Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study

W E K I V A T R A I L F E A S I B I L I T Y S T U D Y

FINAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Prepared forFlorida Department of Transportation District FiveAugust 2010

FPID 242152-1-32-05 | Orange, Lake and Seminole Counties, Florida

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.0 Executive Summary........................................................................................ ES-11.0 Introduction........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Wekiva Parkway ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Description.............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Existing and Proposed Trails............................................................................... 92.1 Lake County........................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Orange County .................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Seminole County............................................................................................... 13

3.0 Existing Conditions............................................................................................. 163.1 Transportation Network .................................................................................... 16 3.2 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Environmental Characteristics .......................................................................... 18

4.0 Alternatives Analysis .......................................................................................... 294.1 Typical Section ................................................................................................. 29 4.2 Alternative Alignments..................................................................................... 30 4.3 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................... 31 4.4 Estimated Costs................................................................................................. 37

4.4.1 Construction Costs .................................................................................... 37 4.4.2 Right-of-Way ............................................................................................ 38 4.4.3 Engineering Costs ..................................................................................... 38

4.5 Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................. 40 5.0 Agency Coordination.......................................................................................... 41

5.1 Stakeholder Meetings and Presentations .......................................................... 41 5.2 Correspondence................................................................................................. 42

6.0 Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 43

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Existing Land UseAPPENDIX B – Future Land UseAPPENDIX C – Federal and State Listed SpeciesAPPENDIX D – Potential Contamination SitesAPPENDIX E – Cultural ResourcesAPPENDIX F – Wekiva Parkway Typical Section PackageAPPENDIX G – Wekiva Trail Conceptual AlignmentAPPENDIX H – Public & Agency Coordination

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1 – Wekiva Trail Alternative Alignments (1 of 2) ..................................... ES-2 Figure ES-1 cont. – Wekiva Trail Alternative Alignments (2 of 2)............................ ES-3 Figure 1 – Wekiva Parkway Corridor ................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 – Wekiva Parkway Alignment............................................................................. 3 Figure 3 – Project Location Map ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 – Wekiva Trail Alternative Alignments (1 of 2) ................................................. 6 Figure 4 cont. – Wekiva Trail Alternative Alignments (2 of 2) ........................................ 7 Figure 5 – Lake County Existing Trail Network ............................................................. 10 Figure 6 – Lake County Ultimate Regional and Minor Shared-Use Trails ..................... 11 Figure 7 – Proposed Tav-Dora Trail ................................................................................ 12 Figure 8 – Existing West Orange Trail ............................................................................ 14 Figure 9 – Proposed West Orange Trail Alignment ........................................................ 15 Figure 10 - Wetlands........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 11 - Floodplains .................................................................................................... 22 Figure 12 – Proposed Trail Typical Section (Separate Facility)...................................... 30 Figure 13 – Potential Wetland Impacts (1 of 2)............................................................... 33 Figure 13 cont. – Potential Wetland Impacts (2 of 2) ..................................................... 34 Figure 14 – Parcel Ownership and Estimated Costs ........................................................ 39

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 – Evaluation Matrix .................................................................................. ES-1 Table 1 – Roadways within Project Area......................................................................... 16 Table 2 – Potential Contamination Sites .......................................................................... 24 Table 3 – Historic Resources ........................................................................................... 26 Table 4 – Archaeological Resources................................................................................ 28 Table 5 – Potential Affected Floodplain Areas................................................................ 32 Table 6 – Cultural Resources Requiring Further Evaluation ........................................... 36 Table 7 – Estimated Construction Costs .......................................................................... 37 Table 8 – Estimated Construction Costs for Additional Trail Features ........................... 38 Table 9 – Right-of-Way Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 38 Table 10 – Evaluation Matrix........................................................................................... 40 Table 11 – Agency Coordination Meetings ..................................................................... 42 Table 12 – Elected Official Status Meetings.................................................................... 42 Table 13 – Stakeholder Correspondence.......................................................................... 43

ES-1

ES.0 Executive Summary

The Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study was initiated by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to study the feasibility of a multi-use path in the Wekiva Basin that would serve as a regional connector to similar existing and proposed facilities in Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties. The Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study was conducted independently from the ongoing Wekiva Parkway (SR 429)/SR 46 Realignment PD&E Study; however, trail alignments were developed in coordination with the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) and project stakeholders. Four alternative alignments were developed and analyzed for potential impacts to the natural, physical and social environments (see Figure ES-1). Initial construction and right-of-way cost estimates were also developed for each alternative. Potential environmental impacts and estimated project costs are summarized in TableES-1.

Table ES-1 – Evaluation Matrix

Alternative Evaluation Factors 1 2 3 4

Right-of-Way Impacts (acres)1 112.40 134.09 168.91 147.22 Potential Relocations1,2 7 7 0 0 Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.836 0.836 1.809 1.809 Floodplain Impacts (acres) 9.84 9.88 14.99 14.95 Cultural Resources requiring further evaluation 4 6 8 6

Potential Contamination Sites rated Medium or High 13 13 13 13

Potential 4(f) Involvement No No Yes Yes Wild and Scenic River Involvement No No Yes Yes Estimated Construction Costs $6,036,000 $6,628,000 $11,990,000 $11,399,000 Estimated PD&E Costs $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Estimated Design and CEI Costs $1,207,000 $1,325,000 $2,398,000 $2,280,000 Estimated Right-of-Way Costs1 $32,451,000 $35,126,000 $27,409,000 $24,734,000 Total Estimated Costs $39,944,000 $43,329,000 $42,047,000 $38,663,000 1Assumes worst-case 50' R/W corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road for Alternatives 1 & 22Relocations are reduced to 2 assuming a 20' corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road for Alternatives 1 & 2

Figu

re E

S-1

– W

ekiv

a T

rail

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts (1

of 2

)

Figu

re E

S-1

cont

. – W

ekiv

a T

rail

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts (2

of 2

)

ES-4

In addition to identification of possible alignments and an investigation of potential environmental impacts, the Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study included an extensive agency coordination effort. Following is a list of agency stakeholders with an interest in the Wekiva Trail:

� Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) � Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) � METROPLAN Orlando � Lake~Sumter MPO � East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) � Lake County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) � Lake County Parks and Trails � Seminole County BCC � Seminole County Leisure Services � Orange County Environmental Protection Division � City of Mount Dora � Florida Department of Environmental Protection � Florida Park Service, Wekiva River Basin State Parks � Florida Division of Forestry � US Forest Service � Wekiva River Basin Commission � The Nature Conservancy � Friends of the Wekiva � Trail Friends � The Audubon Society

There are distinct advantages and limitations of each alternative and it is the recommendation of this Feasibility Study to continue coordination with project stakeholders and consider each alternative in subsequent phases of the project as they are further refined. It is also recommended that METROPLAN Orlando and the Lake~Sumter MPO work to prioritize a PD&E Study and subsequent phases of the project.

1

1.0 Introduction

As part of ongoing transportation planning activities in the Wekiva River basin, the Florida Department of Transportation has initiated a feasibility study for a multi-use path facility. While the feasibility study is being performed concurrent with the Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study, it is an independent project and does not imply that the trail is contingent upon the construction of the Parkway. In addition, construction of the Wekiva Parkway will not preclude the implementation of a trail facility.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum is to document the potential environmental impacts and estimated costs of potential trail alignments in Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties. The trail alignments are within the study area of the proposed Wekiva Parkway, which is in the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) phase as of May 2010. Potential trail alignments were developed through coordination with project stakeholders, including local and state governmental agencies, environmental groups and other interested parties. A list of project stakeholders can be found in Section 5.0 – Agency Coordination.

1.2 Wekiva Parkway

In late 2004, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) and FDOT began the Wekiva Parkway (SR 429)/SR 46 Realignment PD&E Study under joint management. The Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act established a corridor for the Wekiva Parkway study (see Figure 1). The PD&E Study team utilized that corridor as the starting point for the development of concept alignments in Orange, Lake, and Seminole Counties. Figure 2 shows the overall alignment for the proposed roadway. The Wekiva Parkway (SR 429)/SR 46 Realignment PD&E Study addresses the following project components:

� The Wekiva Parkway (SR 429) is proposed as a four-lane divided (expandable to six-lane divided) limited access facility. It begins in Orange County at the planned terminus of the SR 429/SR 414 John Land Apopka Expressway at US 441 just west of CR 437 and extends to the north and northeast into Lake County where it is proposed to turn east and cross the Wekiva River into Seminole County, terminating at I-4. The portion of the Wekiva Parkway in Orange County is expected to be tolled. The approximate length of the proposed Wekiva Parkway is 20.94 miles, with 8.16 miles in Orange County, 7.37 miles in Lake County and 5.41 miles in Seminole County.

� SR 46 Reconstruction and Realignment begins at the SR 46/US 441 interchange in Lake County and extends along the existing SR 46 corridor to the east, turning southeast on a new alignment and entering Orange County

unty

Expr

essw

ayA

utho

rity

4

with an interchange at the Wekiva Parkway. It is expected that the SR 46 improvements would provide six-lane divided controlled access along the existing alignment from US 441 to east of Round Lake Road, while the remaining alignment to the southeast is expected to be limited access. The approximate length of the SR 46 Reconstruction and Realignment is 4.79 miles, with 4.01 miles in Lake County and 0.78 mile in Orange County.

� CR 46A Realignment, is proposed as a two-lane rural (expandable to four-lane rural) roadway. It is planned to begin at the existing CR 46A in east Lake County and extend south on a new alignment and tie into SR 46 with a connection to the Wekiva Parkway. The approximate length of the CR 46A realignment is 2.72 miles.

� Wekiva Parkway Access Improvements are required in Lake County between the realigned CR 46A and the Wekiva River to allow access to the private property along existing SR 46. It is proposed that Wekiva Parkway carry long-distance through traffic and provisions for access, such as service roads, would be provided for local traffic.

In December 2009, OOCEA presented to the public a revised concept that includes service roads along the north side of the Wekiva Parkway east of the realigned CR 46A to provide residents living in the Sorrento-Mount Plymouth area of Lake County a toll-free route to and from Seminole County, currently provided by SR 46. Public Hearings on the recommended Preferred Alternative are tentatively scheduled for Fall 2010 pending Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval of environmental documents.

1.3 Project Description

The proposed Wekiva Trail will serve as a regional connector to three trail systems in Lake, Seminole and Orange Counties. To the west, Lake County plans to extend the Tav-Dora trail to US 441 in Mount Dora. To the east, Seminole County’s Seminole-Wekiva trail ends at the Markham Trailhead just east of the Wekiva River on Markham Road. Orange County plans to extend the West Orange Trail north of its current terminus in Apopka to just south of the Orange/Lake County line. The project study area encompasses the termini of these three trail systems and includes portions of Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties (see Figure 3).

Four main alternatives were developed for the feasibility study that roughly parallel the proposed Wekiva Parkway, but are not necessarily within the Wekiva Parkway right-of-way. The alternative alignments are illustrated in Figure 4 (all alternatives follow the same alignment from the project beginning at US 441 east to just west of the beginning of the service roads and include a spur south to the future extension of the West Orange Trail, the “Neighborhood Lakes” alignment) and described below:

5

Figure 3 – Project Location Map

Figu

re 4

– W

ekiv

a T

rail

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts (1

of 2

)

Figu

re 4

con

t. –

Wek

iva

Tra

il A

ltern

ativ

e A

lignm

ents

(2 o

f 2)

8

All Alternatives (from US 441 to west of Wekiva Parkway service road)

From US 441 to SR 46, the proposed Wekiva Trail is within active railroad right-of-way, south of SR 46. Currently, CSX Transportation, Inc. leases the tracks to Florida Central Railroad, who uses it for car storage. Existing railroad right-of-way width in this segment ranges from 80 feet to 100 feet, with the exception of a short (less than one mile) segment within the residential area of Sorrento. The right-of-way narrows to 50 feet in this area and the railroad tracks end just south of SR 46. The railroad crossed SR 46 just east of Vine Street (the tracks have since been removed) west of CR 437, and the trail alignment continues along the abandoned rail corridor to the proposed Wekiva Parkway service road (just east of the realigned CR 46A).

Neighborhood Lakes (from proposed Wekiva Trail to Phase IV of the West Orange Trail)

The Neighborhood Lakes alignment was developed in coordination with FDEP and the Wekiva Trail Working Group. The alignment begins at the northern terminus of the proposed Phase IV of the West Orange Trail east of the Mount Plymouth Lakes subdivision in Orange County. The proposed trail alignment roughly borders Mount Plymouth Lakes along the east and north side of the neighborhood and continues north parallel to the east side of CR 435 where it crosses under the proposed Wekiva Parkway. The alignment roughly follows the alignment of the Wekiva Parkway on the west side of the roadway north to SR 46. A portion of this alignment traverses land owned by Lake County and continued coordination with the County will be necessary throughout subsequent phases of the project.

Alternative 1 (from east of Wekiva Parkway service road to Markham trailhead)

Alternative 1 is proposed to parallel the Wekiva Parkway service road from its western terminus to east of the Wekiva River. The trail can utilize the 10-foot shoulder on the north side of the service road, a 10-foot sidewalk just west of the Wekiva River to the east (the sidewalk crosses under the Wekiva Parkway from the north to the south just east of the Wekiva River), or be constructed as a separate parallel facility. The alignment of Alternative 1 turns south along the west side of Longwood-Lake Markham Road until Markham Road where it turns east for approximately 2,700 feet along the former railroad right-of-way to the existing Seminole-Wekiva Trail.


Alternative 2 continues east along the former railroad right-of-way parallel to SR 46 (the SR 46 “hump”) to approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection CR 46A. Some of this right-of-way has reverted back from CSX Transportation, Inc. to private ownership. From this point east the alignment of Alternative 2 is identical to Alternative 1.

9

Alternative 3 (east of Wekiva Parkway service road)

The proposed alignment of Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 2 to approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection CR 46A. The Alternative 3 alignment crosses under the Wekiva Parkway at a proposed intersection with realigned CR 433 and continues along the former railroad right-of-way (owned by FDEP throughout this section) parallel to Ethel Road within the Rock Springs Run State Reserve. The former railroad right-of-way continues south and east where it crosses the Wekiva River approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the existing SR 46 bridge (a railroad bridge across the Wekiva River at this location burned down in the 1980’s). The alignment continues east along the former railroad right-of-way currently in ownership of Seminole County to the existing Seminole-Wekiva Trail.


The alignment of Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 1 to approximately 2,700 feet west of the intersection CR 46A. From this point east the proposed alignment is identical to Alternative 3.

2.0 Existing and Proposed Trails

Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties have extensive existing trail networks as well as plans for expansion. The following sections summarize the trails in and around the Wekiva Trail project area.

2.1 Lake County

In 2008, Lake County developed a Trails Master Plan that identified 322 miles of shared-use trails, developed design standards and created a 20-year implementation plan. As of the publication of the Master Plan, Lake County has approximately 30 miles of regional shared-use trails and 11.5 miles of local trails. Figure 5 illustrates Lake County’s existing trail network.

Figure 6 presents the ultimate Lake County regional and minor shared-use trail presented in the Master Plan, which includes one potential Wekiva Trail alignment. The Wekiva Trail will connect to the planned Tav-Dora Trail, which will follow the Florida Central Railroad through Mount Dora to Tavares (see Figure 7). The Tav-Dora trail, which the City of Mount Dora anticipates implementing as part of the roadway improvements to Old US 441 between Dora Avenue and Coliseum Way, will provide access to the planned North Lake and Sugarloaf Mountain Trails and the existing Tav-Lee Trail. The Tav-Dora Trail is also included in the Mount Dora Trails Master Plan.

10

Figure 5 – Lake County Existing Trail Network

SOURCE: Lake County Trails Master Plan

11

Figure 6 – Lake County Ultimate Regional and Minor Shared-Use Trails

SOURCE: Lake County Trails Master Plan

12

Figu

re 7

– P

ropo

sed

Tav

-Dor

a T

rail

SOU

RC

E: L

ake

Cou

nty

Trai

ls M

aste

r Pla

n

13

2.2 Orange County

When completed, the West Orange Trail will extend for 36 miles from Killarney Station near the Lake County line at SR 50 to the Lake County line north of Apopka. The existing 22-mile portion of the West Orange Trail (see Figure 8) extends to Welch Road in Apopka, south of the project area. Phase IV of the West Orange Trail is planned to extend the trail north to Kelly Park (see Figure 9) where it will connect to the Neighborhood Lakes alignment of the proposed Wekiva Trail (the specific trail alignment has not been finalized).

2.3 Seminole County

The Seminole Wekiva Trail is a paved recreational trail designated as one of Seminole County's Showcase Trails. In Seminole County, a trail is designated as a Showcase Trail because of its length, beauty and accommodation of various users. The section of the trail that runs west of the I-4 trail overpass to the County line at the Wekiva River is also a designated part of the Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST), which extends from Gulf Island National Seashore near Pensacola to Big Cypress National Preserve near Naples. The paved portion of the Seminole-Wekiva Trail ends at the Markham Trailhead on Markham Road (see Figure 1, previously presented). The Seminole-Wekiva Trail follows the former railroad right-of-way and is signed along an unpaved portion of the former railroad right-of-way now owned by Seminole County west of the Markham Trailhead to the Wekiva River.

14

Figu

re 8

– E

xist

ing

Wes

t Ora

nge

Tra

il

SOU

RC

E: O

rang

e C

ount

y Pa

rks &

Rec

reat

ion

15

Figure 9 – Proposed West Orange Trail Alignment

Source: METROPLAN Orlando

16

3.0 Existing Conditions

3.1 Transportation Network

The existing transportation network is shown in Figure 1, previously presented. Both SR 46 and US 441 are the primary routes through the project area. SR 46 is a two-lane east-west roadway connecting the cities of Sanford and Mount Dora and is classified as both a rural and urban principal arterial. US 441 is a four-lane divided north-south roadway through the project area connecting the cities of Apopka and Mount Dora and is classified as both a rural and urban principal arterial. Other area state and county roadways include CR 46A, CR 435 and SR 44. A list of each roadway, number of lanes and functional classification is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Roadways within Project Area Roadway Functional Classification

SR 46 Urban/Rural Principal Arterial US 441 Urban/Rural Principal Arterial SR 44 Rural Minor Arterial

CR 46A Major Collector CR 437 Major Collector (Lake)/Collector (Orange) CR 435 Minor Arterial (Lake)/Collector (Orange) CR 433 Local

Round Lake Road Collector Longwood-Markham Road Collector

Markham Road Collector

There is no public transportation service provided within the study area. There are no designated bicycle lanes along any of the project area’s roadways.

