SR 655 (Recker Highway) Grade Separation over CSX Railroad › sr655 › recker › overcsx › images › Meeing... · 2017-09-30 · SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource

SR 655 (Recker Highway) Grade Separation over CSX Railroad

Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study FPID Number: 436560-1-22-01

NATURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Final Draft

September 2017

Florida Department of Transportation District One

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 September 2017

Final Draft Natural Resource Evaluation

SR 655 (Recker Highway) Grade Separation

over CSX Railroad Project Development and Environment Study

Polk County, Florida

FPID Number: 436560-1-22-01 ETDM Number: 14205

This roadway improvement project involves evaluating the costs and impacts of constructing a new overpass to carry State Road (SR) 655 (Recker Highway) over the CSX railroad (milepost 6.912, crossing #623082F) located just south of US 92 in Polk County, within the city limits of Auburndale. The SR 655 PD&E Study limits are from east of Barton Park Road to SR 600 (US 92) and include intersection improvements at Thornhill Road.

Prepared for:

Florida Department of Transportation, District One

Submitted by:

ESA Scheda

September 2017


The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal 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 dated December 14,

2016 and executed by the Federal Highway Administration and FDOT.

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 i September 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to evaluate the costs and impacts of constructing a new overpass to carry State Road (SR) 655 over the CSX railroad located just south of US 92 in Polk County, within the city limits of Auburndale. Proposed improvements include widening of SR 655 (Recker Highway) from two to four lanes, addition of sidewalks and buffered bike lanes, intersection improvements at SR 600 (US 92), and intersection improvements at Thornhill Road.

This project was evaluated through the FDOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, and designated as ETDM project #14205. An ETDM Final Programming Screen Summary Report was published on May 22, 2015, containing comments from the Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) on the project’s effects on various natural, physical, and social resources.

This PD&E Study satisfies all applicable state and federal requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for this project.

This Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) has been prepared as part of this PD&E Study. This report summarizes the possible impacts to wetlands, federally and state-protected species, and protected habitats. Identification of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for any potential impacts is also discussed.

Protected Wildlife Species and Habitat

This project was evaluated for impacts to wildlife and habitat resources, including protected species, in accordance with 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, Chapters 5B- 40: Preservation of Native Flora of Florida and 68A-27 Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Rules Relating to Endangered or Threatened Species, and Part 2, Chapter 16 – Protected Species and Habitat of the FDOT PD&E Manual.

Field surveys and database searches for protected species were conducted in December 2015 and February 2016. The FDOT has made recommendations to protect the federally threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), and state-threatened gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) which were both determined to have a low probability of occurrence within project habitats.

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 ii September 2017

Protected Species with Both Federal and State Designations

“May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations

The eastern indigo snake is designated as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This species typically inhabits a variety of natural areas including forested uplands and wetlands, as well as wet and dry prairies. There is limited suitable habitat for this species near the urbanized project corridor and the FDOT will implement the USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake. Based on the limited suitable habitat present within the project corridor and the implementation of the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake, a determination of may affect but is not likely to adversely affect this species has been made for the proposed project.

“No Effect” Determinations

The sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi), and bluetail mole skink (Plestiodon egregius lividus) are designated as threatened by the USFWS. These species inhabit xeric sandy soils in interior central Florida at elevations higher than 82 feet. Preferred habitat types are generally scrub and shrubby oak systems with sparse vegetative cover. A field review with NRCS was conducted in February 2016 specifically to evaluate the suitability of project soils for the skinks. The report (Appendix B) concluded there is minimal chance of a viable skink population within this urban land use mosaic. The results indicate the project will have no effect on the two species.

The wood stork (Mycteria americana) is designated as threatened by the USFWS. The project corridor is located within the Core Foraging Area (CFA) of five documented wood stork colonies (Lone Palm, 612316 Lake John, 616117, 616114, and NE Mulberry). As defined by the USFWS, Suitable Foraging Habitat (SFH) includes wetlands and surface waters which have areas of water that are relatively calm, uncluttered by dense thickets of aquatic vegetation, and have permanent or seasonal water depth between 2 and 15 inches. No wood storks were observed during field reviews and the roadside ditches proposed to be impacted do not constitute SFH for the wood stork as they lack sufficient hydroperiod. Surface waters will be reevaluated during final permitting of the project. It is anticipated that the project will have no effect on this species.

The Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) is designated as threatened by the USFWS. The project area falls within the USFWS Consultation Area (CA) for the species. However, the Florida scrub-jay requires low scrub ecosystems which are absent from the project area, therefore, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the Florida scrub-jay.

The crested caracara (Caracara cheriway) is designated as threatened by the USFWS. The project area falls within the northern limits of the crested caracara’s USFWS CA, however, there is no suitable nesting habitat within or near the project footprint. There are also no suitable nesting

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 iii September 2017

trees and the surrounding area is developed. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the species.

The Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) is a subspecies of grasshopper sparrow which is designated by the USFWS as endangered. It is endemic to the dry prairies of central and southern Florida. The Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) is a subspecies of snail kite which is designated by the USFWS as endangered. Their diet consists almost exclusively of apple snails (Pomacea paludosa) and they require habitat consisting of freshwater marshes and shallow vegetated lake edges where these snails are found. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is designated as endangered by the USFWS. The species is highly specialized to inhabit mature pine forests containing living longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) trees. Habitat for the Florida grasshopper sparrow, Everglade snail kite and red-cockaded woodpecker is completely absent from the project area. The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) inhabits forests, wetlands, open water areas, and both natural and manmade structures. Relatively little is known regarding the habitat requirements and range of the Florida bonneted bat. However, the project does not fall within the CA for the species and does not provide what would be considered ideal habitat. The project is anticipated to have no effect on the Florida grasshopper sparrow, Everglade snail kite, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Florida bonneted bat.

Protected Species with State Designation Only

“May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Determinations

The gopher tortoise is listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and is a candidate species for listing by the USFWS. Gopher tortoises thrive in xeric areas with sandy soils and open canopy with low groundcover. This habitat is largely absent from the project area, however, suitable habitat remnants and soils remain. The FDOT recommends conducting comprehensive surveys for gopher tortoises and their burrows during the project’s final design phase. Until field surveys indicate otherwise, it has been determined that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the gopher tortoise.

The Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis) is listed as threatened by the FWC. No nesting habitat exists in the project corridor; however, foraging habitat is present. No Florida sandhill cranes were observed during field surveys and no impacts to potential nesting habitat are proposed; therefore, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect this species.

“No Effect” Determinations

The FWC lists the short-tailed snake (Lampropeltis extenuata) and the Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) as threatened. Both snake species inhabit scrubby, xeric

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 iv September 2017

habitats which are largely absent from the project area. The project, therefore, is anticipated to have no effect on the short-tailed snake and the Florida pine snake.

Wading birds such as the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), are listed by the FWC as threatened and are also afforded some levels of federal protection by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Because these species require wetland habitats and none will be impacted by the project, the project is anticipated to have no effect on wading birds. Likewise, the project does not contain habitat for shorebirds, such as the black skimmer (Rynchops niger), and the least tern (Sternula antillarum) which are coastal species that occasionally inhabit inland sandy areas. It is anticipated that the project will have no effect on shorebirds.

The Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) is designated by the FWC as threatened. The species creates subterranean burrows in native prairies and cleared pastures but is also known to utilize undeveloped parcels within urban areas. Though small undeveloped parcels are adjacent to the project, no burrows were identified. The project is anticipated to have no effect on the Florida burrowing owl.

The southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) is listed by the FWC as threatened. The species inhabits sandhills, mesic flatwoods, and open pastures. As these habitat types are largely absent from the project area and the surrounding land is developed, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the southeastern American kestrel.

The Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) is listed by the FWC as a Species of Special Concern (SSC). The species inhabits mature pine forests, cypress domes, and pastures. These habitats are largely absent from the project area, therefore, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the Sherman’s fox squirrel.

Protected, Non-Listed Species

“No Effect” Determination

A bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and its nest, which receive protection under the MBTA and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), were identified near the project limits. The nest, PO240 has been previously identified by the FWC. Bald eagle nests require a 330-foot primary protective buffer, and a 660-foot secondary protective buffer from construction activities. Because the project activities will take place outside of the secondary protective buffer, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the bald eagle.

The osprey (Pandion haliaetus), which receives protection under the MBTA also has the potential to occur within the project area. Ospreys predate fish in open wetlands. No ospreys or their nests

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 v September 2017

were observed during field surveys and no habitats within the project limits provide suitable habitat for prey-fish. The project is anticipated to have no effect on the osprey.

Protected Floral Species

The project area falls within the 2011 CA for Lake Wales Ridge plants. In addition to faunal surveys, appropriate habitats were surveyed for protected flora. No federal or state-listed plant species were observed within the project area. This project proposes no impacts to undisturbed natural habitat and the FDOT is committed to coordination with the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services (FDACS) if protected plant species are observed within the proposed impact areas during the design phase; therefore, the project is not anticipated to adversely affect protected plant species.

Recommendations to protect these species and habitat are detailed in this report and include, but are not limited to, protection measures employed during the design and construction phases. Standard operating measures such as providing compensatory mitigation measures for impacts to foraging habitat and resurveying of suitable habitat areas prior to construction will also provide protection for species and habitat. If protected species are identified, coordination with the USFWS, FWC, and/or the FDACS - Division of Plant Industry (DPI) will be initiated to determine permit requirements or modifications to construction activities that may be required.

The FDOT is considering the following recommendations for wildlife:

1. Eastern indigo snake: The standard FDOT Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo Snake should be adhered to during construction of the project.

2. Wood stork: Impacts to potential wood stork SFH will be evaluated again during the design phase. If necessary, mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be provided as appropriate.

3. Gopher tortoise: Surveys will be conducted prior to construction, and permits to relocate tortoises and commensals will be obtained from the FWC if necessary.

4. Osprey: Surveys to update locations of active osprey nest sites will be conducted prior to construction, and permits will be acquired if impacts during construction are unavoidable. Coordination with FWC will take place, and a replacement nesting structure will be located in the immediate vicinity as appropriate.

5. Bald eagle: Prior to construction, the FDOT will determine the status of nest and confirm that no new or alternate nests have been established within or adjacent to the proposed corridor. Should PO240 or any new eagle nests be identified within 660 feet of the project, the FDOT will coordinate with the FWC.

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 vi September 2017

In summary, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the following federally listed species:

• Eastern indigo snake.

The proposed project will have no effect on the following federally listed species:

• Sand skink; • Bluetail mole skink; • Wood stork; • Florida scrub-jay; • Crested caracara; • Florida grasshopper sparrow; • Everglade snail kite; • Red-cockaded woodpecker; • Florida bonneted bat; and • Lake Wales Ridge plants.

Wetlands

Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 11990 entitled “Protection of Wetlands,” (May 23, 1977) the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) developed a policy, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands (USDOT Order 5660.1A), dated August 24, 1978. In conjunction with this policy, as well as Part 2, Chapter 9 – Wetlands and Other Surface Waters of the FDOT PD&E Manual, two project alternatives were assessed to determine potential wetland impacts associated with construction of each alternative.

On December 16, 2015, 0.22 acres of surface waters were identified and mapped within the project corridor. No wetlands were identified within the project build alternatives’ right-of-way (ROW). These surface waters, which are proposed for impact in both project alternatives are jurisdictional per the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and consist of dry ditches that are located

within the existing ROW. These ditches are dry, vegetated with grass, and have side slopes steeper than 4-foot horizontal:1-foot vertical. They are not jurisdictional as per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) criteria. As no wetlands were identified within the project ROW, the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) analysis was not necessary. Final determination of jurisdictional boundaries, in addition to mitigation requirements will be coordinated between the FDOT and permitting agencies during the final design stage of the project.

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 vii September 2017

The results of this PD&E study indicate there are no practicable alternatives to the anticipated impacts due to the need to improve safety and reduce travel delays. Furthermore, all wetland impacts have been avoided.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 EXISTING FACILITY AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........................ 1-5

2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Corridor Analysis ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1.3 Build Alternative (Alternatives 1 and 2) .................................................. 2-2

2.1.4 Build Alternative Typical Sections .......................................................... 2-2

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .......................................................... 3-1

3.1 EXISTING LAND USE ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Natural and Biological Features............................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Upland Vegetation Communities ............................................................. 3-1

3.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.3 SIGNIFICANT WATERS AND PROTECTION AREAS ................................. 3-7

3.3.1 Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) ......................................................... 3-7

3.3.2 Protection Areas ....................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ................................................................... 3-7

4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT ...................................................................... 4-1

4.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 4-3

4.2.1 Wildlife .................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Protected Plants ...................................................................................... 4-15

4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 4-19

4.3.1 Direct Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-19

4.3.1 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts ....................................... 4-20

5.0 WETLAND EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 5-1

5.2.1 Additional Drainage Features .................................................................. 5-2


5.2.2 Results of Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) Analysis 5-2

5.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 5-3

5.3.1 Direct Impacts .......................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.2 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts ......................................... 5-5

5.4 WETLAND IMPACT MITIGATION ................................................................. 5-5

5.5 COORDINATION WITH THE PERMITTING AGENCIES ............................. 5-6

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 6-1

6.1 PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT .......................................................... 6-1

6.2 WETLANDS........................................................................................................ 6-2

7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Project Location Map ................................................................................................. 1-3

Figure 1-2 Project Aerial Map ..................................................................................................... 1-4

Figure 1-3 Existing Typical Section ............................................................................................ 1-6 Figure 2-1 Proposed Mainline (Recker Highway) Typical Section ............................................. 2-3

Figure 2-2 Proposed Typical Section for Frontage Road ............................................................ 2-5

Figure 2-3 Proposed Typical Section for Thornhill Road ........................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-4 Proposed Structures (Bridge) Tyical Section ............................................................ 2-6

Figure 3-1 Existing Field-Verified FLUCFCS within project Footprint Map ............................. 3-2

Figure 3-2 USFWS NWI Wetlands within Project Footprint Map ............................................. 3-3

Figure 3-3 NRCS Soils within Project Footprint Map................................................................. 3-6 Figure 4-1 Historic Listed Species and Field Oberservation of Listed Species Map .................. 4-4

Figure 4-2 Wood Stork Colonies and Core Foraging Areas Map ............................................. 4-10

Figure 5-1 Wetland & Surface Water Location within Project Footprint Map ........................... 5-4


LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCFCS) within 500 feet of Project Corridor..... 3-4 Table 3-2. Existing NRCS Soil Types within 500 feet of Project Cooridor ................................ 3-5 Table 4-1. Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Wildlife Species .................................... 4-5

Table 4-2. Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Plant Species ....................................... 4-16 Table 4-3. Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCFCS) within Build Alternatives................ 4-19

Table 5-1. Total Surface Water Acreages within Right-of-Way ................................................. 5-2 Table 5-2. Jurisdictional Surface Water Impacts ......................................................................... 5-3

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Agency Correspondence Appendix B Soils Report Appendix C Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID: 436560-1-22-01 1-1 September 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to evaluate the costs and impacts of constructing a new overpass to carry State Road (SR) 655 (Recker Highway) over the CSX railroad (milepost 6.912, crossing #623082F) located just south of US 92 in Polk County, within the city limits of Auburndale. Proposed improvements include widening SR 655 (Recker Highway) from two to four lanes, addition of sidewalks and buffered bike lanes, intersection improvements at SR 600 (US 92), as well as the relocation and replacement of the SR 655 (Recker Highway) Thornhill Road intersection with a modern roundabout. The Project Location Map (Figure 1-1) illustrates the location and limits of the Study. Figure 1-2 shows this location on aerial photography.

The SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E study limits are from east of Barton Park Road to SR 600 (US 92). Specifically, the study limits along SR 655 (Recker Highway) begin approximately 2,600 feet south of the CSX railroad crossing, 900 feet east of Barton Park Road, and end at SR 600 (US 92), approximately 1,200 feet north of the railroad crossing and include the existing intersection at Thornhill Road. Additionally, the study limits include Thornhill Road approximately one-half mile south of SR 655 (Recker Highway). The project is located within Sections 9, 15 & 16, Township 28 South, Range 25 East, within the Auburndale United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute (1:24,000) quad map and the USGS “Orlando” 1 x 2 degree (1:250,000) topographic map.

Within the study limits, SR 655 (Recker Highway) is a two-lane undivided north-south state road and is classified by FDOT as an urban minor arterial. Existing land uses in the study area include residential, retail/office, vacant, industrial, and government. The existing Access Management Classification along SR 655 (Recker Highway) is Access Class 6, an undivided facility with unrestricted access to residents and businesses along the corridor. As a County-owned facility, there is no FDOT Access Management Classification along Thornhill Road. There are connecting roads and adjacent properties with access to both SR 655 (Recker Highway) and Thornhill Road through side street intersections and driveway connections.

This project was evaluated through the FDOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, and designated as ETDM project #14205. An ETDM Final Programming Screen Summary Report was published on May 22, 2015, containing comments from the Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) on the project’s effects on various natural, physical, and social resources. Based on the ETAT comments included in the Summary Report and undertaking the public involvement process to date, it has been determined that the proposed improvements to SR 655 (Recker Highway) would not create any significant impacts to the environment. At the time,


the ETDM Programming Screen was completed, a Class of Action (COA) Determination was made by the Department. FDOT determined a State Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) is the appropriate COA for this project. The project is currently fully funded for design in the FDOT’s District One’s Adopted Five-Year Work Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. All subsequent phases, right-of-way (ROW), and construction are being considered to be included in future updates of the Department’s Work Program.

This Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) is one of several documents being prepared as part of this PD&E Study. This report documents wetlands and protected species within the project corridor. Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 11990 entitled “Protection of Wetlands,” the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed a policy, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands (USDOT Order 5660.1A), dated August 24, 1978. In conjunction with this policy, as well as Part 2, Chapter 9 – Wetlands and Other Surface Waters of the FDOT PD&E Manual, two project alternatives were assessed to determine potential wetland impacts associated with construction of each alternative.

This report also documents existing wildlife resources and assesses existing habitat types found within the project area for potential occurrences of federal and state-listed protected plant and animal species in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 16 – Protected Species and Habitat of the FDOT PD&E Manual. Potential impacts to protected species and Critical Habitat (CH) that may support these species are also addressed in this report.




1.2 EXISTING FACILITY AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

Recker Highway is a two-lane undivided north-south state road throughout the study corridor. The urban area surrounding the study is the City of Auburndale. The posted speed limit of Recker Highway is 45 miles per hour (mph) from approximately 900 feet south/east of Thornhill Road, dropping to 35 mph after 300 feet north of Thornhill Road and continuing through the remainder of the corridor. The typical existing controlled access ROW width varies, with a minimum width of 70 feet wide just north of CSX railroad and a maximum width of 136 feet at the southern end of the Auburndale Memorial Park. The facility has two 12-foot lanes with 4-foot paved shoulders provided in each direction. The existing roadway is crowned in the center, with a 2% cross slope in each direction. Figure 1-3 depicts the existing roadway typical section.

The CSX railroad crosses Recker Highway within the project limits. USDOT Crossing Inventory information indicates the daily number of CSX trains at this crossing is approximately 24 daily (four are AMTRAK passenger trains).

SR 655 (Recker Highway) PD&E Study Natural Resource Evaluation FPID:436560-1-22-01 1-6 September 2017

Figure 1-3. Existing Typical Section


2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

The objective of the alternatives analysis process is to identify technically and environmentally sound alternatives that meet the needs of the project, are cost-effective, and are acceptable to the community. This section describes the alternatives considered and results of the alternatives evaluation.

2.1.1 Corridor Analysis

The objective of the corridor analysis process is to identify viable corridors in which technically and environmentally sound alignment alternatives can be developed. Constructing a new roadway in a corridor outside of the existing Recker Highway corridor would result in environmental impacts, relocations, and an overall cost that would be prohibitive. Based on the analysis of the study area, the existing Recker Highway corridor is the only viable corridor for the proposed improvements.

2.1.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative of the Recker Highway corridor was analyzed with two lanes, one per direction. The Recker Highway corridor was divided into five segments based on the presence of signals or intersecting traffic. The area type was classified as urbanized for the study area. The results indicate that the No-Build Alternative level of service (LOS) for the Recker Highway segments start to degrade below the FDOT acceptable LOS standard of C for the Opening Year, 2020. The LOS begins to fail for certain segments of the Mid-Design Year, 2030, leading to failures on the study corridor by the Design Year, 2040. These results show the need for capacity improvements along the corridor prior to the Design Year, 2040, in order to accommodate the traffic growth in the corridor.

All of the study intersections were analyzed to evaluate operational conditions for each analysis year in the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build analysis assumed existing geometry with future No-Build traffic volumes at the intersections and was conducted using the Synchro software package, version 9.0. The No-Build directional design-hour volumes (DDHVs) for the morning and evening were input into the Synchro system to obtain the LOS. For signalized intersections, results were reported for each approach including the overall intersection. The intersections operate above acceptable LOS under the No-Build Alternative; however there are deficiencies that develop in Recker Highway approaches. Deficiencies occur in the westbound left turn, northbound left turn, and northbound through, eastbound left, eastbound through, and southbound left.


2.1.3 Build Alternative (Alternatives 1 and 2)

During the Recker Highway PD&E Study, two Build Alternatives were considered. Largely due to traffic issues and significant delays associated with the existing grade crossing of the CSX railroad, both alternatives feature a grade separation over the CSX facility. The only significant difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative 1 shifts the centerline of Recker Highway by approximately 30 feet to the west. This shift in alignment allows for a significant reduction of skew through the SR 600/US-92 intersection, but requires additional ROW acquisition. Alternative 2 consists of holding the existing centerline of Recker Highway and reconstructing the corridor to the east. Although Alternative 2 requires the acquisition of less ROW, safety concerns arise with a maximum skew of 6o00’00” through the SR 600/US-92 intersection.

The Build Alternatives of the Recker Highway corridor were analyzed with four lanes, two per direction. The Recker Highway corridor was segmented into five segments based on the presence of signals or intersecting traffic. The area type was classified as urbanized for the study area. The results of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) and DDHV analysis for the Build Alternatives indicate that with the Build Alternatives, assuming four lanes, all segments within the study corridor operate at or above acceptable LOS through the Design Year, 2040.

All of the study intersections were analyzed to evaluate operational conditions for each analysis year in the Build Alternatives. The build analysis assumed existing geometry with future Build traffic volumes at the intersections and was conducted using the Synchro software package, version 9.0. The No-Build DDHVs for the morning and evening were input into the Synchro system to obtain the LOS. For signalized intersections, results were reported for each approach including the overall intersection. All of the intersections operate above acceptable LOS under the Build Alternative. The Build Alternatives address a number of the deficiencies identified in the No-Build Alternative.

Based on a review of the traffic volumes, safety analysis, and other data as provided within this Project Traffic Report, the feasibility of constructing a roundabout in lieu of replacing the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Recker Highway and Thornhill Road was evaluated. The benefit of improving the existing traffic signal or installing a roundabout has a benefit cost ratio of 1.19. Although the benefit cost is low, both options (traffic signal or roundabout) provide the same cost benefit and each should be evaluated.

2.1.4 Build Alternative Typical Sections

The improvements will consist of one typical section that applies for both Alternatives 1 and 2. The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 2-1. The typical section is a 4-lane divided urban


Figure 2-1. Proposed Mainline (Recker Highway) Typical Section


typical section, beginning 1,800 feet south of CSX railroad crossing and would have four 11-foot lanes, a 22-foot median, 7-foot paved shoulders (also buffered bicycle lanes), 6-foot sidewalks, type E curb and gutter in the median, and type F curb and gutter on the outside shoulder.

In addition to the mainline typical there are two other typical sections of note. Frontage roads will be provided to maintain access to local businesses along the project corridor. The frontage roads typically consist of a 2-lane undivided urban facility with 12-foot travel lanes, no shoulders, and type F curb and gutter (Figure 2-2).

Thornhill Road will be realigned to accommodate the grade separation of the CSX RR. The typical section for Thornhill Road will be a 2-lane undivided highway with right turn lanes in each direction and will consist of 12-foot travel lanes, no shoulders, and type F curb and gutter (Figure 2-3).

The proposed bridge typical section will provide four 11-foot lanes separated by a 22-foot raised median, two 7-foot bike lanes with 1.5-foot gutter, a 32-inch F-shape Barrier (Index 420) and 6-foot sidewalks with 27-inch concrete parapet (Index 820) with Curved Top Bridge Fencing (Index 811). The out-to-out bridge width will be 99 feet and 7 inches. The typical section will be a normal crown at 2 percent. Figure 2-4 depicts the typical section.


Figure 2-2. Proposed Typical Section for Frontage Roads

Figure 2-3. Proposed Typical Section for Thornhill Road


Figure 2-4. Proposed Structures (Bridge) Typical Section


3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

3.1 EXISTING LAND USE

Existing land use along the project corridor was determined by a variety of resources including the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), USGS topographical maps, aerial photographs (2011), land use mapping from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and field-verification during wetland and habitat reviews. Figure 3-1 depicts the overview of existing land use types within 500 feet of the project corridor. Land use along the majority of the corridor is dominated by industrial/commercial uses interspersed with small areas of undeveloped areas, a cemetery, the CSX railway, and a medium density residential area. Figure 3-2 depicts wetlands mapped by NWI.

Most upland habitats adjacent to the project corridor have been developed as industrial infrastructure or commercial facilities. Upland habitats that have not been developed consist of remnant patches of hardwood forest or ruderal grasses. Although undeveloped at the time of surveys, most of these areas are not considered high quality for wildlife due to their proximity to the roadway and adjacent development. Dry conveyance ditches line the roadway near the intersection of Recker Highway and Thornhill Road. No natural wetlands occur within the study area; however, the outer edges of the study limits abut a stormwater management facility (SMF) in one location. Descriptions of upland communities are provided in Section 3.1.2. Table 3-1 provides a summary of land use cover types within 500 feet of the project; this analysis is based on land use data obtained from the SWFWMD and subsequent field-verification on December 16, 2015.

3.1.1 Natural and Biological Features

The study area does not contain any major natural features, such as a river or forested corridor, which would encourage the passage through or inhabitance of wildlife. The project area is highly developed with predominantly industrial uses. Elevations identified along the project corridor range from 142 to 154 feet above sea level.

3.1.2 Upland Vegetation Communities

The major upland vegetation communities within and directly adjacent to the project corridor are discussed in this section. These communities are classified according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Classifications System (FLUCFCS) (FDOT, 1999). During the field review, upland community types were visually inspected to verify community boundaries, dominant vegetation, and for the presence or potential for occurrence of threatened and endangered species. Upland habitat in the project area, as a whole, is generally disturbed and/or has been developed for industrial/commercial or residential purposes.




Table 3-1 Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCFCS) within 500 feet of Project Corridor

FLUCFCS Code FLUCFCS Description Acreage

Percent of Total Project Area

100:

Urb

an &

Bui

lt-U

p 1200 RESEDENTIAL MED DENSITY 4.72 3.14% 1400 COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES 15.01 9.98% 1423 JUNK YARDS 2.99 1.99% 1480 CEMETERIES 19.68 13.09% 1500 INDUSTRIAL 34.27 22.79% 1560 CEMENT PLANT 1.31 0.87% 1720 RELIGIOUS 0.80 0.53% 1900 OPEN LAND 12.51 8.32% 1920 INACTIVE LAND WITH STREET PATTERN 3.54 2.36% 1930 URBAN LAND IN TRANSITION 10.01 6.66%

Total 104.85 69.74%

400:

U

plan

d Fo

rest

4200 UPLAND HARDWOOD FORESTS 5.96 3.97%

Total 5.96 3.97%

500:

W

ater

5100 STREAMS AND WATERWAYS 0.24 0.16% 5340 RESERVOIRS LESS THAN 10 ACRES 4.03 2.68%

Total 4.27 2.84%

600:

W

etla

nds 6300 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED 2.64 1.76%

6410 FRESHWATER MARSHES 1.33 0.88% 6530 INTERMITTENT PONDS 0.17 0.11%

Total 4.14 2.76%

700:

B

arre

n L

and 7400 DISTURBED LAND 2.44 1.63%

Total 2.44 1.63%

800:

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

C

omm

unic

atio

n, &

U

tility

8120 RAILROAD 2.42 1.61%

8140 ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 20.16 13.41%

8310 ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES 6.10 4.06% Total 28.68 19.07%

Total 150.35 100.00%


Upland Hardwood Forests (FLUCFCS 420)

This classification of upland forest lands has a crown canopy with at least 66 percent dominance by hardwood tree species. This area is located on the south side of Recker Highway near the eastern end of the project limits. The canopy is comprised of live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and scattered slash pine (Pinus elliottii) with an understory of bahia grass (Paspalum notatum).

3.2 SOILS Review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey for Polk County, Florida identified six soil types within the project corridor. The six soil types identified along the corridor and their identification numbers include Pomona Fine Sand (MUID #7); Samsula Muck (MUID #13); Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (MUID #15); Pomona-Urban land complex (MUID #51); Udorthents, excavated (MUID #58); and Tavares-Urban land complex (MUID #63).

According to the Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists’ (FAESS), Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook (2007), no hydric soils occur within the project limits, however, they do occur within the project corridor (Table 3-2). The NRCS soils map for the project corridor is presented in Figure 3-3. Detailed descriptions of the dominant soil are located in Appendix B.

