the skew which is approximately 14 degrees.

o Only seven crashes were reported in the last five years (2013 to 2017), so crash trends are not a driving force in this project. Only one fatality and it involved a driver travelling at over 100 mph. The lack of crashes in the study area gives some flexibility for design variations and exceptions that may be required.

o Two of the more important utilities in the corridor are a 6-inch natural gas pipeline and a 16-inch water main attached to the bridge.

o The Existing TIITF easement is 300 feet on either side of the Dupont Bridge centerline. But narrows on the landfall to 100 feet on either side of the centerline on the Tyndall approach and to 90 feet on either side of the centerline on the City of Parker approach.

o We know there may be some potentially historic resources and we will do a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) to confirm historic and archaeological resources in the study area. At this point, it is not anticipated that the Dupont Bridge will be eligible for listing but it was specifically exempt from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program comment on post-WWI bridges.

Page 3 of 6

o There are a number of protected species in the study area including: gulf sturgeon, eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, manatee, sea turtles, and red-cockaded woodpecker. An NRE will be prepared for this project and will cover protected species and wetlands.

o U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) will be a major player on this project and will ultimately issue the bridge permit.

o Two parks in the study area: Bonita Bay Recreational Complex and Earl Gilbert Park. The Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Complex is owned and operated by Tyndall Air Force Base and appears to be available for military personnel and their family. Tyndall representative confirmed that Bonita Bay is not open to the public and is

not a Section 4(f) resource. o An Air Space Study will be prepared for this study. The proposed bridge will have ten

feet more vertical clearance and therefore a higher profile than the existing bridge. Light poles on the proposed bridge will be analyzed for consistency with Air Space Study requirements. Also, during construction, cranes on barges could also be a consideration.

o The proposed typical section includes two structures with three 12-foot lanes, 10-foot shoulders, and a 6-foot sidewalk. The additional lane in each direction is anticipated to be stripped out until capacity warrants the additional lane.

o The proposed profile accommodates a 65-foot vertical clearance. A 12.6-foot max wave crest was utilized per the hydraulic technical memorandum prepared for the project. The east alternatives have a more drastic elevation difference on the Tyndall approach than the alternatives on the west side of the existing bridge.

o The original east alternative had dual structures east of and parallel to the existing bridge and dolphins. This alternative would propose to replace the existing curve with one that met 50-mph criteria. The existing curve on the Tyndall approach does not meet current 50-mph requirements. To keep this existing curve, a design variation or exception would be required. Although that should not be that difficult considering the low crash rate on this segment of roadway.

o East Alternative 1 – Has dual structures east of the existing structure and dolphins, replaces the existing Tyndall curve with a 50 mph curve and has a curve across the bay.

o East Alternative 2 – Has dual structures east of the existing structure and dolphins, extends the existing Tyndall curve, and has a curve across the bay.

o East Alternative 3 – Has a single structure east of the dolphins and a single structure on top of the existing bridge footprint. This alternative utilizes the existing curve on the Tyndall approach.

o The original west alternative had dual structures west of a parallel to the existing bridge and dolphins. This alternative proposed to replace the existing curve with one that meets 50-mph criteria.

Page 4 of 6

o West Alternative 1 – Has dual structures west of and parallel to the existing structure and dolphins and utilizes the existing curve on the Tyndall approach.

o West Alternative 2 – Has a single structure west of the dolphins and a single structure on top of the existing bridge footprint. This alternative utilizes the existing curve on the Tyndall approach.

o Based on the schedule to-date, we are in data collection mode and alternatives development. An Alternatives meeting is tentatively proposed in August 2019. All dates on the schedule are subject to change.

Questions and Comments

• Brandon asked about the future Tyndall Air Force Base plans. At this stage, with the current information, any of the alternatives presented can work. Alternatives on the east side require more additional right-of-way/easement and have a bigger elevation difference at landfall. Alternatives on the west side impact Bonita Bay and have potential access issues to the site.

• Tyndall representatives mentioned that Bonita Bay is not only a recreational area but also a mission area for drone activities. The dock area is part of the mission area.

• In addition, Tyndall representatives indicated that the current turn lane into Bonita Bay is very short and flatbed trucks that transport the drones are almost run off the road by speeding drivers. The turn lane is very important and potentially extending the turn lane would beneficial.

