Natural Resources Evaluation Florida Department of ......373.4137, Florida Statutes (FS) or through...

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TECHNICAL REPORT COVERSHEET650-050-38

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

06/17

Natural Resources Evaluation

Florida Department of Transportation

District 7

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway

Limits of Project: Cypress Street South of Tampa International Airport to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597)

Hillsborough County, Florida

Financial Management Number: 255433-2

ETDM Number: N/A

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

laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a

Memorandum of Understanding dated December 14, 2016 and executed by FHWA and FDOT.


Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Final Environmental Impact Statement

Design Change Re-evaluation

from Cypress Street just south of the Tampa International Airport to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597)

Work Program Segment #255433-2

June 2018

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 14, 2016 and executed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FDOT.

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation

Page i June 2018


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1987, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) signed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northwest Hillsborough Expressway (NWE)-currently known as Veterans Expressway for improvements from Cypress Street just south of the Tampa International Airport (TIA) to Dale Mabry Highway (State Road (SR) 597), approximately 16.9 miles. In 1992, the FHWA signed the Design Change Re-evaluation of the NWE FEIS to authorize design of all eight segments of the roadway between Interstate (I)-275 from Cypress Street north to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597). Subsequently, Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) assumed responsibility for the project. Construction of the segment from Memorial Highway to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597) was completed in October 1994. In 1999, a Design Change/Right-of-Way (ROW) Re-evaluation was completed and approved by the FHWA, which focused on the section of the project corridor from Cypress Street to Independence Parkway. This same section was advanced through a 2003 Design Change/Construction Authorization Re-evaluation. As such, the interchanges located between I-275 and Memorial Highway, including new access to the TIA, Spruce Street, SR 60 at Courtney Campbell Causeway (CCC), and Independence Parkway, were reconstructed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) between 2005 and 2010.

The purpose of this Design Change Re-evaluation is to update the portion of the FEIS from Cypress Street just south of TIA to north of Memorial Highway based on modifications to the ramps coming into the I-275/SR 60 interchange from southbound I-275 and the new direct toll lane ramp connection to TIA. This Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) documents the proposed study area’s potential involvement with protected species, wetland and surface waters, and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) from Cypress Street just south of TIA to Independence Parkway.

Protected Species

Please refer to Table ES-1 below for the listed species with potential involvement with the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation study area in comparison with the 1987 NWE FEIS. Additional species considered because of changes to the project or that were listed since 1987 are included in the 2018 Design Change Re-evaluation. Proposed effect determinations are provided. Only species potentially occurring in the segment of the NWE from Cypress Street just south of TIA to Independence Parkway are included from the 1987 NWE FEIS; species that were anticipated to occur only in the northern segments of the study area are not included. The 1992 and 1999 Re-evaluations concluded that “no federal threatened or endangered species occur within the project boundary”. The 2003 Re-evaluation concluded that “there are no changes to listed threatened and endangered species since the 1999 Re-evaluation”. No additional state-listed species were noted as potentially occurring in this segment in the previous re-evaluations.

Table ES-1 Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Study Area with Effect Determinations

Scientific

Name

" Common

Name

Federal Status (2018)

State Status 2018

Effect Determination

1987 NWE FEIS*

Effect Determination 2018 Design Change Re-

evaluation

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon

FT

FT -- MANLAA

Pristis pectinata Smalltooth Sawfish FE FE -- MANLAA

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover FT FT -- No Effect

Calidris canutus rufa Rufa Red Knot FT FT -- No Effect

Mycteria americana Wood Stork FT FT NAEA MANLAA

Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill - ST -- NAEA

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron - ST -- NAEA


Page ii June 2018


Scientific

Name

" Common

Name

Federal Status (2018)

State Status 2018


1987 NWE FEIS*

Effect Determination 2018 Design Change Re-

evaluation

Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret - ST -- NAEA

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron - ST -- NAEA

Sternula antillarum Least Tern - ST NEA NEA

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill Crane - ST NEA NAEA

Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing Owl - ST -- NAEA

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle MBTA+ - NAEA --

Pandion haliaetus Osprey MBTA - -- --

Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake FT FT NAEA MANLAA

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Sea Turtle FE FE -- MANLAA

Chelonia mydas Atlantic Green Sea Turtle FT FT -- MANLAA

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle FT FT -- MANLAA

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle FE FE -- MANLAA

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise C ST -- NAEA

Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee FT FT -- MANLAA

Legend: FE - Federally-Designated Endangered; FT-Federally-Designated Threatened; ST – State-Designated Threatened; C- Candidate; MBTA- Migratory Bird Treaty Act; MANLAA-may affect, not likely to adversely affect.; NAEA-No Adverse Effect Anticipated; NEA-No Effect Anticipated; +-Also protected under the-Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA); *No changes to species or determinations were made in the 1992, 1999, OR 2003 Re-Evaluations.

Wetlands and Surface Waters

Table ES-2 below summarizes the wetland and surface water impacts in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation study area in comparison to the 1987 FEIS and in the 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-evaluations. The interchanges located between I-275 and Memorial Highway, including new access to the TIA, Spruce Street, and SR 60 at CCC, were reconstructed by FDOT between 2005 and 2010. The wetland impacts described in the 1987 NWE FEIS, and in the 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-evaluations were permitted in 2003 and incurred during the 2005-2010 reconstruction. The wetland and surface water impacts estimated for this 2018 Re-evaluation are for the construction of proposed tolled express lanes, associated ramps, and new connections at Eisenhower South-Cypress Street and Mondigo Street north of La Salle Street. These impacts were not included in the 1987 NWE FEIS or previous re-evaluations.

-

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page iii June 2018


Table ES-2 Potential Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Estimated for FEIS and Re-evaluations

FLUCCS Code FLUCCS Description Acreage in 1987 FEIS

Study Area

Acreage in

1992 Re-evaluation Study Area

Acreage in1999

Re-evaluationStudy Area

Acreage in

2003 Re-evaluation

Study Area*

Acreage in

Re-evaluation Study Area

510 Streams and Waterways 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30

530 Reservoirs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.68

540 Bays and Estuaries 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.19 0.36

612 Mangrove Swamps 3.61 7.63 5.59 5.22 0.04

640/641 Freshwater Marsh 2.31 1.85 3.47 0.00 0.00

642 Saltwater Marsh 3.57 3.57 2.32 18.63 0.16

911 Seagrass 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00

Unknown FLUCCS

N/A 0.00 0.00 5.99 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 9.49 13.05 17.37 28.27 9.54

*The acreages shown for the 1987 FEIS and 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-Evaluations were approved by SWFWMD and USACE permitsand impacted during the construction in 2005-2010. The acreage shown for the 2018 Re-evaluation are impacts not previously evaluated and includes impacts to SMFs built during the construction of the general lanes from 2005-2010.

Essential Fish Habitat

The 1987 FEIS and the 1992 and 1999 Re-evaluations did not address EFH since the EFH rules had not been promulgated at that time. The 2003 Re-Evaluation identified EFH losses of 32.69 ac which included impacts to salt marsh, mangroves, mud and sand substrates, seagrass, and estuarine water column. Impacts to EFH were coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) via the review and approval of US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) Permits 200105084 and 200205816 issued in 2003. These impacts were incurred during the construction of the general lanes and associated improvements between 2005 and 2010.

For the improvements included in this 2018 Re-evaluation, it was determined that new EFH impacts may occur due to impacts to Fish Creek, saltwater marshes, or mangroves. EFH impacts to Fish Creek are anticipated to be minimal as the crossings proposed are bridged crossings over unvegetated portions of the creek. Thus, the majority of impacts will be temporary. Mangrove impacts are estimated at 0.04 acre (ac); saltwater marsh impacts are estimated at 0.16 ac. Mitigation for mangrove and saltwater marsh wetlands will be provided via the use of the FDOT Mitigation Plan with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in accordance with 373.4137, Florida Statutes (FS) or through the use of mitigation bank credits. These options and any others proposed during design and permitting will compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. Additional compensation for impacts to EFH, if required, will be further coordinated with the NMFS, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other appropriate agencies. Impacts to EFH are anticipated to be minimal.

2018

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page iv June 2018


Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Location for the NWE Re-evaluation Project ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 Purpose of the Report ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Design Changes and Revised Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 2

2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................4

2.1 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Natural and Biological Features ............................................................................................................ 4

2.3 Upland Communities............................................................................................................................. 5

2.4 Wetland and Surface Water Communities ........................................................................................... 5

2.4.1 Surface Waters ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.4.2 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................. 6

3. PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT ..........................................................................................................6

3.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Federally-Listed Species ...................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Gulf Sturgeon ......................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Smalltooth Sawfish ................................................................................................................. 10

3.2.3 Piping Plover .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.4 Rufa Red Knot......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.5 Wood Stork ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.2.6 Sea Turtles .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.2.7 Eastern Indigo Snake .............................................................................................................. 12

3.2.8 West Indian Manatee ............................................................................................................. 12

3.3 State-Listed Species ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.3.1 Wetland-Dependent Avian Species ....................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 Florida Sandhill Crane ............................................................................................................ 13

3.3.3 Least Tern ............................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.4 Florida Burrowing Owl ........................................................................................................... 13

3.3.5 Gopher Tortoise ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Other Protected Wildlife Species ........................................................................................................ 14

3.4.1 Bald Eagle ............................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.2 Osprey .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.5 Protected Plant Species ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.6 Critical Habitat..................................................................................................................................... 14

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page v June 2018


3.7 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 15

4. WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER EVALUATION ...................................................................................... 15

4.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Design Change Impact Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 15

4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ........................................................................................... 17

4.4 Wetland Functional Analysis (UMAM) ................................................................................................ 17

4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 18

5. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ....................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Magnuson-Stevens Act ....................................................................................................................... 19

5.2 EFH Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 19

5.3 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 19

5.4 Field Surveys ....................................................................................................................................... 20

5.5 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 20

5.6 Analysis of Effect on EFH ..................................................................................................................... 21

5.7 Compensation for EFH Impacts ........................................................................................................... 21

6. ANTICIPATED PERMITS.......................................................................................................................... 22

7. CONCLUSIONS AND COMMITMENTS ..................................................................................................... 22

7.1 Protected Species and Habitat ............................................................................................................ 22

7.2 Wetland and Surface Water Communities ......................................................................................... 23

7.3 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 23

7.4 Implementation Measures .................................................................................................................. 24

7.5 Commitments ...................................................................................................................................... 24

8. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 24

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page vi June 2018


Figures

Figure 1-1 Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Project Study Area ...................................................... 3

Tables

Table ES-1 Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Study Area with Effect Determinations ....... i

Table ES-2 Potential Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Estimated for FEIS and Re-evaluations ........ii

Table 2-1 Existing Land Use in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation Study Area..................... 4

Table 3-1 Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species in the NWE Study Area ................................... 8

Table 4-1 Wetland and Surface Water Communities in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 16

Table 4-2 Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Estimated for FEIS and Re-Evaluations .................... 16

Table 4-4 Summary of Estimated UMAM Scores................................................................................ 17

Table 6-1 Potential Protected Species Status, Involvement and, Effect Determination Summary ..... 21

Appendices

Appendix A Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) Map

Appendix B Agency Wildlife Protection Plans and Effect Determination Keys

Appendix C UMAM

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page vii June 2018


Acronyms

Ac Acre(s) BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP Best Management Practices CCC Courtney Campbell Causeway

CFA Core Foraging Area

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EOP Edge of Pavement

ERP Environmental Resource Permit

ESA Endangered Species Act

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FL Functional Loss

FLUCCS Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System

FMC Fishery Management Councils

FMP Fishery Management Plans

FNAI Florida Natural Area Inventory

FS Florida Statute

FTE Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HFB Howard Frankland Bridge

I Interstate

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

MWWP Marine Wildlife Watch Plan

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRE Natural Resource Evaluation

NWE Northwest Hillsborough Expressway

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

OSW Other Surface Water

PD&E Project Development and Environment

ROW Right-of-Way

SFH Suitable Foraging Habitat

SMF Stormwater Management Facility

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page viii June 2018


SR State Road

SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District

TIA Tampa International Airport

TIS Tampa Interstate Study

UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Re-evaluation Page 1 June 2018


1. INTRODUCTION

In 1987, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) signed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northwest Hillsborough Expressway (NWE)-currently known as Veterans Expressway - for improvements from Cypress Street just south of the Tampa International Airport (TIA) to Dale Mabry Highway (State Road (SR) 597), approximately 16.9 miles. The original study area is illustrated in Figure 1-1. The NWE was proposed as a major, divided, limited-access roadway to serve local traffic in the north and northwest areas of Hillsborough County near Tampa, Florida. The expressway involved improving Eisenhower Boulevard to six and eight lanes and the addition of interchanges between Interstate (I)-275 and Hillsborough Avenue. The remainder of the expressway was a new four-lane divided roadway with interchanges to the local road system from north of Hillsborough Avenue to Dale Mabry Highway.