3.2 Land Use

The project area resides within the jurisdictions of the Cities of Mount Dora and Apopka and Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties. Existing zoning/land use maps for each jurisdiction are included in Appendix A. Future land use for each jurisdiction is in Appendix B.

Land use in the project area is described below.

Lake County/City of Mount Dora

Existing land use within the project area in unincorporated Lake County is primarily agricultural/rural, with residential and commercial land uses adjacent to SR 46 and CR 435 as well as just east of the boundary of the City of Mount Dora. Conservation/public lands are located north and south of SR 46 between CR 46A and the Wekiva River. There is an undeveloped area zoned as planned unit development (PUD) between SR 46 and CR 46A east of Mount Plymouth.

17

Future land use within the project area in unincorporated Lake County is similar to the existing, with roughly the eastern half designated rural conservation/public lands and the western half classified as Urban Compact Nodes (both Wekiva and Non-Wekiva). The Wekiva River Protection Zone is bounded by the Wekiva River to the east, the Orange County line to the south and CR 437/SR 46/CR 435 to the west. The area currently zoned as a PUD has a future land use designation of conservation and A-1-20 Sending Area.

Existing land use in the City of Mount Dora within the project limits is residential, with a small amount of commercial, industrial and public land (City of Mount Dora water treatment plant) adjacent to US 441. The City of Mount Dora’s future land use designations are identical to the existing.

Orange County/City of Apopka

Existing land use in Orange County/City of Apopka within the project area is primarily residential and agricultural with State lands just east of the project area (Wekiva Springs State Park and Rock Springs Run State Reserve). Future land use designates the area adjacent to Mount Plymouth Road and Rock Springs Road as Rural Settlement, and the area stays primarily residential and agricultural/rural. Land uses within the project area recently annexed by the City of Apopka have not changed from their County designations.

Seminole County

Existing land use in Seminole County is primarily residential, with some managed environmental land adjacent to the Wekiva River. Future land use classifications are similar to current land use designations in this area of Seminole County, as the land is nearly built out.

18

3.3 Environmental Characteristics

The project team documented the existing environmental characteristics of each alternative through existing data available through the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) and other appropriate sources as well as field reviews. These environmental characteristics include wetlands, wildlife/habitat, floodplains, cultural resources, public lands and potential contamination sites.

Wetlands and Wildlife

Project biologists conducted a field survey of the project area as well as a review of available data in March 2010. Following is a description of wetland and wildlife present within the project area.

The proposed trail route between US 441 and the abandoned SR 46 railroad crossing in Sorrento (all alternatives) consists exclusively of railroad right-of-way with tracks, including the storage of numerous cars. The railroad right-of-way varies between 50 and 100 feet in this section. The typical community adjacent to the railroad right-of-way consists of oak hammock, with laurel oak and live oak dominant and some groundcover. The entire railroad right-of-way width is not fully maintained. Gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the corridor and adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Additional wildlife observations include red shoulder hawk, common gray squirrel, and perching birds. A large wetland area is located to the north of the corridor, though well below the elevation of the railroad grade, and not within the footprint of the proposed trail. No wetland crossings of the railroad right-of-way were observed.

The proposed trail route between the abandoned SR 46 railroad crossing in Sorrento to the proposed trail connection south to the future extension of the West Orange Trail (all alternatives) consists of former railroad right-of-way, with some sections still owned by CSX Transportation, Inc. and others in private ownership. The proposed trail is located either in front of or behind residences within this section. Typical community type is live oak / laurel oak with scattered ground cover. Some areas with gopher tortoise burrows were observed, though suitable habitat was scattered. Wildlife was less frequent in residential areas, though gray squirrels were observed throughout. Wetland areas were observed east of Mount Plymouth, with one wetland crossing observed within the proposed right-of-way of the proposed Wekiva Parkway.

The Neighborhood Lakes alignment traverses undeveloped lands, though the path appears to follow many existing field roads or trails. A portion of the Neighborhood Lakes alignment traverses land owned by Lake County and continued coordination with the County will be necessary throughout subsequent phases of the project. Typical habitat is open pasture through the northern and central sections, with scattered live and laurel oaks and fallow citrus on dry sandy soils. The route meanders around several wetlands, though existing trail roads exist above the wetland grade in these areas. North of the Mount Plymouth Lakes subdivision near the southern end of the trail alignment, the trail is proposed to cross a natural wetland system (Lake Lerla) where no previous

19

crossing or cleared trail/field road exists. The southernmost section of trail follows the fence line / fire break around the Mount Plymouth Lakes, where the adjacent habitat is scrubby oak with longleaf pines. Numerous gopher tortoise burrows were observed along this entire section of trail. At the southern end, a Florida scrub jay was observed (both visually and aurally), and possible sand skink trails were identified. Florida black bear was evident (scat), as were raccoon, rabbit, and various songbirds. Potential red cockaded woodpecker habitat was observed at the end of the trail, particularly in the adjacent parcel to the west. Areas of cogon grass, a highly invasive and exotic species, were observed throughout this portion of the proposed trail.

Habitat adjacent to the potential trail route along SR 46 north of the proposed Wekiva Parkway (Alternatives 2 and 3 - the “Hump” area between the Neighborhood Lakes alignment and Ethel Road) consists of longleaf pine with scattered oaks and saw palmetto. No wetland crossings were observed. Some patches of cogon grass were observed along this route within the proposed trail corridor. The Wekiva River Mitigation Bank is located south of SR 46 in this area, though is not impacted by the proposed location of the trail.

From approximately 2,700 feet west of the existing SR 46/CR 46A intersection east to Longwood-Lake Markham Road, Alternatives 1 and 2 are located within right-of-way proposed as part of the Wekiva Parkway and thus have no additional potential impacts beyond that of the Parkway. Along Alternatives 3 and 4, from SR 46 south to the entrance to Rock Springs Run State Reserve (Ethel Road) the proposed trail route follows the former railroad right-of-way and contains habitat typical of longleaf pine with scattered oak. The trail crosses two small marsh areas near the Rock Springs Run State Reserve entrance road; however, the rail grade is significantly higher than the wetlands with little or no wetland impacts likely. Gopher tortoise burrows were observed, as was a red shouldered hawk and great blue heron.

Alternatives 3 and 4 continue from the Rock Springs Run State Reserve entrance to the Rock Springs Riding Ranch on Ethel Road. The proposed trail route continues to follow the former railroad right-of-way, which is north of the field road traversing this section of the park. Habitat is scrubby pine and oak near the entrance road, and becomes heavier with larger oaks and pines for the remainder of the route. Gopher tortoise burrows were observed, as was potential scrub jay habitat (though no birds were observed). Some potential sand skink habitat was observed here as well.

Continuing south and east of the Rock Springs Riding Ranch to the Wekiva River, Alternatives 3 and 4 cross a wetland system just east of the Rock Springs Riding Ranch, and crosses three more systems along the route until the entire trail enters the forested wetland buffer of the Wekiva River. Habitat along this route consists of pasture, forested longleaf pine with oak and red maple/sweet gum wetlands, culminating in the mixed forested hardwoods of the Wekiva River. An area of wetland restoration and enhancement was identified adjacent to the proposed trail near the barn at the Rock Springs Riding Ranch. This is a joint project with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection

20

(FDEP). Gopher tortoise burrows, a pileated woodpecker, and several cardinals were observed in the upland sections of the trail. The Wekiva River swamp contains cypress, wax myrtle, red maple, sweet gum, slash pine and cabbage palm, with cinnamon fern and chain fern as the primary ground cover. A number of areas of cogon grass were observed along this corridor. The Wekiva River has a Riparian Habitat Protection Zone (RHPZ) defined as the wetlands abutting it, the uplands which are within 50 feet of the landward extent of the wetlands abutting it, and/or the uplands which are within 550 feet landward of the stream’s edge as defined in the rule as the waterward extent of the forested wetlands abutting the river. Any activity resulting in the creation of any system is presumed to adversely affect the abundance, food sources, or habitat of aquatic or wetland dependent species within the RHPZ. The railroad grade on the west side of the Wekiva River within the RHPZ was restored to forested wetlands. As of June 2010, coordination with FDEP has not uncovered any documentation of this, but anecdotal evidence indicates that restoration efforts were completed many years ago as part of SJRWMD’s STS Pastures restoration project. The Wekiva River is also classified as an Aquatic Preserve and a Wild and Scenic River, and afforded protection under this status from activities that may have an impact on the river or its aquatic resources. Exotic species such as water lettuce and water hyacinth occur within the river.

On the east side of the Wekiva River to Markham Road Alternatives 3 and 4 follow the former railroad right-of-way, which is elevated significantly higher than the adjacent swamp near the river. The swamp habitat is dominated by sweet bay and sweet gum, red maple and cabbage palm. Some slash pine and elderberry were observed, with laurel oak and live oak as well. The upland habitat consisted of pine and oaks, with cogon grass encroaching into the area in several spots. The Wekiva River RHPZ also exists in this area as well.

The section of Alternatives 1 and 2 located along the west side of Longwood-Lake Markham Road is almost completely developed with residential subdivisions and single family residences. The habitat is primarily landscaped, with ornamentals and scattered live oaks. Very little natural habitat remains, which translates into minimal available areas for native wildlife. Gray squirrels and perching birds are likely, though no wildlife observations were made. At the intersection of Longwood-Lake Markham Road and Markham Road, all four trail alternatives continue along former railroad right-of-way along the north side of Markham Road. Gopher tortoise burrows were observed in this location, as was a dead white tail deer carcass. Cogon grass was abundant within the former railroad right-of-way in this area.

Existing wetland areas are illustrated in Figure 10. Federal and State listed species with the potential to occur within the project area are provided in Appendix C.

Floodplains and Floodways

Floodplain data are based on the latest available Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and were obtained from the latest GIS data available from Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties. Figure 11 illustrates the

Figu

re 1

0 - W

etla

nds

Figu

re 1

1 - F

lood

plai

ns

23

floodplains within the project area. Isolated areas within the 100-year floodplain are located throughout the project area, as well as larger floodplain areas associated with the Wekiva River and its tributaries, including Rock Springs Run. There is also a regulatory floodway (Wolf Branch) within the project area just east of US 441 associated with afloodplain area between the proposed trail alignment and SR 46. FDOT must work with local agencies and FEMA, as required, to ensure the project is developed consistent with local floodway plans and floodplain management programs during subsequent phases of the project.

Wild & Scenic River/Aquatic Preserve

The Wekiva River is one of only two rivers in Florida designated as “Wild and Scenic” by the United States Congress. The Wekiva River, within the limits of this study, is classified as “wild” south of the old railroad crossing and “recreational” north of the old railroad crossing (wild and scenic river classifications are a measure of shoreline development). The entire Wekiva River is afforded the protections granted with the Wild and Scenic designation, regardless of classification. Coordination with the National Park Service will be required during subsequent phases of this project.

The Wekiva River is also classified as an Aquatic Preserve. Coordination with FDEP will be required during subsequent phases of this project.

Section 4(f)

The project area includes property within Wekiva Springs State Park, Rock Springs Run State Reserve and Seminole State Forest (see Figure 2, previously presented).Alternatives 3 and 4 traverse the Rock Springs Run State Reserve. In addition, the Wekiva River, given its status as an Aquatic Preserve and a Wild and Scenic River, may also be considered a Section 4(f) resource and consultation with FHWA regarding its status will be required in subsequent phases.

Contamination

As a result of the contamination screening evaluation activities, 20 sites have been assigned a Low, Medium or High Contamination Risk Potential Rating (CRPR) in accordance with the definitions stated in Chapter 22 of the FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual. The potential contamination sites and corresponding CRPRs are presented in Table 2 and are also depicted in Appendix D. Available public record information obtained for these sites is included in the Contamination Screening Evaluation Technical Memorandum (March 2010) located in the project files.

Environmental concerns may be associated with the abandoned or active railway corridor within the study area. Railroad ties were typically coated with inorganic and/or petroleum based preservatives and would likely require special disposal provisions. Herbicides were/are used surrounding the ties for weed control and contain(ed) hazardous chemicals, possibly including arsenic. Such materials may have resulted in soil and/or groundwater

24

Tab

le 2

– P

oten

tial C

onta

min

atio

n Si

tes

Prop

erty

#Pr

oper

ty N

ame

Add

ress

Con

tam

inat

ion

Ris

k Po

tent

ial

Rat

ing

1 M

ount

Dor

a W

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

SR

46

& U

S 44

1 Lo

w2

Gra

ntha

m P

it C

&D

Fac

ility

SR

46

Med

ium

3 M

ount

Dor

a D

ispo

sal a

nd F

ill

3300

SR

46

Med

ium

4 Pe

eler

Tru

ck S

ervi

ce

2162

8 SR

46

Med

ium

5 Pr

otec

h A

uto

Rep

air

3094

0 Su

neag

le D

rive

Low

6 Sm

itty’

s Aut

o R

epai

r 30

940

Sune

agle

Driv

e Lo

w7

Theo

philu

s 31

747

Rou

nd L

ake

Roa

d H

igh

8 M

o B

rang

us R

anch

22

716

SR 4

6 Lo

w9

Pats

Impo

rts A

uto

Rep

air

2352

9 So

rren

to A

venu

e Lo

w10

K

anga

roo

Expr

ess #

2403

23

932

Sorr

ento

Ave

nue

Med

ium

11

JRs A

utom

otiv

e W

orks

31

345

Sorr

ento

Ave

nue

Low

12

Am

oco

#91

2421

4 H

ighw

ay 4

6 M

ediu

m13

Fl

orid

a B

uild

ing

Mat

eria

ls, I

nc.

3152

5 4th

Stre

et

Med

ium

14

Bro

nson

Far

m, I

nc.

3159

9 4th

Stre

et

Med

ium

15

Elem

enta

ry S

choo

l J

2460

5 W

allic

k R

oad

Med

ium

16

Sent

inel

Com

mun

icat

ions

Com

pany

31

550

CR

437

Lo

w17

B

arn

LLP

Prop

erty

65

77 M

ount

Ply

mou

th R

oad

Hig

h18

Fo

rmer

UC

F A

gric

ultu

ral F

acili

ty

2893

0 SR

46

Med

ium

19

Bla

ck B

ear N

urse

ry

2924

0 SR

46

Med

ium

20

Gar

den

Reb

el N

urse

ry/S

ims L

ands

cape

29

611

SR 4

6 M

ediu

m

25

impacts along the railway corridors. Soils that contain chemical concentrations above cleanup criteria must be handled and disposed of properly.

No cattle dip vats were identified within the study area through public record and database review, or limited site reconnaissance. The presence of cattle dip vats within the study area does not appear to contribute to contamination risk to this project; however, additional investigations should be conducted if unknown cattle dipping vats are found during future project development activities.

During the period from 1962 to 1980, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) conducted widespread applications of ethylene dibromide (EDB), an agricultural pesticide, to control nematodes in citrus groves. In 1983, the FDEP began testing groundwater in potable wells throughout Central Florida due to the discovery of EDB in wells in other states. The Florida Legislature had the FDEP implement the Delineated Areas Program in 1988 under Chapter 62-524, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The purpose of the program was to protect public health and groundwater resources by regulating potable water well construction and testing standards for areas of known groundwater contamination. A map of these delineated areas of EDB groundwater contamination in the Lake County area was completed in 1994. The potable wells, agricultural or residential, with confirmed impacts are depicted on the map with a 1,000-foot buffer zone in an attempt to project future migration of contaminants; however, this does not mean that there is not EDB contamination outside of that 1,000-foot zone. The map identified the presence of EDB within western portion of the study area (no areas of EDB contamination are known within the project area in Orange and Seminole Counties). EDB was utilized as a pesticide by the agricultural industry and has been identified as a carcinogen. The EDB delineated area identified within the project study corridor is depicted in Appendix D.

Cultural Resources

Historic

Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Florida Master Site File (FMSF) data, and modern aerial photographs were used to identify historic resources within 500 feet of the alternatives. The FMSF lists nine previously recorded historic resources within 500 feet of the alternatives. Of these nine resources, five resources (8LA2957, 8LA3544, 8LA3584, 8SE1953, and 8SE2138) directly intersect the alternatives. These resources are listed in Table 3 and their locations relative to the alternatives are illustrated in Appendix E.

8LA2957 and 8SE2138 are actually comprised of a number of segments of what is now the CSX railroad recorded separately in both Lake and Seminole Counties. Both of these resources are made up of recorded and unrecorded portions of the same rail system and the combined line traverses portions of each alternative. While the line is currently one of many that comprise the CSX system, historically the line was part of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad, the Sanford & Lake Eustis Railroad, Tavares and Gulf (T&G) Railroad,

26

the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, as well as several other historic railroad systems. These lines are known to have historical significance and varying determinations have been made for segments of the railway outside of the project alternatives. The majority of the line within the project area in both Lake and Seminole Counties has not been evaluated by SHPO for National Register eligibility. Therefore, further research is necessary to determine the level of integrity within the alternatives and to assess the National Register eligibility of the segments of the resource within the alternatives.

Table 3 – Historic Resources FMSF # Site Name /

Address Alternative County Resource Type National Register Status 1

8LA2957 2Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Grade

All Lake Linear Resource Further Research and Evaluation Needed

8LA3412 28130 State Road 46 2, 3 Lake Circa-1930 Frame

Vernacular Building Ineligible for Listing

8LA3413 32222 State Road 46 1, 2 Lake Circa-1955 Masonry

Vernacular Building Ineligible for Listing

8LA3544 Wekiva Basin Geopark Tram Roads

All Lake Linear Resource Ineligible for Listing

8LA3545 McDonald Road / 28610 State Road 46

2, 3 Lake Circa-1925 Frame Vernacular Building Ineligible for Listing

8LA3584 2 Florida State Road 46 All Lake Linear Resource Ineligible for Listing

8SE567 3 Pinnie Ridge Cemetery All Seminole Circa-1880 Cemetery Not Evaluated by

SHPO

8SE1953 2 Florida State Road 46 1, 2 Seminole Linear Resource Ineligible for Listing

8SE2138 2 CSX Railroad All Seminole Linear Resource Further Research and Evaluation Needed

1As listed by the FMSF; may require reevaluation. 2 This resource is recorded separately in Lake and Seminole counties. 3 While not within or directly adjacent to the trail alignment (all alternatives), unmarked burials may exist outside of the recordedboundary.