Table 3-2. Existing NRCS Soil Types within 500 feet of Project Corridor

Soil Name Soil ID

Hydric Soils

Total Area

(Acres)

Percent of Study Area

Pomona Fine Sand 7 No 25.61 17.03% Samsula Muck 13 Yes 7.94 5.28%

Tavares Fine Sand, 0-5% Slopes 15 No 66.49 44.22% Pomona-Urban Land Complex 51 No 6.46 4.30%

Udorthents, Excavated 58 No 9.70 6.45% Tavares-Urban Land Complex 63 No 34.16 22.72%

Total 150.34 1.00



3.3 SIGNIFICANT WATERS AND PROTECTION AREAS

3.3.1 Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW)

There are no waterways or waterbodies classified as OFW within or immediately adjacent to the project corridor.

3.3.2 Protection Areas

No protected areas are located within or immediately adjacent to the project corridor. The nearest conservation land is a conservation easement occurring approximately one mile to the west of the corridor.

3.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 600.920), as amended through January 12, 2007 and as administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding any of their actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect EFH. EFH is defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The word “fish” includes finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. No EFH is within the vicinity of the project.


4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT

4.1 METHODOLOGY The project corridor was assessed for the presence of suitable habitat for federal- and/or state-listed protected species in accordance with 50 CFR Part 402 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, Chapters 5B-40 and 68A-27 Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and Part 2, Chapter 16 – Protected Species and Habitat of the FDOT PD&E Manual.

Literature reviews, agency database searches, and preliminary field reviews of potential habitat areas were conducted to identify state and federally protected species occurring or potentially occurring within the project area. The Polk County Soil Survey and aerial imagery (2015) were reviewed to determine habitat types occurring within and adjacent to the project corridor. Information sources and databases include the following:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Databases;

• Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI);

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Databases;

• Polk County Soil Survey;

• FWC - Eagle Nest Locator for Polk County (2013-2014 nesting season data) (1-mile radius);

• FWC - Waterbird Colony Locator (1999) (1-mile radius);

• FWC - Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA) (1994) (10-mile radius);

• USFWS - CH for Threatened and Endangered Species; and

• USFWS - Wood Stork Core Foraging Areas (CFA) (18.6-mile radius).

Based on the results of database searches, preliminary field reviews, and review of aerial photographs and soil surveys, field survey methods for specific habitat types and lists of target species were developed. Field reviews consisted of vehicular surveys, roadside observations, and detailed pedestrian surveys through natural areas and altered habitats with the potential to support protected species. In the absence of physical evidence of a protected species, evaluation of the appropriate habitat was conducted to determine the likelihood of a species being present.

Project ecologists conducted initial general surveys on December 16, 2015. The field team consisted of ecologists with bachelor’s degrees in a biological science, and several years of field experience in Florida ecosystems. Using vehicular and meandering pedestrian transect survey methods during daylight hours, appropriate habitat within 500 feet of the project area


was visually scanned for evidence of listed species as well as general wildlife. All natural areas were considered as appropriate wildlife and floral species habitat. All occurrences of wildlife in the study area were recorded and observation locations were depicted on project aerials. These occurrence records could include observations of the actual species, or signs of their presence including tracks, burrows, dens, scat, nests, or vocalizations.

To further summarize the results of desktop and field data collection efforts, each potentially occurring species was assigned a likelihood for occurrence of “none,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high” within habitats found on the project corridor and an indicator of suitable habitat proximity to the project area of “distant,” “near,” or “contiguous.” Definitions of probability of species presence/habitat proximity are provided below.

Likelihood of Species Presence

None – Species has been documented in Polk County, but due to complete absence of suitable habitat, could not be naturally present within the project corridor.

Low – Species with a low likelihood of occurrence within the project corridor are defined as those species that are known to occur in Polk County or the bio-region, but preferred habitat is limited on the project corridor, or the species is rare.

Moderate - Species with a moderate likelihood for occurrence are those species known to occur in Polk or nearby counties, and for which suitable habitat is well represented on the project corridor, but no observations or positive indications exist to verify presence.

High - Species with a high likelihood for occurrence are suspected within the project corridor based on known ranges and existence of sufficient preferred habitat on the corridor; are known to occur adjacent to the corridor; or have been previously observed or documented in the vicinity.

Habitat Proximity

Distant - Appropriate habitat is distant from the project footprint when accounting for the species’ home range size and level of mobility.

Near - Appropriate habitat is near the project footprint when accounting for the species’ home range size and level of mobility.

Contiguous - Appropriate habitat occurs within or immediately adjacent to the project footprint.


4.2 RESULTS Based on the above methods, lists of potentially occurring protected faunal and floral species were developed, and each species was assigned a None, Low, Moderate or High likelihood for occurrence within habitats found on the project corridor. In addition, field observations as well as historic species occurrence results from the database searches were compiled and displayed graphically, based on a one-mile radius from the project corridor (Figure 4-1).

Land use along the corridor is dominated by industrial and commercial facilities. Undeveloped but cleared land exists along the project corridor; these areas are largely isolated from other natural areas. Undeveloped lands provide habitat for wildlife and plant species, some of which are protected, while the more developed areas provide limited habitat value. Descriptions are provided below for those species which have been observed along the project corridor or have a potential to occur within habitats identified on the corridor.

The project corridor was assessed for Critical Habitat (CH) as designated by Congress in 17 CFR 35.1532. Review of the USFWS’ available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data for CH resulted in the identification of no CH within the project area.

4.2.1 Wildlife

4.2.1.1 Federally Protected Wildlife Species

Table 4-1 lists the federal and state-protected wildlife species known to occur within Polk County that could potentially occur near the project area based on availability of suitable habitat and known ranges. The only federally protected wildlife species which have been identified as having any probability for occurrence in the vicinity of the corridor are the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), and wood stork (Mycteria americana). These species were identified as having a low probability for occurrence near the project area. The sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi) and bluetail mole skink (Plestiodon egregious lividius) were identified as having no potential for occurrence in the project area. These species are discussed in additional detail below.



Table 4-1. Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Wildlife Species

Species Common Name FWC USFWS Habitat Habitat Occurrence in Relation to Project Footprint

Probability of Species Presence or Occurrence

REPTILES

Drymarchon corais couperi

Eastern indigo snake - T

Hydric hammock, palustrine, sandhill scrub, upland pine forest, mangrove swamp

Near Low

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise T T (1) Old field, sandhill, scrub, xeric hammock, ruderal, dry prairie, pine flatwood

Contiguous Low

Lampropeltis extenuata Short-tailed snake T - Longleaf pine-turkey oak, upland hammock, sand pine scrub Distant Low

Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink - T oak-dominated scrub, turkey oak barrens, high pine, xeric hammocks Distant Low

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Pine Snake T - Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, xeric

hammock, pine flatwoods, ruderal Distant Low

Plestiodon egregius lividus

Blue-tailed mole skink - T

Sandhill and xeric hammocks, oak and sand pine scrubs, and turkey oak barrens

Distant Low

BIRDS

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus

Florida grasshopper sparrow

- E Large, treeless relatively poorly drained grasslands that have a history of frequent fire

Distant None

Antigone canadensis pratensis

Florida sandhill crane T - Basin marsh, depression marsh, dry

prairies, marl prairie, pastures Contiguous High

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay - T

Relict dune ecosystems or scrub on well drained to excessively well drained sandy soils

Distant None




Athene cunicularia floridana

Florida burrowing owl T - Native prairies and cleared areas with

short groundcover Contiguous Low

Caracara cheriway Crested caracara - T Wet prairies with cabbage palms, wooded areas with saw palmetto, cypress, and scrub oaks, pastures

Near Low

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron T - Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal marsh, tidal swamp Near Low

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron T - Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal marsh, tidal swamp Near Low

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel T - Sandhill, mesic flatwoods, ruderal, dry

prairie Near Low

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle 2 Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal

marsh, tidal swamp Contiguous High/Observed

Mycteria americana Wood stork - T Estuarine tidal swamps/marshes, lacustrine, seepage stream, ditches, ruderal

Near Low

Pandion haliaetus Osprey SSC* - Open water; areas of cypress, mangrove, pine and swamp hardwoods for nesting

Near Moderate

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker - E Mature pine forests containing living

longleaf pine trees Distant None

Platalea ajaja Roseate spoonbill T - Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal marsh, tidal swamp Near Low

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus

Everglade snail kite - E Lowland freshwater marshes and

littoral shelves of lakes Distant None




Rynchops niger Black skimmer T - Open sand on beaches, sandbars, and dredge material islands Distant None

Sternula antillarum Least tern T - Coastal beaches, estuaries, and bays, occasional use of rooftops Distant None

MAMMALS

Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat - E Forests, wetlands, open water,

natural and manmade structures Near None

Sciurus niger shermani

Sherman’s fox squirrel SSC -

Mature, open, fire-maintained longleaf pine and turkey oak sandhills and pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood pine, mature pine forests, cypress domes, pastures

Distant Low

Sources: (1) USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status, Official lists of Threatened and Endangered species, 50 CFR 17.11 [ranking: E – endangered, 7 – threatened] http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=12105 accessed May 23, 2016 (2) http://www.fnai.org/bioticssearch.cfm accessed May 23, 2016 (3) FFWCC – Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species, January 2017 USFWS Notations: (1) The Gopher Tortoise is afforded Federal protection wherever found west of Mobile and Tombigbedd Rivers in AL, MS, LA. (2) The Bald Eagle is afforded federal protection through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). FWC Notations: Has a significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future may result in becoming a threatened species unless appropriate protective/management techniques are initiated/maintained *The osprey is afforded status in Florida as a State Species of Special Concern (only in Monroe County) (FWC)


Sand Skink and Bluetail Mole Skink

As per the USFWS consultation guide for the sand skink and bluetail mole skink (USFWS 2012), potential skink habitat includes all areas with USFWS skink suitable soils which are at or above 82 feet in elevation in Highlands, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Putnam Counties. The USFWS-defined skink soils include the following soil map units as mapped by the NRCS: Apopka, Arredondo, Archbold, Astatula, Candler, Daytona, Duette, Florahome, Gainesville, Hague, Kendrick, Lake, Millhopper, Orsino, Paola, Pomello, Satellite, St. Lucie, Tavares, and Zuber. Based on this analysis, the project limits contain potentially suitable skink habitat. However, a field review with the NRCS was conducted on February 16, 2016 specifically to evaluate the suitability of soils for skinks. The report (Appendix B) concluded there is minimal chance of a viable skink population within this urban land use mosaic. The nearest recorded observation, which was of both a sand skink and a bluetail mole skink, is 1.8 miles southeast of the project limits and occurred in 1987. Based on this investigation, we anticipated that the project will have no effect on the sand skink. As per the USFWS, habitat considered suitable for the sand skink is also considered habitat for the blue-tailed mole skink; therefore, the project is also anticipated to have no effect on the blue-tailed mole skink. The USFWS has concurred with these findings and the relevant correspondence is provided in Appendix A.

Eastern Indigo Snake

Eastern indigo snakes are large, black, non-venomous snakes which are distributed throughout the southeastern United States. The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of habitats, including forested uplands and wetlands, as well as wet and dry prairies. This species feeds on snakes, frogs, salamanders, toads, small mammals, birds, and young turtles. Eastern indigo snakes are listed as threatened by the USFWS.

No individuals were observed during the field surveys, and there are minimal areas of suitable habitat for this species within and adjacent to the project corridor. The probability of occurrence for this species within the corridor is therefore low.

Pursuant to the August 2017 Eastern Indigo Snake Effect Determination Key: if (a) the project is not located in open water or salt marsh; (b) the Standard Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Appendix C) will be implemented to ensure protection when the species is most likely to be affected; (c) there are gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows, holes, cavities, or other refugia where a snake could be buried or trapped and injured during project activities; (d) the project will impact less than 25 acres of xeric habitat supporting less than 25 potential occupied gopher tortoise burrows; and (e) any permit will be conditioned such that (1) all gopher tortoise burrows, active or inactive, will be evacuated prior to site manipulation in the vicinity of the


burrows; (2) if an indigo snake is encountered, the snake must be allowed to vacate the area prior to additional site manipulation in the vicinity; (3) the permittee must inspect all holes, cavities, and snake refugia other than gopher tortoise burrows each morning before planned site manipulation of a particular area, and, if occupied by an indigo snake, no work will commence until the snake has vacated the vicinity of proposed work. It is therefore anticipated that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake.

Wood Stork

The wood stork is listed as threatened by the USFWS. Wood storks are known to use freshwater marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, flooded fields, depressions in marshes and brackish wetlands, open pine-cypress wetlands, and man-made wetlands (i.e., ditches, canals, and stormwater retention ponds). Wood storks are typically colonial nesters and construct their nests in medium to tall trees located within wetlands or on islands. Wood storks are known to forage a large distance, up to 40 miles, from the colony. No wood storks were observed during field surveys.

For south Florida, the USFWS has defined the CFA for a wood stork colony as the area within an 18.6-mile radius from the colony location. The project corridor is located within, completely or in part, of the CFA of five wood stork colonies (Lone Palm, 612316 Lake John, 616117, 616114, and NE Mulberry) (Figure 4-2). As defined by the USFWS, SFH includes wetlands and surface waters which have areas of water that are relatively calm, uncluttered by dense thickets of aquatic vegetation, and have permanent or seasonal water depth between 2 and 15 inches. Currently, no SFH exists within the project corridor, however surface waters will be reevaluated during final permitting of the project. Based on existing site conditions, the project will have no effect on the wood stork.



Crested Caracara

The crested caracara is listed as threatened by the USFWS. Ideal caracara habitat consists of mixtures of wet prairies with cabbage palms, wooded areas with saw palmetto, cypress (Taxodium spp.), scrub oak (Quercus inopina) ecosystems, and open pasturelands. As caracaras forage on carrion, they are somewhat adapted to non-natural areas and opportunistically feed on roadkill. Cabbage palms are the preferred nesting location for the caracara; a few immature cabbage palms are in the immediate vicinity of the project area.

No caracaras were observed during project surveys. The project area falls within the northern limits of the USFWS CA for the caracara and the nearest recorded caracara observation is approximately 22.2 miles east of the project limits (2015). However, there is no suitable nesting habitat within or near the project footprint, there are no suitable nesting trees, and the surrounding area is very urban. Based on lack of habitat, it is anticipated that this project will have no effect on the crested caracara.

Additional Species

The Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) is listed as threatened by the USFWS, and the proposed project falls within the USFWS CA. The species is endemic to Florida and inhabits sand pine, xeric oak scrub, and scrubby flatwoods. It is also known to inhabit less “classic” habitats including pastures, forest regeneration areas, and disturbed lands. The presence of scrub oaks is the key indicator of scrub habitat, and therefore, scrub-jay habitat. No suitable habitat for the Florida scrub-jay is within or nearby the project area. The nearest recorded scrub-jay observation is 1.8 miles to the southeast of the project limits and occurred in 1987. Therefore, it is anticipated that this project will have no effect on the Florida scrub-jay.

The Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) is a subspecies of grasshopper sparrow which is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The subspecies is endemic to central and southern Florida. It is extremely habitat-specific and relies on fires every two to three years to maintain the openness of its habitat. The project falls within the Florida grasshopper sparrow’s CA. The nearest recorded Florida grasshopper sparrow observation is 42 miles to the southeast of the project limits and occurred in 2015. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is listed as endangered by the USFWS. The species is extremely habitat-specific and requires forests of mature live longleaf pine and/or loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). They are primary excavators of these trees; their behavioral adaptations require them to excavate cavities in the live wood. Part of Polk County falls within the species’ CA, however, the project area does not. The nearest recorded red-cockaded woodpecker


observation is 24.8 miles east of the project limits and occurred in 1993. The Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) is a subspecies of snail kite which is designated by the USFWS as endangered. The Everglade snail kite’s diet consists almost exclusively of apple snails (Pomacea paludosa) and they require habitat consisting of freshwater marshes and shallow vegetated lake edges where these snails are found. The project falls within the species’ CA. The nearest recorded Everglade snail kite observation is 24.3 miles east of the project limits and occurred in 2013. The project area is completely devoid of habitat for these three species. The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) inhabits forests, wetlands, open water areas, and both natural and manmade structures. Relatively little is known regarding the habitat requirements and range of the Florida bonneted bat. The nearest recorded bonneted bat observation is approximately 83 miles to the south of the project limits and occurred in 2006. However, the project does not fall within the CA for the species and does not provide what would be considered ideal habitat. The project is anticipated to have no effect on the Florida grasshopper sparrow, Everglade snail kite, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Florida bonneted bat.

4.2.1.1 State-Protected Wildlife Species

State-listed wildlife species which have been identified as having a moderate or high probability for occurrence in the vicinity of the corridor include the Florida sandhill crane (Antigone canadensis pratensis). The gopher tortoise was identified as having a low probability of occurrence, but a gopher tortoise survey may be necessary as explained below.

Florida Sandhill Crane

The Florida sandhill crane is a large wading bird listed as threatened by the FWC. The range of this Florida subspecies extends from southeastern Georgia through peninsular Florida. The Florida sandhill crane subspecies is non-migratory and becomes a permanent resident wherever it nests. This bird inhabits freshwater marshes, prairies, low-lying improved pastures, and shallow flooded open areas. It typically nests from January to June in the shallow waters of lakes, ponds, and open marshes where maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) are present.

No sandhill cranes were observed during field surveys. As the sandhill crane commonly forages for insects and small vertebrates on maintained grassy roadway edges, potential foraging habitat is present within the project limits. No nesting habitat exists due to the absence of wetlands. Given the lack of nesting habitat within the proposed alignments and the abundance of foraging habitat adjacent to the project, it is anticipated that the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the Florida sandhill crane.


Gopher Tortoise

Gopher tortoises reach reproductive maturity at 16-21 years of age. Late April to mid-July is the height of gopher tortoise nesting season, however, nests can be laid at any point of the year. Preferred habitats include xeric areas with sandy soils and open canopy with low groundcover. The gopher tortoise feeds primarily on new shoots of grasses and broad-leaf herbs, but may also consume mushrooms, fleshy fruits, and some animal matter.

The gopher tortoise is listed by the FWC as threatened, and is currently a candidate for listing by the USFWS. No individuals or burrows were observed during preliminary field surveys of appropriate habitat. A comprehensive, “100%” gopher tortoise burrow survey is recommended prior to construction. Per FWC requirements, gopher tortoise burrows located within 25 feet of proposed impact areas must be excavated and tortoises relocated to an approved recipient site.

Because no gopher tortoises have been observed, and a 100% survey is recommended prior to construction followed by relocation, should any burrows be identified, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the gopher tortoise.

Additional Species

Protected wading birds which could potentially be found within Polk County include the little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja). These species are listed by the FWC as threatened and are also afforded some level of federal protection by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712). These birds require wetland habitats and forage on invertebrates, small fish, lizards, and amphibians. As the project does not propose impacts to any wetlands or surface waters providing foraging habitat, it is anticipated that the project will have no effect on state-listed wading birds.

Protected shorebirds with the potential to be found in Polk County include the black skimmer (Rynchops niger) and the least tern (Sternula antillarum). Though these species generally occur along the coastline, they have been documented opportunistically using inland sandy areas and flat rooftops for nesting. The project area contains no habitats or structures which could be opportunistically used by these shorebirds; therefore, the project is expected to have no effect on the black skimmer and the least tern.

The FWC lists the short-tailed (Lampropeltis extenuata) and Florida pine snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) as threatened. Both snake species inhabit scrubby, xeric habitats which


are largely absent from the project area. The project, therefore, is anticipated to have no effect on the short-tailed snake and the Florida pine snake.

The Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) is designated by the FWC as threatened. The species creates subterranean burrows in native prairies and cleared pastures. Though small tracts of pasture are present near the project area, due to the urban nature of the surrounding area, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the Florida burrowing owl.

The southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) is listed by the FWC as threatened. The species inhabits sandhills, mesic flatwoods, and open pastures. As these habitat types are largely absent from the project area and the surrounding land is quite urban, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the southeastern American kestrel.

The Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) is listed by the FWC as an SSC. The species inhabits mature pine forests, cypress domes, and pastures. These habitats are largely absent from the project area, therefore, the project is anticipated to have no effect on the Sherman’s fox squirrel.

4.2.1.2 Protected Non-Listed Wildlife Species

Osprey

The osprey (Pandion haliaeetus) is protected under the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and state-protected by Chapter 68A of the FAC. Ospreys inhabit areas near the coast, lakes, rivers, or swamps in Florida and feed on fish. Ospreys are known to nest on tall trees and manmade structures such as nesting platforms, utility poles, and channel markers. Ospreys require nest sites in open surroundings for easy approaches that are safe from ground predators such as raccoons.

Field surveys included searches for osprey nests however no ospreys or nests were identified. Because no nests were found and the FDOT will adhere to the MBTA during construction, it is anticipated that this project will have no effect on the osprey.

Bald Eagle

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is no longer listed as a federally threatened species but is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 USC 668-668d), as amended, and the MBTA (16 USC 703-712). The USFWS will still regulate activities if an active eagle nest is within 660 feet of a proposed activity. Bald eagles are also no longer listed by the FWC but monitoring may be required pursuant to the FWC Eagle Management Guidelines.


The bald eagle prefers riparian habitat associated with coastal areas, lake shores, and rivers. It nests near water bodies which provide a dependable source of food. Data obtained from the current FWC Eagle Nest Locator Database indicate that the nearest bald eagle nest to the project corridor is nest PO240 (Figure 4-1). This nest was last surveyed by FWC in 2013 and was active at that time. ESA Scheda ecologists confirmed that this nest was active in February 2016. It is located in a cell phone tower on an industrial-use property and the nest is approximately 710 feet from the project limits; this distance exceeds the standard 660-foot buffer. Bald eagle nests are considered to be active for five consecutive years from no documented nesting activity. After five years they are considered to be abandoned and protection measures no longer apply. Given that the FDOT will adhere to the BGEPA and MBTA during construction, the project limits are outside of the 660-foot nest buffer, there is currently extensive industrial use near the nest, and the commitment to determine nest status and confirm any new or alternate nests and coordinate with the FWC if appropriate, this project is anticipated to have no effect on the bald eagle.

4.2.2 Protected Plants

Table 4-2 lists the federal and state-protected plant species known to occur within Polk County that could potentially occur near the project area based on availability of suitable habitat and known ranges. No federal or state-listed plant species were observed or are documented for the project area.

The Lake Wales Ridge plant species collectively receive protection from the USFWS. The project area is within the CA for Lake Wales Ridge plants. The Lake Wales Ridge is the predominant ridge of the Central Florida ridge system which is an ancient beach and sand dune system composed of xeric uplands, flatwoods, wetlands, and lakes. These plants evolved on and are limited to the Lake Wales Ridge. During field reviews, no protected plants were observed. Because the project area is urban and contains no unaltered soils or native xeric habitat, it is anticipated that the project will have no effect on Lake Wales Ridge plants.


Table 4-2. Potentially Occurring and Observed Listed Plant Species

Species Common Name FDACS - DPI USFWS Habitat Probability of Presence or Occurrence

Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia E T Sand pine scrub with evergreen scrub oaks Low

Calamintha ashei Ashe's savory T Sandhills and scrub Low

Calopogon multiflorus Many-flowered grass-pink T Flatwoods Low

Centrosema arenicola Sand butterfly pea E - Mixed woodlands, pine thickets Low

Chionanthus pygmaeus Pygmy fringe tree E E Scrub, high pineland, dry hammocks, transitional habitats Low

Chrysopsis highlandsensis Highlands goldenaster E Sand pine scrub, scrubby flatwoods, and flatwoods on soils that could support rosemary scrub

Low

Cladonia perforata Perforate reindeer lichen E E High sand dune ridges, xeric white sands in sand pine scrub, typically in rosemary phase

Low

Clitoria fragrans Scrub pigeon-wing E T Sandhills and scrub Low Coelorachis tuberculosa Piedmont jointgrass T Margins of ponds and marshes None

Conradina brevifolia Short-leaved Rosemary E E Scrub Low

Crotalaria avonensis Avon Park Rabbit-bells E E White sand scrub Low

Dicerandra frutescens Scrub Mint E E Scrub and sandhills Low Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Scrub Buckwheat E T Sandhills and scrub Low

Gymnopogon chapmanianus Chapman's Skeletongrass N Sandhills, scrub, and flatwoods Low

Hartwrightia floridana Hartwrightia T Seepage areas None



Hypericum cumulicola Highlands Scrub Hypericum E E Scrub Low

Hypericum edisonianum Edison's Ascyrum E Flatwood marshes None Illicium parviflorum Star Anise E Wet hammock and swamps None Lechea cernua Nodding pinweed T - Scrub, scrubby flatwoods Low Lechea divaricata Spreading pinweed - - Flatwoods Low Liatris ohlingerae Florida Blazing Star E E Scrub Low Lupinus aridorum Scrub Lupine E E Scrub Low Matelea floridana Florida Spiny-pod E Hammocks Low

Nemastylis floridana Celestial Lily E Swamps, marshes, and wet flatwoods None

Nolina brittoniana Britton's Beargrass E E Sandhills and scrub Low

Ophioglossum palmatum Hand fern E - Hammocks and cypress swamps; epiphytic, usually on cabbage palm None

Panicum abscissum Cutthroat Grass E Wet flatwoods and seepage areas None Paronychia chartacea ssp. chartacea Paper-like Nailwort E T Scrub Low

Pavonia spinifex Yellow Hibiscus N Hammocks Low

Pecluma plumula Plume Polypody E Wet hammocks and swamps; epiphytic occasional on rocks or terrestrial

None

Pecluma ptilodon Swamp Plume Polypody E Floodplain forests, moist hammocks and swamps; epiphytic occasionally on rocks or terrestrial

None

Peperomia humilis Terrestrial Peperomia E Calcareous hammocks; sometimes epiphytic None



Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless Orchid E Bogs and wet flatwoods None

Polygala lewtonii Scrub milkwort E E Sandhills Low Polygonella basiramia Florida Jointweed E E Scrub Low Polygonella myriophylla Small's Jointweed E E Scrub Low Prunus geniculata Scrub Plum E E Scrub and turkey oak barrens Low

Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant Orchid T Sandhills, pinelands, and oak hammocks Low

Rhynchospora megaplumosa Large-plumed Beaksedge E Scrubby flatwoods Low

Salix floridana Florida Willow E Swamps and banks of spring-fed streams and rivers in hammocks None

Schizachyrium niveum Scrub Bluestem E Scrub Low Stylisma abdita Scrub Stylisma E Scrub Low

Thelypteris serrata Toothed Maiden Fern E Cypress swamps; occasionally

epiphytic None

Warea amplexifolia Clasping Warea E E Sandhills and scrub Low Warea carteri Carter's Warea E E Sandhills and scrub Low

Zephyranthes simpsonii Rain lily T - Wet pinelands and pastures, wet roadsides None

Ziziphus celata Scrub ziziphus E E Scrub Low Sources: 1. FNAI - Florida Natural Areas Inventory; Matrix of habitats and distribution by county of rare/endangered species in Florida, published April, 1990 2. FDACS. Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants. 2010. Patti J Anderson and Richard E Weaver. 3. FWS Species Reports, Listings and Occurrences for Florida http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/state ListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=FL 4. FWS Endangered Species Search http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/county 5. Habitats described by: Hansen, B.F. and Wunderlin, R.P. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.


4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

4.3.1 Direct Impacts

4.3.1.1 No-Build Alternative

No direct impacts to protected species or their habitats are associated with the No-Build Alternative.

4.3.1.2 Build Alternatives

Table 4-3 shows the FLUCFCS categories contained in each Build Alternative. The natural habitat impacts for each build alternative shown below were calculated by summing the natural FLUCFCS categories for each alternative. For the purposes of this exercise, FLUCFCS codes in the 100 Series (Urban and Built-Up), except for 1900 (Open Land), and all codes within the 800 Series (Transportation, Communication, and Utilities) were excluded. The amount of natural area proposed for impact by both Build Alternatives is shown below:

• Alternative 1 totals 2.46 acres of natural area

• Alternative 2 totals 2.46 acres of natural area

Table 4-3. Existing Land Use/Land Cover (FLUCFCS) within Build Alternatives

FLUCFCS Code Description Alternative 1

(Acres) Alternative 2

(Acres)

100:

Urb

an &

B

uilt-

Up

1900 OPEN LAND 2.16 2.16

Total 2.16 2.16

400:

Upl

and

Fore

st

4200 UPLAND HARDWOOD FORESTS 0.08 0.08

Total 0.08 0.08

500:

W

ater

5100 STREAMS AND WATERWAYS 0.22 0.22

Total 0.22 0.22 Total 2.46 2.46

FLUCFCS codes which do not provide habitat for wildlife, such as most of the 100 and 800 series codes, were excluded from this calculation.


4.3.1 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts

Indirect and secondary effects are those impacts that are reasonably certain to occur later in time as a result of the proposed project. They may occur outside of the area directly affected by the proposed project. Potential secondary effects include increased noise, traffic, and development, which could potentially impact wildlife or a change in wildlife migration patterns. Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the project area. Future federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed project are not considered in the determination of cumulative effects because they require a separate consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA.


Because no direct impacts to protected species or their habitats are anticipated to occur with the No-Build Alternative, no indirect, secondary, or cumulative impacts are expected as the roadway facility would be maintained in its current configuration.


For most species, indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project would likely be negligible because the majority of the Recker Highway and CSX corridors already exist and the improvements would be likely to have minimal adverse effects overall. Because the two Build Alternatives both use the same amount of natural space to accomplish the same ultimate goal, these impacts can be expected to be effectively the same for protected wildlife and flora.

The proposed project includes extremely minor impacts to natural area (0.08 ac impact to upland hardwood forest), no indirect, secondary, or cumulative impacts to protected species are anticipated to result from project construction.