• The comment was made that the further the alternative from the landing strip is probably beneficial. However, since this is strictly a “bridge replacement” there are not alternative corridors, the alternatives are all relatively close to the existing bridge and on landfall within a three to four hundred feet of each other. In that case, the landing zone is probably not a concern in the alternative selection process.

• Question was asked about the shoulder width during construction. The shoulder width during construction varies by alternative. If dual structures are built on separate alignment, then the shoulder width during construction will match existing. If only one structure is built on a separate alignment and the second structure is on top of the existing bridge footprint, then the inside shoulder width would be two feet and the outside shoulder width would be 3.5 feet during construction.

• Tyndall representatives expressed that they are unsure of future development plans but growth is expected. Planning charrettes are being conducted to help define future plans for the base. Reconstruction and repair are ongoing.

• The question was asked if Gulf Coast Parkway was included in the traffic model. If it is in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), then it would be included in the model. RS&H will confirm whether it was included.

• A Tyndall representative asked about the overall schedule. The PD&E study is anticipated to be substantially complete by early 2022. Then the Design-Build process would likely take four years

Page 5 of 6

to complete (ball park number). The design phase could be advanced before the completion of the PD&E Study.

• A question was asked about the public involvement for the project. An Alternatives public meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 2019 (will likely move). Before that public meeting, a follow up meeting with Tyndall to discuss alternatives and potential impacts will be scheduled. A Public Hearing will be held at the end of the study to show the currently preferred alternative. That meeting will likely be in late 2020 and a meeting with Tyndall will be scheduled prior to the Public Hearing.

• Moving forward, who is the point of contact? Traycee Chapman • So the EA will document the No Action, Preferred Alternative, and other reasonable alternatives.

What if a Design-Build concept is different than that covered in PD&E? That will be a function of the RFP development. After selection of the Design-Build firm, we can address the changes from the EA, and document in a re-evaluation.

• For the geotechnical soil borings, a barge will be needed. The barge operator thinks that the west side of the bridge on the Tyndall side is the best place to launch the barge. Is that possible?

o Tyndall indicated that they are going to be doing a bayou reconstruction and rebuilding the boat ramp soon. Would not want to impede those efforts with the barge.

o What is the size of the barge? Will confirm with geotechnical subconsultant and report back.

o Anticipate starting on April 1st (after the meeting new date of April 15th is proposed). o Will all the work be able to be performed in one week? Yes, anticipated timeline is one

week. o Will the barge be moored on the Tyndall side, do they want to beach the barge? The

barge only needs to be on the Tyndall side for the launch. They can moor the barge elsewhere, just interested in the launch from Tyndall.

• The data collection effort is being prepared so that it will provide sufficient information for any of the alternatives under consideration.

• Will an ARPA permit need to be completed for the cultural resources survey? No, a memorandum agreement will be written similar to the flyover project. Tyndall employees can provide input on cultural resources and previous information available. Then coordination will be between Tyndall, SEARCH, and SHPO.

• The seagrass survey will be performed in late April / May, coordination with Tyndall will occur prior to the biologist performing the survey.

• Tyndall representative will send information pertinent to the air space study. Further coordination to complete the air space study will occur later in the study process (likely once a preferred alternative is selected).

• There is a “clock” associated with getting this project to construction because the sufficiency rating is under 50.

Page 6 of 6

• Tyndall believes with the current information available, that the west side is the preferred side for the new alignment since they are not rebuilding Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Complex. But, that area is a mission critical site for drones. There may be some archeological reasons to avoid the east side, this will be determined after the cultural survey is completed.

The meeting ended at 3:30 p.m. Summary of Decisions / Action Items

1. ACTION: RS&H will confirm if the Gulf Coast Parkway was included in the traffic model. [RS&H confirmed after the meeting that the Gulf Coast Parkway was not included in the traffic model because it is not in the 2040 Cost Feasible Model].

2. ACTION: RS&H will provide more information on geotechnical process involving the barge and will coordinate with appropriate Tyndall staff.

3. ACTION: Tyndall will prepare memorandum agreement for cultural resources. 4. ACTION: Tyndall will send information related to air space study.