8LA3584 and 8SE1953 are similar instances of County-specific recordings of the same historic resource, SR 46. Both of these segments are part of the same road system and the combined length of road intersects portions of each alternative at various locations. SHPO has previously determined 8LA3584/8SE1953 to be ineligible for listing in the National Register.

8LA3544 intersects Alternatives 1 and 4 in one location and is within 500 feet of Alternatives 2 and 3. This resource has been previously determined by the SHPO to be ineligible for listing in the National Register. 8LA3412, 8LA3413, and 8LA3545 are not located directly within any of the alternatives and have also been previously determined by the SHPO to be ineligible for listing in the National Register.

8SE567 is a historic cemetery located within 500 feet of all the alternatives. While the cemetery is currently separated from each alternative by Markham Road, unmarked

27

burials may exist outside the marked boundaries of this resource and further investigation may be necessary. 8SE567 has not yet been evaluated by SHPO for inclusion in the National Register.

Archaeological

A review of FMSF data identified 13 previously recorded archeological sites within 500 feet of the alternatives. These resources are listed in Table 4 and their locations relative to the alternatives are illustrated in Appendix E.

Five of these archaeological sites (8LA539, 8LA540, 8LA2760, 8SE1775, and 8SE2208) are directly intersected by the alternatives and one archaeological site (8LA3585) is located directly adjacent to one of the alternatives. Three of the six sites within the alternatives (8LA538, 8LA540, and 8LA2760) have not been previously evaluated by SHPO for National Register eligibility and may require further evaluation. The other three sites within and adjacent to the alternatives (8LA3585, 8SE1775, and 8SE2208) have been determined previously by SHPO to be ineligible for listing in the National Register.

28

Table 4 – Archaeological ResourcesFMSF # Site Name Alternatives County Site Type National Register

Status 1

8LA532 Bear Crossing 1, 2 Lake St. Johns Isolated Find Ineligible for Listing

8LA539 Bear Crossing 3 3, 4 Lake Middle Archaic Campsite

Not Evaluated by SHPO

8LA540 Bear Crossing 4 3, 4 Lake Isolated Find Not Evaluated by SHPO

8LA2760 Cassia Station 2, 3 Lake Twentieth-Century American Railroad Grade


8LA3537 WRMB 1 1, 4 Lake

Pre-Columbian Campsite Lacking Pottery and Twentieth-Century American Glass

Ineligible for Listing

8LA3538 WRMB 2 1, 4 Lake Pre-Columbian Campsite Lacking Pottery


8LA3539 WRMB 3 1, 4 Lake Pre-Columbian Campsite Lacking Pottery


8LA3547 WRMB 9 2, 3 Lake Twentieth-Century American Artifact Scatter

Insufficient Information

8LA3585 Rock Springs Run Site 3, 4 Lake Pre-Columbian

Artifact Scatter Ineligible for Listing

8SE568 2Oak Grove MissionaryBaptist Church

All Seminole Reported General Vicinity Location of Building Remains


8SE1775 Twin Oaks 1, 2 Seminole Nineteenth and Twentieth-Century American Homestead


8SE2208 Gerami 1 3, 4 Seminole

St. Johns Campsite and Twentieth-Century American Artifact Scatter


8SE2210 Gerami 3 3, 4 Seminole

St. Johns Campsite and Twentieth-Century American Homestead and Artifact Scatter


1As listed by the FMSF; may require reevaluation. 2General vicinity location is based on an informant report; previous attempts to locate this site have been unsuccessful.

29

4.0 Alternatives Analysis

4.1 Typical Section

Wekiva Parkway

Within the study area, the ultimate Wekiva Parkway typical section consists of three 12-foot lanes in each direction sloped to the outside separated by a 40-foot grassed median with double-faced guardrail. Proposed limited access right-of-way width is 300 feet. Inside shoulders will be 12 feet wide (10 feet paved). The outside shoulders along the south side of the roadway will be 12 feet wide (10 feet paved). The outside shoulders along the north side of the roadway will be 10 feet wide with a barrier wall adjacent to the edge of shoulder. A minimum border width of 94 feet from the outside edge of travel to the limited access right-of-way line is provided.

Just east of the proposed Wekiva Parkway interchange with SR 46 and the realigned CR 46A, a two lane (one lane in each direction) service road is provided for local traffic adjacent to the north side of the Wekiva Parkway. The proposed service road has 12-foot lanes and is crowned in the middle. Ten-foot shoulders are provided along either side.The shoulders are fully paved when barrier protected, and provide five-feet of pavement when not barrier protected. While five-feet of paved shoulder meets FDOT’s minimum requirement for bicycles, the option exists to fully pave the shoulders to accommodate Wekiva Trail bicycle traffic. Preliminary roadway typical sections developed by OOCEA illustrating both the proposed Wekiva Parkway and associated service roads are provided in Appendix F and are subject to change (these typical sections have not been finalized or approved). As of May 2010, bridge typical sections are under development and review.

Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 follow, in whole or in part, the alignment of the Wekiva Parkway along the section where service roads are proposed. In preliminary discussions between OOCEA and project stakeholders, the service roads and bridges can be designed to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians as part of the proposed Wekiva Trail. However, if a separate trail adjacent to the service roads is desired, further coordination between OOCEA and project stakeholders during subsequent phases of the project will be required to assure that the trail corridor can fit within the proposed service road right-of-way. If the Wekiva Parkway is not built, then the proposed Wekiva Trail would be constructed as a stand-alone facility throughout the project length.

Wekiva Trail

The standard typical section for the proposed Wekiva Trail in areas where a separate facility is proposed is a 12-foot wide paved facility with two-foot unpaved shoulders (see Figure 12). The trail is sloped in one direction at 0.02 feet per foot. Beyond each shoulder the typical section will connect to existing ground at no steeper than a 1:2 slope. West of the service roads, the majority of the trail is proposed within right-of-way that is currently or was previously railroad right-of-way. Between US 441 and the former

30

railroad crossing of SR 46 in Sorrento, the status of existing railroad tracks that are currently in use for car storage by Florida Central Railroad will be coordinated with project stakeholders. Coordination between trail stakeholders and Florida Central Railroad regarding future car storage must take place during subsequent phases of project development. This right-of-way varies between 50 and 100 feet wide. The minimum right-of-way width for the trail typical section is 50 feet where new right-of-way is to be acquired.

Figure 12 – Proposed Trail Typical Section (Separate Facility)

The Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority is making provisions to accommodate a facility along the proposed service roads on both wildlife crossings and the Wekiva River bridge that will be barrier separated from automobile traffic. As of May 2010, bridge typical sections are under development and review by OOCEA as part of the Wekiva Parkway (SR 429)/SR 46 Realignment PD&E Study.

4.2 Alternative Alignments

The four main alternative alignments were developed and are described in Section 1.2 and illustrated in Figure 3, previously presented. Appendix G contains the conceptual alignment of each alternative on aerial photography. The shaded area of each alignment alternative indicates the full right-of-way to be acquired for the trail alignment. The alignment shaded in yellow corresponds to Alternative 1. Deviations from Alternative 1 are noted in both green and magenta and correspond to Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Wetland areas are outlined in green, parcel lines are noted in red and potential pond sites in cyan.

The right-of-way width along the proposed trail alignments ranges from a minimum of 50 feet in areas where no existing corridor exists to 100 feet along portions of the existing railroad. Following is a description of the proposed trail right-of-way by alternative:

Neighborhood Lakes

The right-of-way width of the Neighborhood Lakes alignment is 50 feet.

31

Alternative 1

From US 441 to the crossing of SR 46 in Sorrento, the right-of-way width varies between 80 and 100 feet, except for a short (less than one mile) segment within the residential area of Sorrento where it narrows to 50 feet. This is the full active railroad right-of-way. North of SR 46 where the tracks have been removed, the right-of-way width varies from 80 feet to 100 feet to the beginning of the service roads, with some variation in the Mount Plymouth area, where the former railroad right-of-way is located adjacent to Niles Street.

East of the Wekiva River along Longwood-Lake Markham Road, the right-of-way width is assumed to be 50 feet. Because this is a residential area, right-of-way cost estimates were also calculated for a narrower 20-foot right-of-way corridor. This 20-foot corridor greatly reduces potential impacts to homes along this segment of the proposed Wekiva Trail. Along Markham Road where the trail follows the former railroad, proposed right-of-way width is 80 feet.

Alternative 2

East of the service roads, the proposed trail alignment follows the Wekiva Parkway for approximately 3,300 feet. Right-of-way width in this area is generally 50 feet. Once the trail alignment branches from the Wekiva Parkway and once again parallels SR 46 within the former railroad right-of-way, the right-of-way width is 80 feet.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Along the service road that provides local access to Rock Springs Run State Reserve, the proposed trail right-of-way is 50 feet, as this short (approximately 2,100 foot) segment does not follow the former railroad right-of-way. The proposed right-of-way for the section of trail that parallels Ethel Road within the Rock Springs Run State Reserve is the former railroad right-of-way, which varies from 60 feet to 100 feet, and is 80 feet at the Wekiva River crossing. East of the Wekiva River, the proposed right-of-way is 80 feet to the connection with the existing Seminole-Wekiva Trail.

4.3 Environmental Impacts

Wetlands/Wildlife & Habitat

The proposed trail alignments will cross several wetland areas; however, only two wetland areas (along the restored railroad grade on the west bank of the Wekiva River for Alternatives 3 and 4, and those associated with Lake Lerla adjacent to the Mount Plymouth Lakes subdivision for all alternatives) are anticipated to be impacted. There are 0.836 acres of wetland impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 and 1.809 acres of impacts associated with Alternatives 3 and 4. Figure 13 illustrates potential wetland impacts associated with the Wekiva Trail. In addition, RHPZ impacts on both sides of the Wekiva River are likely with the Alternatives 3 and 4 (Alternatives 1 and 2 are located on the proposed Wekiva Parkway service road bridge, and would not incur any

32

additional impacts beyond those associated with the Wekiva Parkway). Several listed species were observed (a full list of Federal and State listed species with the potential to occur within the project area is provided in Appendix C), and formal surveys will be required during subsequent phases of the project for gopher tortoise, Florida scrub jay, and sand skink.

Invasive species were observed in a number of places along much of the proposed trail route with cogon grass being the most notable.

Floodplains

Based on the floodplain data obtained from Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties, between 9.84 and 14.99 acres of floodplains are anticipated to be affected due to the implementation of the proposed Wekiva Trail. Table 5 below lists areas of floodplains that would be affected by alternative. Actual floodplain impact volumes will be determined during subsequent phases of project development.

Table 5 – Potential Affected Floodplain Areas Alternative Impact area (acres)

1 9.84 2 9.88 3 14.99 4 14.95

Contamination

A total of 13 potential contamination sites have been identified as having contamination risk potential ratings of Medium or High (see Table 2, previously presented). All alternatives have the same risk with respect to each of these sites.

Parks & Recreation

The Wekiva Trail study area crosses three state lands – Rock Springs Run State Reserve, Wekiva Springs State Park and Seminole State Forest. Two alternatives, Alternatives 3 and 4, directly impact Rock Springs Run State Reserve. The Reserve, which includes much of the land north of Rock Springs Run, west of the Wekiva River and east and south of the proposed Wekiva Parkway, includes the former railroad right-of-way between SR 46 and the Wekiva River. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has been involved in ongoing discussions regarding the routing of a trail through Rock Springs Run State Reserve and continued coordination with the Reserve’s land managers will be required during subsequent phases of the project.

Figu

re 1

3 –

Pote

ntia

l Wet

land

Impa

cts (

1 of

2)

Figu

re 1

3 co

nt. –

Pot

entia

l Wet

land

Impa

cts (

2 of

2)

35

Although none of the alternatives involves a direct impact to Seminole State Forest (located adjacent to and north of SR 46, between the CR 46A and the Wekiva River), continued coordination with the Florida Division of Forestry is recommended during subsequent phases of the project.

The Neighborhood Lakes alignment traverses land purchased for conservation (the Neighborhood Lakes parcel) as part of the Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act. This land is managed by FDEP and continued coordination will be required in subsequent phases of the project. The Neighborhood Lakes alignment was developed through extensive coordination with FDEP and other project stakeholders.

Wild & Scenic River/Aquatic Preserve

All alternatives cross the Wekiva River, a designated Wild and Scenic River and Aquatic Preserve. The proposed service roads proposed as part of the Wekiva Parkway can accommodate Alternatives 1 and 2 with no additional impact to the river beyond that proposed as part of the Wekiva Parkway (SR 429)/SR 46 Realignment PD&E Study. However, Alternatives 3 and 4 involve a new crossing of the Wekiva River approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the existing SR 46 bridge. An additional crossing of the Wekiva River may invoke Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act, which involves impacts to the free flow of the river or impacts to the river’s setting (aesthetics).Although the location of the river crossing of Alternatives 3 and 4 is in the same location of a railroad bridge that burned down in the 1980’s, this bridge did not exist when the Wekiva River was classified as Wild and Scenic by the United States Congress. Another river crossing at this location may be subject to Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act, since it relates to the condition of the river at the time of designation (2000).

The replacement of the SR 46 bridge proposed as part of the Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study is part of the draft Comprehensive River Management Plan, so the Section 7 process would not be initiated as part of the Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study, or if the Wekiva Trail were routed along the proposed service road over the river. Based on conversations with the National Park Service, a second river crossing at the location of the old railroad bridge may be ruled out after a formal evaluation because of direct and adverse aesthetic impacts.

Cultural Resources

Of the 22 cultural resources listed in Section 3.3, eight will require further research and evaluation during subsequent phases of the project. Table 6 lists these cultural resources by FMSF number.

While 18 surveys have been previously conducted within the four alternatives, large portions of the project area have not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Therefore, there is a potential for unrecorded cultural resources within these portions of the project alternatives.

36

0 10 20 30 40 50

Equestrian FacilitiesTennis Court

Security Guard at GateGolf CourseClub House

Baseball/Softball FieldCard-operated gate (No guard)

Basketball Courts/Soccer FieldsBusiness CenterDay Care Center

Near Public TransportationLake

Shops within Walking AreaPlaygrounds

Park AreaSidewalk on Both Sides

Walking/Jogging/Bike TrailsHighway Access

3%4%5%6%6%6%7%

9%10%

14%15%16%

19%21%

26%28%

36%44%

Importance of Community Amenities

% Checking Important to Very Important

NAR, NAHB

Com

mun

ityAm

enity

Table 6 – Cultural Resources Requiring Further Evaluation FMSF# Description Alternative

8LA2957 Seabord Coast Line Railroad Grade All 8SE567 Pinnie Ridge Cemetery All8SE2138 CSX Railroad All8LA539 Bear Crossing 3 3, 4 8LA540 Bear Crossing 4 3, 4 8LA2760 Cassia Station 2, 3 8LA3547 WRMB 9 2, 3 8SE568 Oak Grove Missionary Baptist Church All

Economic and Community Development

According to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), residential properties located close to trails and greenways sell faster and for higher prices than similar properties located further away. In a 2002 survey of homebuyers sponsored by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Homebuilders (see graph below), trails ranked as the second most important community amenity out of a list of 18 choices.

Locally, Orange County’s West Orange Trail, which draws over 1 million users annually and runs through downtown Winter Garden, is credited with revitalizing economic activity in downtown Winter Garden and Oakland. In a 1994 interview with TheOrlando Sentinelregarding the revitalization of downtown Winter Garden, former City Manager Hollis Holden said “This town was dead in 1994. People did not come downtown. We had empty storefronts.” Since the extension of the West Orange Trail through downtown Winter Garden, restaurants, boutiques and bicycle shops have opened in formerly empty buildings and attract trail users who otherwise would never visit the City. A trail facility through the unincorporated communities of Sorrento and Mount Plymouth can be the

37

catalyst for additional economic development of these areas as recreational and commuter cyclists travel through on a regular basis.

Relocations

Seven residential relocations are anticipated as part of Alternatives 1 and 2, all along Longwood-Lake Markham Road. If the trail right-of-way width is decreased to 20 feet from 50 feet, residential relocations can be reduced to two.

No relocations are anticipated as part of Alternatives 3 and 4.

As the project moves through subsequent phases and relocations are still required, a right-of-way and relocation program must be carried out in accordance with Florida Statute 339.09 and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17) in order to be eligible for Federal funding.

4.4 Estimated Costs

4.4.1 Construction Costs

Construction cost estimates were developed for the four main alternatives (the Neighborhood Lakes alignment is included in all alternatives) described in Section 1.2 using FDOT’s Long Range Estimate (LRE) system. Table 7 lists estimated construction costs of each alternative as well as estimated costs for mobilization and contingencies.

Table 7 – Estimated Construction Costs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Estimated Construction Costs $4,390,000 $4,820,000 $8,720,000 $8,290,000 Mobilization (10%) $439,000 $482,000 $872,000 $829,000

Subtotal $4,829,000 $5,302,000 $9,592,000 $9,119,000 Contingencies (25%) $1,207,000 $1,326,000 $2,398,000 $2,280,000

Total $6,036,000 $6,628,000 $11,990,000 $11,399,000

In addition to the four main alternatives, construction costs were estimated for the following additional trail features (letters correspond to Table 8 below):

� A: Grade separation at Round Lake Road � B: Grade separation at Wekiva Parkway/realigned SR 46 interchange � C: Separate trail adjacent to service road (shared bridges with service road) � D: Wildlife Crossing 1 (separate from service road) � E: Wildlife Crossing 2 (separate from service road) � F: Wekiva River bridge (separate from service road)

Table 8 lists the raw LRE costs and adjustments including mobilization and contingencies for each additional feature.

38

Table 8 – Estimated Construction Costs for Additional Trail Features

Additional Feature Round

Lake Road Bridge (A)

WekivaParkway

Bridge (B)

AdjacentTrail (C)

WildlifeCrossing 1

(D)

WildlifeCrossing 2

(E)

WekivaRiver

Bridge (F) Estimated Costs $410,000 $5,030,000 $1,210,000 $9,650,000 $19,120,000 $8,570,000 Mobilization (10%) $41,000 $503,000 $121,000 $965,000 $1,912,000 $857,000 Subtotal $451,000 $5,533,000 $1,331,000 $10,615,000 $21,032,000 $9,427,000 Contingencies (25%) $113,000 $1,383,000 $333,000 $2,654,000 $5,258,000 $2,357,000 Total $564,000 $6,916,000 $1,664,000 $13,269,000 $26,290,000 $11,784,000

4.4.2 Right-of-Way

Right-of-way cost estimates were developed for each of the four main trail alternatives as described in Section 1.2. In addition, costs for both a 50-foot and a 20-foot right-of way corridor along the west side of Longwood-Lake Markham Road were estimated for Alternatives 1 and 2. Table 9 below lists the estimated right-of-way costs for each alternative.