5.0 WETLAND EVALUATION

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands” (May 1977), the proposed project has been evaluated for potential effects to wetlands and surface waters. Wetland and surface water locations and boundaries were investigated and approximated using aerial interpretation and field reconnaissance in the fall of 2015.

5.1 METHODOLOGY To assist in the proper determination/classification of surface waters and wetlands, data sources including historic aerial photography, permitted SMFs, and the SWFWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) boundaries on the SWFWMD E-Permitting District Permit Mapping system were examined. Shallow swales identified within the project corridor were primarily composed of mowed bahia grass; this type of system was not mapped during field surveys and was not evaluated for potential impacts.

Wetland boundaries would have been visually approximated using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) “Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-10” (1987) and “Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region” (2008) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) “Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters” (1995) (Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code [FAC]). However, no natural wetlands occur within the proposed project limits.

5.2 RESULTS Based on this analysis, it was determined that only surface waters occur within both build alternatives’ ROW and are proposed for impact. The ditches within the project corridor do not meet USACE jurisdiction because they were excavated in upland soils and are dry conveyance ditches which do not provide foraging habitat for the wood stork. These ditches do, however, meet SWFWMD criteria as surface waters because the slopes are steeper than 4:1 (horizontal: vertical). None of these surface waters appear to have been part of a previously permitted facility based on the SWFWMD E-Permitting District Permit Mapping system. A detailed description of this community type is provided below.

Seven (7) man-made, linear roadside ditches are located along the corridor. The roadside ditch features are associated with the SMFs currently in place to serve Recker Highway, Thornhill Road, and adjacent roadways. The roadside ditches appear to only hold water during rain and flood events. All of these features have been labeled as “surface waters” (SW). All seven of the surface waters are in the Streams and Waterways category (FLUCFCS 510). All appear to be jurisdictional with the SWFWMD however not jurisdictional with the USACE due to lack of wetland


characteristics and lack of foraging habitat for the wood stork. All surface waters identified within the existing ROW and acreage for each is provided in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Total Surface Water Acreages within Right-of-Way

Surface Water ID FLUCFCS Acres

SW-1 5100 0.11 SW-2 5100 0.01 SW-3 5100 0.02 SW-4 5100 0.02 SW-5 5100 0.02 SW-6 5100 0.02 SW-7 5100 0.01

Total 0.22

5.2.1 Additional Drainage Features

A variety of non-wetland, man-made swales are located along the corridor. By definition, swales have side slopes that are more gradual than 4:1 (horizontal: vertical). These features also tend to be associated with the stormwater management system currently in place to serve Recker Highway and adjacent roadways. These drainage features are man-made conveyances constructed within upland soil mapping units and do not support wetland vegetation. Dominant vegetation is turf grasses, and mowing of these areas is conducted on a routine basis.

5.2.2 Results of Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) Analysis

Because no wetlands are proposed to be impacted, UMAM analysis was not necessary for this study. While it is presumed that the surface waters will be considered as jurisdictional systems by the SWFWMD due to their side slopes, mitigation is not expected. Based on our field reviews, these surface waters are dry ditches which do not provide SFH for the wood stork, therefore impacts to these surface waters should not require mitigation for wood stork SFH.


5.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

5.3.1 Direct Impacts


No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters would result from the No-Build alternative. The existing dry ditches would remain intact.


During the design process, there will be an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and surface waters. The proposed Build Alternatives have completely avoided impacts to wetlands. The impacts that would result from both Build Alternatives are to surface waters which are considered jurisdictional only to the SWFWMD and not the USACE.

Total acreage for state-jurisdictional surface waters within the approximate work limits of both alternatives is 0.22 acres. There are no federally jurisdictional waters. No wetlands were identified within the approximate work limits. All of the improvements to the Recker Highway will impact only surface waters as depicted in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1. The surface waters proposed for impact consist of roadside ditches that are of limited habitat value and contain regularly maintained bahia grass.

Table 5-2. Jurisdictional Surface Water Impacts

Impact Area (acres) Surface

Water ID FLUCFCS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No-Build Alternative SW-1 5100 0.11 0.11 0.00 SW-2 5100 0.01 0.01 0.00 SW-3 5100 0.02 0.02 0.00 SW-4 5100 0.02 0.02 0.00 SW-5 5100 0.02 0.02 0.00 SW-6 5100 0.02 0.02 0.00 SW-7 5100 0.01 0.01 0.00

Totals 0.22 0.22 0.00



5.3.2 Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts

Indirect and secondary effects are those impacts that are reasonably certain to occur later in time as a result of the proposed project. They may occur outside of the area directly affected by the proposed project. Potential secondary effects include increased prevalence of nuisance/exotic vegetation species in offsite wetlands which are nearby the new ROW which would subsequently lower the quality of those systems. Because these species opportunistically invade from the edges of disturbed areas such as roadways, shifting the roadway has the potential to increase their ability to spread. Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the project area.


With the implementation of the No-Build Alternative, indirect, secondary, or cumulative impacts are also not expected as the roadway facility would be maintained in its current configuration.


The direct impacts to surface waters that the project proposes are very minimal and would have negligible effects overall; the indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts would therefore be proportionately more negligible. Because the two Build Alternatives both would impact the same amount of the same surface water systems, all indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts can be expected to be effectively the same as well.

5.4 WETLAND IMPACT MITIGATION Project constraints and ROW limits provide no practicable alternatives that would result in complete avoidance of impacts to the surface waters. Whenever possible, permanent impacts will be limited to the smallest degree possible through design modification. Temporary impacts, if any, to the surface waters will be conducted utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) and FDOT’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”.

At this time, compensation for wetland and/or surface water impacts is not anticipated as no wetlands would be impacted by the proposed project. The surface waters do not require mitigation as per state regulations and do not meet USACE criteria as waters of the U.S. or as potential wood stork SFH. Should compensation for surface waters be needed to address any future policy changes, it will be addressed pursuant to Chapter 373.4137, Florida Statutes (F.S.) in order to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C. 1344.

Chapter 373.4137 allows for the use of the FDOT Mitigation Inventory Program and credit purchase from mitigation banks. Several other options for mitigation of wetland impacts exist for


FDOT and include wetland creation, restoration, and/or preservation within the project watershed, which is the Peace River watershed. Mitigation options will be investigated further, if needed, during the final design phase of the project.

5.5 COORDINATION WITH THE PERMITTING AGENCIES This project was recently evaluated through the FDOT’s ETDM process (ETDM project #14205). An ETDM Programming Screen Summary Report was published on May 22, 2015, containing comments from the ETAT on the project’s effects on various natural, physical, and social resources.

Environmental permits, coordination, and authorizations will likely be required for this project from the following agencies:

• SWFWMD – Environmental Resource Permit


6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect federally and state-protected wildlife species.

Federally listed species which may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected by the project include:

• eastern indigo snake.

The project is anticipated to have no effect on the following federally listed species:

• sand skink and blue-tailed mole skink; • wood stork; • Florida scrub-jay; • crested caracara; • Florida grasshopper sparrow; • Everglade snail kite; • red-cockaded woodpecker; • Florida bonneted bat; and • Lake Wales Ridge plants.

State-protected species which may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected, by the project include:

• Florida sandhill crane; and • gopher tortoise.

The project is anticipated to have no effect on the following state-protected species:

• short-tailed snake; • Florida pine snake; • wading birds and shorebirds; • Florida burrowing owl; • southeastern American kestrel; and • Sherman’s fox squirrel.

Several species which may occur in the project vicinity are not listed as threatened, endangered or SSC, but receive other legal protection. The project is anticipated to have no effect on the following such species:

• osprey; and


• bald eagle.

Multiple avenues of protection are recommended to minimize any potential affects to these species. Some of the recommended protection measures may involve surveys and agency coordination during the project design phase, best management practices during construction, adherence to FDOT’s “Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction,” relocation of potentially affected gopher tortoises, and use of standard construction precautions for species such as the eastern indigo snake.

Based upon findings of the preliminary data collection, general corridor surveys, and ongoing coordination with the USFWS and FWC, the FDOT is considering the project recommendations listed below:

1. Eastern indigo snake: Use of standard FDOT Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Appendix C) during construction of the project;

2. Wood stork: No impacts to this species are currently anticipated. Impacts to potential wood stork SFH should be evaluated again during the design phase, and if necessary, mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be provided as required by law;

3. Gopher tortoise: If needed, surveys will be conducted prior to construction, and permits to relocate tortoises and commensals will be obtained from the FWC;

4. Osprey: Surveys to update locations of active osprey nest sites will be conducted prior to construction, and permits will be acquired if impacts during construction are unavoidable. Coordination with FWC will take place, and a replacement nesting structure will be located in the immediate vicinity as appropriate; and

5. Bald eagle: Prior to construction, the FDOT will determine the status of nest and confirm that no new or alternate nests have been established within or adjacent to the proposed corridor. Should PO240 or any new eagle nests be identified within 660 feet of the project, the FDOT will coordinate with the FWC.

6.2 WETLANDS

Both alternatives for the Recker Highway project require the acquisition of ROW. Within these limits, surface waters which were determined to be SWFWMD-jurisdictional consist of dry roadside ditches which were excavated within upland soils and have side slopes steeper than 4:1 (horizontal: vertical).

The SWFWMD-jurisdictional surface waters proposed for impact are of very limited habitat value because they are dry and vegetated with regularly mowed grass. Impacts are proposed only to SWFWMD-jurisdictional surface waters. A total of 0.22 acres of surface waters are proposed to


be impacted by both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 which both propose impacts extending beyond the existing ROW.

The FDOT is recommending the following measures to address wetland and/or surface water impacts in future phases of this project:

• Practicable measures to avoid or minimize impacts will be further addressed during final design for the project;

• BMPs will be incorporated during construction to minimize impacts to any off-site wetlands and surface waters that are affected by the proposed project; and

• While currently not anticipated to apply, unavoidable impacts to surface waters will be mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373 F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344 should state and/or federal regulations require it.


7.0 REFERENCES

Anderson, Patti J & Weaver, Richard E. 2010. Notes on Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Plants. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Bell, C. Ritchie & Taylor, Bryan J. 1982. Florida Wild Flowers and Roadside Plants. Laurel Hill Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Cowardin, L. M., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication, Washington D.C.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 2007. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, 4th Edition, Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Surveying and Mapping Thematic Mapping Section. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx#search accessed May 2016.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Species Conservation Planning Section, [email protected], Osprey Nest Removal Guidelines.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. November 2007. Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. September 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and their Allies. Non-Game Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1990. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Tallahassee, Florida.

Polk County Soil Survey Area (SSURGO). May 2016. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, Last accessed May 2016.

Hurt, G.W. et al. 2007. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook. Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists, Gainesville, Florida.


Institute for Systematic Botany – Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants maintained by the University of South Florida Biology Department. http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/.

Myers, R. L. and J. J. Ewel (eds.). 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric, Accessed May 2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Soil Survey of Polk County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service. Florida.

U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened species of the Southeast United States (The Red Book). Washington: Government Printing Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ecological services, division of endangered species, southeast region.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Multi-species recovery plan for the threatened and endangered species of South Florida, Volumes 1 and 2. Technical/Agency draft. Vero Beach (FL): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation Guide, Sand Skink and Blue-tailed (Blue-tail) Mole Skink.

Wunderlin, R. P. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida, 2nd ed. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.

APPENDIX A

Agency Correspondence

From: Wrublik, John [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 9:57 AM To: Cross, Vivianne <[email protected]> Cc: Pipkin, Gwen G <[email protected]>; Zang, Douglas <[email protected]>; Kristin Caruso <[email protected]>; Mullen, Gordon S <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 436560-1 - CSX @ Recker Rail Grade Separation - Request for Concurrence

Vivianne,

Based on the information provided, it appears that the soils within the project footprint have been

altered by the introduction of fill material. Therefore, it appears that the soils are not suitable for

Federally listed skinks, I agree that cover board surveys will not be needed to determine the

status of skinks on the project site.

Sincerely,

John M. Wrublik

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1339 20th Street

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

(772) 469-4282

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Cross, Vivianne <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi John-

FDOT District 1 is conducting a PD&E Study of Recker Highway, which proposes a grade-separation over the existing CSX corridor. The project is located in Auburndale, Polk County, and extends from Thornhill Road to US 92 (ETDM # 14205). With the exception of some proposed stormwater management sites and the potential for a few small right-of-way clips for the mainline, no additional right-of-way is required for the project.

Much of the project contains Tavares Fine Sand and Tavares Urban Complex soils. The project also contains elevations higher than 82 feet and is within the CA for the sand skink and blue-tail mole skink. However, the project is within a developed area, with no remaining parcels undisturbed by current or past structures or other infrastructure. As a result, we requested a field review by the NRCS to evaluate the soils and determine if there are any areas of the project footprint with soils that remain as potential skink soils. This review was conducted on February 16, 2016 within various locations of the project footprint (mainline and proposed off-site stormwater management sites), and the report is attached for your review. We are requesting your concurrence that given the results of the soil survey, a coverboard survey for skinks will not be required.

mailto:[email protected]







Thank you-

Vivianne Cross

Environmental Project Manager

Florida Department of Transportation, District 1

801 North Broadway Avenue

P.O. Box 1249

Bartow, FL 33831-1249

(863) 519-2805

Fax: (863) 519-1971

Email: [email protected]


Purpose of and Need for Purpose and Need StatementPURPOSE

The primary purpose of the Recker Highway at CSX railroad overpass is to relieve traffic congestion and delay, especially

for truck traffic, and improve safety. The project will provide an unimpeded direct link from US 92 to Recker Highway near

Thornhill Road, eliminating the significant delay for trucks and automobiles that currently exists during train crossing

events. The need for this project is based on the following criteria:

CAPACITY/TRANSPORTATION DEMAND: Improve Operational Performance

MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS: Enhance Freight Mobility and Economic Competitiveness

SAFETY: Enhance Safety Conditions

NEED

CAPACITY/TRANSPORTATION DEMAND: Improve Operational Performance

The area surrounding the project location is primarily oriented towards freight and automobile traffic. There are no existing

sidewalks or bicycle lanes along Recker Highway. Recker Highway experiences significant truck traffic due to its function

of providing truck access to several industrial and distribution facilities within the Auburndale Freight Activity Center. North

of the CSX rail line, the Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) is 1,320, which equates to 11 percent of all vehicle

traffic [12,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)]. Likewise, south of the CSX railroad line, the AADTT is 756, also

equating to 11 percent of all vehicle traffic. With approximately 20 CSX trains and four AMTRAK passenger trains daily,

Recker Highway experiences high levels of traffic congestion and vehicular delay during the frequent train crossing

events.

MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS: Enhance Freight Mobility and Economic Competitiveness

Recker Highway is defined as a Regional Freight Mobility Corridor in the Tampa Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan.