In 1992, the FHWA signed a Design Change Re-evaluation of the NWE FEIS to authorize design of all eight segments of the roadway from I-275 north to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597). Subsequently, Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) assumed responsibility for the project. FTE renamed the roadway Veterans Expressway (SR 589). Construction of the segment from Memorial Highway to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597) was completed in October 1994. In 1999, a Design Change/Right-of-Way (ROW) Re-evaluation was completed and approved by the FHWA, which focused on the section of the project corridor from Cypress Street to Independence Parkway. This same section was advanced through a 2003 Design Change/Construction Authorization Re-evaluation. As such, the interchanges located between I-275 and Memorial Highway, including new access to the TIA, Spruce Street, SR 60 at Courtney Campbell Causeway (CCC), and Independence Parkway, were reconstructed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) between 2005 and 2010.

The purpose of this Design Change Re-evaluation is to update the portion of the FEIS from Cypress Street just south of TIA to north of Memorial Highway based on modifications to the ramps coming into the I-275/SR 60 interchange from southbound I-275 and the new direct toll lane ramp connection to TIA. The Design Change Re-evaluation will document compliance with new federal laws, identify any changes that may have occurred on the project since the approval of the original environmental document and subsequent re-evaluations, as well as assess the impacts of any new alternative options and compare them to the previously approved improvements.

1.1 Location for the NWE Re-evaluation Project

The general area for the proposed project begins at Cypress Street south of the TIA and thence proceeds northerly and northeasterly in the northwest quadrant of Hillsborough County to north of Memorial Highway (as shown on Figure 1-1). This Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) includes the same general area but terminates at Independence Parkway. The portion of the Veterans Expressway from Memorial Highway to Dale Mabry Highway (SR 597) has already been constructed.

1.2 Purpose of the Report

This NRE documents the existing wildlife resources and habitat types found within the study area for potential occurrences of and effects to federally-listed and state-listed protected plant and animal species and their suitable habitat in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 16 - Protected Species and Habitat of the FDOT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual (June 2017).

This report also documents potential impacts to wetlands and surface waters for the proposed study area of the NWE from Cypress Street just south of the TIA to Independence Parkway in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 9 – Wetlands and Other Surface Waters of the FDOT PD&E Manual (June 2017).



Figure 1-1 Northwest Hillsborough Expressway Project Study Area


Page 2 June 2018


An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment is included as part of this report in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 17 – Essential Fish Habitat of the FDOT PD&E Manual (June 2017) and the requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (MSFCMA), as amended through October 11, 1996 and reauthorized in 2007. The EFH assesses waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and development to maturity.

1.3 Design Changes and Revised Design Criteria

The NWE, currently known as the Veterans Expressway, Design Change Re-evaluation is to update the portion of the FEIS from Cypress Street just south of TIA to north of Memorial Highway based on modifications to the ramps coming into the I-275/SR 60 interchange from southbound I-275 and the new direct toll lane ramp connection to TIA.. Additional ROW, comprised primarily of commercial properties with a smaller component of upland hardwood-conifer forest, will be needed to accommodate express lanes near the SR 60 interchange north to and from I‐275 and a new toll ramp into TIA. New ramps to provide tolled express lane access to and from Independence Parkway will be constructed south of Independence Parkway. No additional ROW is anticipated for the new Independence Parkway toll ramps.



2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Existing Land Use

A desktop and document review was conducted for the NRE study area using the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) land use database and current aerials. Field evaluations were conducted on December 18, 2017 at wetland areas associated with Cypress Street to better define the land use boundaries in these areas using the FDOT Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). The field boundaries were combined with the SWFWMD FLUCCS boundaries to evaluate the habitat types found within the study area. Where delineation data was available, those field-determined lines were used to calculate anticipated impact; in all other areas, the SWFWMD data boundary was utilized.

Existing land use and potential impacts to natural environments were evaluated by utilizing the proposed outermost limit of the corridor (e.g. edge of pavement (EOP) or retaining wall) with a 15-foot buffer to account for side slopes, construction areas, and other potential construction impacts.

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the existing land use within the study area of the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation.

Table 2-1 Existing Land Use in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation Study Area

Land Use Type FLUCCS Code Acreage within NRE Study

Area Percent of Total Acreage

Residential (High Density) 130 0.04 0.05

Commercial Properties 140 5.01 6.29

Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 434 0.83 1.04

Streams, Rivers, Roadside Ditch

510 0.30 0.38

Man-made Ponds/Reservoirs 530 8.68 10.90

Bays/Estuaries 540 0.36 0.45

Mangrove Swamps 612 0.04 0.05

Saltwater Marsh 642 0.16 0.20

Transportation 810 64.22 80.64

TOTAL 79.64 100

The majority of land use in the NWE Re-evaluation Study Area is transportation (80.64%). The remaining land use is comprised of man-made ponds and ditches (11.28 %), commercial properties (6.29%), upland hardwood-conifer mixed forests (1.04%), bays and estuaries (0.45%), wetlands (0.25%), and residential (high density) (0.05%).

2.2 Natural and Biological Features

A variety of resources including the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Surveys for Hillsborough County, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, SWFWMD FLUCCS data, and aerial photographs were utilized to identify the wetland and upland communities that occur within the study area. Field reviews were also conducted on December 18, 2017 to verify potential



impacts at the new connections proposed at Cypress Street and Mondigo Street/West La Salle Street. The descriptions of the natural communities within the study area are provided below.

2.3 Upland Communities

The only upland, undeveloped habitat within the project limits is Hardwood Conifer Mixed (FLUCCS 434).

Hardwood Conifer Mixed (FLUCCS 434)

Hardwood conifer mixed communities are described as upland forests in which neither canopy type is dominant. This habitat is located adjacent to the ramp connection proposed north of West La Salle Street at Mondigo Street within the study area. Hardwood conifer mixed communities are also adjacent to the study area east of Veterans Expressway as it continues north past the CCC. Because the construction is to be located between existing roadway lanes in this area, impacts to the hardwood conifer mixed forests are not anticipated in adjacent areas.

Hardwood Conifer Mixed forests in the study area are primarily comprised of a mix of exotic and/or undesirable nuisance species including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia), and Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia). Other species include cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii).

2.4 Wetland and Surface Water Communities

Wetland and surface water communities are located adjacent to and within the study area. Wetland habitats within the study area include saltwater marsh (FLUCCS 642) and mangroves (FLUCCS 612). Natural surface water habitats

include Fish Creek, classified as an estuary (FLUCCS 540) near Old Tampa Bay and transitioning to rivers and

waterways (FLUCCS 510) near the TIA-Connector ramps. Man-made stormwater linear ponds (FLUCCS 510) and stormwater management facilities (SMFs) (FLUCCS 530) are also included in the review of natural areas as they may provide limited habitat for some wildlife.

Detailed information on the impact acreages of the wetland and surface water communities within the study

area are provided in Section 4 and are shown on the FLUCCS Map provided in Appendix A.

2.4.1 Surface Waters

Streams and Waterways [FLUCCS 510; RUBx (Riverine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Excavated)]

This category includes rivers, creeks, canals, roadside ditches and other linear waterbodies. The 510 designation is given to the portion of Fish Creek crossed by the George J. Bean Parkway adjacent to the TIA property in the Spruce Street-Airport Interchange. There is also a roadside ditch located parallel and adjacent to the northbound SR 60-Hillsborough ramp on the east side of the CCC Interchange. However, this ditch is not anticipated to be impacted.

Reservoirs [FLUCCS 530; PUBx (Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom, Excavated)]

Reservoirs are described as water impoundments that are used for irrigation, flood control, municipal and rural water supplies, recreation and hydro-electric power generation. The reservoirs within the study area are SMFs located within the interchanges and adjacent to the existing roadways. These SMFs are located with the Spruce Street-TIA-SR 60 Interchange, at the Eisenhower South-Cypress Street Ramp, within the CCC-Veterans Expressway-SR 60 Interchange, and at Cypress Street.



Bays and Estuaries [FLUCCS 540; E1OW/UB (Estuarine, Subtidal, Open Water/Unconsolidated Bottom)]

Bays are bodies of water that are partially enclosed by land that is directly open or connected to the ocean. Estuaries are partly enclosed bodies of water along a coast where one or more streams or rivers enter and result in a mix of freshwater and saltwater. Fish Creek is classified as an estuary where the SR 60 ramps cross the creek, heading north toward the CCC. The project will not impact Tampa Bay.

2.4.2 Wetlands

Saltwater Marshes [FLUCCS 642; E2EM1P (Estuarine, Tidal, Emergent, Persistent, Irregularly Flooded)]

Saltwater marshes are intertidal areas colonized by grasses and other salt-tolerant plants. The dominant plants in these systems are typically emergent, herbaceous species, although shrubs can also be locally abundant. The main location of saltwater marshes adjacent to the study area is within the area south of the CCC and west of the Veterans Expressway southbound. Another small area of saltwater marsh is found at the proposed Eisenhower South-Cypress Street connection, adjacent and north of Cypress Street.

Mangrove [FLUCCS 612; E2SS3P (Estuarine, Tidal, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved Evergreen, Irregularly Flooded)]

Mangrove swamps are a coastal, hardwood community composed primarily of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and black mangroves (Avicennia germinans). The major associates in this area include white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa), buttonwoods (Conocarpus erectus), sea myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia), and marsh elder (Iva frutescens). A large mangrove area is located adjacent to and west of the study area, beginning south of the CCC and continuing south to Cypress Street.

3. PROTECTED SPECIES AND HABITAT

3.1 Methodology

The study area was assessed for the presence of suitable habitat for federally-listed and state-listed species and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat 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, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and Part 2, Chapter 16 - Protected Species and Habitat of the FDOT PD&E Manual (June 2017).

The study area was evaluated for potential federally-listed and state-listed species as well as other protected species that may exist within the study area. The following resources were utilized to determine this assessment:

• FDOT FLUCCS, 3rd edition 1999

• SWFWMD Land Use Data (2013-2014)

• Aerial derived photographs (2016)

• Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), Hillsborough County, Florida

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Bald Eagle Nest locator website

• Wood Stork Colony Location Database (USFWS)

• Protected Species Technical Memorandum for the Design Change and ROW Authorization Re-evaluation for the 1996 Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) FEIS and Northwest HillsboroughExpressway FEIS (June 2016)

The evaluated species for the study area are discussed below with updated effect determinations. The updated



list of potential species was preliminarily identified with a data search of the FNAI biodiversity matrix conducted in March and April 2016 and a limited field review conducted December 18, 2017. The species with the potential to occur in the study area based on habitat types present are listed in Table 3-1 below with the likelihood of occurrence rated as low, moderate, high, or none. A low rating indicates that the species is known to occur in Hillsborough County, suitable habitat is not present or is limited on the corridor, and/or the species is unlikely based on what is known about its habits or life history. A moderate rating indicates the species is known to occur in Hillsborough County, suitable habitat for that species is present on the project corridor, but the species has not been observed in past studies or documented on the database. Species with a moderate rating may require Standard Construction Precautions during construction. Standard Construction Precautions anticipated to be implemented for the NWE are provided in Appendix B. A high rating indicates the species occurs in Hillsborough County, is suspected within the project corridor based on known ranges and existence of sufficient preferred habitat on the corridor, and has been previously observed or documented in the vicinity. A high rating also is assigned if the project is located within a consultation area for the species and suitable habitat exists in the study area for the species.