Table 9 – Right-of-Way Cost Estimates Alternative Estimated Right-of-Way Cost

1* $32,451,000 1** $27,472,000 2* $35,125,000 2** $30,146,000 3 $27,408,000 4 $24,734,000

*50’ R/W Corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road **20’ R/W Corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road

Figure 14 lists the property owners along each potential alternative of the proposed Wekiva Trail. In addition, estimated costs for parcels in private ownership are indicated on the figure. Right-of-way costs for the 50-foot corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road in Seminole County (Alternatives 1 and 2) have been estimated at approximately $12 million. This estimated cost can be eliminated if the proposed Wekiva Trail can be accommodated within the right-of-way of Longwood-Lake Markham Road. One option would be the construction of a wide sidewalk along Longwood-Lake Markham Road that could accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists.Coordination with Seminole County regarding trail placement along this segment of Alternatives 1 and 2 should continue during subsequent phases of the project.

4.4.3 Engineering Costs

Preliminary costs for a PD&E Study of the Wekiva Trail are estimated at $250,000. Design and CEI is estimated as a percentage of the construction costs. For the Wekiva Trail, design and CEI is estimated at 20% of the estimated construction costs and is included in the evaluation matrix at the end of this section.

Figu

re 1

4 –

Parc

el O

wne

rshi

p an

d E

stim

ated

Cos

ts

40

4.5 Evaluation Matrix

Each alternative was evaluated for environmental impacts and estimated costs. Table 10presents the approximate impact evaluation for each alternative.

Table 10 – Evaluation Matrix

Alternative Evaluation Factors 1 2 3 4

Right-of-Way Impacts (acres)1 112.40 134.09 168.91 147.22 Potential Relocations1,2 7 7 0 0 Wetland Impacts (acres) 0.836 0.836 1.809 1.809 Floodplain Impacts (acres) 9.84 9.88 14.99 14.95 Cultural Resources requiring further evaluation 4 6 8 6

Potential Contamination Sites rated Medium or High 13 13 13 13

Potential 4(f) Involvement No No Yes Yes Wild and Scenic River Involvement No No Yes Yes Estimated Construction Costs $6,036,000 $6,628,000 $11,990,000 $11,399,000 Estimated PD&E Costs $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Estimated Design and CEI Costs $1,207,000 $1,325,000 $2,398,000 $2,280,000 Estimated Right-of-Way Costs1 $32,451,000 $35,126,000 $27,409,000 $24,734,000 Total Estimated Costs $39,944,000 $43,329,000 $42,047,000 $38,663,000 1Assumes worst-case 50' R/W corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road for Alternatives 1 & 22Relocations are reduced to 2 assuming a 20' corridor along Longwood-Lake Markham Road for Alternatives 1 & 2

41

5.0 Agency Coordination

The Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study was initiated as part of a response from FDOT to METROPLAN Orlando regarding the accommodation of nonmotorized and light motorcycle traffic on the proposed Wekiva Parkway (agency correspondence is included in Appendix H). The environmentally sensitive nature of the project area combined with the desire to complete a beltway around the metropolitan Orlando area and the emergence of shared-use paths as a viable commuting alternative generated a diverse group of stakeholders committed to the study of a proposed trail facility that provides regional connectivity in an environmentally sound manner. Following is a list of agency stakeholders with an interest in the Wekiva Trail:

� Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) � Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) � METROPLAN Orlando � Lake~Sumter MPO � East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) � Lake County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) � Lake County Parks and Trails � Seminole County BCC � Seminole County Leisure Services � Orange County Environmental Protection Division � City of Mount Dora � Florida Department of Environmental Protection � Florida Park Service, Wekiva River Basin State Parks � Florida Division of Forestry � US Forest Service � Wekiva River Basin Commission � The Nature Conservancy � Friends of the Wekiva � Trail Friends � The Audubon Society

5.1 Stakeholder Meetings and Presentations

Twenty-one coordination meetings were held since the start of the feasibility study.Table 11 lists each group meeting, attendees and a short summary. Table 12 lists individual status meetings held with elected officials. Available meeting minutes and sign-in sheets are found in Appendix H.

42

Table 11 – Agency Coordination Meetings Date Attendees Summary

6/29/2009 Wekiva River Basin Commission Presented Feasibility Study Goals

7/21/2009 METROPLAN Orlando, Lake~Sumter MPO Discussed scope, preliminary alignments

8/17/2009 ECFRPC Presented project to Greenways and Trails group

8/27/2009 Wekiva Trail Working Group

Discussed alignments, potential impacts, issued consensus finding

12/14/2009 ECFRPC Discussed new service road concept, potential shared use

12/17/2009 Public Meeting Public meeting to present Wekiva Parkway service road concept

1/25/2010 Wekiva River Basin Commission Status update

1/26/2010 ECFRPC Status update 2/4/2010 Lake~Sumter MPO Discuss final alignment alternatives

2/24/2010 Lake~Sumter MPO Governing Board Present final alignment alternatives

2/26/2010 FDEP Discussion of alternative river crossing, impacts to state lands 4/2/2010 Lake~Sumter MPO Status update

4/16/2010 Lake County/Lake~Sumter MPO Status update

6/11/2010 Wekiva River Basin Commission Discussed results of feasibility study

Table 12 – Elected Official Status Meetings Date Elected Official

2/25/2010 Seminole County Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide 2/25/2010 Seminole County Commissioner Bob Dallari 3/2/2010 Lake County Commission Chairman Welton Caldwell 3/2/2010 Lake County Commissioner Jimmy Conner3/2/2010 Lake County Commissioner Linda Stewart3/2/2010 Lake County Commission Vice-Chair Elaine Renick3/2/2010 Lake County Commissioner Jennifer Hill3/8/2010 Seminole County Commissioner Brenda Carey 3/8/2010 Seminole County Commissioner Carlton Henley

5.2 Correspondence

Several stakeholders have corresponded with FDOT and State officials expressing their desires and concerns regarding a potential trail facility in the Wekiva River basin. Copies of these letters are in Appendix H and are summarized in Table 13 below.

43

Table 13 – Stakeholder Correspondence Date From To Summary

12/5/2008 FDOT METROPLAN Orlando

Response to request for nonmotorized/light motorcycle accommodation on Wekiva parkway. Committed to trail feasibility.

12/12/2008 METROPLAN Orlando FDOT Response to commitment to undertake

feasibility study. 6/17/2009 ECFRPC N/A Pending Wekiva Trail Resolution

10/29/2009 Lake~Sumter MPO Governor Crist Request to include Wekiva Trail in Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study

10/30/2009 Florida Bicycle Association FDOT Request to study trail alternatives in Wekiva

Parkway project area

10/30/2009 City of Mount Dora Governor Crist Request to include Wekiva Trail in Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study

11/20/2009 FDOT Florida Bicycle Association

Response to Florida Bicycle Association request

11/25/2009 FDOT City of Mount Dora Response to City of Mount Dora request for Governor Crist

1/7/2010 Governor Crist Lake~Sumter MPO Response to Lake~Sumter MPO request

2/2/2010 Seminole County Leisure Services FDOT Request to analyze alternative river crossing

south of SR 46

3/3/2010 Seminole County BCC FDOT

Support for trail connectivity using service roads and bridge structures proposed as part of Wekiva Parkway.

3/3/2010 Seminole County BCC OOCEA

Support for trail connectivity using service roads and bridge structures proposed as part of Wekiva Parkway.

3/17/2010 ECFRPC FDOT/OOCEA Support for trail connectivity using service roads and bridge structures proposed as part of Wekiva Parkway.

4/21/2010 FDEP FDOT Recommendation of Wekiva River Crossing at SR 46

6/9/2010 METROPLAN Orlando FDOT/OOCEA Support for interagency coordination in the

development of the Wekiva Trail

7/2/2010 FDOT METROPLAN Orlando

Response to METROPLAN Orlando letter of 6/9/2010

7/20/2010 FDOT Seminole County BCC

Response to Seminole County BCC letter of 3/3/2010

6.0 Conclusions

This Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum presents the potential environmental impacts and estimated costs of a trail facility linking existing and proposed facilities in Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties. Through the course of this feasibility study, project stakeholders have achieved consensus regarding the need for a regional facility, and progress was made in the development of potential trail alignments.

There are distinct advantages and limitations of each alternative. Although a trail alignment through Rock Springs Run State Reserve (Alternatives 3 and 4) would provide a more scenic experience for trail users, there are many issues that must be resolved before an alignment through these natural lands (including a second crossing of the Wekiva River, designated a Wild and Scenic river) can be realized. As noted in

44

correspondence with land managers (Appendix H), the alignments of Alternatives 3 and 4 through Rock Springs Run State Reserve and over the Wekiva River upstream of the existing bridge have considerable environmental issues to overcome to be considered viable alternatives. Alternatively, provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians can be provided along service roads proposed by OOCEA for the Wekiva Parkway with Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the trail would be routed on wide shoulders/sidewalks for up to 5½ miles with no buffer from vehicular traffic.

Total estimated costs (construction and right-of-way) for each alternative are similar. Right-of-way costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 could be reduced by limiting the amount of right-of-way along Longwood-Lake Markham Road. The addition of a wide sidewalk within existing right-of-way to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists should be discussed with Seminole County and analyzed during subsequent phases of the project.

It is the recommendation of the Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study to continue coordination with project stakeholders and consider each alternative in subsequent phases of the project as they are further refined. It is also recommended that METROPLAN Orlando and the Lake~Sumter MPO work to prioritize a PD&E Study and subsequent phases of the project.

Appendix A Existing Land Use

Pot

entia

lTr

ail A

lignm

ent

Pt

tilT

ilA

lit

Seminole County Existing Land Use

Proposed Trail Alignment

Pot

entia

l Tra

il A

lignm

prings Road

Appendix B Future Land Use

Pot

entia

lTr

ail A

lignm

ent

Seminole County Future Land Use

Proposed Trail Alignment

Pot

entia

l Tra

il A

lignm

ent

Appendix C Federal and State Listed Species

Spec

ies

Nam

eC

omm

on N

ame

FFW

CC

USF

WS

FNA

IFC

REP

ASe

gmen

tLi

kelih

ood

ofH

abita

tO

ccur

renc

eA

lliga

tor m

issi

ssip

pien

sis

Am

eric

an a

lliga

tor

SS

CT(

S/A

)S

45

Obs

*V

ario

us a

quat

ic h

abita

tsA

phel

ocom

a co

erul

esce

nsFl

orid

a sc

rub-

jay

TT

S3

T2,

5O

bsS

crub

and

scr

ubby

flat

woo

dsA

ram

us g

uara

naLi

mpk

inS

SC

S3

SS

C5

high

Sw

amps

, for

este

d flo

odpl

ains

, man

grov

e sw

amps

and

mar

shes

Ath

ene

cuic

ular

ia fl

orid

ana

Flor

ida

burr

owin

g ow

lS

SC

S3

SS

C2

Obs

*S

andh

ills,

dry

pra

iries

and

rude

ral h

abita

tsD

rym

arch

on c

orai

s co

uper

iE

aste

rn in

digo

sna

keT

TS

3S

SC

2, 5

mod

Wid

e va

riety

of h

abita

ts;

win

ters

in to

rtois

e bu

rrow

s in

hig

her a

reas

Egr

etta

cae

rule

aLi

ttle

blue

her

onS

SC

S4

SS

C5

high

Mar

shes

, pon

ds, l

akes

, mea

dow

s, s

tream

s an

d m

angr

oves

Egr

etta

thul

aS

now

y eg

ret

SS

CS

4S

SC

5hi

ghM

arsh

es, l

akes

, pon

ds a

nd s

hallo

w, c

oast

al h

abita

tsE

gret

ta tr

icol

orTr

icol

ored

her

onS

SC

S4

SS

C5

high

Mar

shes

, pon

ds a

nd ri

vers

Eud

ocim

us a

lbus

Whi

te ib

isS

SC

S4

SS

C5

Obs

Mar

shes

, man

grov

es, l

akes

and

est

uarie

sFa

lco

pere

grin

us tu

ndriu

sA

rctic

per

egrin

e fa

lcon

ES

2E

2,5

mod

Wid

e va

riety

of o

pen

habi

tats

Falc

o sp

arve

rius

paul

usS

outh

east

ern

Am

eric

an k

estre

lT

S3?

T1,

2,5

mod

Ope

n, o

r par

tly o

pen

habi

tats

with

sca

ttere

d tre

esG

ophe

rus

poly

phem

usG

ophe

r tor

tois

eS

SC

S3

T1,

2,3,

4,5

Obs

San

dhill

s, s

crub

, ham

moc

ks, d

ry p

rairi

es, f

latw

oods

, mix

ed fo

rest

s G

rus

cana

dens

is p

rate

nsis

Flor

ida

sand

hill

cran

eT

S2S

3T

2,5

Obs

*S

hallo

w w

etla

nds,

fres

hwat

er m

arsh

es a

nd w

et p

rairi

esH

alia

eetu

s le

ucoc

epha

lus

leuc

ocep

halu

sS

outh

ern

bald

eag

leS

2S3

T1,

2,3,

4,5

Obs

Coa

sts,

rive

rs a

nd la

rge

lake

s in

ope

n ar

eas

Myc

teria

am

eric

ana

Woo

d st

ork

EE

S2

E2,

5O

bsM

arsh

es, s

wam

ps, s

tream

s an

d m

angr

oves

Neo

seps

reyn

olds

iS

and

skin

kT

TS

2T

2,5

high

Scr

ub, s

andh

ills,

and

scr

ubby

flat

woo

dsP

icoi

des

bore

alis

Red

-coc

kade

d w

oodp

ecke

rT

ES

2E

2lo

wO

pen,

mat

ure

pine

woo

dlan

dsP

ituop

his

mel

anol

eucu

s m

ugitu

sFl

orid

a pi

ne s

nake

SS

CS

3S

U2,

5m

odS

andh

ills,

scr

ubby

flat

woo

ds, x

eric

ham

moc

ks a

nd ru

dera

l hab

itats

Pod

omys

flor

idan

usFl

orid

a m

ouse

SS

CS

3T

2,5

mod

Scr

ub, f

latw

oods

, lon

glea

f pin

e-tu

rkey

oak

san

dhill

s, a

nd h

amm

ocks

Pte

rono

tropi

s w

elak

aB

luen

ose

Shi

ner

SS

CS

4S

SC

5lo

wR

iver

ine;

qui

et, w

eedy

poo

ls a

nd h

oles

Ran

a ca

pito

Gop

her f

rog

SS

CS

3T

2,5

mod

Xer

ic u

plan

ds a

nd p

ine

flatw

oods

Sci

urus

nig

er s

herm

ani

She

rman

's fo

x sq

uirr

elS

SC

S2

T2,

5O

bs*

Long

leaf

pin

e-tu

rkey

oak

san

dhill

s, m

esic

flat

woo

ds, s

wam

psS

tern

a an

tilla

rum

Leas

t ter

nT

S3

T5

mod

Ope

n, fl

at b

each

es, r

iver

and

lake

mar

gins

Stil

osom

a ex

tenu

atum

Sho

rt-ta

iled

snak

eT

S3

T2,

5m

odLo

ngle

af p

ine-

turk

ey o

ak, s

and

pine

scr

ub a

nd x

eric

ham

moc

ksTr

iche

chus

man

atus

latir

ostri

sFl

orid

a m

anat

eeE

ES

2?E

5m

odS

prin

g-ru

ns, a

lluvi

al s

tream

s, a

nd c

oast

al e

stua

ries

*CR

ITIC

AL

HA

BIT

AT*

Urs

us a

mer

ican

us fl

orid

anus

Flor

ida

blac

k be

arT

S2

T1,

2,3,

4,5

Obs

*V

arie

ty o

f for

este

d la

ndsc

apes

Not

es:

FFW

CC

= F

lorid

a Fi

sh a

nd W

ildlif

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Com

mis

sion

E=

End

ange

red;

T=

Thre

aten

ed; S

SC

= S

peci

es o

f Spe

cial

Con

cern

US

FWS

= U

S F

ish

and

Wild

life

Ser

vice

E=

End

ange

red;

T=

Thre

aten

ed; (

S/A

)= S

imila

rity

of A

ppea

ranc

e; (E

/P)=

Exp

erim

enta

l Pop

ulat

ion

FNA

I = F

lorid

a N

atur

al A

reas

Inve

ntor

yS

1= C

ritic

ally

Impe

riled

Due

to E

xtre

me

Rar

ity; S

2= Im

peril

ed D

ue to

Rar

ity; S

3= V

ery

Rar

e an

d Lo

cal;

S4=

App

aren

tly S

ecur

e; S

H=

His

toric

al O

ccur

renc

e; ?

= Te

ntat

ive

Ran

king

FCR

EP

A =

Flo

rida

Com

mitt

ee o

n R

are

and

End

ange

red

Pla

nts

and

Ani

mal

sE

= E

ndan

gere

d; T

= Th

reat

ened

; SS

C=

Spe

cies

of S

peci

al C

once

rn; R

= R

are;

SU

= S

tatu

s U

ndet

erm

ined

Like

lihoo

d of

Occ

urre

nce

Low

= Lo

w li

kelih

ood;

Mod

= M

oder

ate

likel

ihoo

d; H

igh=

Hig

h lik

elih

ood;

Obs

= O

bser

ved

by G

&O

Obs

*= O

bser

ved

by O

ther

s

Sou

rce:

G &

O E

ndan

gere

d S

peci

es D

atab

ase,

200

9.