Additionally, the proposed railroad overpass improvement project is located within a high-intensity industrial area that

spans approximately 2,200 acres (1,620 developed acres) and supports several major industrial and manufacturing

companies such as Cutrale Citrus Juices, Bynum Transport, and Osprey Energy Center. The project will greatly reduce

the amount of time heavy trucks spend idling in traffic at the existing at-grade CSX railroad crossing at Recker Highway;

thereby, helping to facilitate faster freight shipping times. The daily number of CSX trains at the crossing is approximately

20 with an additional four daily AMTRAK passenger trains.

SAFETY: Enhance Safety Conditions

Description

#14205 Recker Highway at CSX (Railroad Overpass)District: District 1 Phase: Programming ScreenCounty: Polk From: Thornhill RoadPlanning Organization: FDOT District 1 To: US 92Plan ID: Not Available Financial Management No.: 436560-1-22-01Federal Involvement: No federal involvement has been identified.

Contact Information: Gwen G. Pipkin (863) 519-2375 x2375 [email protected] Data From: Project Published 5/22/2015

Page 1 of 3 Description Printed on: 5/19/2016

The Recker Highway at CSX railroad overpass will enhance safety for both trains and automobile traffic by separating the

two modes and eliminating potential conflicts. The average speed of CSX trains through the crossing is 70 mph.

Additionally, the corridor experiences a high number of truck crashes. Recker Highway has a safety ratio of 4.53,

indicating that there are four times as many crashes on this corridor than the State average for a similar facility type. Also,

since Recker Highway is identified as a priority for future bicycle facilities, the railroad overpass would facilitate a safer

environment for potential non-motorized modes of transportation by eliminating the at-grade railroad crossing.

Project DescriptionThis Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) rail capacity improvement project involves constructing a new two-lane railroad

overpass at an existing at-grade CSX railroad crossing (#623082F) at SR 655 (Recker Highway), in Polk County. The rail

crossing averages approximately 20 CSX trains daily as well as an additional four AMTRAK passenger trails. The average

speed of CSX trains through the crossing is 70 mph. Recker Highway is a two-lane facility and has a functional

classification of 'Urban Minor Arterial' and is also designated as a Regional Freight Mobility Corridor in the Tampa Bay

Regional Strategic Freight Plan.

Preliminary design concepts for the railroad overpass include a three-span overpass that will begin at the intersection of

Recker Highway and US 92 and end just southeast of the Recker Highway and Thornhill Road intersection. A two-lane

frontage road is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the railroad overpass to maintain access to residences and

businesses via Hillcrest Road. Additionally, Derby Avenue is proposed to be extended to provide business access via

Derby Avenue and Chambers Road. The project length is approximately 0.4 miles and will require an approximate

additional 20 feet of right-of-way.

CONSISTENCY WITH TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The proposed railroad overpass improvement project on Recker Highway at the CSX railroad is included in the FDOT

Five-Year Work Program (FY 2015-FY 2019) with Project Development and Environment (PD&E) [$2,000,000] funded in

FY 2015. Additionally, the project is identified as both a corridor based need and a freight hot spot priority in the Tampa

Bay Regional Strategic Freight Plan. The Polk Transportation Planning Organization's (TPO) 2035 Mobility Vision Plan

identifies a new four-lane project on Recker Highway from Thornhill Road to Neptune Road South of US 92 [Preliminary

Engineering (PE) and Right-of-Way (ROW) FY 2016-2020] as well as widening to four lanes from Spirit Lake Road/42nd

Street to Thornhill Road (unfunded need). The 2030 Polk County Comprehensive Plan identifies Recker Highway as a

future road improvement/widening project. Additionally, it is identified as a future bicycle priority.

Summary of Public CommentsSummary of Public Comments is not available at this time.Justification

No public comments are available at this time. Planning Consistency StatusNo information available. Potential Lead Agencies- FL Department of Transportation Exempted Agencies

Project DocumentsThere are no attachments for this project.

Agency Name Justification DateFederal Transit Administration FTA has requested to be exempt from reviewing any non-transit projects. 02/05/2015

US Coast GuardUS Coast Guard has requested to be exempt from reviewing any projects that do notimpact navigable waterways. 02/05/2015


Alternative #1 Alternative Description

Segment Description(s) Location and Length

Jurisdiction and Class

Base Conditions

Interim Plan

Needs Plan

Cost Feasible Plan

Funding SourcesNo funding sources found.

Eliminated Alternatives There are no eliminated alternatives for this project.

Name From To Type Status Total Length Cost Modes SIS

Alternative wasnot named. Thornhill Road US 92

TrafficOperation

EnhancementETAT Review

Complete 0.357 mi. Roadway Y

Segment No. NameBeginningLocation Ending Location Length (mi.) Roadway Id BMP EMP

Recker Highwayat CSX

Recker Highwayat CSX Thornhill Road US 92 0.357 Digitized

Segment No. Jurisdiction Urban Service Area Functional ClassRecker Highway at CSX In/Out

Segment No. Year AADT Lanes ConfigRecker Highway at CSX





Agency Environmental Comments

#14205 Recker Highway at CSX (Railroad Overpass)District: District 1 Phase: Programming ScreenCounty: Polk From: Thornhill RoadPlanning Organization: FDOT District 1 To: US 92Plan ID: Not Available Financial Management No.: 436560-1-22-01Federal Involvement: No federal involvement has been identified.

Contact Information: Gwen G. Pipkin (863) 519-2375 x2375 [email protected] Data From: Project Published 5/22/2015

Page 1 of 32 Agency Environmental Comments Printed on: 6/23/2016

NOTE TO READERS:

The following Project Effects Overview has been abbreviated to show only the sections most pertinent to the subject matter of this document, the Natural Environment and Special Designations

The National Wetlands Inventory database and SWFWMD Wetlands 2011 database do not report any wetlands within the 100-foot project buffer. Asrequired by permitting criteria, avoidance and minimization measures will be incorporated into the project design, and best management practices willbe utilized during project construction. Based on the foregoing, a Summary DOE of Minimal has been assigned to the Wetlands issue.

Commitments and Responses: Preparation of a Wetland Evaluation Report (in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 18 of the FDOT PD&E Manual) willbe included in the scoping recommendations for this project.

Technical Study: Wetland Evaluation Report.

Degree of Effect: N/A N/A / No Involvement assigned 03/05/2015 by David A. Rydene, National Marine Fisheries Service

Coordination Document: No Involvement

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:None.

Comments on Effects to Resources:NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the information contained in the Environmental Screening Tool for ETDM Project #14205. The Florida Department of Transportation District 1 proposes the construction of an overpass where Recker Highway (SR 655) crosses the CSXrail line in Polk County, Florida. The project extends from Thornhill Road to US 92.

NMFS has determined that the resources affected are not ones for which NMFS is responsible, therefore we have no comment to provide regarding theproject's impacts.

Additional Comments (optional):

CLC Commitments and Recommendations:

Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 04/30/2015 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency

Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:A little over 1 acre of wetlands within the 500 foot buffer.

Comments on Effects to Resources:While no wetlands are identified by the screening tool to be within 200 feet, some wetlands are identified to be within 500 feet. Considering the scope ofthe project, avoidance should be the strategy to manage this and any other wetlands identified in the delineation process.



Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 04/06/2015 by Garett Lips, US Army Corps of Engineers

Coordination Document: Permit RequiredCoordination Document Comments:A Nationwide permit may be necessary if the project is anticiapted to result in filling more than 0.5 acres of waters.

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:No wetlands were identified within 100-feet of the project. The extent of other waters, such as drainge ditches, canals, or other aquatic resources, isunknown.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Avoid to the extent practical water quality degradation and filling waters.Coordinate with theCorps liasion as neededto determine the extentofjurisdiction.


Additional Comments (optional):A Nationwide permit may be necessary if the project is anticiapted to result in filling more than 0.5 acres of waters.


Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 04/14/2015 by Monte Ritter, Southwest Florida Water Management District

Coordination Document: Permit RequiredCoordination Document Comments:The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this project, a DOE of "Minimal" was assigned to the expected permitting effort by FDOT shouldbe straight forward and a normal effort is expected on the part of SWFWMD's regulatory staff.

The District will require a delineation of the landward extent of wetland and surface water features by a qualified environmental scientist, pursuant toChapter 62-340, F.A.C. The District recommends that the FDOT submit a Formal Wetland Determination Petition prior to the ERP application submittal.

An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for this project. However, the final determination of the type of permit will depend upon thefinal design configuration.

For ETDM #14205, the District has assigned a pre-application file (PA# 402050) for the purpose of tracking its participation in the ETDM review of thisproject. File PA# 402050 is maintained at the Bartow Service Office of the SWFWMD. Please refer to this pre-application file whenever contactingDistrict regulatory staff regarding this project.

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:There are no wetlands located within the 200 foot buffer as assessed through the GIS Analysis Report from the EST (Run February 9, 2015) and byaerial review of the District's ArcMap GIS. It appears there may be a small amount of roadside ditches or swales associated with the 0.41-mile stretch ofexisting roadway.

Comments on Effects to Resources:There are no wetlands located within the 200 foot buffer as assessed through the GIS Analysis Report from the EST (Run February 9, 2015) and byaerial review of the District's ArcMap GIS. It appears there may be a small amount of roadside ditches or swales associated with the 0.41-mile stretch ofexisting roadway, the proposed frontage road and the extension of Derby Avenue.

Additional Comments (optional):The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this project, a DOE of "Minimal" was assigned to the expected permitting effort by FDOT shouldbe straight forward and a normal effort is expected on the part of SWFWMD's regulatory staff.

The District will require a delineation of the landward extent of wetland and surface water features by a qualified environmental scientist, pursuant toChapter 62-340, F.A.C. The District recommends that the FDOT submit a Formal Wetland Determination Petition prior to the ERP application submittal.




Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 03/04/2015 by John Wrublik, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:Wetlands

Comments on Effects to Resources:


Water Quality and Quantity Project Effects

Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. According to the date provided in the Environmental Screening Tool, it does not appear thatwetlands occur in or near the project site. However, this information has not yet been verified by field inspections. In the event that wetlands are found tooccur in the project area, we recommend that the project be designed to avoid these valuable resources to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts towetlands are unavoidable, we recommend that the FDOT provides mitigation that fully compensates for the loss of wetland resources.



Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 05/22/2015 by FDOT District 1

Comments:SWFWMD commented that the project occupies two drainage basins [Saddle Creek (WBID 1497) and Lake Lena Run (WBID 1501A)]; Saddle Creek iscurrently impaired for dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, and fecal coliform. SWFWMD noted that stormwater management systems discharging directlyor indirectly into impaired waters must provide a net improvement condition in the water body in terms of the pollutants that contribute to the waterbody's impairment. SWFWMD also noted that as of March 2015, fifteen Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) have been applied for within 200 feetof this project; impacts to existing permitted stormwater management systems should be assessed. SWFWMD recommends that FDOT prepare a PondSiting Report and an updated Bridge Hydraulics Report(s) if the project affects any existing cross-drainage facilities. SWFWMD noted that a pre-application file (PA #402050) for this project, which is currently maintained at the SWFWMD's Bartow Service Office, has been assigned. CoordinationDocument: Permit Required.

USEPA noted that the proposed project will increase impervious surfaces; therefore, the proposed stormwater management system should bedesigned to prevent impacts to surface water flow and water quality within the Saddle Creek and Lake Lena Run watersheds. CoordinationDocument: PD&E Support Document as per PD&E Manual.

The project is located within the watersheds of Saddle Creek (WBID 1497) and Lake Lena Run (WBID 1501A); both of which are impaired for fecalcoliform. Saddle Creek is also impaired for dissolved oxygen and nutrients. The proposed railroad overpass will be designed to meet state water qualityand quantity standards, and best management practices will be utilized during project construction. However, due to higher standards of water qualitytreatment and attenuation associated with stormwater discharge to impaired waters, a Summary DOE of Moderate has been assigned to the WaterQuality and Quantity issue.

Commitments and Responses: A Water Quality Impact Evaluation (conducted in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 20 of the FDOT PD&E Manual) willbe included in the scoping recommendations for this project.

Technical Study: Water Quality Impact Evaluation. / Pond Siting Report. / Bridge Hydraulics Report (potentially).

Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 04/14/2015 by Monte Ritter, Southwest Florida Water Management District

Coordination Document: Permit RequiredCoordination Document Comments:The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this roadway improvement project, a DOE of "Moderate" was assigned to this issue due to thepresent belief that future ERP permitting is expected to be non-routine for potential water quality impacts to the impaired waterbody.However, theexpected permitting effort by FDOT should be straight forward and a normal effort is expected on the part of SWFWMD's regulatory staff.

An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for this project.However, the final determination of the type of permit will depend upon thefinal design configuration.

Specific studies that contain useful water quality and hydrologic information have been published by Polk County and the SWFWMD. These reports canbe accessed through the District's Library at http://www15.swfwmd.state.fl.us/dbtw-wpd/mywebqbe/librarybasic.htm. Type in the water body of interest,click on "Submit query" then click on the pull-down menu in the upper left and select "Record Display - Web."

Impacts to existing permitted stormwater management systems may decrease performance in terms of flood management and stormwater treatment.Information on Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs), Storm Water Permits, Dredge & Fill Permits and Works of the District Permits is now availablein the EST under Water Quality & Quantity > Permits. Useful (but limited) information includes the permit number, a short description of the project,name of the permittee, project acreage and an approximate location of the project (shown graphically).


As of March, 2015, the EST indicated fifteen (15) ERP's have been applied for within 200 feet of this project. Similar information can be obtained fromthe SWFWMD's Permits Map Viewer and Environmental Resource Permit Search web sites as follows:http://www8.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ExternalPermitting/http://www18.swfwmd.state.fl.us/erp/erp/search/ERPSearch.aspx

Previous permits that may be of interest to FDOT in the future design phases of the proposed roadway improvement project are as follows:

Environmental Resource Permits (12):- 2472.002 - MCI WORLDCOM - JUNCTION EXPANSION- 14417.000 - BYNUM TRUCKING- 14417.001 - BYNUM TRUCKING- 14417.002 - BYNUM TRANSPORTATION- 20197.000 - OAKWOOD HOMES SALES CENTER- 21263.001 - MID-FL AUTOMOTIVE- 21406.004 - US HWY 92 COMM CTR-RIVERSIDE NATL BANK- 21406.005 - US HWY 92 COMMERCIAL CENTER- 21834.000 - FLORIDA TIRE SUPPLY- 33600.000 - POLK CO - THORNHILL RD RECKER HWY INT- 33686.000 - DOT SR 655 RECKER HIGHWAY- 33686.001 - WIDENING AND RESRFACING SR 655

The SWFWMD's Applicant Handbook Volume II document describes design approaches and criteria that will provide reasonable assurances that theproposed surface water management systems will meet the conditions for issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). Parameters frequentlyover or under estimated include: seasonal high water levels, seasonal high groundwater table elevations, soil vertical & horizontal hydraulic conductivity,depth to the soil confining units, historic basin storage, floodplain storage, conveyance way hydraulic capacity, peak discharge rates and timing,tailwater conditions in the receiving system, total discharged volume, and off-site hydrograph timing impacts. Site-specific design data is preferable to"book values."