Table 3-1 Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species in the NWE Study Area

SPECIES COMMON

NAME

FEDERAL LISTING (FWC)

STATE LISTING (USFWS)

HABITAT PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE OR

OCCURRENCE

FISH

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon FT FT Marine/Estuarine primarily spawn in freshwater rivers

Moderate

Pristis pectinate Smalltooth

Sawfish FE FE Marine/Estuarine Moderate

BIRDS

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover FT FT Open, sandy beaches and tidal mudflats and sandflats Low

Calidris canutus rufa Rufa Red Knot FT FT Coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas

of exposed intertidal sediments. Low

Mycteria americana Wood Stork FT FT Estuarine tidal swamps/marshes, lacustrine, seepage

stream, ditches, ruderal Moderate

Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill -- ST Marine, estuarine, palustrine, mangroves Moderate

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron -- ST Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal marsh, tidal

swamp Moderate

Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret -- ST Tidal Marsh, unconsolidated substrate, mangrove

island, barren sands, mudflats, estuarine Moderate

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron -- ST Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal marsh, tidal

swamp Moderate

Sternula antillarum Least Tern -- ST Coastal areas throughout Florida; uses artificial

surfaces for nesting (rooftops) or well-drained sand or gravel, clear natural areas

Low

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill

Crane -- ST Dry prairies, freshwater marshes, wet prairies Low

Athene cunicularia floridana Florida Burrowing

Owl -- ST

Open treeless areas such as native prairies, golf courses, agricultural fields, vacant lots

Low

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle MBTA+ -- Estuarine, lacustrine, riverine, tidal marsh, tidal

swamp Moderate

Pandion haliaetus Osprey MBTA --

Estuarine, ponds, rivers Moderate

REPTILES

Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo

Snake FT FT

Various upland and some wetland habitats, associated with gopher tortoise burrows

Moderate



STATE PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE OR

SPECIES LISTING LISTING

HABITAT (FWC) (USFWS)

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Sea Turtle

FE FE Marine/Nesting on beaches Moderate

Chelonia mydas Atlantic Green

Sea Turtle FT FT Marine/Nesting on beaches Moderate

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle

FT FT Marine/Nesting on beaches Moderate

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley

Sea Turtle FE FE Marine/Nesting on beaches Moderate

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise C ST Xeric upland habitats, roadside grassed areas adjacent

to natural habitats Low

MAMMALS

Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee

FT FT Alluvial stream, blackwater stream, spring- fed stream,

estuarine, marine High

MBTA: No longer listed but protected under Migratory Birds Program per the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); + Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) FE - Federally-Designated Endangered; FT-Federally-Designated Threatened; ST – State-Designated Threatened; C-Candidate Species

FEDERAL

OCCURENCECOMMON NAME

Melanie Calvo

Line

Melanie Calvo

Line

Melanie Calvo

Line

Melanie Calvo

Line

Melanie Calvo

Line



3.2 Federally-Listed Species

In November 2010, the FWC established an imperiled species rule which states that all species listed by the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that occur in Florida are also included on the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species List as Federally-Designated Endangered, Federally-Designated Threatened, Federally-Designated Due to Similarity of Appearance, or Federally-Designated Non-Essential Experimental population species. Thus, all federally-listed species evaluated below are also state-listed species protected by the FWC.

The 1987 NWE FEIS identified two species potentially occurring within the study area that were federally-listed as endangered at that time - the wood stork (Mycteria americana) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The study also identified one species in the study area that was federally-listed as threatened - the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi). The conclusion of the 1987 NWE FEIS was that the project would have no adverse effect on federally- or state-listed species. The 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-evaluations did not modify the original findings of the 1987 NWE FEIS for this segment or add new species for consideration for this segment. Additional species considered in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation with updated listing statuses and effect determinations are provided below.

3.2.1 Gulf Sturgeon

The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is federally-listed as threatened. The sturgeon forages in the Gulf of Mexico and spawns in most coastal rivers, specifically in northern Florida. This species is more common in Gulf waters and rivers near the Panhandle over to Mississippi but has been seen as far south as Florida Bay. No USFWS Critical Habitat is documented within the study area. The Gulf sturgeon has the potential to enter the estuarine area of Fish Creek, which is crossed by SR 60/Veterans Expressway heading north to the CCC and the Veterans Expressway-Spruce Street-TIA Connector ramp crossings heading north into the TIA. At this phase of project development, details on the types of crossing, pile driving activities, and foundation design of the crossings are not known. Additional details will be available and evaluated during design at these crossing locations over Fish Creek. The FDOT will commit to watching for this species during construction of the project and adhere to the Construction Special Provisions Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines (NMFS, USFWS) (Appendix B). With these provisions in place, the project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Gulf sturgeon.

3.2.2 Smalltooth Sawfish

The smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) is federally-listed as endangered. Smalltooth sawfish normally inhabit shallow, tropical coastal waters and estuarine habitats such as seagrass beds, mangroves, and inshore bars. They can be found in sheltered bays, estuaries, and mouths of rivers; some sawfish are even known to go upstream into fresh water in larger riverine systems. This species was historically found throughout most of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean but is now confined to peninsular Florida and only relatively common in areas of south Florida near the Everglades. The NMFS has designated coastal waters near Fort Myers and the Everglades as Critical Habitat for the smalltooth sawfish. No Critical Habitat is located near the study area. The smalltooth sawfish was not observed in the area, and the data as to its occurrence in the area are inconclusive. The smalltooth sawfish has the possibility of entering the estuarine waters of Fish Creek under the SR 60/Veterans Expressway crossing heading north to the CCC and the Veterans Expressway-Spruce Street-TIA Connector Ramp crossings heading north into the TIA. At this phase of project development, details on the types of crossing, pile driving activities, and foundation design of the crossings are not known. Additional details will be available and evaluated during design at these crossing locations over Fish Creek. With implementation of the NMFS’s Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (Appendix B) during construction, the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements may affect, not likely to adversely affect the smalltooth sawfish.



3.2.3 Piping Plover

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is federally-listed as threatened. This species is found on open, sandy beaches as well as tidalflats and mudflats. They are found on both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts but are more common on the Gulf coast. This project is located within the USFWS Consultation Area for the piping plover, but no USFWS Critical Habitat or suitable habitat is identified within the project study limits.

There is no open, sandy beach habitat within the study area, and no suitable habitat for this species that will be impacted by the NWE. Therefore, the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements will have no effect on the piping plover.

3.2.4 Rufa Red Knot

The Rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is federally-listed as threatened. This species is a medium-sized shorebird that breeds and nests in dry, slightly elevated tundra locations, often on slopes with little vegetation. The species migrates annually between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions, including the Southwest U.S., the northwest Gulf of Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. During both the spring and fall migrations, groups of red knots can be found along the coastal and inland U.S. migration corridors from Argentina to Canada. It is found primarily in intertidal, marine habitats, especially near estuaries and bays. Optimal nonbreeding habitat is close to feeding areas, protected from predators, has sufficient exposed feeding grounds at highest tide, and is free from excessive human disturbance. Critical habitat has not been established for the Rufa red knot.

The study area has minimal, suboptimal habitat that would be suitable for the Rufa red knot, and the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements are anticipated to have no effect on the Rufa red knot.

3.2.5 Wood Stork

Wood storks are federally-listed as threatened. Wood storks utilize freshwater and estuarine habitats for nesting, foraging, and roosting. Wood storks are typically colonial nesters and construct their nests in medium to tall trees located within inundated forested wetlands including cypress swamps, mixed hardwood swamps, mangroves, and sloughs. No rookeries or breeding colonies are located in the study area. However, eight wood stork colonies are located within a fifteen-mile radius of the study area, the defined distance for Core Foraging Area (CFA) for wood storks in Central Florida. Suitable foraging habitat (SFH) for wood storks 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 depths between 2 and 15 inches.

The Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, USFWS, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, and State of Florida Effect Determination Key for the Wood Stork in Central and North Peninsular Florida (September 2008) (Appendix B), was followed to assess potential effects to the Wood Stork. Because the study area is within eight CFAs, impacted areas will be evaluated for potential use as SFH for wood storks. SFH in the project area is anticipated to be greater than 0.5 acre (ac). The FDOT will coordinate with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and USFWS to determine the quantity of the SFH impacts and to evaluate the appropriate compensation required. With appropriate mitigation provided, the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements may affect, not likely to adversely affect the wood stork.

3.2.6 Sea Turtles

Sea turtles have the potential to be in the study area in the estuarine portion of Fish Creek. Sea turtles with the

potential to exist within the study area include the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas) Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and the Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). The green sea turtle



and loggerhead are both federally-listed as threatened. The Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle and Hawksbill sea turtle are federally-listed as endangered. These turtles are found in the Gulf of Mexico and coastal waters of Florida. However, nesting beaches for any of the sea turtle species are not located within or near the project corridor. Therefore, potential involvement is limited to swimming turtles. The FDOT will implement the NMFS’s Sea Turtle

and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions and Manatee and Sea Turtle Watch Program Guidelines (Appendix B) during construction. With these provisions in place, the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements may affect, not likely to adversely affect sea turtles.

3.2.7 Eastern Indigo Snake

Eastern indigo snakes are federally-listed as threatened. The USFWS Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key (USFWS 2013) (Appendix B) was followed to assess potential effects to this species. Suitable habitat is found in the project area; therefore, Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (Appendix B) will be followed during construction. Neither Eastern indigo snakes nor their refugia, particularly gopher tortoise burrows, were observed during field reviews of the project; however, 100% gopher tortoise surveys were not conducted so the potential for gopher tortoise burrows was not eliminated. The project will not impact xeric habitat (scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods) and has fewer than 25 gopher tortoise burrows potentially occurring in the project area based on results of field reviews conducted. If during additional field reviews, gopher tortoise burrows are observed, the FDOT will excavate the burrow in accordance with FWC gopher tortoise permitting guidelines. If during the excavation, an indigo snake is encountered, the snake will be allowed to vacate the area prior to additional site manipulation. Refugia other than gopher tortoise burrows will be inspected each morning prior to site manipulation; if occupied by the indigo snake, work will not commence until the snake has vacated the vicinity of the proposed work, as required by USACE permits to be issued for the project. Therefore, the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Eastern indigo snake.

3.2.8 West Indian Manatee

The West Indian (Florida) manatee (Trichechus manatus) is federally-listed as threatened. West Indian manatees utilize coastal waters, bays, estuaries, rivers, and occasionally lakes. Portions of the study area are located within the USFWS Consultation Area for the West Indian manatee. The USFWS Consultation Area is extensive and covers the entire Hillsborough coastline, and manatees have been documented in the bay adjacent to the Howard Frankland Bridge (HFB) causeway and the CCC. It is possible that the manatee can access Fish Creek within the Study Area. At this phase of project development, details on the types of crossing, pile driving activities, and foundation design of the crossings are not known. Additional details will be available and evaluated during design at these crossing locations over Fish Creek.

The USFWS Manatee Key (Florida, April 2013), as amended (Appendix B), was utilized to make the effect determination for the West Indian manatee. The project is not anticipated to include dredging of Fish Creek and will not include activities which will increase access for watercraft. No impact is anticipated to aquatic submerged vegetation, emergent vegetation, or mangroves at the Fish Creek crossings. The USFWS’s Standard Manatee Conditions for In‐Water Work (Appendix B) will be implemented, and these guidelines will be utilized when the project is constructed over Fish Creek. The most current provisions will be followed during construction. Therefore, the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements may affect, not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee.

3.3 State-Listed Species

All federally designated species are considered protected by State. Species which are not federally-listed but are state-listed with the potential to occur in the study area are described below.



The 1987 NWE FEIS evaluation included two species that were state-listed as threatened - the least tern (Sterna antillarum) and the Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis). However, the 1987 NWE FEIS concluded that the least tern would not occur in areas to be impacted by the project although it may be in the vicinity of the project. The Florida sandhill crane was considered to be present in the northern segments of the 1987 NWE FEIS study area but was not identified as potentially occurring in the study area of this NRE. The 1987 NWE FEIS concluded that there would be no adverse effect to state-listed species by the NWE. The 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-evaluations did not modify the findings of the 1987 FEIS. An updated analysis of these species and others are provided below.

3.3.1 Wetland-Dependent Avian Species

State-listed species which were identified in the vicinity of the corridor or which have potential to occur are a variety of wetland dependent avian species including the roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens) and tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor). These species are all state-listed as threatened. Nesting occurs in a variety of habitats from freshwater forested wetlands to mangrove islands, with the majority of the listed species utilizing larger trees.