Seg

men

t Div

isio

ns:

1 =

Yel

low

(441

- W

ekiv

a so

uth

conn

ecto

r),

2 =

Yel

low

(sou

th c

onne

ctor

to N

eigh

borh

ood

Lake

s ar

ea),

3 =

Yel

low

(Mar

kham

Roa

d) 4

= G

reen

, 5 =

Mag

enta

Spec

ies

Nam

eC

omm

on N

ame

FDA

USF

WS

FNA

ISe

ctio

nLi

kelih

ood

ofH

abita

tO

ccur

renc

eA

cros

tichu

m d

anae

ifoliu

mG

iant

leat

her f

ern

CE

5lo

wB

rack

ish

and

fresh

wat

er m

arsh

esA

scle

pias

cur

tissi

iC

urtis

s' m

ilkw

eed

ES

32,

5lo

wS

andh

ills

and

scru

bB

onam

ia g

rand

iflor

aFl

orid

a bo

nam

ia, S

crub

mor

ning

glo

ryE

TS

32

Mod

erat

eS

and

pine

scr

ubC

alam

inth

a as

hei

Ash

e's

savo

ryT

S3

2,5

low

Dry

pin

elan

ds a

nd s

and

pine

scr

ubC

alop

ogon

bar

batu

sB

eard

ed g

rass

pin

kT

2,5

low

Wet

pin

e fla

twoo

ds, b

ogs

Cal

opog

on m

ultif

loru

sM

any-

flow

ered

gra

ss p

ink

E2,

5lo

wP

ine

flatw

oods

, esp

. rec

ently

bur

ned

Cam

pylo

neur

um p

hylli

tidus

Stra

p fe

rnE

2,lo

wH

amm

ocks

; ep

iphy

ticC

hion

anat

hus

pygm

aeus

Pig

my

fring

e tre

eE

ES

32

Mod

erat

eS

and

pine

scr

ubC

litor

ia fr

agra

nsS

andh

ill b

utte

rflyp

eaE

TS

32

Mod

erat

eD

ry s

andh

ills

and

scru

bC

teni

tis s

ubm

argi

nalis

Com

b fe

rnE

5lo

wW

et h

amm

ocks

Dro

sera

inte

rmed

iaW

ater

sun

dew

TS

35

low

Pin

elan

ds, w

oods

and

bog

sE

ncyc

lia ta

mpe

nsis

But

terfl

y or

chid

CE

5lo

wM

angr

ove,

cyp

ress

and

har

dwoo

d sw

amps

; ham

moc

ksE

pide

ndru

m c

onop

seum

Gre

enfly

orc

hid

CE

5lo

wM

oist

ham

moc

ks, c

ypre

ss a

nd h

ardw

ood

swam

ps; e

piph

ytic

Erio

gonu

m fl

orid

anum

Scr

ub w

ild b

uckw

heat

ET

S3

2M

oder

ate

San

dhill

s an

d dr

y pi

nela

nds

Gar

beria

het

erop

hylla

Gar

beria

T2

low

San

d pi

ne a

nd o

ak s

crub

Har

risel

la fi

lifor

mis

Orc

hid

T5

low

Cyp

ress

and

har

dwoo

d sw

amps

, old

citr

us g

rove

s; e

piph

ytic

Har

twrig

htia

flor

idan

aFl

orid

a ha

rtwrig

htia

TS

25

low

Aci

d, s

eepa

ge a

reas

Has

teol

a ro

berti

orum

Flor

ida

hast

eola

ES

15

low

Hex

alec

tris

spic

ata

Cre

sted

cor

alro

otE

5lo

wH

amm

ocks

Illic

ium

par

viflo

rum

Yel

low

sta

r ani

seE

S1

5lo

wW

et w

oods

and

sw

amps

Just

icia

coo

leyi

Coo

ley'

s w

ater

will

owE

ES

1S2

5lo

wR

ocky

woo

dsLi

paris

ner

vosa

Tall

lipar

is o

rchi

dE

5lo

wC

ypre

ss a

nd h

ardw

ood

swam

ps, h

amm

ocks

List

era

aust

ralis

Sou

ther

n tw

aybl

ade

T5

low

Ham

moc

ksLo

belia

car

dina

lisC

ardi

nal f

low

erT

5lo

wS

tream

s, ri

verb

anks

and

spr

ing

runs

Lyco

podi

ella

cer

nua

Nod

ding

clu

bmos

sC

E2,

5lo

wW

et p

inel

ands

Mat

elea

flor

idan

aFl

orid

a m

ilkw

eed;

pan

hand

le a

ngle

pod

ES

22,

5lo

wU

plan

d ha

rdw

ood

and

mix

ed fo

rest

sM

onot

ropa

hyp

opith

ysP

ines

apE

S1

2,5

low

Dec

iduo

us w

oods

; pa

rasi

tic o

n tre

e ro

ots

Naj

as fi

lifol

iaN

aiad

T2,

5lo

wP

onds

, lak

es, s

tream

s, s

loug

hs, s

prin

gs a

nd d

itche

sN

emas

tylis

flor

idan

aFa

ll-flo

wer

ing

plea

t-lea

f; ce

lest

ial l

ilyE

S2

5lo

wS

wam

ps, m

arsh

es a

nd w

et p

ine

flatw

oods

Nol

ina

britt

onia

naS

crub

bea

rgra

ssE

ES

22

Mod

erat

eD

ry p

inel

ands

and

san

d pi

ne s

crub

Osm

unda

cin

nam

omea

Cin

nam

on fe

rnC

E5

obse

rved

Wet

woo

ds a

nd s

wam

psO

smun

da re

galis

Roy

al fe

rnC

E5

Mod

erat

eW

et w

oods

and

sw

amps

Par

onyc

hia

char

tace

aP

aper

-like

nai

lwor

t; pa

pery

whi

tlow

-wor

tE

TS

32

Mod

erat

eS

and

pine

scr

ubP

eclu

ma

plum

ula

Pol

ypod

y fe

rnT

5lo

wH

amm

ocks

; ep

iphy

ticP

eclu

ma

ptilo

don

Pol

ypod

y fe

rnT

5lo

wH

amm

ocks

Pin

guic

ula

caer

ulea

Blu

e bu

tterw

ort

T5

low

Wet

, aci

d pi

nela

nds

Pla

tant

hera

ble

phar

iglo

ttis

Larg

e w

hite

frin

ged

orch

idT

2,3,

5lo

wM

arsh

es, a

nd w

et, o

pen,

gra

ssy

area

sP

lata

nthe

ra c

rista

taG

olde

n fri

nged

orc

hid;

cre

sted

frin

ged

orch

idT

2,3

low

Mar

shes

and

wet

, pin

e fla

twoo

dsP

lata

nthe

ra fl

ava

Sou

ther

n tu

berc

led

orch

id; g

ypsy

-spi

kes

T5

low

Cyp

ress

and

har

dwoo

d sw

amps

Pla

tant

hera

niv

eaS

now

y or

chid

; bog

torc

hT

5lo

wW

et p

ine

flatw

oods

Pog

onia

oph

iogl

osso

ides

Ros

e po

goni

aT

5lo

wM

arsh

es a

nd w

et, p

ine

flatw

oods

Pol

ygal

a le

wto

nii

Scr

ub m

ilkw

ort;

Lew

ton'

s po

lyga

laE

ES

22

Mod

erat

eD

ry, o

ak w

oods

Pol

ygon

ella

myr

ioph

ylla

Sm

all's

join

twee

d; w

oody

wire

wee

d; s

andl

ace

EE

S3

2M

oder

ate

San

d pi

ne s

crub

Pru

nus

geni

cula

taS

crub

plu

mE

ES

2S3

2M

oder

ate

San

d pi

ne s

crub

War

ea a

mpl

exifo

liaN

eedl

e pa

lmC

E5

low

Wet

to m

esic

woo

ds a

nd h

amm

ocks

Rho

dode

ndro

nca

nesc

ens

Pin

kaz

alea

CE

5lo

wS

tream

bank

san

dsw

amp

mar

gins

Occ

urre

nce

Sal

ix fl

orid

ana

Flor

ida

will

owE

S2

5lo

wW

et w

oods

and

stre

am b

anks

Sar

race

nia

min

orH

oode

d pi

tche

rpla

ntT

5lo

wW

et, o

pen,

aci

d pi

nela

nds

and

bogs

Sca

evol

a pl

umie

riIn

kber

ryT

5lo

wC

oast

al s

trand

sS

pira

nthe

s br

evila

bris

var

. flo

ridan

aFl

orid

a la

dies

' tre

sses

E5

low

Pin

e fla

twoo

dsS

pira

nthe

s la

cini

ata

Lace

-lip

ladi

es' t

ress

es; l

ace-

lip s

pira

l orc

hid

T5

low

Mar

shes

and

cyp

ress

sw

amps

Spi

rant

hes

long

ilabr

isLo

ng-li

p la

dies

' tre

sses

T5

low

Mar

shes

and

wet

pin

e fla

twoo

dsS

pira

nthe

s ov

alis

Ova

l lad

ies'

tres

ses

E5

low

Woo

ded

hills

and

stre

amba

nks

Spi

rant

hes

poly

anth

aG

reen

ladi

es' t

ress

esE

S1S

25

low

Ham

moc

ksS

pira

nthe

s tu

bero

saLi

ttle

ladi

es' t

ress

es; l

ittle

pea

rl tw

ist

T5

low

Pin

e fla

twoo

dsS

tylis

ma

abdi

taS

crub

sty

lism

aE

S2S

35

low

Dry

pin

elan

ds a

nd s

crub

Tilla

ndsi

a ut

ricul

ata

Gia

nt w

ild p

ine

E5

low

Ham

moc

ks a

nd c

ypre

ss s

wam

ps;

epip

hytic

Trip

hora

cra

ighe

adii

Cra

ighe

ad's

nod

ding

-cap

sE

S1

5lo

wD

ecid

uous

woo

dsTr

ipho

ra la

tifol

iaB

road

-leav

ed n

oddi

ng-c

aps

ES

H5

low

Har

dwoo

d ha

mm

ocks

Trip

hora

tria

ntho

phor

aN

oddi

ng p

ogon

iaT

5lo

wH

amm

ocks

Vic

ia o

cale

nsis

Oca

la v

etch

ES

15

low

Mar

gins

of s

tream

sW

area

am

plex

ifolia

Cla

spin

g w

area

EE

S1

5M

oder

ate

Dry

pin

elan

ds a

nd s

andh

ills

Zam

ia p

umila

Flor

ida

coon

tieC

E5

low

Ham

moc

ks, p

inel

ands

and

Indi

an m

idde

nsZe

phyr

anth

es a

tam

asca

Rai

n lil

yT

5lo

wW

et p

ine

flatw

oods

and

mea

dow

s

Not

es:

FDA

= F

lorid

a D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

reE

= E

ndan

gere

d; T

= Th

reat

ened

; CE

= C

omm

erci

ally

Exp

loite

dU

SFW

S =

US

Fis

h an

d W

ildlif

e S

ervi

ceE

= E

ndan

gere

d; T

= Th

reat

ened

FNA

I = F

lorid

a N

atur

al A

reas

Inve

ntor

yS

1= C

ritic

ally

Impe

riled

Due

to E

xtre

me

Rar

ity; S

2= Im

peril

ed D

ue to

Rar

ity; S

3= V

ery

Rar

e an

d Lo

cal;

S4=

App

aren

tly S

ecur

e; S

H=

His

toric

al O

ccur

renc

e; ?

= Te

ntat

ive

Ran

king

Like

lihoo

d of

Occ

urre

nce

Low

= Lo

w li

kelih

ood;

Mod

= M

oder

ate

likel

ihoo

d; H

igh=

Hig

h lik

elih

ood;

Obs

= O

bser

ved

by E

MS

; O

bs*=

Obs

erve

d by

Oth

ers

Sou

rce:

EM

S s

cien

tists

, eng

inee

rs, p

lann

ers,

Inc.

End

ange

red

Spe

cies

Dat

abas

e, 2

003.

Seg

men

t Div

isio

ns:

1 =

Yel

low

(441

- W

ekiv

a so

uth

conn

ecto

r),

2 =

Yel

low

(sou

th c

onne

ctor

to N

eigh

borh

ood

Lake

s ar

ea),

3 =

Yel

low

(Mar

kham

Roa

d) 4

= G

reen

, 5 =

Mag

enta

Appendix D Potential Contamination Sites

1. M

OUNT

DOR

A W

ATER

TRE

ATME

NT P

LANT

(LOW

)

5. P

ROTE

CH A

UTO

REPA

IR L

OW

6. S

MITT

Y’S

AUTO

REP

AIR

(LOW

)

7. T

HEOP

HILI

US (H

IGH)

4. P

EELE

R TR

UCK

SERV

ICE

(MED

IUM)

2. G

RANT

HAM

PIT

C&D

FACI

LITY

(MED

IUM)

3. M

OUNT

DOR

A DI

SPOS

AL A

ND F

ILL

(f

orm

erly

CODD

ING

LAND

FILL

)

(MED

IUM)

ALL A

LTER

NATI

VES

ANCH

9. PA

TS IM

PORT

S AU

TO R

EPAI

R

(LOW

)

11. J

Rs A

UTOM

OTIV

E W

ORKS

(

LOW

)

16. S

ENTIN

EL C

OMMU

C

OMPA

NY (L

OW)

14. B

RONS

ON FA

RM, IN

C.

(MED

IUM)

15. E

LEME

NTAR

Y SC

HOOL

J

(MED

IUM)

10. K

ANGA

ROO

EXPR

ESS

#240

3

(ME

DIUM

)

13. F

LORI

DA B

UILD

ING

MATE

RIAL

S

(ME

DIUM

)

12. A

MOCO

#91 (

MEDI

UM)

ALL A

LTER

NATIV

ES

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD

LAKE

S TR

AIL

ALL A

LTER

NATIV

ES

17. B

ARN,

LLP

PROP

ERTY

(HIG

H)

NEIG

HBOR

HOOD

LAKE

S TR

AIL

ALTE

RNAT

IVES

2 3

ALTE

RNAT

IVES

3 4

ALTE

RNAT

IVES

1 4

ALTE

RNAT

IVE

18. f

o U

CF A

GRIC

ULTU

RAL

F

ACILI

TY (M

EDIU

M)19

. BLA

CK B

EAR

NURS

ERY

(

MEDI

UM)

ALTE

RNAT

IVES

1 2

ALTE

RNAT

IVES

3 4

ALTE

RNAT

IVES

1 2

ALL A

LTER

NATIV

ESAL

TERN

ATIV

ES 3

4

END

PROJ

ECT

Appendix E Cultural Resources

Appendix F Wekiva Parkway Typical Section

Package

Appendix G Wekiva Trail Conceptual Alignment

ALL

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

WO

LFS

INK

CO

NN

EC

T T

O F

UT

UR

ETA

V-D

OR

A T

RA

ILCCCCCCCC

AALT

E

ALL

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

WEKIVA PARKWAY

ROUND LAKE ROAD

SO

RR

EN

TO

ALL

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

MT

PLY

MO

UT

H

MT

PLY

MO

UT

HLA

KE

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

DLA

KE

S T

RA

IL WEKIVA PARKW

MT

PLY

MO

UT

HG

OLF

CLU

B

S

LL

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

1 &

44

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

2 &

3

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

ALT

ER

N

SE

MIN

OLE

STA

TE

FO

RE

ST

3

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

1 &

22

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

3 &

4

WEKIVA RIVER ROAD

A

RN

AT

IVE

S 1

& 2

LONGWOOD MARKHAM ROAD

22

ALL

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

MA

RK

HA

MR

OA

D

AAAA 3

& 4

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

DLA

KE

S T

RA

ILLA

KE

CO

RA

NG

E

WE

KIV

A P

AR

KW

AY

WEKIVA PARKWAY

D

NE

IGH

BO

RH

OO

DLA

KE

S T

RA

ILD

CO

NFU

TW

ES

CCOOOOOOO

NNNNNNNNNNNN

ALT

ER

NA

TIV

ES

3 &

44444

Appendix H Agency Coordination

Project Meetings

��

��

��

The Honorable Lee Constantine, Chair Florida State Senator, District 22

Charles C. Aller Director, Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

Harold W. Barley Executive Director, MetroPlan Orlando

William P. Battaglia President, Battaglia Fruit Company

The Honorable Brenda Carey Commissioner, Seminole County

James Stansbury Florida Department of

Community Affairs

Dennis David Regional Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Vivian F. Garfein District Director, Florida Department

of Environmental Protection

Noranne Downs District Secretary, Florida

Department of Transportation

Kirby B. Green, III Executive Director, St. Johns River Water

Management District

The Honorable Linda Stewart Commissioner, Lake County

W. Gary Johnson Executive Director, Seminole County

Expressway Authority

Mike Snyder Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority

The Honorable John H. Land Mayor, City of Apopka

Charles S. Lee Senior Vice President, Florida

Audubon Society

Gerald Briggs Chief Bureau, Onsite Sewage Programs,

Florida Department of Health

The Honorable Stephen W. Wolfram Commissioner, City of

Altamonte Springs

The Honorable James E. Yatsuk Councilmember, City of Mount Dora

Philip C. Laurien, AICP, Executive Director Ruth Little, Assistant to Executive Director

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

WEKIVA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 309 Cranes Roost Blvd., Suite 2000

Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

June 29, 2009 1:30 PM

MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to Order and General Business � Call to Order – Senator Lee Constantine � Roll Call – Elizabeth Rothbeind � Minutes, February 27, 2009– Senator Lee Constantine

2. Current Agency Activities and Legislative Report

� FL Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Jodi Lee � St. Johns River Water Management District – Casey Fitzgerald � FL Dept. of Transportation – Noranne Downs � Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority – Mike Snyder

o Road Alignment Updates o Funding Updates

3. Discussions of Key Reporting Timelines and Legislative Report

� FL Dept. of Community Affairs, Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Land Development Regulations Pursuant to Recommendation 14 of the Final Report – James Stansbury

� FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads Pursuant to Recommendation 5 of the Final Report – Vivian Garfein

� FL Dept. of Health, Rulemaking Activities on On-Site Disposal Systems Treatment Standards Pursuant to Recommendation 9 of the

Final Report – Gerald Briggs

4. Other Business � Wekiva Parkway Trail Feasibility Study – Councilmember James

Yatsuk, City of Mount Dora, Lance Decuir , FDOT � Wekiva Watershed Awareness Signage Project – Nancy Prine, Wekiva

River Advisory Management Committee; Deborah Shelley, Manager Aquatic Preserve; Jamie Doubek-Racine, Designated Federal Officer – National Park Service

5. Public Comments 6. Future Meeting Dates – Senator Lee Constantine 7. Adjournment

�� !�"�� !�"�� !�"�� !�"

#$�!%#$�!%#$�!%#$�!%��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&�''''!!(!!(!!(!!((#)%(#)%(#)%(#)%��*��+�*��+�*��+�*��+��,�-)�-��,�-)�-��,�-)�-��,�-)�-��

��.�.�.�.�.�.��-�)��-��.�.��-�)��-��.�.��-�)��-��.�.��-�)��-��

1

Wekiva Parkway Trail Wekiva Parkway Trail UpdateUpdate

Lance Lance DecuirDecuir, PE, PEFlorida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of Transportation

District 5District 5

Wekiva Parkway PD&E StudyWekiva Parkway PD&E StudyTrail ComponentTrail Component

�� Assessment of MultiAssessment of Multi--Use Trail AccommodationUse Trail Accommodation (10/2008) (10/2008) prepared as part of prepared as part of OOCEAOOCEA’’ss WekivaWekiva Parkway PD&E Parkway PD&E StudyStudy

�� Held two meetings with Orange, Lake and Seminole Held two meetings with Orange, Lake and Seminole County representatives and other trail stakeholdersCounty representatives and other trail stakeholders

�� Trail Layout Concept Plan based on Lake County Trails Trail Layout Concept Plan based on Lake County Trails Master PlanMaster Plan

�� A consensus was reached that a A consensus was reached that a “…“…followfollow--on, more detailed on, more detailed trail study should be funded and undertaken.trail study should be funded and undertaken.””