The District recommends that the FDOT consider providing a pond siting report that addresses the above referenced design approaches and criteria.For those improvements that may affect existing cross drainage facilities, an updated bridge hydraulics report(s) should be prepared and submitted withthe ERP application.

If this project will require the acquisition of new right-of-way areas, any issued permit may include special conditions prohibiting construction until theFDOT provides evidence of ownership and control.

For ETDM #14205, the District has assigned a pre-application file (PA #402050) for the purpose of tracking its participation in the ETDM review of thisproject. File PA #402050 is maintained at the Bartow Service Office of the SWFWMD. Please refer to this pre-application file whenever contactingDistrict regulatory staff regarding this project.

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:The following information was obtained from the SWFWMD's Geographic Information System (GIS) and supplemented with information from theFDOT's Environmental Screening Tool (EST) and FDEP's TMDL Tracker, accessible at:http://webapps.dep.state.fl.us/DearTmdl/dashboardAction.do?method=dashboard#

From west to east, the project occupies two (2) drainage basins: Saddle Creek (WBID 1497) andLake Lena Run (WBID 1501A). An approximate (graphical) location of these two (2) WBIDs can be viewed within the EST.

WBID 1497 is classified impaired for nutrient related pollutants by FDEP.

During March, 2015, the following information was obtained from the FDEP regarding Verified Impaired Waters along this project's alignment:

Saddle Creek (WBID 1497), Group 3 (Sarasota Bay - Peace - Myakka), Upper Peace River Planning Unit, FDEP Southwest Regulatory District:Selected Assessments for Cycle 2 (as of 01/15/2010):- Verified Impaired (Assessment Category 5) for Dissolved Oxygen (Nutrients).- Verified Impaired (Assessment Category 5) for Nutrients (Chlorophyll-a).


- Verified Impaired (Assessment Category 5) for Fecal Coliform.A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) document was not available for this WBID.

Water Quantity:

Floodplain issues for this roadway improvement project were addressed in a previous section of this document.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Water Quality:Untreated or under-treated runoff generated by this project could impact the two (2) watersheds (WBIDs) identified in the previous section. As of March,2015, one (1) of these watersheds is currently classified as "Verified impaired" (Assessment Category 5) by the FDEP for nutrient related pollutants.However, this could change in the future as development activities increase within these respective WBIDs. The SWFWMD recommends that FDOTparticipate as a stakeholder in future TMDL and BMAP activities by the FDEP.

Water Quantity:Potential impacts from this roadway improvement project will depend upon the required filling, encroachment or alteration of Historic Basin Storageareas. Un-attenuated or under-attenuated runoff could cause flooding impacts to existing off-site stormwater management systems and drainageconveyance facilities.

Additional Comments (optional):The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this roadway improvement project, a DOE of "Moderate" was assigned to this issue due to thepresent belief that future ERP permitting is expected to be non-routine for potential water quality impacts to the impaired waterbody.However, theexpected permitting effort by FDOT should be straight forward and a normal effort is expected on the part of SWFWMD's regulatory staff.

An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for this project.However, the final determination of the type of permit will depend upon thefinal design configuration.

Specific studies that contain useful water quality and hydrologic information have been published by Polk County and the SWFWMD. These reports canbe accessed through the District's Library at http://www15.swfwmd.state.fl.us/dbtw-wpd/mywebqbe/librarybasic.htm. Type in the water body of interest,click on "Submit query" then click on the pull-down menu in the upper left and select "Record Display - Web."

Impacts to existing permitted stormwater management systems may decrease performance in terms of flood management and stormwater treatment.Information on Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs), Storm Water Permits, Dredge & Fill Permits and Works of the District Permits is now availablein the EST under Water Quality & Quantity > Permits. Useful (but limited) information includes the permit number, a short description of the project,name of the permittee, project acreage and an approximate location of the project (shown graphically).

As of March, 2015, the EST indicated fifteen (15) ERP's have been applied for within 200 feet of this project. Similar information can be obtained fromthe SWFWMD's Permits Map Viewer and Environmental Resource Permit Search web sites as follows:http://www8.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ExternalPermitting/http://www18.swfwmd.state.fl.us/erp/erp/search/ERPSearch.aspx

Previous permits that may be of interest to FDOT in the future design phases of the proposed roadway improvement project are as follows:

Environmental Resource Permits (12):- 2472.002 - MCI WORLDCOM - JUNCTION EXPANSION- 14417.000 - BYNUM TRUCKING- 14417.001 - BYNUM TRUCKING- 14417.002 - BYNUM TRANSPORTATION- 20197.000 - OAKWOOD HOMES SALES CENTER- 21263.001 - MID-FL AUTOMOTIVE- 21406.004 - US HWY 92 COMM CTR-RIVERSIDE NATL BANK- 21406.005 - US HWY 92 COMMERCIAL CENTER- 21834.000 - FLORIDA TIRE SUPPLY- 33600.000 - POLK CO - THORNHILL RD RECKER HWY INT- 33686.000 - DOT SR 655 RECKER HIGHWAY- 33686.001 - WIDENING AND RESRFACING SR 655


Floodplains Project Effects

The SWFWMD's Applicant Handbook Volume II document describes design approaches and criteria that will provide reasonable assurances that theproposed surface water management systems will meet the conditions for issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). Parameters frequentlyover or under estimated include: seasonal high water levels, seasonal high groundwater table elevations, soil vertical & horizontal hydraulic conductivity,depth to the soil confining units, historic basin storage, floodplain storage, conveyance way hydraulic capacity, peak discharge rates and timing,tailwater conditions in the receiving system, total discharged volume, and off-site hydrograph timing impacts. Site-specific design data is preferable to"book values."

The District recommends that the FDOT consider providing a pond siting report that addresses the above referenced design approaches and criteria.For those improvements that may affect existing cross drainage facilities, an updated bridge hydraulics report(s) should be prepared and submitted withthe ERP application.

If this project will require the acquisition of new right-of-way areas, any issued permit may include special conditions prohibiting construction until theFDOT provides evidence of ownership and control.

For ETDM #14205, the District has assigned a pre-application file (PA #402050) for the purpose of tracking its participation in the ETDM review of thisproject. File PA #402050 is maintained at the Bartow Service Office of the SWFWMD. Please refer to this pre-application file whenever contactingDistrict regulatory staff regarding this project.


Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 04/30/2015 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency


Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:Groundwater Aquifer and Saddle Creek.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The proposed project will increase impervious surfaces and will require appropriate storm water management capacity. All federal, state and localrequirements should be met in the design and construction process. The Capacity of the storm water management system must ensure avoidingimpacts to water flow as well as water quality.During construction best management practices should be followed to avoid sediment impact on water quality in both watersheds.



Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 05/22/2015 by FDOT District 1

Comments:SWFWMD commented that, according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project resides 100% within Flood Zone X; potential impacts willdepend on the required filling, encroachment, or alteration of existing floodplains or historic basin storage areas. SWFWMD noted that SWFWMD-supported Watershed Management Models are generally based on more recent land cover and topographic information; therefore, FDOT should utilizedata on flows and stages from these flood studies. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

USEPA did not identify any issues or potential project effects related to floodplains. Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document as per PD&EManual.

According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (1996), the project occurs entirely within Flood Zone X (an area determined to be outside of the100- and 500-year floodplains). Although the project will likely require additional right-of-way for construction of the overpass, no floodplainencroachment is anticipated. Therefore, a Summary DOE of Minimal has been assigned to the Floodplains issue.

Commitments and Responses: None.


Technical Study: None.


Coordination Document: Permit RequiredCoordination Document Comments:The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect (DOE) based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this project, a DOE of "minimal" was assigned to this issue due to the present belief that little orno adverse impacts to floodplains or historic basin storage areas are expected. Future permitting should involve routine interaction with the SWFWMD'sregulatory staff.

SWFWMD supported Watershed Management Models are generally based on more recent land cover and topographic information. The SWFWMDrecommends that the FDOT utilize data from these flood studies in preference to generalized information on flows and stages. FDOT should coordinatewith District Engineering & Watershed Management Section staff in Brooksville regarding the status & data availability of these Watershed ManagementModels. Ongoing SWFWMD studies encompassing this roadway improvement project that may be helpful in the PD&E and design phase include thefollowing:

Project Number: H008Project Name: Restoration - Lake Hancock Design, Permit and Mitigation to Raise Lake Nearly 1.5'Area(s) of Responsibility: Natural Systems, Minimum Flows and Levels RecoveryProject Status: OngoingProject Manager: Mr. Randy Smith

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:The following information was obtained from the FDOT's Environmental Screening Tool (EST) and supplemented with information from the SWFWMD'sGeographic Information System (GIS):

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) areas of interest include the following:- Zone X: representing one hundred (100) % of the proposed roadway improvement project within the 200 foot buffer.

Approximate locations of this FIRM Zone can be viewed within the EST under the "Floodplains" map and > Water Resource > Flood Zones > DFIRM100-Year Flood Plain layer.

As of March, 2015, the following FIRM Panel Numbers for the proposed alignment (from southwest to northeast) can be obtained from the FEMA MapService Center at:https://msc.fema.gov/portal

Panel # 12105C0340F: Effective Date - 12/20/2000

Comments on Effects to Resources:Potential impacts for this proposed roadway improvement project will depend upon the required filling, encroachment or alteration of existing floodplainsor historic basin storage areas.

Additional Comments (optional):The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect (DOE) based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this project, a DOE of "minimal" was assigned to this issue due to the present belief that little orno adverse impacts to floodplains or historic basin storage areas are expected. Future permitting should involve routine interaction with the SWFWMD'sregulatory staff.

SWFWMD supported Watershed Management Models are generally based on more recent land cover and topographic information. The SWFWMDrecommends that the FDOT utilize data from these flood studies in preference to generalized information on flows and stages. FDOT should coordinatewith District Engineering & Watershed Management Section staff in Brooksville regarding the status & data availability of these Watershed ManagementModels. Ongoing SWFWMD studies encompassing this roadway improvement project that may be helpful in the PD&E and design phase include thefollowing:

Project Number: H008Project Name: Restoration - Lake Hancock Design, Permit and Mitigation to Raise Lake Nearly 1.5'


Wildlife and Habitat Project Effects

Area(s) of Responsibility: Natural Systems, Minimum Flows and Levels RecoveryProject Status: OngoingProject Manager: Mr. Randy Smith


Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 04/30/2015 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency


Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:




Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 05/22/2015 by FDOT District 1

Comments:

FWC did not identify any significant fish or wildlife resources within the project area. Coordination Document: No Involvement.

FWS commented that the project corridor is located within the Core Foraging Areas (CFA) (within 18.6 miles) of three active nesting wood storkcolonies; any lost foraging habitat must be mitigated within the same CFA as the affected colony. FWS also stated that since the project occurs withinthe geographic range of the Florida scrub-jay, sand skink, and blue-tailed mole skink (all of which are federally-listed as Threatened), surveys should beperformed to determine the status of these species. FWS recommends that FDOT prepare an Endangered Species Biological Assessment during theProject Development and Environment process. Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required.

SWFWMD reported that the 200-foot project buffer occurs within the FWS Consultation Areas for the sand skink, Florida scrub jay, and crestedcaracara; however, FWC data habitat and landcover data indicates that the project is located within a high-impact urban area. SWFWMD also statedthat there is potential for bald eagle habitat within present upland areas. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

The project occurs within the Greater Charlotte Harbor Environmental Management Area; FWS Consultation Areas for the crested caracara, Floridagrasshopper sparrow, Florida sand skink, Florida scrub jay, snail kite, and Lake Wales Ridge Plants; and CFAs of five active nesting wood storkcolonies. There is one documented bald eagle's nest within 1,000 feet of the project; however, none are reported within the 660-foot construction bufferzone. Furthermore, the 100-foot project buffer occurs entirely within a FWS-designated skink soil type (Tavares sand); therefore, formal skink fieldsurveys of all unpaved portions of the proposed project footprint will be necessary to assess the presence of this species within the limits of the project.For these reasons, a Summary DOE of Moderate has been assigned to the Wildlife and Habitat issue.

Commitments and Responses: Preparation of an Endangered Species Biological Assessment (conducted in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 27 ofthe FDOT PD&E Manual) will be included in the scoping recommendations for this project.

Technical Study: Endangered Species Biological Assessment.


Coordination Document: Permit RequiredCoordination Document Comments:A Degree of Effect of "Minimal" was assigned to this issue due to the fact there may need to be some additional coordination with FFWCC.


For ETDM #14205, the District has assigned a pre-application file (PA# 402050) for the purpose of tracking its participation in the ETDM review of thisproject. File PA# 402050 is maintained at the Bartow Service Office of the SWFWMD. Please refer to this pre-application file whenever contacting


District regulatory staff regarding this project.

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:Review of the EST GIS Analysis (run February 9, 2015) and the SWFWMD ArcMap GIS shows a mixture of land use within the area of the proposedroadway widening. The 2003 FFWCC Habitat and Landcover Grid indicates that 81.72% of the 200 foot buffer is classified as High Impact Urban.

There are no active eagle's nests located within the 200 foot buffer; however, the GIS analysis indicates the entire 200 foot buffer is located within thesand skink, scrub jay and crested caracara consultation area. There is a potential for bald eagle habitat in the upland areas.

The GIS analysis indicates there is potential for Eastern Indigo Snake habitat within the proposed roadway widening project.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Coordination with FFWCC for potential bald eagle nesting sites and other threatened or endangered species may also be required after a wildlife surveyof the proposed site is completed at the time of design.

Additional Comments (optional):A Degree of Effect of "Minimal" was assigned to this issue due to the fact there may need to be some additional coordination with FFWCC.




Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 04/02/2015 by Scott Sanders, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Coordination Document: No Involvement

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:No significant fish or wildlife resource were identified in the project area.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Minimal impacts to fish or wildlife resources are anticipated to result from this project.



Degree of Effect: 3 Moderate assigned 03/04/2015 by John Wrublik, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:Federally listed species and fish and wildlife resources

Comments on Effects to Resources:Federally-listed species -

The Service has reviewed our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database for recorded locations of Federally listed threatened and endangeredspecies on or adjacent to the project study area. The GIS database is a compilation of data received from several sources. Based on review of our GISdatabase, the Service notes that the following Federally listed species may occur in or near the project area.