Wetlands and surface waters that provide foraging potential for these species include freshwater marshes, saltwater marshes, herbaceous ditches/swales, tidal flats, shallow estuarine waters, ponds and riverine systems. Potential foraging habitat is located within the shallow estuarine, mangrove, and saltmarsh habitat adjacent to the study area and existing SMFs which will either be replaced or modified as part of the design. However, nesting locations are not located within the corridor. While foraging areas utilized by these species may be temporarily affected by this project, there will be no permanent impacts to nesting areas or rookeries. There is no adverse effect anticipated to these avian species as a result of the NWE Re-evaluation proposed improvements.

3.3.2 Florida Sandhill Crane

The Florida sandhill crane is listed as threatened by the FWC. The Florida sandhill crane is commonly found in wet prairies, marshy lake regions, low-lying pastures (including improved pastures) and shallow water open areas. Foraging areas for the sandhill crane include hydric pine flatwoods, pastures and prairies, as well as upland grassed areas. A limited amount of suitable foraging habitat for the sandhill crane exists within the proposed project area; unavoidable impacts to those foraging habitats will be mitigated as required during the permitting process in design. No sandhill cranes nesting locations were observed during field observations and none would be anticipated based on the habitat available in the study area. With these considerations, there is no adverse effect anticipated to the Florida sandhill crane.

3.3.3 Least Tern

The least tern is listed as threatened by the FWC. The least tern inhabits areas along the coasts of Florida, including estuaries and bays. Least terns traditionally nested on sandy beaches and isolated stretches of the mainland shore. More recently, this species has been observed nesting on roofs and on causeways comprised of dredged material near marine or estuarine waters. Nesting areas have a substrate of well-drained sand or gravel with minimal vegetation. These migratory birds begin nesting in mid-April in central and southern Florida and leave in November through February. No unvegetated sandy beach habitat is within the study area. Because of the lack of suitable nesting habitat, there is no effect anticipated to the least tern.

3.3.4 Florida Burrowing Owl

The Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) is a state-listed threatened species. Burrowing owls live in open treeless areas such as native prairies, golf courses, agricultural fields, and vacant lots. Suitable habitat may exist within the project study area for this species although it is anticipated to be minimal and marginal. No burrowing owls are documented in the study area. However, more extensive surveys are recommended during



design to determine if this species is within the areas to be impacted as a result of this project. There is no adverse effect anticipated to the Florida burrowing owl with these precautions in place.

3.3.5 Gopher Tortoise

The gopher tortoise is a state-listed threatened species and is currently a candidate for federal listing. No gopher tortoise burrows were documented within the project; however, 100 percent surveys were not conducted. During design and prior to construction, the FDOT will conduct the appropriate gopher tortoise survey and obtain a FWC gopher tortoise relocation permit if needed. With the appropriate permitting and relocation effort, there is no adverse effect anticipated to the gopher tortoise.

3.4 Other Protected Wildlife Species

3.4.1 Bald Eagle

The bald eagle is no longer federally-listed and afforded protection by the ESA of 1973; protection for the species is provided through the Migratory Birds Program per the MBTA and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Bald eagles are also no longer state-listed. Bald eagles most commonly inhabit areas near the coast, bays, rivers, lakes or other open bodies of water. They nest in tall trees, typically live pines, which usually have open views to their surroundings. Eagles are also known to utilize artificial structures and other types of tall trees for nesting. There are no documented nests within 660 feet of the study area according to the FWC Eagle Nest Locator. No nests were identified within the study areas during field reviews. Pre-construction surveys should be conducted for the bald eagle.

The USFWS determined that construction activities greater than 660 feet away from bald eagle nests have no documented negative effects that would halt construction activities during the nesting season, as outlined in the USFWS’s Bald Eagle Monitoring Guidelines (2007). Monitoring of construction and nesting activities is therefore no longer warranted for projects involving construction beyond 660 feet of an active bald eagle nest during nesting season. Nesting season in Florida is from October 1 through May 15, although nesting may occur earlier or later than this period, especially in areas of south Florida. The USFWS Monitoring Guidelines shall be followed if any nests are observed within the project’s limits of construction; however, no nesting trees or other potential nesting sites are currently located within 660 feet of the project study limits.

3.4.2 Osprey

The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is not federally-listed or state-listed but is protected under the MBTA. As such, its nests are afforded protection. Surveys for osprey nests will be conducted prior to construction. If nests are found, proper coordination and permitting with the FWC will be conducted.

3.5 Protected Plant Species

The project is located within an urbanized area of the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County. Natural communities are limited within the study area, and no protected plant species have been identified within the study area and none are anticipated to exist; therefore, there is no effect anticipated for protected plant species.

3.6 Critical Habitat

The project corridor was assessed for Critical Habitat designated by Congress in 17 CFR 35.1532. Review of the USFWS’s available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data indicates there is no Critical Habitat within the project limits or surrounding areas; therefore, the proposed project will have no involvement with Critical Habitat.



3.7 Agency Coordination

No agency coordination has occurred for the 2018 Re-evaluation improvements for this segment of the NWE. This NRE will be utilized to initiate coordination with the USFWS and FWC to obtain concurrence with the listed species evaluation.

4. WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER EVALUATION

4.1 Methodology

Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 11990 entitled Protection of Wetlands, (May 1977) 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, which requires all federally-funded highway projects to protect wetlands to the fullest extent possible. In accordance with this policy, as well as Part 2, Chapter 9 – Wetlands and Other Surface Waters of the FDOT PD&E Manual (June 2017) the study area was evaluated for potential impacts to wetlands and surface waters.

Preliminary wetland boundaries were recorded during field ground-truthing efforts on December 18, 2017 at the proposed Eisenhower South-Cypress Street connector with the Veterans Expressway and at Mondigo Street, north of La Salle Street. Agency-verified boundaries will be recorded during additional field ground-truthing efforts during the permitting phase of the project. Preliminary boundaries were accomplished by implementing the State of Florida wetland delineation methodology Chapter 62-340, FAC, Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters, and the USACE methodology in accordance with the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and 2010 Regional Supplement. Wetland functional assessments were performed on each wetland type based on the state Chapter 62-345, FAC, Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM).

Wetland area estimates within the project study area and the existing ROW were developed using GIS technology. Wetland type descriptions are based on the FLUCCS Handbook (FDOT, January 1999) and the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Five wetland or surface water community types were identified on the corridor. The location of the wetlands and surface waters are shown on the FLUCCS map (Appendix A).

4.2 Wetland Impact Evaluation

The 1987 NWE FEIS study identified eight wetlands in the segment between Cypress Street and Independence Parkway, with a total anticipated impact of 9.49 ac. The 1992 Design Change Re-evaluation identified an additional wetland area for a total of nine wetlands but did not provide acreages anticipated for impact for this segment of the study area. However, the 1999 Re-evaluation provided acreages by wetland for the 1992 proposed improvements in a comparison table and indicated that the total wetland impact estimated in the 1992 Re-evaluation was 13.05 acres.

The 1999 Design Change/ROW Authorization Re-evaluation plans included a number of changes in alignment which resulted in the identification of seven additional wetlands and other surface waters (OSWs) in the study area, for a total of sixteen wetlands and OSWs. The 1999 Re-evaluation plans included loop ramps north and south of the CCC; revised the Spruce Street/TIA interchange plans to accommodate an increased design speed; improved access to TIA; and included three additional SMFs. The 1999 Re-evaluation estimated wetland and OSW impacts of 17.37 ac within the study area. The FLUCCS codes of the nine wetlands previously identified in the 1987 FEIS and 1992 Re-evaluation could be determined for the 1999 evaluation using wetland identification numbers (Wetlands 1 – 9) from the prior studies. However, because FLUCCS codes were not provided in the 1999 Re-evaluation table of impacts, the FLUCCS



codes for Wetland 10 through Wetland 16 were not able to be determined. Thus, the impact for the additional wetlands is indicated as “unknown FLUCCS” in the comparison table below (Table 4-2).

The 2003 Re-evaluation summarized impacts by type and acreage but not individual wetland identification. The 2003 Re-evaluation improvements included 33.19 ac of impact to wetlands, surface waters, and ditches. However, 4.92 ac were to upland-cut non-tidal ditches and pools which are not jurisdictional to the permitting agencies. The impacts considered as jurisdictional wetlands or OSWs totaled 28.27 ac. The impacts described in the 2003 Re-evaluation were permitted and approved under USACE Permits 200105084 and 200205816 and SWFWMD ERP permits 43000920.004 and 43002958.002. These impacts were incurred in the construction of the 2003 NWE improvements constructed between 2005 and 2010 and mitigated via 373.4137 (FS)-the FDOT Mitigation Plan implemented by SWFWMD as approved by the issued permits.

The 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation proposed improvements are primarily within the confines of the existing roadways, interchanges, and ramps constructed between 2005 and 2010. The study area is entirely within the existing previously constructed lanes within and north of the Spruce Street Interchange. South of the Spruce Street Interchange, the project extends beyond the existing roadway boundaries into adjacent areas which are identified as commercial properties. The study area is also outside of existing roadway limits at the Mondigo Street connection and the Eisenhower-Cypress Street connection. The project will cross Fish Creek at two existing crossing locations. In-water work is anticipated to be limited to the crossings and anticipated only in non-vegetated areas of the creek. Reservoirs are man-made wet detention areas (SMFs) constructed in the interchange areas. Impacts anticipated from the proposed tolled express lanes improvements evaluated in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation are provided below in Table 4-1. The map provided in Appendix A shows the locations of the wetland and surface water communities. A comparison of the impacts estimated in the 1987 FEIS and subsequent re-evaluations is included as Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-1 Wetland and Surface Water Communities in the 2018 NWE Design Change Re-evaluation Study Area

FLUCCS FLUCCS DESCRIPTION USFWS CODE

USFWS CODE DESCRIPTION

ACREAGE IN STUDY

AREA

510 Streams and Waterways

R2UB Riverine, Unconsolidated bottom

0.30

530 Reservoirs PUBx Palustrine, Unconsolidated

bottom, excavated 8.68

540 Bays and Estuaries E1UB/E1OW Estuarine, Subtidal,

Unconsolidated Bottom/Open Water

0.36

612 Mangrove Swamps E2SS3P Estuarine, Tidal, Scrub-Shrub,

Broad-Leaved Evergreen, Irregularly Flooded

0.04

642 Saltwater Marsh E2EM1P Estuarine, Tidal, Emergent,

Persistent, Irregularly Flooded 0.16

TOTAL 9.54



Table 4-2 Potential Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Estimated for FEIS and Re-evaluations

FLUCCS Code FLUCCS Description Acreage in 1987 FEIS

Study Area

Acreage in 1992 Re-

evaluation Study Area

Acreage in 1999Re-evaluation

Study Area

Acreage in 2003

Reevaluation Study Area*

Acreage in 2018 Design Change Re-evaluation

Study Area

510 Streams and Waterways 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30

530 Reservoirs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.68

540 Bays and Estuaries 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.19 0.36

612 Mangrove Swamps 3.61 7.63 5.59 5.22 0.04

640/641 Freshwater Marsh 2.31 1.85 3.47 0.00 0.00

642 Saltwater Marsh 3.57 3.57 2.32 18.63 0.16

911 Seagrass 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00

Unknown FLUCCS N/A 0.00 0.00 5.99 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 9.49 13.05 17.37 28.27 9.54

*The acreages shown for the 1987 FEIS and 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-Evaluations were impacted during the construction in 2005-2010. The acreage shown for the 2018 Re-evaluation are impacts not previously evaluated and includes impacts to SMFs built during the construction of the general lanes between 2005-2010. Impacts from the 2003 Reevaluation were permitted by SWFWMD and the USACE.

4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

During the design process, further efforts will be made to reduce the footprint within wetlands or surface waters to the extent practicable. Retention walls are proposed in mangrove areas to minimize side slopes. Express lanes are proposed in median areas between existing roadways to avoid impacts to adjacent wetlands or surface waters where feasible. Erosion and sediment controls and other best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to contain impacts to the study area and minimize impacts to adjacent areas.

Mangrove, saltwater marsh, or other surface water compensation or mitigation will be provided through purchase of mitigation bank credits or through the FDOT Mitigation Program in accordance with chapter 373.4137 Florida Statute (FS). This chapter of the Statute states in part that, “mitigation for the impact of transportation projects proposed by the Department of Transportation can be more effectively achieved by regional, long-range mitigation planning rather than on a project-by-project basis. It is the intent of the Legislature that mitigation to offset the adverse effects of these transportation projects be funded by the Department of Transportation and be carried out by the use of mitigation banks and any other mitigation options that satisfy state and federal requirements in a manner that promotes efficiency, timeliness in project delivery, and cost-effectiveness.”