Wekiva Trail Feasibility StudyWekiva Trail Feasibility Study

�� At the request of the government agencies and At the request of the government agencies and stakeholders following the stakeholders following the Assessment of MultiAssessment of Multi--Use Use Trail AccommodationTrail Accommodation and under the direction of and under the direction of the FDOT D5 Secretary, a Wekiva Trail the FDOT D5 Secretary, a Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study has been initiatedFeasibility Study has been initiated

Trail Feasibility Study ScopeTrail Feasibility Study Scope

�� Coordination with government agencies, land managers Coordination with government agencies, land managers and trail stakeholdersand trail stakeholders

�� Gather latest existing natural and physical Gather latest existing natural and physical environmental data from the FGDL, Wekiva Parkway environmental data from the FGDL, Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study and other existing, available dataPD&E Study and other existing, available data

�� Investigate the area surrounding the proposed Wekiva Investigate the area surrounding the proposed Wekiva Parkway alignments to determine up to three Parkway alignments to determine up to three reasonable corridor alternative considerationsreasonable corridor alternative considerations

�� ““Fatal flawFatal flaw”” level of analysislevel of analysis

Comparative Analysis of CorridorsComparative Analysis of Corridors

�� Prepare an evaluation matrix comparing the Prepare an evaluation matrix comparing the potential impacts and estimated costs of each potential impacts and estimated costs of each corridor evaluated, with a recommendation of corridor evaluated, with a recommendation of the most viable corridor(s)the most viable corridor(s)

�� Develop construction and rightDevelop construction and right--ofof--way cost way cost estimates for each corridorestimates for each corridor

Environmental AnalysisEnvironmental Analysis

�� Social and Cultural Impacts analysis shall Social and Cultural Impacts analysis shall include: land use changes, community cohesion, include: land use changes, community cohesion, community services, social and economic community services, social and economic impacts, relocation potential, archaeological and impacts, relocation potential, archaeological and historical sites, Section 4(f), utilities and railroadshistorical sites, Section 4(f), utilities and railroads

�� Natural Impact analysis shall include: wetlands, Natural Impact analysis shall include: wetlands, floodplains, wildlife and habitatfloodplains, wildlife and habitat

�� Physical Impact analysis shall include: Physical Impact analysis shall include: contaminationcontamination

Wekiva Parkway Trail Update - June 26, 2009

2

RecommendationsRecommendations

�� Evaluation matrix and fatal flaw analysis will Evaluation matrix and fatal flaw analysis will result in a recommended alternativeresult in a recommended alternative

�� Results of this analysis will be documented in a Results of this analysis will be documented in a Feasibility Study Technical MemorandumFeasibility Study Technical Memorandum

�� Determination to be made by stakeholders Determination to be made by stakeholders regarding future trail PD&E Studyregarding future trail PD&E Study

��

Wekiva River Basin Commission Meeting Minutes

June 29, 2009 1:30 p.m.

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

309 Cranes Roost Blvd., Suite 2000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

1. Call to Order and General Business

The meeting was called to order by Senator Lee Constantine at 1:39 p.m. Ms. Elizabeth Rothbeind called the roll and announced that a quorum of voting members was present. The following members were in attendance: Senator Lee Constantine, Chair – Senator, Florida Senate District 22 Councilman James Yatsuk – Councilman, City of Mt. Dora Mr. Charles Lee – Senior Vice-President, Florida Audubon Society Commissioner Brenda Carey – Commissioner, Seminole County Mayor John Land – Mayor, City of Apopka Commissioner Steve Wolfram – Commissioner, City of Altamonte Springs Mr. Gregg Welstead for Commissioner Linda Stewart – Commissioner, Lake County Mr. Mike Snyder – Executive Director, Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority Mr. Jerry McCollum for Mr. Gary W. Johnson – Seminole County Expressway Authority Mr. Jody Lee for Mr. Charles C. Aller – Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mr. Gerald Briggs – Chief Bureau, Onsite Sewage Programs, Florida Department of Health

Ms. Noranne Downs - District Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation Ms. Vivian Garfein – District Director, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mr. Casey Fitzgerald for Mr. Kirby Green – Executive Director, St. Johns River Water Management District Mr. Harold Barley – Executive Director, METROPLAN Orlando

The Minutes of the February 27, 2009 minutes were presented for approval. Mr. Casey Fitzgerald announced a correction on page two in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Mr. Fitzgerald apologized for misspeaking at the previous meeting and stated that the sentence should read “throughout the district” not “throughout the State.” Mayor Land made a Motion to approve minutes including this change. The Motion was seconded by Councilman Yatsuk and unanimously passed.

WWekiva River Basin Commission

��


Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) – Mr. Jody Lee Mr. Lee announced that they are currently adopting BMPs and have recently started the Wekiva Basin Management Plan and a Wekiva Basin Working Group to ramp up efforts in this area. Mr. Lee updated the commission on the legislative efforts to address water conservation and fertilizer use in Senate Bill 464. The Bill addresses use and certification of fertilizer applicators and one will be required to allow inspections of irrigation systems and will also need certifications for urban applications. IFAS will conduct the training and certificate programs. There is a preemption concern and additional rules are needed. Fertilizer ordinances prior to January 1 are exempt because they have already been placed on the books. Senator Constantine opened the floor for questions. Mr. Charles Lee added his thoughts on the subject of nutrients, TDML, and BMPs. Mr. Lee also spoke about an article in the morning paper about sewage residuals and asked everyone to take a careful look at the issue because it is applicable in every basin. Mr. Lee concluded that if anyone would like a copy of the report to please let him know and he would forward this on to Ms. Tara McCue with the RPC who could distribute the report. Ms. Garfein added that there was no residual spreading in Wekiva. Commissioner Carey asked about where reclaimed water formed in double A, part B and so forth and asked if this was allowed to be used. Ms. Garfein responded yes and stated that reclaimed water is different from residuals. Reclaimed water is processed and is ready for reuse. Commissioner Carey and Ms. Garfein briefly discussed planting in the basin and Mr. Ferraro from DEP added that there is no planting in the Wekiva study area and that the City of Sanford no longer spreads on Site 10. Mr. Lee stated for the record that the Bill previously mentioned should have been stated as Senate Bill 494 not Senate Bill 464. St. Johns River Water Management District – Mr. Casey Fitzgerald Mr. Fitzgerald delivered a brief report stating that the only item that has not been completed pursuant to the act is the consolidated permit to ERP, which he hopes to have completed in the fall. Mr. Fitzgerald also asked to comment briefly on reuse and stated that reuse may provide nutrients and help with impairment of water and fertilize an area. Commissioner Carey asked if the evidence previously stated is true, she would like to get this evidence placed in writing to inform the residents of Seminole County. Commissioner Carey asked if perhaps they could use Seminole County as a test area. Mr. Fitzgerald said that would be fine and they could contact the lead scientist Florida Department of Transportation – Ms. Noranne Downs Ms. Downs reported on the progress of the Wekiva Parkway with the Expressway Authority. Ms. Downs stated that FDOT is looking at resolving issues they had so that they can continue to the public hearing. They are still working on funding options between DOT and the Expressway Authority. In terms of trails, DOT took on a feasibility study which the Commission will hear more about later. Commissioner Carey said that years ago there was a bridge that crossed the Wekiva River, and asked DOT if they could look at where the bridge used to be and place a pedestrian bridge there to connect Seminole and Lake County. Ms. Downs responded that they will take a look at the area. Mr. Lee added that he believes that this option needs to be thoroughly discussed and vetted.

�� !��

Mr. Lee recommended that DOT meet with the many interested entities to work on this issue. Mr. Lee mentioned Keith Schue as a good contact to setup this collaboration. Mr. Yatsuk agreed with Mr. Lee’s statement about encouraging collaboration and stated that with cohesive input we will create a legacy. Ms. Downs agreed and stated that anyone with ideas and input please let us know. Senator Constantine spoke about a meeting at MetroPlan Orlando regarding SunRail and acknowledged that everyone is extremely interested in the SunRail project and where it stands, and would like to share his update regarding the project. As said in the newspaper, Congressman John Mica and Mayor Buddy Dyer have done a tremendous job keeping the project alive and that the project is much more alive today than it was two weeks ago. Senator Constantine then stressed that the option now is to go back to the legislature during a special session. A special session is planned for the fall when there is the need to finalize the compact with the governor and staff regarding gambling. Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority – Mr. Mike Snyder Mr. Snyder delivered a presentation on the status of the project and stated that they had a good teleconference with FDOT Secretary Stephanie C. Kopelousos. Mr. Snyder reported that the OOCEA needs the Federal Highway Administration to sign off on documents in order to get to the public hearing. Revised documents may be ready for review by the Federal Highway Administration either next week or the following week. Mr. Snyder stated that nothing has really changed in alignment from what has been approved, but one issue that is out there and that they are working on is funding and whether or not funding can come from tolls. If the issue of 46 goes away, Wekiva may become 46, which will be a toll free passage. OOCEA is taking a look at engineering and financial solutions to this issue. Mr. Snyder then turned the presentation over to Mr. Callahan. Mr. Callahan discussed recent activities, coordination with FHWA, staff changeovers, and section 4F evaluations. Orange County does not have that many issues; however the main issue present is the two historic sites in the North part of Orange County. The revision of the report was reviewed by DOT’s central office. Regarding Lake County West, the issues are with the US 441 state road concepts a two level interchange is recommended while the city desires a three level interchange. The issues with Lake County East are the residents’ concerns over alignment. Coordination with residents and the Lake County Commission will continue to obtain a firm direction about where they wish alignment to go. There is concern over the access to and from homes in Seminole, Orange, and Lake Counties and the potential for tolling. There is concern for them and others. Senator Baker, Hays, and Nelson are working together on this State Road issue and are considering other engineering and funding options. Seminole County is working closely with Wekiva Parkway Community Coalition on significant impacts and notable cost increases. Residences still remain dissatisfied with the new recommendations. The next steps will be to get approvals, hold public hearings, and gain approvals for interchange proposals at I-4. As of now, the schedule as mapped out shows that the public hearing may be as late as January of next year, but we are hoping to bring it into this year. The floor was opened for questions. Commissioner Carey proposed that now that the Bill Heard site is possibly vacant and to look at the 46 alternative with interchange, if this has not already been done. Mark responded that at this point they have not visited this idea. The real issue is between 46 and 417 and the real problem is in terms of right-of-way. Commissioner Carey stated that her understanding is that

�� "��

people would not connect to I-4 but continue on East or West. Mr. Snyder explained that this is an extremely complicated interchange and that they really want to keep beltway type traffic on the limited access roadway. Mr. Lee inquired about how far east the expressway can go without running into prohibited business interactions. Mr. Snyder added that it is very difficult to maintain access and the parking is on the road. Mr. Lee also stated that if you break-off of the curve and head straight up 46 you will merge into part of a historic African American community. There was a short discussion to determine the name of the historic community and Senator Constantine ended the conversation with an expression of thanks to the presenters. 3. Discussions of Key Reporting Timelines and Legislative Report

Florida Department of Community Affairs’ Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Land Development Regulations Pursuant to Recommendation 14 of

the Final Report – Mr. James Stansbury, Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA ) Senator Constantine read an e-mail from James Stansbury concerning DCA’s update on Comprehensive Plan amendments. Lake County made Wekiva related amendments on June 26th and DCA is pleased with the work between Ocoee and Eustis which will be presented to the Secretary for consideration. DCA continues to try to contact the new planning director of Eatonville. Mr. Barley added that there is a Chief Administrative Officer for Eatonville and there is no planning manager yet, but they are in the process of recruiting one. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads Pursuant to Recommendation 5 of the Final Report – Ms. Vivian Garfein Ms. Vivian Garfein stated that she has no new news to report. Florida Department of Health Rulemaking, Activities on On-Site Disposal Systems Treatment Standards pursuant to Recommendation 9 of the Final Report – Mr. Gerald Briggs, Florida Department of Health (FDOH) Mr. Briggs reported that the legislature approved the nitrogen study for one million dollars with the report due in May. Rule making is placed on hold until the report is completed. The research committee will be meeting on Wednesday to ensure that we get the most out of the money. 4. Other Business

Wekiva Parkway Trail Feasibility Study – Council Member James Yatsuk, City of Mount Dora, Lance Decuir, FDOT Councilman Yatsuk introduced Lance Decuir from FDOT and stated that it has been determined that there is more work that needs to be done and more detailed analysis needs to be completed. Mr. Decuir delivered an overview scope of study and stated that it is important to make sure there is by-in from all of the stakeholders. The area around the parkway needs to be analyzed and a fatal flaw analysis needs to be conducted to flesh out and identify right-of-way issues. A comparative analysis will be conducted to develop and evaluate three possible alternatives. There will also be some environmental analysis to see if anything will prohibit the study from moving forward. An alternative for the trail has been recommended and, documented in the

�� #��

memorandum. The final determination will be made by stakeholders and the preliminary design and engineering will aid in their decision. Commissioner Carey asked if the trail that runs around 46 is part of the scenic trail and if it was possible to consider placing a trailhead there. Mr. Wilson stated that the Florida Scenic Trail comes up through 46 and travels south through Seminole State Forest and crosses the river. Councilman Yatsuk concluded that he is thankful for DOT and the ability to move forward with the project. There is a lot that needs to be done on this project and it needs to be done right. Wekiva Watershed Awareness Signage Project – Ms. Nancy Prine, Wekiva River Advisory Management Committee; Deborah Shelley, Manager Aquatic Preserve; Jamie Doubek-Racine, Designated Federal Officer-National Park Service. Ms. Prine delivered a short presentation as the Chair of the Wekiva Wild and Scenic Advisory Council discussing their work. They are working on defining a management plan. Ms. Prine discussed the program for signage designed to help show the residents where the water shed and river basin are and their importance. Mr. Lee stated that there is an important opportunity here that can tie into economic development. There is very little notice of a national park system in Central Florida. Most of our residents and visitors do not recognize that we have a wild river here and if you were driving down the highway and you saw a sign informing you, this would help visitors a great deal. Senator Constantine thanked Ms. Prine and Mr. Lee for their comments.

��

5. Public Comments

Mr. Byrd expressed thanks and wished everyone a happy Independence Day. Mr. Higgins stated that he no longer had a question to ask because Mr. Briggs already addressed his question. Mr. Arthur expressed his appreciation for allowing him to be in attendance today. Mr. Arthur addressed that he is one of the owners of a historical house that needs to be moved to accommodate the Parkway. Mr. Arthur stated he would like to work with the authorities to solve the issue associated with the movement of the historical dwelling. Senator Constantine thanked Mr. Arthur and added that before he finishes he would like to open the floor for any additional comments. Commissioner Wolfram announced Red Hot and Boom in Uptown Altamonte. Commissioner Carey reported on several fireworks shows that will be held in Seminole County. 6. Future Meeting Dates – Senator Lee Constantine Senator Constantine stated that there will be another future meeting sometime in the fall and that there will also be an announcement about a special session. Senator Constantine added that this is going to be a very important year for this commission and for the future of the Wekiva Parkway. Senator Constantine addressed the Commission and Board concerning his position on the septic tank ruling and nutrient studies. The Senator stated that he is in favor of moving the septic tank issue from DOH to DEP where it is better suited for management. Senator Constantine stated that he has been personally committed to finding the most efficient and inexpensive way of protecting this river and building the road. He would appreciate if individuals would discontinue stating that he is for “the main rule” of DOH.

7. Adjournment Senator Constantine thanked all in attendance and announced that the meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m.

Findings�from�the�June�23,�2009�Wekiva�Trail�Working�Group�Workshop��The�Wekiva�Trail�Working�Group�held�a�broad�discussion�of�the�purpose,�objectives�and�potential�constraints�for�a�trail�system�near�the�proposed�Wekiva�Parkway.�This�trail�would�link�with�Seminole,�Lake�and�Orange�County�trail�systems.�Conceptual�routes�for�the�trail�were�sketched�at�the�Workshop.�Findings�from�the�workshop�included�the�following:��The�Wekiva�Trail�should:�1. Be�a�recreational�trail�for�a�wide�array�of�anticipated�users,�2. Be�restricted�to�non�motorized�access,�3. Provide�a�unique�experience�that�will�enhance�users’�appreciation�of�the�resources�within�

the�Wekiva�basin,�4. Be�located�on�previously�altered�habitats�within�public�lands�acquired�for�conservation�

purposes,�5. Connect�to�existing�trails�within�Rock�Springs�Run,�Seminole�State�Forest,�and�the�Lower�

Wekiva�River�Reserve,�6. Cross�the�Wekiva�River�at�a�location�that�will�provide�a�unique�perspective�of�the�river,�and�

minimize�impacts�to�the�Wekiva�River�Aquatic�Preserve,��7. Include�trailheads�strategically�located�to�encourage�use�by�residents�in�Lake,�Orange�and�

Seminole�counties,�8. Provide�a�paved�connection�to�Seminole,�Lake�and�Orange�County�trail�systems,�9. Balance�security,�safety,�and�access�across�state�properties�in�order�to�allow�land�managers�

to�close�the�trail�at�night�and�conduct�management�activities�including�prescribed�fire�10. Bridge�the�100�year�floodplain�associated�with�the�Wekiva�River,�and�11. Co�locate�with�the�Wekiva�Parkway�on�top�of�the�proposed�wildlife�passages,�or�be�located�

far�enough�away�to�preclude�any�obstructions�to�wildlife�movement.��The�Working�Group�also�concluded�that�there�is�a�need�for�a�separate,�commuter�focused�pathway�for�bicycles�and�fuel�efficient�modes�of�transportation�that�would�be�open�continuously,�and�co�located�with�the�Wekiva�Parkway.�

�

L:\12721149_DistrictWide PD&E\12721740_Wekiva Trail\Reports\Draft\Appendices\Appendix H\Wekiva Trail Working Group Workshop Minutes 8-27-09.doc

MEETING MINUTES 2nd Wekiva Trail Working Group Workshop

Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study D/W PD&E

FPID 241152-1-32-05 August 27, 2009

Attendees:

Lance DeCuir – FDOT EMO Chris Rizzolo – URS Jay Exum – Glatting Jackson Kercher AnglinDan Manley – Glatting Jackson Kercher AnglinGallus Quigley – Lake County Brian Nipe – Seminole County Sine Murray – FDEP Warren Poplin – Wekiva River Basin State Parks

Joe Bishop – Fla. Dept. Agriculture and Consumer Services Keith Schue – Nature Conservancy Mike Woods – Lake-Sumter MPO Nancy Prine – NPLA Deborah Shelley – FDEP Walt Thomson – Nature Conservancy Beth Jackson – Orange County Charles Lee – Audubon Society

The meeting began with introductions, as there were some new attendees not present at the first workshop held on June 23, 2009. The findings from the previous workshop were distributed and meeting attendees discussed the 11 points on the list. Workshop attendees generally agreed with the list, although there was discussion regarding the relative importance of each item.