Participant List:

Name Representing E-mail Alan Vann FDOT [email protected] Brandon Bruner GPI [email protected] Traycee Chapman TAFB [email protected] Jose Cintron TAFB [email protected] Edwin Wallace TAFB [email protected] Jody Reed TAFB [email protected] David Silvey TAFB [email protected] Sarah Wagner TAFB [email protected] Amy Maurer* TAFB [email protected] Ben Buchanan* TAFB [email protected] Kelsey Lucas * RS&H [email protected] Dan Kristoff * RS&H [email protected]

* Indicate participation via phone Compiled By: Kelsey Lucas ([email protected], 904-256-2249); and Dan Kristoff ([email protected], 904-256-2139).














9/13/2019 – FDOT and TAFB Alternatives Update


MEETING MINUTES




442667-1-22-02 CA015

Meeting Place: Tyndall Air Force Base Meeting Date: 9/13/2019 Participants:

See participant list

Meeting Time:

10:00 a.m. (CDT)

Purpose: Tyndall Air Force Base – Meeting No.2

On Friday, September 13, 2019, a meeting was held at Tyndall Air Force Base in Bay County. The purpose of the meeting was to give Tyndall Air Force representatives an update on the alternatives development and status of the Dupont Bridge PD&E Study, and to receive information from Tyndall on the base recovery activities and long term plans. Presentation

• Dan went through a presentation covering the purpose and need, the current alternatives under consideration, and the schedule (to-date). A summary of the presentation content is as follows:

o The purpose and need for the project is based on the fact that the Dupont Bridge is structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, and does not have sufficient vertical clearance to meet US Coast Guard requirements.

o The PD&E process involves a couple of steps: Develop purpose and need; Develop viable alternatives; Evaluate engineering, environmental, and social impacts; Determine a preferred alternative; Coordinate with state / federal agencies and the public; and Secure approval from the FDOT Office of Environmental Management.

o The proposed structural typical section can accommodate six-lanes, but will be striped for only four-lanes, until capacity warrants the additional lane. The minimum spacing between the parallel structures is 20 feet (to allow for maintenance). The bridges will have sidewalks and a wide shoulder that can accommodate bicyclists.

o The proposed profile provides a 65-foot vertical clearance over the main channel, compared to the current bridge which only accommodates 50 feet of vertical clearance.

Page 2 of 5

The grades on the bridge will be similar to the existing grades, as will the horizontal clearance.

o The proposed roadway typical section is a high speed urban typical section, with a design speed of 50 mph. The typical allows for six-lanes in the future, the additional lane will be part of a wide shoulder until capacity warrants the additional lane. The typical includes buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalk.

o Three alternatives are being considered and will be presented at the Alternatives Public Meeting (November 2019): Alternative West 1 includes two parallel structures located west of the existing

bridge Alternative West 2 includes one structure west of the existing bridge and

“dolphins” (structural element protecting the bridge from vessel collisions), and the second structure will be in a location similar to the current Dupont Bridge.

Alternative East 3 is similar to Alternative West 2, except it is on the east side of the bridge. One bridge is located east of the existing bridge and dolphins and the second bridge is in a location similar to the current Dupont Bridge.

o Two intersection configurations of the intersection into the Bonita Bay Recreation Center were presented. One has one entrance that aligns with the existing median opening. The second option extends the provides two turn lanes into Bonita Bay Recreation Center, more similar to the existing configuration. The group felt that either option could work.

o The schedule was reviewed. The project started in July of 2018 and was somewhat delayed by Hurricane Michael (from a data collection standpoint). The Alternatives Public Meeting is anticipated for November 2019. Once the date is set, Brandon will send it to Traycee. Construction is anticipated to start in 2023 and will likely take two to three years depending on the alternative and construction methods.

o The Currently Preferred Alternative is the West 1 Alternative because: It provides the best roadway geometry approaching Tyndall; Is the best alternative for staging during construction On the Parker landfall it voids impacting vacant parcel that has utilities in the

ground; and Avoids the former truss bridge foundations that remain in place.

Questions and Comments

• One question asked about the design speed listed on the profiles slide, is this the vehicle speed or wind speed? The design speed refers to the design limits for the vehicle speed.

• Tyndall employees confirmed that the property west of the bridge will no longer include a recreation center but will be used for boat maintenance and drone operations.