4.4 Wetland Functional Analysis (UMAM)

In February 2004, the Florida legislature [373.414 (18) FS] adopted a statewide UMAM to determine the amount of mitigation required to offset impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. UMAM is a standardized procedure for assessing the functions (expressed as a percentage compared to a natural, undisturbed wetland) provided by wetlands and other surface waters and the amount those functions are reduced or lost by proposed impact. The amount the functions are reduced or lost is referred to as Functional Loss (FL). Once it is determined that mitigation is necessary, the UMAM methodology is also used to quantify the amount of mitigation necessary to offset the FL of the impact. This can be expressed in acres or as credits from a mitigation bank or regional mitigation provider.



UMAM is applied by the utilization of an assessment matrix, which analyzes three variables for wetlands and surface waters (i.e., indicators of wetland/other surface waters function):

• Location and Landscape• Water Environment• Vegetative Community Structure

Each variable yields an overall UMAM score for a wetland ranging from 0 to 10, based on the level of functions to fish and wildlife. For purposes of providing guidance, descriptions are given for four general categories of scores: Optimal (10), Moderate (7), Minimal (4), and Not Present (0). Areas of open water habitat such as Streams and Waterways (510) and ditches are considered Surface Waters or OSWs. Mitigation may be required for surface water impacts, but generally is not required to offset the loss of OSWs (ditches and SMFs) as these are typically replaced in-kind; therefore, OSWs are not included in the UMAM assessment.

UMAM values were determined for mangrove wetlands and saltwater marsh identified within the proposed study area. UMAM scores were assigned in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Chapter 62-345, FAC. (February 2, 2004). These representative UMAM scores will be re-evaluated at the time of final design and permitting based on the specific areas proposed for impact. Final UMAM scores will be prepared in conjunction with the regulatory agencies during the permitting process. The preliminary UMAM scores are summarized in Table 4-4. UMAM scoring forms supporting these scores are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4-4 Summary of Estimated UMAM Scores

Habitat Type Habitat Area (ac) UMAM Delta Preliminary Estimate of FL

Saltwater Marsh (642) 0.16 0.60 0.10

Mangrove (612) 0.04 0.73 0.03

4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Indirect impacts are caused by the action but occur later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. The study area consists primarily of interstate roadways and ramp with express lanes proposed between the existing, constructed roadway. The causeway and roadway network is well established. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to stimulate growth or other development in the area but will provide more efficient and safe transportation.

Indirect impacts may occur to adjacent wetland areas from the causeway and roadway/ramps reducing the buffer area. An appropriate buffer will be considered during design/permitting and secondary impact calculations will be completed using UMAM to address any loss of wetland function. BMPs will be utilized to reduce or avoid indirect impacts from construction activities.

Cumulative impacts are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The project is the addition of express lanes and improvements to an existing major roadway system. It is not a new facility or one that will require substantial new ROW. No additional SMFs are proposed. The surrounding areas are already developed with existing access; access to areas suitable for development remains the same before and after the project but with increased efficiency from express lane availability. The project will impact small areas of mangroves and saltwater marsh in the study area. However, the impacts will be mitigated at suitable mitigation banks or utilizing appropriate sites developed through the FDOT Mitigation Plan by SWFWMD; thus, the wetland resource impacted will be replaced within the Tampa Bay area and not taken out of basin. Cumulative impacts are therefore not anticipated.



5. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

An EFH Assessment is included in this report in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 17- EFH of the FDOT PD&E Manual and the requirements of the MSFCMA of 1996. EFH includes all types of aquatic habitat, such as open waters, wetlands, seagrasses, and substrate, necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and development to maturity. An EFH assessment was not done in the 1987 FEIS or the 1992 and 1999 Re-evaluations. The 2003 Re-Evaluation identified EFH losses of 32.69 ac which included impacts to salt marsh, mangroves, mud and sand substrates, seagrass, and estuarine water column. Impacts to EFH were coordinated with the NMFS via the review and approval of the USACE Permits 200105084 and 200205816 issued in 2003. These impacts were incurred during the construction of the general lanes from 2005 and 2010. This evaluation considers new minor impacts associated with the 2018 Re-evaluation improvements that were not considered in the prior documents.

5.1 Magnuson-Stevens Act

The MSFCMA created conservation and management standards established through the Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) to implement the national standards in the Fishery Management Plans (FMP). The 1996 amendments to the MSFCMA set forth a number of mandates for the NMFS, eight regional FMCs, and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The FMC’s with assistance from NMFS, are required to identify and delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with the NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH and to respond in writing to NMFS’s recommendations.

5.2 EFH Involvement

The objective of the EFH Assessment is to describe how the actions associated with the proposed crossings of Fish Creek may affect EFH designated by the NMFS and Gulf Coast FMC within Old Tampa Bay estuarine systems. Land development activities may adversely affect EFH either directly or indirectly (e.g., loss of prey items), and this activity, either site specific or habitat-wide, is to be identified and evaluated individually and cumulatively. In response to the EFH assessment, NMFS and the FMC may provide recommendations and/or comments to the responsible federal permitting agency. The information provided by the NMFS is considered by the permitting agency and may be included in the recommendations as part of the USACE Section 404 permit conditions.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) guidelines for EFH (1998), EFH assessments must include:

• A description of the proposed action;

• An analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action on EFH, the managed species, andassociated species by life history stage;

• The federal agency’s reviews regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and

• Proposed mitigation if applicable.

The sections below include the description of the proposed activity, EFH existing conditions, analysis of effects, and the federal agency’s reviews regarding those effects on the EFH.

5.3 Existing Conditions

As per the SWFWMD FLUCCS maps and field reviews conducted December 2017, open water, saltwater marsh, and mangroves habitats are present in the study area. These areas are shown on the map provided in Appendix A.



5.4 Field Surveys

A preliminary field review was conducted during field ground-truthing efforts on December 18, 2017 at the Eisenhower South-Cypress Street connection and Mondigo Street north of La Salle Street, where ramps and connections are proposed that were not included in prior investigations. These reviews were to field verify the SWFWMD 2013-2014 wetland land use in those areas.

5.5 Results

The following species with FMPs are known to exist in Tampa Bay in marine and estuarine habitats. Information on the life cycles and habitat preferences of the species are provided below. The FMPs for these species are related to commercial and recreational fishing limits and regulations. As the project impacts will have no relevance to the topics or criteria of the FMPs, specifics for the FMPs beyond species information is not detailed below.

Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) is found throughout Florida estuaries within the Gulf of Mexico in primarily euryhaline waters. Adults are common in Tampa Bay and juveniles are common to abundant. Red drum is estuarine dependent. After hatching, larvae are carried into the shallow water of bays and estuaries with the tide. Once in an estuarine area they seek the shelter of grassy covers, tidal flats and lagoons for protection. Juveniles prefer shallow, protected, open waters of estuary covers and secondary bays with depths up to 3.0 meters. Adults are found in littoral and shallow nearshore waters off beaches and off shore in depths from 40 to 70 meters (130 to 230 feet).

Pink Shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) distribution is associated with seagrasses in general, and shoal grass in particular. They are distributed throughout the west coast of Florida and are common as juveniles in the Tampa Bay area. The juveniles occur in oligohaline to euhaline estuaries and bays. They seek the shelter of dense seagrasses with smaller juveniles preferring shoal grass and the adults preferring the refuge of turtle grass. Adults inhabit deep offshore marine waters commonly nine to 44 meters (145 feet) deep and inhabit substrates including shell‐sand, sand, coral‐mud and mud.

Stone Crab (Minippe mercenaria) is listed as common in Tampa Bay at all life stages. All life stages are marine to estuarine. Adults are usually found in deeper waters of estuaries or in inshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. They burrow under rock ledges, coral heads or grass clumps, and at times in grass flats. Adults have been found to inhabit waters ranging in depth from five to 54 meters (177 feet). Juveniles are found in estuaries near pilings, rocks, and grass beds utilizing available cover and burrows. Migration tends to be short‐ranged and along shore from 1.6 to 8.0 kilometers (1 to 5 miles). Females migrate from grass flats to deeper waters to avoid especially high or low temperatures.

Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus) occurs throughout the Caribbean Sea, along the shelf waters of the southeastern United States north to North Carolina, in Bermuda, and south to Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico. They are found from just below the water surface to depths of 500 meters (1,650 feet). The spawning season occurs from April through September in the southeastern U.S. and throughout the year in the Caribbean and the Florida Keys on offshore reefs. Adults move along shore and offshore seasonally. Caribbean spiny lobsters migrate to deeper water in order to evade the stresses of the cold and turbid waters.

Coastal Migratory Pelagics EFH consists of Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates extending from the U.S./Mexico border to the boundary between the areas covered by the Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters out to depths of 100 fathoms (600 feet). Cero (Scomberomorus regalis), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), and Spanish mackerel



(Scomberomorus maculates) are species managed by the South Atlantic FMC. Spanish mackerel is known to occur within or near the study area. Spanish mackerel are prevalent throughout Florida waters inshore, offshore and nearshore. The species is frequently found over grass beds and reefs. Spanish mackerel are migratory fish that swim to the north in the spring and return to southern waters when the temperatures drop below 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

Reef Fish EFH consists of Gulf of Mexico waters and substrates extending from the U.S./Mexico border to the boundary between the areas covered by the Gulf of Mexico FMC and the South Atlantic FMC from estuarine waters out to depths of 100 fathoms (600 feet). The Gulf of Mexico reef fish primarily consists of grouper and snapper species. Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus) is a tropical, marine reef fish that occur from the U.S. mid‐ Atlantic south to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Juveniles are common to inshore waters throughout Florida, and adults are found in areas of moderate to high relief on the continental shelf. Spawning occurs during summer (June– September) in offshore waters around reefs, wrecks, and other bottom structures. Adult gray snapper are nocturnal predators that forage away from their reef habitats. Juveniles feed diurnally among seagrass beds and feed primarily on penaeid shrimp and crabs. Adult gray snappers feed on fish (largely grunts), shrimp, and crabs.

5.6 Analysis of Effect on EFH

As per informal consultation with the NMFS on February 26, 2018, the study area includes EFH. EFH is present in the open waters of Fish Creek, salt marshes, and mangroves. No seagrasses will be impacted.

Impacts to the water column are limited to work over the water within Fish Creek or possibly the placement of piles for new ramps or bridge crossings in two locations. The impacts to the water column will be temporary in nature with the only permanent impact being displacement of the water column by any piles being required for the placement of the proposed tolled express lane ramp. At this phase of project development, details on the types of crossing, pile driving activities, and foundation design of the crossings is not known. Additional details will be available and evaluated during design at these crossing locations over Fish Creek.

Degradation of water quality resulting from construction of the project or excess pollutant loading of stormwater runoff from the project has the potential to adversely affect project waters. Impacts to water quality from construction activities will be avoided and minimized through the use of BMPs. BMPs generally include phased construction, turbidity screens, silt fences, hay bales, cofferdams, and other construction techniques approved by the regulatory agencies.

5.7 Compensation for EFH Impacts

Mangrove and salt marsh mitigation will be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits at a mitigation bank and/or via the use of the FDOT Mitigation Plan with SWFWMD in accordance with 373.4137(FS). These options and any others proposed during design and permitting will compensate for impacts to wetlands. It is anticipated that the mitigation provided will provide sufficient compensation for EFH impacts. However, additional compensation for impacts to EFH, if required, will be further coordinated with the NMFS, USFWS and other appropriate agencies. With mitigation provided for wetland impacts, the impacts to EFH are anticipated to be minimal.



6. ANTICIPATED PERMITS

The USACE and the SWFWMD regulate wetlands and surface waters within the study area. Other agencies, including the USFWS, NMFS, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the FWC, review and comment on the wetland permit applications. In addition, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), through a delegation from the USEPA, regulates stormwater discharges from the construction sites. It is

currently anticipated that the following permits will be required for this project:

PERMITS ISSUING AGENCY Section 404 Dredge/Fill Permit USACE Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) SWFWMD National Pollutant Discharge Elimination FDEP System (NPDES) Permit Sovereign Submerged Lands Easement Port Tampa Bay (if applicable)

7. CONCLUSIONS AND COMMITMENTS

7.1 Protected Species and Habitat

The 1987 NWE FEIS effect determinations for listed species and the updated effect determinations for the 2018 NWE Re-evaluation are provided below in Table 6-1. The 1992, 1999, and 2003 Re-evaluations of the 1987 NWE FEIS did not modify the anticipated species in the segment and concluded that there would be no adverse effect to endangered or threatened species or their habitats as a result of the project.