Wood Stork


Coastal and Marine Project Effects

The project corridor is located in the Core Foraging Areas (CFA)(within 18.6 miles ) of three active nesting colonies of the endangered wood stork(Mycteria americana). The Service believes that the loss of wetlands within a CFA due to an action could result in the loss of foraging habitat for thewood stork. To minimize adverse effects to the wood stork, we recommend that any lost foraging habitat resulting from the project be replaced within theCFA of the affected nesting colony. Moreover, wetlands provided as mitigation should adequately replace the wetland functions lost as a result of theaction. The Service does not consider the preservation of wetlands, by itself, as adequate compensation for impacts to wood stork foraging habitat,because the habitat lost is not replaced. Accordingly, any wetland mitigation plan proposed should include a restoration, enhancement, or creationcomponent. In some cases, the Service accepts wetlands compensation located outside the CFA of the affected wood stork nesting colony. Specifically,wetland credits purchased from a "Service Approved" mitigation bank located outside of the CFA would be acceptable to the Service, provided that theimpacted wetlands occur within the permitted service area of the bank.

For projects that impact 5 or more acres of wood stork foraging habitat, the Service requires a functional assessment be conducted using our "WoodStork Foraging Analysis Methodology" (Methodology) on the foraging habitat to be impacted and the foraging habitat provided as mitigation. TheMethodology can found on our website at: http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/20120712_WOST Forage Assessment Methodology_Appendix.pdf.

Florida Scrub-Jay

The project occurs within the geographic range of the threatened Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). If suitable habitat occurs in the projectcorridor, we recommend that surveys based on Service protocol be conducted to determine the status of the Florida scrub-jay in the project area. TheService's Florida scrub-jay survey protocol can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/FSJConservationGuidelinesALLINCLUSIVE1.pdf

Sand skink and blue-taile mole skink

The project occurs within the geographic range of the threatened sand skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi = Neoseps reynoldsi) and blue-tailed mole skink(Plestiodon egregius lividus = Eumeces egregius lividus). The Service has records of these species occurring in the project area. If suitable habitatoccurs in the project corridor, we recommend that surveys based on Service protocol be conducted to determine the status of the Florida scrub-jay inthe project area. For additional information, please review the Service's Species Conservation and Consultation Guide for the Sand Skink and the Blue-Tailed Mole Skink found at: http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ReptilesPDFs/20120206_Skink CCG_ Final.pdf

The Service believes that the following federally listed species have the potential to occur in or near the project site: wood stork, Florida scrub-jay, sandskink, blue-tailed mole skink, Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), and Federally listed plants in Polk County at http://ecos.fws.gov/ ipac/.Accordingly, the Service recommends that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) prepare a Biological Assessment for the project (asrequired by 50 CFR 402.12) during the FDOT's Project Development and Environment process.

Fish and Wildlife Resources -Wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. Data provided in the Environmental Screening Tool indicate that wetlands may occur within theproject area. We recommend that the project be designed to avoid these valuable resources to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts to wetlandsare unavoidable, we recommend that the FDOT provides mitigation that fully compensates for the loss of wetland resources.



Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: N/A N/A / No Involvement assigned 05/22/2015 by FDOT District 1

Comments:SWFWMD reported that Polk County is not listed as a coastal county under the Coastal Zone Management Act; therefore, no additional coordinationwill be required if there are wetland and/or surface water impacts. Coordination Document: No Involvement.

No coastal or marine resources are reported within the 100-foot project buffer, and the project is not located within a coastal area. Based on theforegoing, a Summary DOE of N/A / No Involvement has been assigned to the Coastal and Marine issue.


http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/20120712_WOST Forage Assessment Methodology_Appendix.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/BirdsPDFs/

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/ReptilesPDFs/20120206_Skink CCG_

http://ecos.fws.gov/

1.6. ETAT Reviews: Special Designations ETAT Reviews: Special Designations Special Designations Project Effects

Coordinator Summary Degree of Effect: 2 Minimal assigned 05/22/2015 by FDOT District 1

Comments:SWFWMD commented that the proposed project has the potential to delay the recovery of Impaired Waters as a result of undertreated or untreatedstormwater runoff during and after project construction. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

USEPA did not identify any issues or potential project effects related to special designations.Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document asper PD&E Manual.

There are no special designations reported within the 100-foot project buffer. However, due to SWFWMD concerns regarding potential water qualityimpacts to impaired waters, a Summary DOE of Minimal has been assigned to the Special Designations issue.Commitments and Responses: None.

Technical Study: None.


Coordination Document: Permit RequiredCoordination Document Comments:The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect (DOE) based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this project, a DOE of "Minimal" was assigned to this issue due to potential discharges to anutrient impaired waterbody. However, the expected permitting effort by FDOT should be straight forward and a normal effort is expected on the part ofSWFWMD's regulatory staff.

Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:The EST indicates the proposed roadway improvement project lies within the following Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)watersheds (WBIDs):- Saddle Creek (WBID 1497)- Lake Lena Run (WBID 1501A)

An approximate (graphical) location of these two (2) WBIDs can be viewed within the EST. WBID 1497 is classified impaired for nutrient relatedpollutants by FDEP. Additional comments (by the SWFWMD) on impaired waters can be found in the Water Quality & Quantity section of the EST.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The proposed roadway improvement project has the potential to delay the recovery of Impaired Waters as a result of undertreated or untreatedstormwater runoff during and after construction.

Additional Comments (optional):The SWFWMD has assigned a Degree of Effect (DOE) based on the potential need for increased coordination or effort associated with the SWFWMD'sproprietary or regulatory interests and obligations. For this project, a DOE of "Minimal" was assigned to this issue due to potential discharges to anutrient impaired waterbody. However, the expected permitting effort by FDOT should be straight forward and a normal effort is expected on the part ofSWFWMD's regulatory staff.


Degree of Effect: 0 None assigned 04/30/2015 by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency


Direct EffectsIdentified Resources and Level of Importance:






APPENDIX B Soils Report

Site and Soil Investigation Date: February 16th, 2016 Project Name: Recker Highway Project Agent/Owner: Kristin Caruso (Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc); Attendees: R. Robbins (USDA-NRCS), K. Caruso Location Description: Twp. 28S, Rng. 25E, Sec. 9 and 16 County: Polk Report by: Rick A. Robbins Title: Assistant State Soil Scientist (Gainesville State Office) Reason for site visit: To provide Florida Department of Transportation and Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc. with an onsite sand skink evaluation for the Recker Highway project in Polk County. Statement on documentation parameters: An onsite soil investigation was conducted upon request from the Agent/Owners listed above. A total of 8 borings were made to a depth of approximately 100 centimeters at randomly assigned locations to document soil suitability to sand skinks within the scope of the project. Samples and data were collected with a 3” hand operated bucket auger and a soil penetrometer. Site documentation consisted of slope, aspect, and geomorphic position. Soil documentation consisted of soil depth, color, texture, density, structure, consistence, fragment content, fragment size, and redoximorphic features (wetness indicators). Statement on soil-site evaluation for sand skink habitat: Results of the soil borings indicate that the entire scope of this project has been anthropogenically modified to varying degrees and are no longer in a native vegetative condition. All sites were within either the Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent map unit (MUSYM 15) or Tavares-Urban land complex (MUSYM 63). Some of the sites appeared wetter than the Tavares concept and were closer to the Adamsville or Pomona soil series concept. None of the sites had single grain soil structure or loose soil consistence within the upper 20 centimeters of soil. Soil structure was predominantly weak fine and medium granular structure. The soil penetrometer measurements were made from the soil surface downward into the soil profile. The results of the penetrometer (depth to 100 pounds/sq. in.) ranged from 1 to 12 centimeters below the soil surface. Site 10: Located along the northern extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05652; Long: -81.81349 decimal degrees). This site was in a flat area (0 percent slope) adjacent to several businesses. The site had been modified by dumping limestone and other fragments onto the soil surface. Surface morphometry is linear-linear. A soil profile description was not taken at this site due to considerable fragment content on the surface. Penetrometer results: 1 centimeter to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 11: Located along the north-western extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05605; Long: -81.81358 decimal degrees). This site was in a flat area adjacent to several businesses. A few

nearby areas had been modified by dumping limestone and other fragments onto the soil surface. This site was on a talf geomorphic position with a slope of 0 percent. Surface morphometry is linear-linear. This site is borderline between the Tavares and Adamsville series concept and has redoximorphic concentrations (evidence of wetness) within 80 centimeters. The soil has a very dark brown, very friable, fine sand surface with weak, fine and medium granular structure. This horizon was about 27 centimeters thick. Below the topsoil was yellowish brown and brownish yellow, loose and single grain, fine sand to 100 centimeters. Penetrometer results: 9 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 12: Located along the north-western extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05591; Long: -81.81406 decimal degrees). This site was in a flat area adjacent to several businesses. A few nearby areas had been modified by dumping limestone and other fragments onto the soil surface. This site was on a talf geomorphic position with a slope of less than 1 percent. Surface morphometry is convex-linear. This site is borderline between the Tavares and Adamsville series concept and has redoximorphic concentrations (evidence of wetness) within 85 centimeters. The soil has a very dark gray, very friable, fine sand surface with weak, fine and medium granular structure. This horizon was about 19 centimeters thick. Below the topsoil is a transitional layer of dark brown, very friable fine sand with weak coarse subangular blocky structure that is about 9 centimeters thick. Below, is yellowish brown and brownish yellow, loose and single grain, fine sand to 100 centimeters. Penetrometer results: 6 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 13: Located along the west-central extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05368; Long: -81.81342 decimal degrees). This site was in a flat area adjacent to several businesses. The site was heavily vegetated. The site was on a talf geomorphic position with a slope of less than 1 percent. Surface morphometry was linear-linear. Due to the presence of several different utility lines, no soil investigation was conducted. Soil penetrometer values were determined. Penetrometer results: 9 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 14: Located along the south-central extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05232; Long: -81.81297 decimal degrees). This site was in a flat between two different transportation right-of-ways. The area had been modified by cutting and filling the soil surface to provide drainage. This site was on a talf geomorphic position with a slope of less than 1 percent. Surface morphometry is convex-linear. This site is wetter and most closely resembles the Adamsville series concept and has redoximorphic concentrations (evidence of wetness) within 63 centimeters. The soil has a thin layer of fill material that is dark brown, very friable, fine sand surface with weak, fine and medium granular structure. This horizon was about 20 centimeters thick. Below this layer is the original topsoil that is very dark grayish brown, very friable fine sand with weak fine and medium granular structure that is about 27 centimeters thick. Below, is mottled, brown and grayish brown, loose and single grain, fine sand to 100 centimeters. Penetrometer results: 3 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 15: Located along the south-eastern extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05160; Long: -81.81101 decimal degrees). This site was on a convex, anthropogenic ridge between a drainage ditch and the road right-of way. Due to modification (scalping), it is difficult to determine where the original soil surface was. Artificially constructed slope was about 7 percent. Surface

morphometry was convex-linear. Under natural conditions, this site may have been within the Tavares series concept. Current soil conditions have redoximorphic concentrations (evidence of wetness) within 60 centimeters. The soil has a thin surface layer of intermixed material dark yellowish brown and reddish brown, very friable, fine sand surface that has no apparent structure (single grain). Below this layer, is yellowish brown and brownish yellow fine sand, single grain, and loose. Between 60 and 100 centimeters is mottled, yellowish brown, loose and single grain, fine sand to 100 centimeters. Penetrometer results: 8 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 16: Located near the center of the project area (Lat: 28.05232; Long: -81.81297 decimal degrees). This site was in a flat between the transportation right-of-way and Auburndale Memorial Cemetery. The area had been modified by cutting and filling the soil surface to provide drainage. The site is on a talf geomorphic position with a slope of less than 1 percent. Surface morphometry is linear-linear. This site has approximately 30 centimeters of material filled on the original soil surface. This site is probably within the Tavares series concept. The soil has a thin layer of fill material (12 centimeters) that is intermixed very dark gray and dark brown, very friable, fine sand with weak, fine and medium granular structure. The next 18 centimeters of fill material is dark yellowish brown and dark brown, very friable fine sand with weak fine and medium granular structure. Below this layer is the original topsoil that is very dark grayish brown, very friable fine sand with weak fine and medium granular structure that is about 23 centimeters thick. Below, is yellowish brown and brownish yellow, loose and single grain, fine sand to 100 centimeters. Penetrometer results: 6 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Site 17: Located along the north-eastern extent of the project area (Lat: 28.05556; Long: -81.81280 decimal degrees). This site is on a convex rise which was previously a building site. The point selected was outside of the previous building’s footprint and therefore, basically unaltered. Surface morphometry was convex-linear. Slope is about 1 percent. A thin layer of fill material may have been added to this site, as the topsoil is much thicker normal. With the exception of the surface layer thickness, this soil is within the Tavares series concept. The surface layer (42 centimeters thick) is very dark grayish brown, very friable, fine sand with weak fine and medium granular structure. Below this layer is yellowish brown and brown, single grain, loose, fine sand. There are 3% redoximorphic concentrations (7.5YR 5/6) between 86 and 99 centimeters. Below 99 centimeters, it is brown (10YR 5/3) with 5% pale brown (10YR 7/3) iron depletions (stripping). Penetrometer results: 12 centimeters to greater than 100 pounds per square inch. Prognosis on the Rector site’s suitability as sand skink habitat: Overall, all of these sites have undergone varying degrees of anthropogenic activity (cutting/filling) with resulting habitat fragmentation. In my opinion, there is minimal chance of a viable sand skink population within this Urban land use mosaic. Alternation of the original land surface, hydrologic modifications, utility line installment, and heavy machinery use along this transportation corridor have all contributed to a reduction in overall suitability. However from a soils perspective, sites 15 and 17 come closest to replicating any historical sand skink habitat. Regards,

Rick Rick Robbins USDA-NRCS Soil Scientist Gainesville, Florida

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

15

63

59

763

58

99

17

16

15

14

13

1211

10

Recker Highway Project - Polk County, Florida

LegendPolk_Skink_pointsSite_No

!. 10!. 11!. 12!. 13!. 14!. 15!. 16!. 17

Map Unit Legend:7 - Pomona fine sand15 - Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes58 - Udorthents, excavated63 - Tavares-Urban land complex99 - Water

0 260 520 780 1,040130Feet

Survey Area: Polk County, FloridaSurvey Area Version Date: 01/13/2014; fully certified Orthoimagery: USDA-NRCS NCGC Mr. Sid Mosaic Map Created: 2/16/2016Rick Robbins, (Phone: 352.338.9536)USDA-NRCS, Gainesville, Florida

®

APPENDIX C

Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake

STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

August 12, 2013 The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below (North Florida Field Office: [email protected]; South Florida Field Office: [email protected]; Panama City Field Office: [email protected]). As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the applicant may move forward with the project. If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e-mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements. The Plan materials should consist of: 1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster Information section below); and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated (see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below). POSTER INFORMATION Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11” x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached): DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled. LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands

1




and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher tortoise burrows and other below- and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted. Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so. IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move

away from the site without interference; • Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate

USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction

activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume.

IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated

agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake.

• Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate

wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909

2

PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached. 2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites. 3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the referenced posters and brochures. DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may be utilized to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows). 2. If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance which may result in further project consultation. 3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen. POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed on page one of this Plan.

3