Page 3 of 5

• The group felt that the deceleration lane into the Bonita Bay Recreation Center could be shortened. However, Tyndall would like to have a right turn acceleration lane to US 98 for the eastbound direction to facilitate large trucks leaving/ turning right out of the Bonita Bay Recreation Center parcel.

• Dan asked if the depression on the west side of the bridge was a pond site? Jose confirmed that it is a pond site. Tyndall employees were open to having a larger pond on that parcel but warned that there is a midden site in that vicinity that the Florida Tribes are very interested in. RS&H confirmed that the midden site was known, and that the Draft Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) is anticipated to be completed in the next month.

• Concern was raised about having only two lanes during construction, maybe the third future lane should be used immediately. It was confirmed that the construction will not start on the Replacement Dupont Bridge until 2023, and the construction schedule is likely three years to complete the project. So, the majority of the Tyndall Air Force Base construction will be completed by that time.

• One question asked about how close the existing traffic was to meeting / exceeding level of service and requiring the additional lane? The current Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) is 19,621, as of 2018. The generalized level of service (LOS) tables indicate that a four-lane facility can accommodate 65,000 vehicles per day prior to reaching insufficient level of service (LOS D). The current project area operates at LOS B. The facility will continue to operate at LOS B until the AADT exceeds 36,700.

• Concern was raised about the current bridge being able to withstand heavy construction vehicle and construction loads, since the bridge is structurally deficient. Currently the bridge is not posted for loads, so there is no weight restriction on vehicles crossing the bridge. Since the bridge is structurally deficient, inspections are done every year (last inspection was 1/11/2019), and it will be determined if the bridge will need to be posted for loads (which would limit the weight of the vehicles crossing the bridge). It was asked if there is a model that can account for the weight of the vehicles and determine how those loads affect the structural sufficiency or the timeline for posting for loads. Brandon stated that he would get with the FDOT Bridge maintenance department to determine such a model exists.

• One question was asked about how the land formation would be changed as a result of removing the existing bridge abutment. The land formation will not be affected by removing the bridge abutment and existing asphalt. Only the concrete and asphalt would be removed, not the earth / sand that makes up the land formation.

• Another question asked if there were side views of the bridge? Renderings of the bridges are being created and a viewpoint from the side can be made, so that a sideview of the bridges will be available. Once complete, RS&H will send the renderings to Tyndall for their review / analysis purposes.

Page 4 of 5

• Someone asked if the buildings on the east side of the bridge were considered / affecting the alignment of West 2 and East 3. Since those buildings are scheduled for demolition, they should not control the alignment. The buildings were not a factor in the alignments, the biggest factors controlling the alignment are tying into the existing alignment and the slopes on the east side of US 98. The side slopes of the east side of US 98 are steeper than the west side, which results in a much longer bridge. Essentially, the faster the alignment ties into existing conditions, the less is the impact to the adjacent property.

• Would the waterline be attached to the new Dupont Bridge? Likely yes. • Can anything be done about the 45-mph wind speed, that determines when the bridge closes?

This is determined by the county government and is not structural. Brandon will follow up with FDOT to confirm.

• Tyndall employees confirmed that West 1 is logical for the preferred alternative. • What is the maximum height of the cranes to be used during construction? After the meeting,

RS&H confirmed that the crane will likely have a 200-foot boom. It is assumed that the boom will be approximately 100 feet higher than the bridge deck, but that will depend on the angle and height of the bridge at that specific location.

• If light poles are typically 30 to 40 feet tall, are there other low-profile options that could be used? Yes, low-profile light poles exist, there may need to be more of them due to the lower height, but that is possible. If needed, it can be added as a requirement of the construction Request for Proposed (RFP). There is no specific height known at this time, but light poles as short as possible will be beneficial for Tyndall.

The meeting ended at 11:15 a.m. Summary of Decisions / Action Items

1. ACTION: RS&H will evaluate adding an acceleration lane for the right turn out of Bonita Bay. 2. ACTION: Brandon will discuss with FDOT Maintenance about whether there is a way to model

the anticipated weight of the construction vehicles to determine how many loads would result in the bridge being posted for loads.