Table 6-1 Potential Protected Species Status, Involvement, and Effect Determination Summary

Scientific Name

Common Name

Federal Status

State Status

Probability of Involvement

Effect Determination 1987 NWE FEIS


Build Alternatives 2018

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon FT FT Moderate - MANLAA

Pristis pectinata Smalltooth Sawfish FE FE Moderate - MANLAA

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover FT FT Low - No Effect

Calidris canutus rufa Rufa Red Knot FT FT Low - No Effect

Mycteria americana Wood Stork FT FT Moderate NAEA MANLAA

Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill - ST Moderate - NAEA

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron - ST Moderate - NAEA

Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret - ST Moderate - NAEA

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron - ST Moderate - NAEA

Sternula antillarum Least Tern - ST Low NEA NEA

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill Crane - ST Low NEA NAEA

Athene cunicularia floridana

Florida Burrowing Owl - ST Low - NAEA

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle MBTA+ - Moderate NAEA -



Scientific Name

Common Name

Federal Status

State Status

Probability of Involvement

Effect Determination 1987 NWE FEIS


Build Alternatives 2018

Pandion haliaetus Osprey MBTA - Moderate - -

Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake FT FT Moderate NAEA MANLAA

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Sea Turtle FE FE Moderate - MANLAA

Chelonia mydas Atlantic Green Sea

Turtle FT FT Moderate - MANLAA

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle FT FT Moderate - MANLAA

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley Sea

Turtle FE FE Moderate - MANLAA

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise C ST Low - NAEA

Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee FT FT High - MANLAA

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA); +Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) FE - Federally-Designated Endangered; FT-Federally-Designated Threatened; ST – State-Designated Threatened; C-Candidate Species; MANLAA-May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NAEA- No Adverse Effect Anticipated; NEA- No Effect Anticipated

7.2 Wetland and Surface Water Communities

The 1987 NWE FEIS estimated 9.49 ac of wetland and OSW impact for this segment. The 1992 Design Change Re-evaluation included an additional wetland area and estimated impacts at 13.05 ac. The 1999 Design Change/ROW Authorization Re-evaluation identified seven additional wetlands and OSWs to be impacted (total of sixteen wetlands) and increased the wetland impact estimate to 17.37 ac for this segment of the FEIS study area. The 2003 Re-evaluation improvements estimated 28.27 ac of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and OSWs. The wetlands impacts evaluated in the 1987 FEIS and subsequent re-evaluations were permitted in 2003 and incurred during the construction general lanes and associated improvements between 2005 and 2010.

Because the proposed express lanes and ramps of the 2018 NWE Re-evaluation design are primarily within existing roadways, interchanges, and ramps of the previously constructed projects, impacts to wetlands are limited to 0.20 ac (0.04 ac mangrove; 0.16 ac saltwater marsh). Surface water impacts are limited to 0.36 ac to estuary, 0.30 ac to roadside ditches, and 8.68 ac to existing SMFs. These impacts were not previously considered in the 1987 NWE FEIS or prior re-evaluations. Because the improved improvements are within the boundaries of existing roadways, additional ROW needs are very limited with none of the additional ROW comprised of wetland.

Mangrove, saltwater marsh, or other surface water compensation or mitigation will be provided through purchase of mitigation bank credits or through the FDOT Mitigation Program in accordance with chapter 373.4137 (FS).

7.3 Essential Fish Habitat

An EFH assessment was not done in the 1987 FEIS or the 1992 and 1999 Re-evaluations. The 2003 Re-Evaluation identified EFH losses of 32.69 ac which included impacts to salt marsh, mangroves, mud and sand substrates, seagrass, and estuarine water column. Impacts to EFH were coordinated with the NMFS via the review and approval of the USACE Permits 200105084 and 200205816 issued in 2003. These impacts were incurred during the construction of the general lanes and associated improvements between 2005 and 2010.



This evaluation considers new minor impacts associated with the 2018 Re-evaluation improvements that were not considered in the prior documents. As per informal consultation with the NMFS in February 2018, the study area includes EFH. EFH is present in the open waters of Fish Creek, salt marshes, and mangroves. No seagrasses will be impacted.

Mangrove and salt marsh mitigation will be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits at a mitigation bank and/or via the use of the FDOT Mitigation Plan with SWFWMD in accordance with 373.4137 Florida Statute (FS). These options and any others proposed during design and permitting will compensate for impacts to wetlands. It is anticipated that the mitigation provided will provide sufficient compensation for EFH impacts. However, additional compensation for impacts to EFH, if required, will be further coordinated with the NMFS, USFWS and other appropriate agencies. With mitigation provided for loss of seagrass and wetland impacts, the impacts to EFH are anticipated to be minimal.

7.4 Implementation Measures

• The FDOT will conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and coordinate with the FWC as appropriate basedon the results of the survey.

• The FDOT will conduct field reviews during design that will include surveys for burrowing owls and baldeagle nests within areas of suitable habitat.

• Erosion and sediment controls and other BMPs will be implemented prior to construction, andmaintained during and after construction, to prevent adverse impacts to adjacent water resources andproperties.

• No dredging is proposed for this project. If dredging is required, Section 7 Consultation will be re- initiated with the USFWS for the manatee.

7.5 Commitments

• The FDOT will incorporate the Construction Special Provisions Gulf Sturgeon Protection Guidelines(NMFS/USFWS).

• The FDOT will incorporate the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (USFWS)during construction.

• The FDOT will incorporate the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (FWC) during

construction.

• The FDOT will incorporate the Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions (NMFS) duringconstruction.

• No nighttime in-water work will be performed. In-water work can be conducted from official sunriseuntil official sunset times.

8. REFERENCES

Cowardian, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of Deepwater Habitats of the United States, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

Environmental Laboratory. November 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS., 154 pp.



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

Florida Department of Transportation. January 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Surveying and Mapping Thematic Mapping Section. Tallahassee, Florida. 91 pp. (GIS data from SWFWMD)

Florida Department of Transportation, June 2016. Protected Species Technical Memorandum for Design Change and ROW Authorization, 1996 TIS FEIS and Northwest Hillsborough Expressway.

Florida Department of Transportation. June 2017. Project Development and Environment Manual (PD&E Manual) Part 2, Chapters 9, 16, and 17

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. May 2017. Florida’s Endangered Species and Threatened Species. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. 7 pp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Bald Eagle Nest Locator (Online) – Accessed December 2017. https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003. Florida’s Breeding Bird Atlas: A Collaborative Study of Florida’s birdlife. http://myfwc.com/bba

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

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Fishery Management Plans (Online) http://archive.gulfcouncil.org/fishery_management_plans/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Laws and Policies. Magnuson-Stevens Act (Online) http://www.fisheries .noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies#magnuson-stevens-act

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2007. Environmental Resource Permitting Information Manual. Southwest Florida Water Management District. Brooksville, Florida.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2013-2014. GIS Land Use Mapping. Located at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis/.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2016. GIS Land Use Mapping: Seagrass. Located at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis.

US Army Corps of Engineers (Jacksonville District). 1987. Corps of Engineers’ Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville, Florida. 319 pp.

US Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service. May 1989.

US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Last updated June 28, 2007. Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Conservation Measures. Located at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/baldeagle/index.html.

US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed online December 2017. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx

http://myfwc.com/bba

http://archive.gulfcouncil.org/fishery_management_plans/

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis/

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/baldeagle/index.html

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/



US Fish and Wildlife Service. North Florida Ecological Services Office. Wood Stork Nesting Colonies Maps. https://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm

US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory Wetland Mapper (Updated Feb 2018) https://fws.gov/wetlands/index.html

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm

https://fws.gov/wetlands/index.html

NRE

NWE FEIS Design Change Reevaluation Page A-1 June 2018

APPENDIX A

Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCCS) Map

810

130

810

190

182

180

434

810

630

320

540540

140

540

530

190

641

630530

530

530

530

DORA

L DR

VETE

RANS

EXP

Y SVE

TERA

NS EX

PY N

DANA SHORES DR

VENE

TIAN

WAY

E EDE

N RO

C CI

R

SR 60

-HILL

SBOR

OUGH

RAM

P

GEOR

GE R

D

INDEPENDENCE PKWY

VETE

RANS

N-IN

DEPE

NDEN

CE R

AMP

12

34

±0 400 800200Feet

FLUCCS (Florida Land Use, Cover and Form ClassificationSystem) Source: SWFWMD, 2013-2014; Aerial Source: ESRI,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, SGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. 2016

Location Map

NWE Study Area (15 ft Buffer)Field-Verified Delineation of Wetlands and Surface WatersFLUCCS, 2013-2014Sheet Index

Document Path: D:\GIS\MXD\FLUCFCS_103_20180118_SB Edits_NWE.mxd

NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH EXPRESSWAY (NWE)DESIGN CHANGE RE-EVALUATION


MAP 1 of 4

FLUCCS Description130 RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY140 COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES180 RECREATIONAL182 GOLF COURSES190 OPEN LAND320 SHRUB AND BRUSHLAND434 HARDWOOD CONIFER MIXED510 STREAMS AND WATERWAYS530 RESERVOIRS540 BAYS AND ESTUARIES612 MANGROVE SWAMPS630 WETLAND FORESTED MIXED641 FRESHWATER MARSHES642 SALTWATER MARSHES810 TRANSPORTATION

Fish Creek

810

540

810

630

612

810

140

540

130

642

810

130 190

434

130

530

130

642

530

434

630

530

810

641

630

530

530

540

530

510

612

530

BAYPORT DR

VETERANS EXPY N

VETERANS EXPY S

SR 60

-HILL

SBOR

OUGH

RAM

P

SR 60 W SB

COURTNEY CAMPBELL-SR 60 RAMP

SR 60-COURTNEY CAMPBELL RAMPSR 60 W NB

W COURTNEY CAMPBELL CSWY

CAMPBELL CSWY ACCESS RD S

12

34

±0 400 800200Feet


Location Map



NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH EXPRESSWAY (NWE) DESIGN-CHANGE RE-EVALUATION


MAP 2 of 4


Fish Creek

810810

810810

612 140

810

630

540

810

530

630

530510

530530

530

530 530

540

530

530530

630

540

530

510

530

540

510

530

530

530

530

530

530530

SR 60 W NB

SR 60 W SB

W SPRUCE STSR 60-HILLSBOROUGH RAMP

GEOR

GE J

BEAN

PKW

Y

AIRP

ORT S

ERVI

CE R

D

AIRP

ORT-V

ETER

ANS

RAMP

SPRUCE-AIRPORT RAMP

SR 60 W SB-SPRUCE RAMP

SR 60 W SB-AIRPORT RAMP

E FRONTA

GE RD

RENTAL CAR RD

EISENHOWER S-CYPRESS RAMP

TIA I275 CONNECTOR

GEORGE J BEAN PKWY

12

34

±0 400 800200Feet


Location Map



NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH EXPRESSWAY (NWE) DESIGN CHANGE RE-EVALUATION


MAP 3 of 4


Wetland 4

510

510

140

140

810

810

612

540

434

530

434

434

530

140810

642

434

140

434

810

630

530

630

530

641

530

434

530

530

530

530

530

530

140

140

140

140

641

530530

642

530530

140

612

530

642

530530

530

SR 60 W SBSR 60 W NB

W CYPRESS ST

TIA I275 CONNECTOR

E FRONTAGE RD

W LA SALLE ST

W SPRUCE ST

W LAUREL ST

SR 60 W SB-SPRUCE RAMP

EISEN

HOWE

R S-

CYPR

ESS R

AMP MEMORIAL N-SPRUCE RAMP

SR 60 W SB-AIRPORT RAMP

AIRPORT-SR 60 W SB RAMP

W NASSAU ST

N RE

O ST

GEORGE J BEAN PKWY

AVION PARK DR

AIRPORT-SPRUCE RAMP

E FRONTAGE RD

E FRONTA

GE RD12

34

±0 400 800200Feet


Location Map


Document Path: D:\GIS\MXD\FLUCFCS_103_20180118_SB Edits_NWE_4.mxd

NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH EXPRESSWAY (NWE) Design Change Re-Evaluation


MAP 4 of 4


OSW 5A

OSW 6A

OSW 2AOSW 3A

NRE


APPENDIX B

Agency Wildlife Protection Plans

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

mailto:[email protected]



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

September 2012

CONSTRUCTION SPECIAL PROVISIONS GULF STURGEON PROTECTION GUIDELINES

(PURSUANT TO NMFS AND USFWS) The Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened. It is managed under the joint jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Potential habitat for the Gulf sturgeon is located within the limits of this project. The following special provisions will be incorporated into any construction contract where involvement with sturgeon may occur: The FDOT has coordinated with the NMFS and USFWS early in the project development stage. The following provisions are intended to avoid/ protect known spawning habitats, nursery areas, feeding areas and thermal refuges.

1. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) shall advise all FDOT project personnel and Contractor personnel on the project that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing or killing sturgeon. The FDOT and the Contractor will be held responsible for any sturgeon harmed, harassed, or killed as a result of the project activity.

2. The FDOT shall provide information to all FDOT and Contract personnel for identification of sturgeon.

3. Appropriate work shift personnel will be instructed in the appearance, habits, biology,

migratory patterns, and preservation of sturgeon. At least one of these trained personnel will be on site during construction activities to maintain a constant surveillance for these species, assure the cessation of activities (such as dredging, excess turbidity, and construction barge activity), which may endanger these species, and assure that uninhibited passage for the animals is provided.

4. Post signs on site warning of the presence of sturgeon, of their endangered status and

federal protection, and precautions needed.

5. Turbidity from construction activity will be adequately controlled to prevent degradation of the quality and transparency of the water. When sturgeon are present, turbidity curtains of appropriate dimension will be used to restrict the animals’ access to the work area. Pollution booms or turbidity curtains should use tangle resistant or hemp rope when anchoring, or employ surface anchors' to prevent entangling sturgeon. Continuous surveillance will be maintained in order to free animals which may become trapped in silt or turbidity barriers.

6. No dredging of the river bottom will be conducted for barge access.

September 2012

7. Drilled shaft pile construction will be used whenever prudent and feasible as determined by FDOT.

8. Care shall be taken in lowering equipment or material below the water surface and into

the stream bed. These precautions will be taken to ensure no harm occurs to any sturgeon which may enter the construction area undetected.

9. Construction debris shall not be discarded into the water.

10. If the use of explosives is necessary, the following protection measures will be employed

for projects in FDOT's District 3

a. In riverine areas: No blasting will occur in known spawning, staging, feeding, or nursery areas. In-water explosive work should be avoided between the months of April to

October. If explosive work becomes necessary within the April to October time frame,

a non-lethal "Fish Scare" charge will be detonated one minute prior to detonation of the underwater blast.

b. In estuarine areas:

No blasting will occur in known spawning, staging, feeding, or nursery areas. In-water explosive work should be avoided between the months of October to

April. If explosive work becomes necessary within the October to April time frame,

a non-lethal "Fish Scare" charge will be detonated one minute prior to detonation of the underwater blast.

c. In the event that a sturgeon is killed during blasting, the NMFS and the USFWS

will be notified immediately.

National Marine Fisheries Service US Fish and Wildlife Service by email at: 1601 Balboa Ave. [email protected] Panama City, Florida 32405 Tel: (850) 769-0552

11. Any sturgeon carcass will be secured on site or held in a freezer until an agency

representative arranges for its transport for analysis.

12. Following completion of the project, a report summarizing any involvement with sturgeon will be prepared for USFWS and NMFS.

STANDARD MANATEE CONDITIONS FOR IN-WATER WORK 2011

The permittee shall comply with the following conditions intended to protect manatees from direct project effects:

a. All personnel associated with the project shall be instructed about the presence of manatees and manatee speed zones, and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, or killing manatees which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.

b. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at "Idle Speed/No Wake” at all times while in the immediate area and while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.

c. Siltation or turbidity barriers shall be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled, shall be properly secured, and shall be regularly monitored to avoid manatee entanglement or entrapment. Barriers must not impede manatee movement.

d. All on-site project personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of manatee(s). All in-water operations, including vessels, must be shutdown if a manatee(s) comes within 50 feet of the operation. Activities will not resume until the manatee(s) has moved beyond the 50-foot radius of the project operation, or until 30 minutes elapses if the manatee(s) has not reappeared within 50 feet of the operation. Animals must not be herded away or harassed into leaving.

e. Any collision with or injury to a manatee shall be reported immediately to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Hotline at 1-888-404-3922. Collision and/or injury should also be reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Jacksonville (1-904-731-3336) for north Florida or Vero Beach (1-772-562-3909) for south Florida, and to FWC at [email protected]

f. Temporary signs concerning manatees shall be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. All signs are to be removed by the permittee upon completion of the project. Temporary signs that have already been approved for this use by the FWC must be used. One sign which reads Caution: Boaters must be posted. A second sign measuring at least 8 ½” by 11" explaining the requirements for “Idle Speed/No Wake” and the shut down of in-water operations must be posted in a location prominently visible to all personnel engaged in water-related activities. These signs can be viewed at MyFWC.com/manatee. Questions concerning these signs can be sent to the email address listed above.

mailto:[email protected]�

CAUTION: MANATEE HABITAT

All project vessels

IDLE SPEED / NO WAKE

When a manatee is within 50 feet of work all in-water activities must

SHUT DOWN

Report any collision with or injury to a manatee:

Wildlife Alert: 1-888-404-FWCC (3922)

cell * FWC or #FWC

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701

SEA TURTLE AND SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS

The permittee shall comply with the following protected species construction conditions:

a. The permittee shall instruct all personnel associated with the project of the potential presence of these species and the need to avoid collisions with sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish. All construction personnel are responsible for observing water-related activities for the presence of these species.

b. The permittee shall advise all construction personnel that there are civil and criminal penalties for

harming, harassing, or killing sea turtles or smalltooth sawfish, which are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

c. Siltation barriers shall be made of material in which a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish cannot

become entangled, be properly secured, and be regularly monitored to avoid protected species entrapment. Barriers may not block sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish entry to or exit from designated critical habitat without prior agreement from the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Protected Resources Division, St. Petersburg, Florida.

d. All vessels associated with the construction project shall operate at “no wake/idle” speeds at all

times while in the construction area and while in water depths where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom. All vessels will preferentially follow deep-water routes (e.g., marked channels) whenever possible.

e. If a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is seen within 100 yards of the active daily

construction/dredging operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions shall be implemented to ensure its protection. These precautions shall include cessation of operation of any moving equipment closer than 50 feet of a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish. Operation of any mechanical construction equipment shall cease immediately if a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish is seen within a 50-ft radius of the equipment. Activities may not resume until the protected species has departed the project area of its own volition.

f. Any collision with and/or injury to a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish shall be reported

immediately to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Protected Resources Division (727-824-5312) and the local authorized sea turtle stranding/rescue organization.

g. Any special construction conditions, required of your specific project, outside these general

conditions, if applicable, will be addressed in the primary consultation.

Revised: March 23, 2006 O:\forms\Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions.doc

DEMOLITION

MANATEE WATCH PROGRAM GUIDELINES

The contractor and subcontractors shall ensure that care is taken to conduct all construction

related activities with caution relative to any endangered or threatened species protected by the

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Florida Manatee Act, and the Federal Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. All construction personnel shall be advised of the

potential presence of these species, of their endangered or threatened status, of their federal or

state protection, and of the need to refrain from any action, which would jeopardize the well

being of these species.

To minimize the potential impacts of bridge demolition and construction on manatees a

continuous Manatee Watch Program (MWP) will be established. The following conditions

constitute the MWP and shall be included as special provisions.

1. Seven days prior to the first bridge-related construction event, the contractors will

provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) Office of Protected Species Management a list of the

chief and primary observers for the MWP and their qualifications. An outline of the

MWP will also be submitted seven days prior to the first such event.

The outline will include timetables for any blasting, dredging, or construction watercraft

activity, tide tables for blasting events indicating slack tides; timetables for the MWP

(start times for aerial survey as hereinafter required, and other survey positions); observer

positions; a copy of the MWP log sheet; and map to record manatee sightings.

2. A formal MWP coordination meeting will be held at least two days prior to the first

bridge-related construction event. Attendees will include the MWP chief and primary

observers, construction contractors, demolition subcontractors, FDOT, USFWS, FDEP

and other interested parties, such as the U.S. Coast Guard. All will be informed about

the possible presence of manatees in the area, and that civil or criminal penalties can

result from intentional or negligent annoyance, disturbance, harassment, molestation,

capture, collection, injury and/or death of an endangered species or any part thereof. The

construction contractors, demolition subcontractors and primary observer will present the

protocol and logistics of bridge-related construction activities and the outline specified in

condition No. 1.

3. During any blasting event, the manatee watch will consist of a minimum of six observers,

one chief observer and five additional observers. In addition to these observers, there

will be one MWP coordinator on-site to supervise the watch. Three of the six observers

shall have previous experience in observing/spotting manatees and should be documented

in the qualifications submitted in Condition #1. One of these observers shall have

previous aerial survey experience and shall be the observer conducting the aerial surveys.

The four additional observers shall be trained and informed in the methods of surveying

and locating manatees. During all other bridge-related construction events, the watch

shall consist of at least one observer posted at locations designated by a FDEP manatee

specialist.

4. All observers will follow the protocol established for the MWP and will conduct the

watch in good faith and to the best of their ability.

5. Each observer will be equipped with a two-way radio that will be dedicated exclusively

to the MWP. Observers will also be equipped with polarized sunglasses, binoculars, a

red flag for a backup visual communication system, and a sighting log with a map to

record sightings at the bridge construction site and vicinity.

6. All blasting events will be scheduled within the period of slack tide to allow for optimum

observing conditions. The chief observer will make the decision on optimum observing

conditions to initiate the survey for each blast event.

7. Continuous aerial survey will be conducted by helicopter one hour prior to each blasting

event in the vicinity of the blast site. In the event a helicopter is not available, FDEP and

USFWS will be contacted to determine another suitable method of aerial surveying. The

aerial survey area and route will be designed in conjunction with a FDEP manatee

specialist. After detonation, the aerial survey crew shall make a complete survey of the

safety and buffer zones before landing. The aerial survey crew shall either remain on

ground stand-by in the survey area or continue surveillance of the waterway until the end

of the blast period in case the need for aerial tracking of an injured manatee arises.

8. The additional primary observers will be located in various positions around the blast

site. These positions will be situated to provide maximum visibility of the blasting safety

zone and will have unobstructed views underneath the existing bridge. The exact

observer locations will be approved by FDEP and USFWS prior to each blast. One

observer will conduct a sonar survey (e.g. depth finder, fish locator) starting twenty

minutes prior to the blast of a 150 feet radius around the structure. The primary

observers will begin surveying the blast area one hour (60 minutes) prior to the blast

event and continue observing for one-half hour (30 minutes) after the blast event.

9. The blasting safety zone will be clearly marked with highly visible buoys. Using the

formula for an uncontrolled blast, the radius in feet of the blasting safety zone = 260

3Öw, where w = the weight of explosives to be used (TNT equivalent in pounds).

10. All of the observers will be in close communication with the blasting subcontractor in

order to halt the blast event. The blast event will be halted if a manatee spotted within

300 feet of the perimeter of the safety zone or within the safety zone (radius computed

above). The blasting event will be immediately halted at the direction of the primary

observers. The blast event will not take place until the animal(s) moves away from the

area of its own volition. Manatees must not be herded away or harassed into leaving. If

the animal(s) is/are not sighted a second time, the event will not resume until 30 minutes

after the initial sighting. (If manatees are to be guided out of the danger zone, it will be

done through an established protocol developed by the USFWS.)

11. Any problems encountered during bridge construction events will be evaluated by the

observers and contractors and logistical solutions will be presented to the USFWS and

FDEP. Corrections to the MWP will be made prior to the next event.

12. If an injured or dead manatee is sighted during construction, an observer will contact the

Florida Marine Patrol St. Petersburg Office at (727) 893-2904. In any such case, an

observer will also call the USFWS South Florida Field Office at (772) 562-3909. The

observer will act according to the situation and will maintain contact with the injured or

dead manatee. The foregoing telephone numbers shall be posted at all on-site telephones.