3. ACTION: Brandon will send the Alternatives Public Meeting date to Traycee once confirmed. 4. ACTION: Brandon will confirm with FDOT which government agency is responsible for closing the

bridges under high wind speed conditions and is it also a function of the structural design. 5. ACTION: RS&H will research the crane heights during construction [Complete]. 6. ACTION: Tyndall will do some research on the air space and determine what the optimum light

pole height would be, based on the profile information. 7. ACTION: RS&H will research low-profile light poles. 8. ACTION: Tyndall will send RS&H and FDOT the recently completed draft Master Plan for Tyndall.

Page 5 of 5

Participant List: Name Representing E-mail Alan Vann* FDOT [email protected] Brandon Bruner GPI [email protected] Traycee Chapman TAFB [email protected] Jose Cintron TAFB [email protected] Edwin Wallace TAFB [email protected] Kevin Sharkey TAFB [email protected] Zach Bierhaus TAFB [email protected] Jody Reed TAFB [email protected] Jonathan Albaugh TAFB [email protected] Gauh Brost 325 CES/CEO [email protected] Ralph Jamerson GCEC [email protected] Sheila Alston GCEC [email protected] Johnny Walker TAFB [email protected] James Roncaglione 325 FW [email protected] Gregory Roberts* TAFB [email protected] Jennifer Herr* TAFB [email protected] Kelsey Lucas RS&H [email protected] Dan Kristoff RS&H [email protected]

* Indicate participation via phone Compiled By: Kelsey Lucas ([email protected], 904-256-2249); and Dan Kristoff ([email protected], 904-256-2139).




















10/8/2019 – Environmental Look Around

MEETING NOTES PROJECT: Dupont Bridge PD&E MEETING DATE: October 08, 2019 MEETING PLACE: Zoom/Video Conference Meeting PARTICIPANTS: Donald Rogers (FDOT), Erica Brookman (FDOT), Martin Brust (FDOT), Brandon Bruner (FDOT Consultant PM – GPI), Connie Cunniff (City of Parker), Andrew Joslyn (NWFWMD), Tony Summerlin (City of Parker), Tracy Chapman (Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB)), Kevin Sharkey (TAFB), Alan Vann (FDOT), Dan Kristoff (Consultant PM – RS&H), Kelsey Lucas (RS&H), Tracy Ellison (HW Lochner), Kevin Conner (HW Lochner), Tanya Kristoff (HW Lochner) SUBJECT: Environmental Look-Around Following are the Minutes of this Meeting: • Dan Kristoff confirmed the participants on the conference call.

• Dan Kristoff provided background information regarding the project including Purpose and Need, the deficiencies of the existing bridge, and existing dolphins.

• Dan Kristoff continued with a description of the proposed typical sections and profile, the build alternatives (Alternative West 1, Alternative West 2 and Alternative East 3).

• Dan Kristoff discussed the project schedule.

• Tracy Ellison described the existing drainage and floodplain conditions. Next, she discussed the pond siting which will be treatment only, compensatory, will collect and treat runoff from the high point on the bridge north and the ponds will be dry.

• Next Tracy described the pond alternatives which include Ponds West 1 and West 2 for Alternative West 1 and Alternative West 2. Ponds East 1 and East 2 for Alternative East 3.

• It was asked if anyone had any questions regarding the information covered. No questions were asked.

• Donald Rogers explained that one of the reasons behind having ELA is to work with the local agencies and see if there are unique opportunities for stormwater treatment that will be beneficial. He asked if any of the agencies had any needs or opportunities for joint use.

• The agencies on the call indicated that no needs or opportunities exist at this time.

• Dan Kristoff invited questions, comments or topics for discussion. Since none were forthcoming, the meeting was adjourned.



6/24/2020 – Bonita Bay Site Coordination Meeting with TAFB


MEETING MINUTES




442667-1-22-02 CA015

Meeting Place: Microsoft Teams Meeting Date: 6/24/2020 Participants:

See attached sign-in sheet

Meeting Time:

10:00 a.m. (CDT)

Purpose: Tyndall Air Force Base – Meeting No.3 – Bonita Bay Site Coordination

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020, a meeting was held via Microsoft Teams with Tyndall Air Force Base staff and consultants working on the new boat house facility(BLDG 5025). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed large boat maintenance facility improvements on the Bonita Bay property in relation to the US 98 Dupont Bridge Replacement Preferred Alternative. Discussion

• Consultants for Tyndall Air Force Base are developing a new layout for the large boat maintenance facility on the Bonita Bay property.

• The layouts are based on the existing US 98 footprint with the assumption that the boat maintenance facility project would happen prior to the US 98 Dupont Bridge Replacement

• The layouts include new parking and revised access connections to US 98 • The consultants working on the boat maintenance facility were made aware of the Dupont

Bridge Replacement project and the reconfiguration of US 98. • The new US 98 configuration requires additional land along the Bonita Bay property, thereby

reducing the land area available for all the proposed features associated with the boat maintenance facility improvements (impetus for the meeting).

• The Tyndall Air Force Base consultant team provided new intersection configurations to FDOT, who in turn reviewed the connections to US 98. FDOT’s consultant (RS&H) provided a modification to the proposed connections by moving the main intersection northward to provide additional space for the Building 5025 facility and the reconfigured parking areas while improving the US 98 intersection movements.

o A short discussion followed and with a minor adjustment to the traffic island at the major US 98 intersection, all agreed to the RS&H revised concept (see attached exhibit).

Page 2 of 2

o Of note is that RS&H had to slightly adjust the boat maintenance facility layout in CADD to have it align with the aerial photography being utilized for the US 98 project.

• The FDOT study does not have final design level topographic information. The TAFB consultants for the boat maintenance facility confirmed they are also working off aerial photography.

• The boat maintenance facility plans will include a sheet showing the ultimate connection to US 98 for reference. Additional survey data will be needed to connect the acceleration lane to the future US 98 layout.

• The Dupont Bridge Replacement construction phase is currently scheduled to start in 2024. The boat maintenance facility will be completed prior to the US 98 project and will connect to existing US 98. Continued coordination will be required in order reduce the amount of re-do that will be required when the US 98 improvement is made.

• The TAFB consultants indicated that the Building 5025 facility improvements do not include any work on the east side of US 98.

• The currently proposed FDOT right-of-way encroachment on the corner of the existing Bonita Bay parking lot was discussed as it will adversely affect the maneuvers in the parking area.

o RS&H indicated that an adjustment to the right-of-way to avoid the parking lot encroachment appears possible by setting the right-of-way line five feet off the parking lot and parallel thereto. However, to protect the bridge approach the riprap will likely extend to the location currently depicted.

o The TAFB consultant concurred with the proposed right-of- way line adjustment. o Mr. Bruner clarified neither project has secured sufficient topographic survey, and

hydraulic modeling that will occur in the next phase has not been completed. Since we do not have the final design information, there remains some uncertainty, but current information indicates a strong possibility to avoid the parking area.

The meeting ended at 10:25 a.m. Meeting notes have been distributed to attendees. Summary of Decisions / Action Items

1. ACTION: RS&H and Tyndall Air Force Base and their consultants will continue to coordinate with any other issues or items for discussion.

The above notes are based upon the recall of the individuals listed below. Kelsey Lucas ([email protected], 904-256-2249); and Dan Kristoff ([email protected], 904-256-2139).

Meeting Sign-In Sheet

SR 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study Tyndall Air Force Base Meeting June 24, 2020 @ 10:00 am (CDT) Meeting Location: Microsoft Teams

Initial Name Company E-mail

X Brandon Bruner GPI (FDOT Consultant PM) [email protected]

X Dan Kristoff RS&H (Consultant PM) [email protected]

X Kelsey Lucas RS&H [email protected]

X Brian Flatt RS&H [email protected]

X Kevin Sharkey TAFB [email protected]

X Cyrus Esmaeili TAFB [email protected]

X Aaron Hudman TAFB [email protected]

X Brad Jones TAFB [email protected]

X Allen Sparkman TAFB [email protected]

X Justin Smith USACE [email protected]

X Todd Dunavant GM Hill Engineering [email protected]

X Neil Adams Thompson Engineering [email protected]

X Dave Warren Thompson Engineering [email protected]



Appendix G

Section 4(f) Documentation



Bonita Bay Outdoor Recreation Center Determination of Applicability

Date:

March 15, 2019

To:

Project File

From:

Dan Kristoff

Subject:

SR 30 PD&E - Dupont Bridge Replacement Coordination Meeting with Tyndall AFB Personnel

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 a coordination meeting was held between representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Tyndall Air Force Base (TAFB), respectively. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the FDOT SR 30 (US 98) Dupont Bridge Replacement Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study with representatives from TAFB. The following people participated in the meeting. FDOT Alan Vann - District 3 PD&E Project Manager Brandon Bruner - District 3 GEC Consultant Project Manager Daniel Kristoff - RS&H, Inc. Project Manager Kelsey Lucas - RS&H, Inc. Project Engineer TAFB Traycee R. Chapman - GS - 12 USAF Jose J. Cintron - GS - 12 USAF Edwin B. Wallace - GS - 12 USAF Jody D. Reed - GS - 11 USAF David F. Silvey - GS - 12 USAF Sarah E. Wagner - GS - 13 USAF Benjamin Buchanan - GS - 13 USAF Amy B. Maurer - CIV Numerous items were discussed during the meeting, one of which is the Bonita Bay Recreation Area that is immediately adjacent to the west side of the Dupont Bridge landfall location on the TAFB property. FDOT staff discussed the status of the recreation area, specifically to its availability to the public. Tydall representatives stated that the use of the facility is restricted to Air Force personnel and their immediate family. Non-authorized personnel are immediately removed from the facility.

Memorandum



Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp Determination of Applicability

Attachment – Location Map

Dupon

t Brid

ge

Oak

shor

e D

rive

Earl Gilbert Park

Fishing Pier

Boat RampParking area

Beach Pavilion

Earl Gilbert Park Figure No. 1 of 1

LegendDupont Bridge Study Area

Section 4(f) Resource

State Road 30 (US 98) - Dupont Bridge (No. 460019) Replacement PD&E Study

0 0.0950.0475Miles

Attachment – OWJ Significance Letter

Attachment – Correspondence with OWJ (City of Parker)

1

Lucas, Kelsey

From: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 8:01 AMTo: Kristoff, Dan; Lucas, KelseySubject: FW: Earl Gilbert Park Project 442667-1-22-01 Attachments: Dupont Bridge project.pdf; 2017_02_07_14_26_22.pdf; ATT159385.htm; Bay County

Property Appraiser Parcel info.pdf; City of Parker - Anchor_Guy Easement.docx; Conservation Management Plan--Earl Gilbert Park 8-13.pdf; EASEMENT ANCHOR DWG.pdf; Executed Contract City of Parker Permitting Services for Rip Rap.pdf; Fl Fish & Wildlife Boat Ramp Finder.pdf; Lease Agreement with State of Florida.pdf; Parker Fishing Pier Conceptual Design Memorandum (final).pdf


From: Connie Cunniff <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 11:36 AMTo: Bruner, Brandon <[email protected]>Cc: Tony Summerlin <[email protected]>; Brent Faile <[email protected]>Subject: Earl Gilbert Park Project 442667 1 22 01

I have attached information requested pertaining to the significance of Earl Gilbert Park -

Frequency of uses /estimated users per year = approximate 10,000 Management Plan - Several documents for your review

Park Characteristics - Size = copy of Bay County Property Appraiser Parcel descriptions Amenities = include Boat Ramp and dock, 1500 feet of shoreline, pavilions with picnic benches, grilling, Lighted, Boat & trailer parking lot.Ownership / leasing agreements = Copy of lease agreement with the State of Florida Access to the public = YES!!! - Copy of Florida Fish & Wildlife Boat ramp finder details - explains Government owned for general public use. also list additional information for your review.

Noteworthy improvements - replace damaged seawall, and boat ramp, pavilions etc. Large Fishing Pier is planned - documents attached for your review.

Please let me know if I may be of further assistance in any way.

Sincerely, Connie Cunniff Public WorksCity of Parker

2

850-871-4283

From: Connie CunniffSent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 1:40 PMTo: [email protected]: Project 442667 1 22 01

This document pertains to Section 4(f) Coordination: Earl Gilbert Park.

Attached is a copy where we have signed to the significance of the park and will work toward getting you the information requested.

Sincerely Connie Cunniff Public WorksCity of Parker 850-871-4283




Earl Gilbert Park and Boat Ramp Section 4(f) No Use Form