13. If an injured or dead manatee is rescued/recovered within three miles up or down the

waterway from the bridge site during construction or if the injury/death of any manatee in

the vicinity is documented to be caused by construction activity, that activity will be

postponed until cause of injury or mortality can be determined by FDEP and USFWS.

If injuries are substantially documented, all contributing construction activities will be

suspended and the principle parties will meet to determine a better way to conduct the

activity.

14. Operators of watercraft will be responsible for any collisions with manatees. Vessels

associated with the project should operate at slow (no wake) speed while in shallow

water, especially where the draft of the boat provides less than 3 feet of clearance with

the bottom. Workboats should load and off-load at designated sites. Vessels used to

transport personnel shall be shallow-draft vessels of the light displacement category, and

shall follow routes of deep water to the maximum extent possible where navigational

safety permits.

15. When turbidity barriers are used to prevent or minimize degradation of water quality, the

barriers shall be of appropriate dimension to restrict the animals’ access to the work area

and to allow egress of any manatees, which may enter the work area. Under such

conditions, the barriers should use tangle-resistant or hemp rope when anchoring, or

employ surface anchors to prevent entangling manatees. Continuous surveillance will be

maintained in order to free animals, which may become trapped in silt or turbidity

barriers.


17. Signs will be posted on-site warning of the presence of manatees, their endangered status,

and precautions needed.

18. Within two weeks (14 days) after completion of all bridge-related construction, the chief

observer will submit a report to the USFWS and FDEP providing the names of the

observers and their positions during the event, number and location of manatees seen and

what actions were taken.

19. If any one of the above conditions is not met prior to or during the applicable activity, the

chief observer of the MWP will have the authority to terminate the activity. The

construction contractors will assume any liability for a violation of the above protective

measures.

NO DEMOLITION

MANATEE WATCH PROGRAM GUIDELINES

The contractor and subcontractors shall ensure that care is taken to conduct all construction and

related activities with caution relative to any endangered or threatened species protected by the

Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Florida Manatee Act, and the Federal Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. All construction personnel shall be advised of the

potential presence of these species, of their endangered or threatened status, of their federal or

state protection, and of the need to refrain from any action, which would jeopardize the well

being of these species.

To minimize the potential impacts of bridge construction on manatees, a continuous Manatee

Watch Program (MWP) will be established. The following conditions constitute the MWP and

shall be included as special provisions; no blasting or demolition activities are required.

1. Seven days prior to the first bridge-related construction event, the contractors will

provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) Office of Protected Species Management a list of the

chief and primary observers for the MWP and their qualifications. An outline of the

MWP will also be submitted seven days prior to the first such event.

The outline will include time tables for any dredging, or construction watercraft activity;

time tables for the MWP (start times for aerial survey as hereinafter required, and other

survey positions); observer positions; a copy of the MWP log sheet; and map to record

manatee sightings.

2. A formal MWP coordination meeting will be held at least two days prior to the first

bridge-related construction event. Attendees will include the MWP chief and primary

observers, construction contractors, FDOT, USFWS, FDEP and other interested parties,

such as the U.S. Coast Guard. All will be informed about the possible presence of

manatees in the area, and that civil or criminal penalties can result from intentional or

negligent annoyance, disturbance, harassment, molestation, capture, collection, injury

and/or death of an endangered species or any part thereof. The construction contractors,

and primary observer will present the protocol and logistics of bridge-related construction

activities and the outline specified in condition No. 1.

3. All observers will follow the protocol established for the MWP and will conduct the

watch in good faith and to the best of their ability.

4. Each observer will be equipped with a two-way radio that will be dedicated exclusively

to the MWP. Observers will also be equipped with polarized sunglasses, binoculars, a

red flag for a backup visual communication system, and a sighting log with a map to

record sightings at the bridge construction site and vicinity.

5. Any problems encountered during bridge construction events will be evaluated by the

observers and contractors and logistical solutions will be presented to the USFWS and

FDEP. Corrections to the MWP will be made prior to the next event.

6. If an injured or dead manatee is sighted during construction, an observer will contact the

Florida Marine Patrol St. Petersburg Office at (727) 893-2904. In any such case, an

observer will also call the USFWS South Florida Field Office at (772) 561-3909. The

observer will act according to the situation and will maintain contact with the injured or

dead manatee. The foregoing telephone numbers shall be posted at all on-site telephones.

7. If an injured or dead manatee is rescued/recovered within three miles up or down the

waterway from the bridge site during construction or if the injury/death of any manatee in

the vicinity is documented to be caused by construction activity, that activity will be

postponed until cause of injury or mortality can be determined by FDEP and USFWS.

If injuries are substantially documented, all contributing construction activities will be

suspended and the principle parties will meet to determine a better way to conduct the

activity.

8. Operators of watercraft will be responsible for any collisions with manatees. Vessels

associated with the project should operate at slow (no wake) speed while in shallow

water, especially where the draft of the boat provides less than 3 feet of clearance with

the bottom. Workboats should load and off-load at designated sites. Vessels used to

transport personnel shall be shallow-draft vessels of the light displacement category, and

shall follow routes of deep water to the maximum extent possible where navigational

safety permits.

9. When turbidity barriers are used to prevent or minimize degradation of water quality, the

barriers shall be of appropriate dimension to restrict the animals' access to the work area

and to allow egress of any manatees, which may enter the work area. Under such

conditions, the barriers should use tangle-resistant or hemp rope when anchoring, or

employ surface anchors to prevent entangling manatees. Continuous surveillance will be

maintained in order to free animals, which may become trapped in silt or turbidity

barriers.


11. Signs will be posted on-site warning of the presence of manatees their endangered status,

and precautions needed.

12. Within two weeks (14 days) after completion of all bridge-related construction, the chief

observer will submit a report to the USFWS and FDEP providing the names of the

observers and their positions during the event, number and location of manatees seen and

what actions were taken.

13. If any one of the above conditions is not met prior to or during the applicable activity, the

chief observer of the MWP will have the authority to terminate the activity. Any liability

for a violation of the above protective measures will be assumed by the construction

contractors.

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

SCHN1598

Typewriter

Applicable to this project.

SCHN1598

Typewriter

-

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

SCHN1598

Typewriter

(TBD)

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

SCHN1598

Typewriter

- Applicable to this project.

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

SCHN1598

Typewriter

-Applicable to Project.

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

Melanie Calvo

Highlight

NRE


APPENDIX C

UMAM

Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

Assessment conducted by:

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Significant nearby features

Assessment area description

Mangrove shoreline and shoreline habitat that extends north from the Howard Frankland Bridge to the Courtney Campbell Causeway

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional

landscape.)

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Located adjacent to and west of Eisenhower South-Cypress Street; bounded on west by Old Tampa Bay; Part of a large salt marsh area that extends from Cypress Street north to Courtney Campbell Causeway

Mangrove Habitat

612 E2F03 Impact TBD

Further classification (optional)

(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Old Tampa Bay Class III

Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)Affected Waterbody (Class)Basin/Watershed Name/Number

Site/Project Name

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway(NWE)

FLUCCs code

Some shorebirds observed.

Causeway is artificial (fill) created for the original bridge construction. Mangrove habitat occurs along the the causeway.

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal

classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the

assessment area)

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species

that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to

be found )

PART I – Qualitative Description

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date ]

PB/DL

Assessment date(s):

December 2017

Additional relevant factors:

Shorebirds, small mammals and juvenile fishWood stork (E), potential foraging; state protected wading birds (T)-

potential foraging

Old Tampa Bay

Provides habitat and feeding areas

rw/o pres o

current

rw/o pres o

current

rw/o pres o

current

currentor w/o pres

0

Not Present (0)Moderate(7) Minimal (4)

Mangrove

Scoring Guidance

The scoring of each

indicator is based on what

would be suitable for the

type of wetland or surface

water assessed

7

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date]

-0.73

Preservation adjustment factor =

Adjusted mitigation delta =

Delta = [with-current]

0.73

with

Minimal level of support of

wetland/surface water

functions

Optimal (10)

(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Impact

Site/Project Name

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway ( NWE)

Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Assessment date:

December 2017


PB/DL

.500(6)( ronmentb)Water Envi

s)/a for upland(n

1. d/orVegetation an

unityenthic Comm2. B

6)(a) Locatio andn.500(

ndscape Sup ortpLa

with

Old Tampa Bay provides supporting habitat for the species that may utilize the shoreline. Mangroves are adjacent to and supported by Old Tampa Bay to the west of the area. However, the eastern boundary is adjacent to the Eisenhower South-Cypress Street connection from the interstate and a trail; the southern portion is also adjacent

to a roadway.

Condition is insufficient to

provide wetland/surface

water functions

Condition is optimal and

fully supports


functions

Condition is less than

optimal, but sufficient to

maintain most


functions

There are no impediments to the hydrology and the water quality within the bay is good. There were no

obvious pollutants (oil/grease). Vegetation appears healthy.

There is sparse Brazilian pepper in the area, but the majority of the assessment area are native species typical of

a mangrove wetland. The plants are healthy and show no obvious signs of stress.

7 0

(ifScore = sum of above scores/30

uplands, divide by 20)

with

0

with

structurec)Community.500(6)(

08

Time lag (t-factor) =

Risk factor =

If mitigation

For impact assessment areas

FL = delta x acres =

For mitigation assessment areas

RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) =

If preservation as mitigation,

Application Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size


Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Significant nearby features

Assessment area description

Salt Marsh Areas

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional

landscape.)

Assessment Area Name or Number

Saltwater Marsh

642 Impact

Further classification (optional)

(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Old Tampa Bay Class III

Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)Affected Waterbody (Class)Basin/Watershed Name/Number

Site/Project Name

Northwest Hillsoborough Expressway (NWE)

FLUCCs code

Some shorebirds observed

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal

classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the

assessment area)

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species

that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to

be found )

PART I – Qualitative Description

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date ]

PB/DL

Assessment date(s):

December 2017

Additional relevant factors:

Shorebirds Wood Stork (E), Foraging and Wading

Old Tampa Bay, Interstate Roadways, Cypress Street

Provides habitat and feeding areas

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

Located between Cypress Street to the south and Eisenhower South-Cypress Street Connectorto the west; surrounded by conifer hardwood mixed forest to the north and commercial properties northeast, east, and south of the wetland.

rw/o pres o

current

rw/o pres o

current

rw/o pres o

current

currentor w/o pres

Time lag (t-factor) =

Risk factor =

If mitigation

For impact assessment areas

FL = delta x acres

For mitigation assessment areas

RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) =

If preservation as mitigation,

7 0

(ifScore = sum of above scores/30

uplands, divide by 20)

with

0

with

structurec)Community.500(6)(

06

.500(6)( ronmentb)Water Envi

s)/a for upland(n

1. d/orVegetation an

unityenthic Comm2. B

6)(a) Locatio andn.500(

ndscape Sup ortpLa

with

Area is bounded on the south and west by Cypress Street. There is a small area of conifer hardwood mixed

forest to the north that provides nesting and foraging habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife. Commercial areas

are located to the north, east, and south of the site.

Condition is insufficient to

provide wetland/surface

water functions

Condition is optimal and

fully supports


functions

Condition is less than

optimal, but sufficient to

maintain most


functions

The area has sufficient hydrology and is connected to wetlands and Old Tampa Bay through a culvert under the existing roadway along its western edge. However, it is surrounded by commercial properties to the north and east; Cypress Street and commercial properties to the south.

Vegetation consists of saltbush, seashore paspalum, and white mangroves.

(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Impact PB/DL

Site/Project Name

Northwest Hillsborough Expressway (NWE)

Application Number

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by:

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date]

-0.60

Preservation adjustment factor =

Adjusted mitigation delta =

Delta = [with-current]

0.60

with

Minimal level of support of


functions

Optimal (10)

0

Not Present (0)

Assessment date:

December 2017

Moderate(7) Minimal (4)

Assessment Area Name or Number

Saltwater Marsh

Scoring Guidance

The scoring of each

indicator is based on what

would be suitable for the

type of wetland or surface

water assessed

5

Natural Resources Evaluation Florida Department of ......373.4137, Florida Statutes (FS) or through...

Documents

Transcript of Natural Resources Evaluation Florida Department of ......373.4137, Florida Statutes (FS) or through...