Jax Exum then led the group through an exercise to determine what they feel the purpose of the trail should be. After the exercise, two general themes emerged. The proposed Wekiva Trail is seen as either a) a transportation corridor connecting the existing and proposed trail system in Lake, Orange and Seminole Counties or b) an opportunity for users to observe and enjoy the natural environment in the Wekiva River basin. This difference in viewpoint remained unresolved through the end of the workshop.

Jay Exum presented a revised trail corridor based on comments received at the first workshop held in July. The rest of the workshop revolved around discussions regarding specific trail elements. Specific discussions were focused on trail alignments in the Neighborhood Lakes parcel and the Wekiva River Trail crossing.

Regarding Neighborhood Lakes, discussion centered on whether the proposed trail route should be east or west of the proposed Wekiva Parkway. Working group team members identified several

Workshop Minutes August 27, 2009 Page 2

L:\12721149_DISTRICTWIDE PD&E\12721740_WEKIVA TRAIL\REPORTS\DRAFT\APPENDICES\APPENDIX H\WEKIVA TRAIL WORKING GROUP WORKSHOP MINUTES 8-27-09.DOC

environmentally sensitive areas within the parcel that should be avoided. The working group reached a tentative consensus regarding shifting the trail alignment to the west side of the Parkway from the east.

At the Wekiva River crossing, the working group was divided between providing a direct transportation connection at the same crossing as the proposed Parkway and a more aesthetic route along the abandoned rail line approximately one mile south of the existing SR 46 crossing. Several working group members feel that since the old railroad bed is already disturbed, construction of a new trail along the grade would have negligible environmental impacts. A new bridge would have to be constructed over the Wekiva River in the location as the old railroad bridge that burned in the 1980’s. However, the portion of the Wekiva River south of the old railroad crossing is designated as a Wild and Scenic River and an Aquatic Preserve, and some workshop attendees feel that the construction of a new bridge would spoil the aesthetic qualities of this stretch of the river. In addition, the old railroad grade (and any trails that may be constructed along it) could be accessed by spur trails into Rock Springs State Park off a main Wekiva Trail that follows the Parkway alignment over the proposed 4,000-foot wildlife crossing west of the Wekiva River. As long as the Wekiva Trail provides opportunities for access into Rock Springs State Park, interested trail users can enjoy the natural environmental features of the area.

Since there was no resolution to the issue of a trail crossing of the Wekiva River, the Working Group agreed to meet once more in the future, at a date and time to be determined. The workshop was then adjourned.

END OF MEETING MINUTES

These minutes are a summary of the writer’s interpretation of the meeting. Unless written notification to the contrary is received by the writer within seven (7) days after the mailing of these minutes, it will be assumed those in attendance were in agreement with the statements set forth and work will proceed on that basis.

Findings from the Wekiva Trail Working Group Workshop The Wekiva Trail Working Group held a broad discussion of the purpose, objectives and potential constraints for a trail system near the proposed Wekiva Parkway. This trail would link with Seminole, Lake and Orange County trail systems. Conceptual routes for the trail were sketched at the Workshop. Findings from the workshop included the following: The Wekiva Trail should: 1. Be a recreational trail for a wide array of anticipated users; 2. Be restricted to non-motorized access; 3. Provide a unique experience that will enhance users’ appreciation of the resources within

the Wekiva basin; 4. Be located on previously altered habitats within public lands acquired for conservation

purposes; 5. Connect to existing paved or unpaved trails within Rock Springs Run, Seminole State Forest,

and the Lower Wekiva River Reserve; 6. Cross the Wekiva River at a location that will provide a unique perspective of the river, and

minimize impacts to the Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve and to attributes of the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River;

7. Include trailheads and river access strategically located to encourage use by residents in Lake, Orange and Seminole counties,

8. Provide a connection to Seminole, Lake and Orange County trail systems, minimizing pavement width while complying with necessary standards;

9. Balance security, safety, and access across state properties, allowing land managers to close the trail at night and while conducting management activities such as prescribed fire;

10. Bridge the 100-year floodplain and restored riparian areas associated with the Wekiva River;

11. Co-locate with the Wekiva Parkway/service road on top of the proposed wildlife passage structures, or be located far enough away from the structures in order to not interfere with or discourage use of the structures by wildlife , and to allow for vegetated enhancement; and

12. If the trail crosses the Wekiva River at State Road 46, span the same or close to the same length as the Wekiva Parkway/service road (approximately 2000 ft).

The Working Group also concluded that in addition to a recreation trail, there may be a need for a separate, commuter-focused pathway co-located on top of bridged segments of the Wekiva Parkway/service road, which would be perpetually open.

��

��

��

The Honorable Lee Constantine, Chair Florida State Senator, District 22

Charles C. Aller Director, Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

Harold W. Barley Executive Director, MetroPlan Orlando

William P. Battaglia President, Battaglia Fruit Company

The Honorable Brenda Carey Commissioner, Seminole County

James Stansbury Florida Department of

Community Affairs

Dennis David Regional Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission

Vivian F. Garfein District Director, Florida Department

of Environmental Protection

Noranne Downs District Secretary, Florida

Department of Transportation

Kirby B. Green, III Executive Director, St. Johns River Water

Management District

The Honorable Linda Stewart Commissioner, Lake County

W. Gary Johnson Executive Director, Seminole County

Expressway Authority

Mike Snyder Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority

The Honorable John H. Land Mayor, City of Apopka

Charles S. Lee Senior Vice President, Florida

Audubon Society

Gerald Briggs Chief Bureau, Onsite Sewage Programs,

Florida Department of Health

The Honorable Stephen W. Wolfram Commissioner, City of

Altamonte Springs

The Honorable James E. Yatsuk Councilmember, City of Mount Dora

Philip C. Laurien, AICP, Executive Director East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

WEKIVA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION

Lake Mary Event Center 260 North Country Club Road

Lake Mary, FL 32746

January 25,2010 1:30 PM

DRAFT MEETING AGENDA

1. Call to Order and General Business � Call to Order – Senator Lee Constantine � Roll Call – Elizabeth Rothbeind � Minutes, June 29, 2009– Senator Lee Constantine


� FL Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Jody Lee � St. Johns River Water Management District – Kirby Green � FL Dept. of Transportation – Noranne Downs � Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority – Mike Snyder

o Road Alignment Updates o Funding Updates

3. Discussions of Key Reporting Timelines and Legislative Report

� FL Dept. of Community Affairs, Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Land Development Regulations Pursuant to Recommendation 14 of the Final Report – James Stansbury

� FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads Pursuant to Recommendation 5 of the Final Report – Vivian Garfein

� FL Dept. of Health, Rulemaking Activities on On-Site Disposal Systems Treatment Standards Pursuant to Recommendation 9 of the

Final Report – Gerald Briggs • Update on Nitrogen Reduction Strategies Study

4. Other Business

� Update on Wekiva Parkway Trail Feasibility Study – Lance Decuir, FDOT

5. Public Comments 6. Future Meeting Dates – Senator Lee Constantine 7. Adjournment

�� !�"�� !�"�� !�"�� !�"

#$�!%#$�!%#$�!%#$�!%��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&��&��!!!��#�%��#$�!%��&�''''!!(!!(!!(!!((#)%(#)%(#)%(#)%��*��+�*��+�*��+�*��+��,�-)�-��,�-)�-��,�-)�-��,�-)�-��

��.�.�.�.�.�.��-�)��-��.�.��-�)��-��.�.��-�)��-��.�.��-�)��-��

WekivaWekiva Trail Feasibility Trail Feasibility Study UpdateStudy Update

Lance Lance DecuirDecuir, PE, PEFlorida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of TransportationDistrict 5District 5


�� Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study was initiated in Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study was initiated in 20092009

�� First phase First phase –– stakeholder coordination and stakeholder coordination and alignment identification alignment identification –– nearing completionnearing completion

�� Second phase Second phase -- ““Fatal flawFatal flaw”” level of analysislevel of analysis


�� Ongoing coordination with government Ongoing coordination with government agencies, land managers and trail stakeholdersagencies, land managers and trail stakeholders

�� Coordination with concurrent PD&E StudyCoordination with concurrent PD&E Study�� Investigate the area surrounding the proposed Investigate the area surrounding the proposed

Wekiva Parkway to determine potential trail Wekiva Parkway to determine potential trail alignmentalignment

Project StakeholdersProject Stakeholders

�� State and Local governmentsState and Local governments�� Metropolitan Planning OrganizationsMetropolitan Planning Organizations�� Land ManagersLand Managers�� Environmental GroupsEnvironmental Groups�� FDOTFDOT�� ECFRPCECFRPC�� Wekiva Trail Working Group Wekiva Trail Working Group

Potential AlignmentPotential Alignment

Will not preclude future spur routes and Will not preclude future spur routes and connections to natural landsconnections to natural lands

Railroad R/W

� Active tracks west of old SR 46 crossing� Abandoned R/W east of old SR 46 crossing

Wekiva Parkway Trail Update - January 25, 2010

Neighborhood Lakes

� FDEP alignment� Stakeholder Consensus� Connects to future

West Orange Trail

Wildlife Crossings

� Two locations� Part of Wekiva Parkway structure

Old SR 46

� Alternative route

Service Roads

� One lane in each direction

� 45 mph Design Speed

� Five-foot paved shoulders can accommodate bicyclists

Seminole County

� 10’ Sidewalk east of Wekiva River

� New alignment along Longwood-Markham Road (CR 46A)

� Connects to Markham Trailhead on existing Seminole-Wekiva Trail

� Required ROW





Cost EstimatesCost Estimates

�� Construction Cost EstimatesConstruction Cost Estimates�� RightRight--ofof--Way EstimatesWay Estimates

�� Parcel impactsParcel impacts�� Potential RelocationsPotential Relocations

DocumentationDocumentation


�� Technical Memorandum will include:Technical Memorandum will include:�� Summary of Stakeholder CoordinationSummary of Stakeholder Coordination�� Alternatives AnalysisAlternatives Analysis�� Summary of Environmental AnalysisSummary of Environmental Analysis�� Cost EstimatesCost Estimates

MilestonesMilestones

�� Stakeholder Acceptance of Alignment Stakeholder Acceptance of Alignment --OngoingOngoing

�� Environmental Analysis Environmental Analysis –– Spring 2010Spring 2010�� Cost Estimates Cost Estimates –– Spring 2010Spring 2010�� Documentation Documentation –– Summer 2010Summer 2010

Project Complete Summer 2010Project Complete Summer 2010

QuestionsQuestions

��

��

��

��

��

��!!��"#�� #�$� ��!�� !�� "��#�� $��"��"��%��"��''"��"�� "�*� �� +<��=>'>��>�� "��#�� #�� ?��'�@��=�� >�Q��X��@"�*�'�'��@��"�� #�<��%� ��&�� '��Z�!�� "��!�� ["� �"# ��'�!��&��Z�!��"��\"#��]��"�� "��^��!�#"� �� #��Z��''"��"��!�'"�� ' �*��&� #�Z��" ��X�^=�=�� %��!+��Z��''"��"��" ��X�^� �'�� !=�"�*�� &� #��%��8��Z��''"��"�� %�� ;��Z��*"��]��"�*�^�'"�"� �� [�=�� '�� X��''��" �^XX�"��% �#��Z�_�#� "��["��# ��`��{`��*�� _=��@��^� ��" ��$��' �� Z�!�'"�� _=��@��^� ��" ��#��&��X��>��>�^��Z��"��[�=�� '�� X�^*�"#�� |��'��!��"#��$��!#��Z��"�X�%��`��" ��!�@�*��]��*��'��"��[�=�� '�� X�}�� <�� =�8 ��Z�["� �"# �!�#�� "��[�=�� '�� X�Q��=�� "��>�� $�+�� Z�["� �"# �["��# ��"��[�=�� '�� X��"��'�� ]�� # "��?�;��$�� Z�_�#� "��["��# ��! >�~��"��$� ��*�'�� ["� �"# ��!�� "�� " ��X��X�� "�*� ��$��"��"��%��"��''"��"��@��#�'�� X��>�Q��X��@��#�'��"�� #�� "X�� >��Q��"�� X� ��~��$��"��''"��"�� "�*�@��=�� X��==��>��''"��"��! �@�� '��#��# "�� '"�� =�*�� "�*� �� "��! �@�� "�� ''"��"��X�� `��*�� >��''"��"�� =�*��X�� "�� #��=��*��=�� #��*��X��'�� >�Q��'��'�� '"�� @�� ''"��"��$��X��'�'��'� "�� ==�� '"�� X��'�

��~��$��"��''"��"�� "�*>��''"��"��#�� "��'� "��>�^��@��"��X�� '� "��=��"�*�#��# "�� '"�� >�� @�� I��@I�� #�&��!��Q!��#��=�� +�@��I�!�� #�� %��I��UQ=@�%X�Z��>� �� =�� ''"��"�� # "�" "�� X� �� "�� [�=�� '�� X� ^*�"#�� '�� !��"#��>� ��>� �� '�� "�� *�� '=� "�� '�� '��#��X�%�� *�'�� ]��# "#��%�]��>�Q�� "'�� ''"��"��'� � ��@�� @��>��>�� @�� "�*�'�� =�� '�� #�� "��>��!�� "�� "X� �� @�� "��#�� X� ��"� ��#�� X�� " "�� #��#�� %�]�>��>��=�� @��"��*� "�*�*��@�� =�� "#"=� �>��*��'�� @" �� =�� '�� #��@�"#��"��_ ��'��"'=�� >��%��' �� =��I��Z�� >� �� #�� '�� X� �"�*�� !~�$�[� "�� "�� '"�� X>� ]^��#��=��=��'��"#�� "�� X�� ! � ��X��"�� !~�$�[�"��"�� '"��X�� "�*� �� >�Q�� =��"��]^�@" ��X"��#"�"��>��Q�"��@"�� "'=�# ��@�@�� @� ��"�� "�*��@��@"�� =�� # � ��@� ��"��>�Q��'��"#�� "��'��"��>��^�� "��"�� "��! ��@�"#��@"�� '"��"'=�# ��X��"��@" ��@��@�'�#��@� ��#��@" ��@�>�Q��!~�$�[��X��@� ��#�� "�� =��'�#��*�� "�� *��?�� "X"��>�Q��"��@"��XX�# � ��$��"�� ! >�~��"��%��"�>��''"��"��>�� "X� ��@��#�'=�� "�� X�� "��! ��>��>��=�� "��X �X��'��^�*�� +��X"��"��"�� #��=��'�� X� ��>��!�� "�� "�X��'�� ''"��"�� ]�==�� X��'� �"�� XX"#�� #�� *"�� ''"��"��"�X��"�@��X� ��" �� "��@" ��]^��X ��*��"��"�#��>��Q!��#��=�� +�[� �� Z��>� [�@�� =�� ''"��"�� [`Q�� =��*�� "�#�� '�� "�*>� �[`Q� "��#�� "��"�*� �� @�� @" �� `��*�� _=��@�� ^� ��" � �� '�� @�� =��"#�'�� "�*>��[`Q�"��@��"�*� �@��X"��"�"�*��*��#��==�� >�Q��}"*�@��^� ��" � �� *�� '�� @" �� [`Q� �� `��*�� _=��@�� ^� ��" � �� @��@��@�"#��"��*�� @��*�� =��*��>��Q��*��*��"�� ==�� "�� '��"��X � ��>��>��>�[�@��"X� ��=��# �� X�� =��"#��"�*>��>�[�@��_=��"�� >� �� "�� =��# ��=��"#� '�� "�*� �� "�� #�� "�� #��X"�'� "�� X��'� �� }"*�@�� ^� ��" >� Q�� #�''" �� '�� "�*� @" ��[`Q� "�� =�� "�� #��X��#�� #�� *� � �� "�*� X"��"��>� Q�� "�� "XX��#��X��="�"�� "�� *��*�� *��#"�� *� � �*� �� X"��"�� "�� "��>�

��>�� =�� "��@��==�� X��*��"X��X� ��*��#"��# ��'" ��==�� @�� @�" "�*�X��=��>��>� �� X��'� �� `��*�� _=��@�� ^� ��" � � � �� #�� *��#� �XX�# ��=��"�� *� �@��?�� >�Q��}"*�@��^�'"�"� �� "��X�� '�� #��#"�� ==�� @�� "�� =��=��>� Q�� #��=�� X� �� "�� @�� >�Q�� #�"��"�� X��'� ��["�"�"��X�� "��@��"�*�@" �� ]��!��"#�>��>�!��_=��"�� *��#��_ ��'��#��=�� "�� "�� '�� }"*�@��^� ��" �"��#�� @" �� >�!�� "��#��@��*�� '�"��?�� "��"��"X� �"��"��@"�*� ��=��*��X�� "�*� ��"�� =��@�>� ��>� !�� =�� "�� @�� @"�*� �� =��#�� @�>�Q�� =��#�� "�� #�'=�� #�'�� X"��"��>�Q��=��"#��"�*�#�� ##�� "�� }"*�@��^� ��" �� #�'�� >�!�� "��"�?�"��"X� ��@�� "�*� ��''"��"��#�� =�'�� "�*��X��@��>��>�!��#��"X"�� @��#��*�� "��"�"�"��'"�"� �� "��"�#�� "��#��*�� *�� =��*��@�� "��"�� #�'��'��=��#��>��>�[�@��=�� "�� _ �#��=��X�'�� "��#�'=�� >��>�� ?�� "#"=� �� "'��"�� X��'� "'�� *��*�� "�� =��"#��"�*>��>��X��X�"��#��X"�� =��"#��"�*�@"�� "��''��>��''"��"��_=��#��#��X��"�" � ��X�"��=�� =��=��X�!�'"�� >�!�'"�� `��*�� _=��@��^� ��" �%�� "��#��#�� @"�� @�"*��"��"*� "��X��!�'"�� X"��#"�"��@"��'�� "��X�!�'"�� >�!��@�� "��X"�� #��# "�� >� ��''"��"�� ! �@�� _=�� "� �� "�� =�� "�*� �� @�� @"�� @��@�� "��=��#��>��''"��"��*�� "�� @"�� @� �"��=��#��@�>��''"��"��_=��#��#�� *��'�� @�� !�'"�� *��*�� "�� *��'�� >�!�'"�� "�@"�*��'��"�*��=� ��#�'�� >��!�� "��#��"X"��@" ��''"��"��@�� "��@��"��@" �� "*�'�� X�# � �� !�'"�� =�� "�� `��*�� _=��@��^� ��" �%��>��''"��"��"�� @"�� *� � "� ��=��"#�� "�� "�� "'�>��!�� "�� =��"#�� >� [�@�� X�� X� �� @�� *� "�*� !��"��==�� ==�� " � ��"*��=��"��"��"��>��"!� #�\"� �� ]^��8��@��'�� Q�� "�� X� �� X�� ==�� " � @�� >� �� "�� ][|� � ��=�� @�"#��#�"��#�� # "�" "�� _ �� =�� #�''��=��X�� "��>�Q�� !��"#�� #�= � "�� @�� #�"��>� Q�� "�� "�� "�*>�]��"#�$��=�� "�#�� "��>��^�@��=�@�� [�#�'�� +� �� =��=�� >� Q�� @�� =�� "�� '��X��''��#�>�Q��_ �� =�� #��@��"�=��>��

^� '�'�� X� �� =��"#�� >� %�� =�� "�*� �"�� ="#>� � ��>� %�� ''"��"�� "X� �� X � #�="�� !�'"�� >� !�� "��_=��"�� >� %�� "�� "�� @�� !�'"�� `��*�� _=��@��^� ��" >��>�%�� _=��"��#��#�� "��*��'�� >��^�� '�'��X� ��=��"#��>�$� ��=�� "�*� ��$��"��]��@��" "��_=��"��#��#�� "��X� �"��=��@��=��>�}��*�=�� @��@�� =��@��@��"�" "�� "� �� @�� @�� @>� }�� "�� '�� #��#�� *��"�*� ��#�'�� @��>��>��>�$� �� "X��@�� '��#��'�� "�� *��XX��>��>�$� ��=�� "�@�"�� =��X��'� �"�*��"�� "�>�}�� ''"��"�� '��=��@"�� "� ��@" ��"*� �@" �� =��#�'�� X� ��#�'�� @��>��=��I�� +�?�� [��!� �� #�&��!��Q!��#��=�� +�� @++��@#�� +��'� ��_!� �@�� #�� #�&� #�=��!�� !�� _�� I�� #�� `q��+��'��Q� �!��Z�

��>�! ��=�� [�=�� '�� =� ��XX�� @��'��X�� "��#�'=�"��#��#�� @" �� `#�� "�>� Q�� "�� @� "�� #�'=�"��#�>�Q��#�� # �X��'� ��" ��X�� "�� "#"=� ��"�*� ��"��$��"�� '��'�� = ��>��!�� "��"X� ��@��#��#�� "��>�! ��=�� @�� >� � ��>� �� "X� [�^� �� =��"�� "�@�� #�'=��"�� =�� "X� �� ==�� " � �� #�'=��"�� =��'��'�� #�� # ��>��>�! ��"�� @"��*� � �� [�=�� '�� +�>��''"��"��_=��"�� "�� "�� "�� =��#�� @��=��"#�� "#��X��'�� "�*� ��@" �� "��#�'=��"��=��'��'�� $��"��"��>��Q!��#��=�� +�] �� !�_��I�� ]��;!��'�� +�[��!��^��=��!��&��#��_�� I�� #�� +��'��Q� �!��Z�� >��X�"��=�� '��"�*�X��@��@" �� "��%�� *�'�� ]��# "#��@" �� %��"��$��"�*��=��=�� Q� ��_"'�'�[�"��Q�[��>�Q��%��"��*�'�� ^# "��=�@"��'�� "��#��=� �� "��#��+��+�>�]�� X� �� "��@�" "�*� X�� "�>��>��X�"��"��?�" ��#��X"�� _ �'�� "�*��X� �"��''"��"�� @"��'�� =�� "�� " ��*��"�=� ��"� �� %��"��>��$��" �#�'�� ]^�� "�� @��"�*� @�� "� ��X�#�� @"�� @�� "X� X��= �� *� �� "� ��=��#�>�� "�� "#"=� �� "��@��Q�[��"�� @"��#��"��" ��=�#"X"#�� "��>��!�� "��@��#�'��]�==��#"�� =�� ]^>��>��#"��"�� XX�� X�� !�� ''" �� "��'�� "��>� ��>� ��#"�� _=��"�� ]^� �� =��=�� >� ��"�� #�� @�� X� ��"�*� @" �� "�� "�� "XX�� "��=��=�� >�� "�� "XX"#�� ="��@�>�]^�#�'��@��@" ��#�" ��"�� X��=��=��" ��*��>��"��"��#�� @��"�*�� "�� "��@��X��X��_"�"�" �� @��

�=�"�*�� "�� #>� Q�� #�� #��*��>� Q�� @� "X� " � "�� =��"�� *�� =��=�� >�^��'��*"��@� ��XX�# ��"��'��"�*� ��"��X�?��" �#�� *�� "��'��"XX"#�� >��"��"�� *�"��="*�X�� "��"�� X"�� @�� "��#�" ��"��"� ��#��>��!�� "�� _=��"�� @�� #��*�� "�� #�� ~��*��#"�� ]^� #�� =�� >� $�� @��"�*� �� X"�� "��>� ��>� �� '�� #��"X"�*�#�''�� @�� "��=��#��@��>�`�#�� =��=�� =��"��"�� *"� �� @�� X��'� �� "'�� '" � �#"�� "X"#� "�X��'� "�� "� �� #��>� [��"�*� �"�� "'�� X��'�� ]^� "�� ==�� '�� #"�"�� '��"#� � ��>� Q��#"�"�� "��@�� "�� "�� #�� "'��X� ��#"�"��>�Q��_ �� "'=�� @��@"��'�� X� ��#"��#��@�� #��>��>��X�"��"X��X� ��"�X��'� "��"��*�"�*�"� �� #��>��=��>��''"��"�� *�"�*�� "��>��X� �� "�� #�'=�� "'��=��"��"�� @�� =� ��'�X��'�'��"�*�� "�� "��#�'=�� >��>��_=��"�� ]^�@��"��'�� *��=�� ~��*��==�� '�� >�Q��@�� "�� # �� ~��*�� "��'��"#�� >��Q!��#��=�� +�*��!�'��!�� @I�� " {%��=��!�%��[�� %�� #�#��_�� I�� #�� |��+��'��Q� �!��Z��!� ""��>� %�"**�� =�� =��"�*� �� @" �� " ��*�� #�'=�� "�*��# "��X� �#��*"�� '��"�*� "� �� "�� "��=��X"�� "��>�Q�"�� @"��=��#�� "��@��" �� >�!�� "��#�� "�� @�" "�*�X�� =��"'"��=�� @�"#�� +�� X"��+�>��>�}"**"��'�'��X� ��=��"#��=��"�*��X��X� ��'�$��^��#"� "��!�� "�� @�� '��'�� @�� @� �� "�� ! � �� !�� @��" ��@�"#��=�� "�� $��"��]��@�>�!�� "��_=��"�� "��"��"�*�="�#�� *"�� "��>� �!�� "�� X"�� "�� *"�� "�� '�� "�*� ��"�� X�� X"�"�*� ��*"�� "��>��>�}"**"�� !�� "�� _=��"�� " �� "��@" ��]^��*�"��@�"#��"�>��q��"�'��

��>�[�#�"��"��=�� "�� =�� ''"��"�� $��"��Q��"��"�"�" �! ��>�}��#�==�� "�=�� =� �� "��"*�'�� >��''"��"��" �� X��'� ��~��$��"��''"��"��'�� "�*� �� "��"�*��#��"�*� ��$��"��"��!�'"�� "�� *� ��'� ��>� Q�� #�� =� �� @�� "��>� !��?�� @�� "�� =� �� "�� "��="#��=�X��'�� >��>�[�@��_=��"�� "X� �"��@�� "�*�� @"��#��"��''"��"��"��>��''"��"��"�� "��@�� =��X�# ��==�� " � �� "�� " �@�� "�� ''"��"��'�� "�*� �� @��"�� *� � �*� �� "�#�� "��X�� >��''"��"�� ! �@�� _=�� @�� "� �� "�� @��>� � !�� "�� >� [�@�� *� � �*� �� @" �� ''"��"�� ''"��"�� ! �@�� >��X�� _ �'�� "�*>��

��_�;!�I�� >�!#��@" �� #� ��[`Q�� _=��@��^� ��" � X�� X� ��"��*��@��X��#�'"�*� �*� �� @�� *��#�� "��>�}��*��"��==�� XX�� #��#�= >�}��=��"�� X�� "��#��"�� "��>��>�� "��'��@��_=��"�� @��'��@��X��= "#� ��#�''�� = "#� ��"�X��'� "��*� ��X��'��#��@�=�=��>��>� �� @" �� !�� !�'"�� "�#�� #�''��" � ��"#�� =��# � �� #�� "��@��"�*��>�Q�"��@"��'�*��"�� [�>�� "�X��'� "�� '�*��"�� "��#�="��=��#�� # ��>�� #X�>��>#�'>��}��Q�� =��!�� "��#�� _ �'�� "�*�"��#��X��X ��"��>��~��@#�� !�� "�� $��"��"��%��"��''"��"�� "�*�� <��=>'>��


David MarshDavid MarshFlorida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of TransportationDistrict 5District 5

WekivaWekiva Trail Feasibility StudyTrail Feasibility Study

�� WekivaWekiva Trail Feasibility Study was initiated in Trail Feasibility Study was initiated in 20092009

�� First phase First phase –– stakeholder coordination and stakeholder coordination and alignment identification alignment identification –– nearing completionnearing completion

�� Second phase Second phase -- ““Fatal flawFatal flaw”” level of analysislevel of analysis

WekivaWekiva Trail Feasibility StudyTrail Feasibility Study

�� Ongoing coordination with government Ongoing coordination with government agencies, land managers and trail stakeholdersagencies, land managers and trail stakeholders

�� Coordination with concurrent PD&E StudyCoordination with concurrent PD&E Study�� Investigate the area surrounding the proposed Investigate the area surrounding the proposed

WekivaWekiva Parkway to determine potential trail Parkway to determine potential trail alignmentalignment

Project StakeholdersProject Stakeholders

�� State and Local governmentsState and Local governments�� Metropolitan Planning OrganizationsMetropolitan Planning Organizations�� Land ManagersLand Managers�� Environmental GroupsEnvironmental Groups�� FDOTFDOT�� ECFRPCECFRPC�� WekivaWekiva Trail Working Group Trail Working Group

Potential AlignmentsPotential Alignments

Will not preclude future spur routes and Will not preclude future spur routes and connections to natural landsconnections to natural lands

Proposed Alignment

Active CSX Tracks – used for car storage

Wekiva Parkway Trail Update to Lake~Sumter MPO Governing Board - February 24, 2010

Proposed Alignment

Potential Future Grade Separation at Round Hill Road and SR 46

Proposed Alignment

•Abandoned Railroad CorridorSouthern Connection through Neighborhood Lakes

Proposed Alignment

DEP Alignment through Neighborhood Lakes

Proposed Alignment

Connects to Future Expansion of West Orange Trail

Proposed Alignment

•Trail Accommodated on Proposed Service RoadAlternative Alignment along old railroad grade adjacent to SR 46

Proposed Alignment

•Trail Accommodated on Proposed Service RoadAlternative Alignment Along Old Railroad Grade/Ethel Road

Proposed Alignment

•Alternative Alignment Along Old Railroad Grade/Ethel Road

Proposed Alignment

•Trail Accommodated on Proposed Service Road, south along Longwood-Lake Markham Road, to existing trailheadAlternative River Crossing at Old Railroad Bridge





Cost EstimatesCost Estimates

�� Construction Cost EstimatesConstruction Cost Estimates�� RightRight--ofof--Way EstimatesWay Estimates

�� Parcel impactsParcel impacts�� Potential RelocationsPotential Relocations

DocumentationDocumentation


�� Technical Memorandum will include:Technical Memorandum will include:�� Summary of Stakeholder CoordinationSummary of Stakeholder Coordination�� Alternatives AnalysisAlternatives Analysis�� Summary of Environmental AnalysisSummary of Environmental Analysis�� Cost EstimatesCost Estimates

MilestonesMilestones

�� Stakeholder Acceptance of Alignment Stakeholder Acceptance of Alignment --OngoingOngoing

�� Environmental Analyses Environmental Analyses –– Spring 2010Spring 2010�� Cost Estimates Cost Estimates –– Spring 2010Spring 2010�� Documentation Documentation –– Summer 2010Summer 2010

Project Complete Summer 2010Project Complete Summer 2010

QuestionsQuestions

L:\12721149_DistrictWide PD&E\12721740_Wekiva Trail\Reports\Draft\Appendices\Appendix H\Final DEP Meeting Minutes 022610.doc

MEETING MINUTES Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study

DEP Coordination Meeting

Districtwide PD&E Contract FIN 241152 1 32 05

February 26, 2010

Attendees (via GoToMeeting):

Lance Decuir – FDOT Tara McCue – ECFRCP Jim Wood – DEP

Warren Poplin – DEP Albert Gregory - DEP Chris Rizzolo – URS

After introductions were made, Lance Decuir reviewed the potential alignments of the Wekiva Trail, focusing on DEP’s Neighborhood Lakes alignment and the two potential Wekiva River crossings. Jim Wood stated that the north river crossing (along the proposed Wekiva Parkway) is DEPs priority and focus for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, while the crossing to the south along the old railroad grade could possibly be a recreational connection in the future, provided issues with crossing the river are resolved. In the meantime, DEP does not want the ongoing Feasibility Study to give the false impression that the southern crossing is a preferred alternative. We should focus on the opportunity given to provide a crossing over the Wekiva River as part of the Wekiva Parkway.

Lance asked what would be needed for the southern river crossing. Albert indicated that there was support for removing the old railroad trestle and that Congress has designated the Wekiva River as a National Wild & Scenic River. As part of this designation, new crossings are generally discouraged, but when they are necessary they are encouraged to be located as close as possible to existing river crossings. Certain federal protections apply to designated rivers, mainly that federal agencies are prohibited from taking actions that would impair the wild and scenic qualities of the rivers. The National Park Service has jurisdiction over the Wekiva Wild & Scenic River, although they do not provide direct management on the Wekiva River site. Congress, as part of the designation, established a management advisory committee, and the committee will be involved in reviewing projects such a new crossing. Some discussion by the committee has already occurred. A management plan is being developed for the Wekiva River by the committee and NPS. It was suggested that Jaime Doubek-Racine of NPS (941-330-8047) be contacted regarding their thoughts of a second crossing over the Wekiva River.

The southern alignment crosses property that was purchased in partnership with SJRWMD. This is an environmental restoration zone and will be investigated as part of the ongoing Feasibility study.

Wekiva Trail Coordination February 26, 2010 Page 2

L:\12721149_DISTRICTWIDE PD&E\12721740_WEKIVA TRAIL\REPORTS\DRAFT\APPENDICES\APPENDIX H\FINAL DEP MEETING MINUTES 022610.DOC

Warren Poplin said that Bob Ballard (DEP Deputy Secretary of Land and Recreation) would favor a meandering trail through state land, if one or both of the counties was able to get the trail across the river. The DEP has no thoughts at this time as to whether a trail along the southern alignment would be closed during the evening and overnight hours. There was agreement among the meeting attendees that an alignment along Ethel Road and then heading north along Wekiva River Road to the proposed Wekiva Parkway would not be feasible.

Tara McCue said that she does not want to lose focus of the proposed northern crossing along the Wekiva Parkway. The Wekiva Parkway provides a good opportunity to include a trail along the same crossing and she does not want this fact to get lost in the discussion of alternative river crossings.

Jim Wood said that OOCEA would need a unified front from the agency level to let them know of the importance of the trail. A consensus letter being developed by Lake-Sumter MPO, METROPLAN Orlando, Lake County, Seminole County, ECFRCP and DEP’s Office of Greenways & Trails and Division of Recreation and Parks will be transmitted upon signing expressing a unified stance for a trail alignment within the proposed Service Road R/W and crossing the Wekiva River at the same location as the Wekiva Parkway. In addition, Rock Springs State Reserve’s park management plan may have to be amended before a trail could be built within its property.

The meeting was then adjourned.

These minutes are a summary of the writer’s interpretation of the meeting. Unless written notification to the contrary is received by the writer within seven (7) days after the mailing of these minutes, it will be assumed those in attendance were in agreement with the statements set forth and work will proceed on that basis.

cc: Attendees, File 12721740(C1)


Lance Decuir, P.E.Florida Department of TransportationDistrict 5

Lance Lance DecuirDecuir, P.E., P.E.Florida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of TransportationDistrict 5District 5

Study AlignmentsStudy Alignments

Will not preclude future spur routes, river Will not preclude future spur routes, river crossings and connections to natural landscrossings and connections to natural lands

Social Environment� No recorded cultural resources in project area� Three Public Lands within Project Area –

Section 4(f) Potential

� No recorded cultural resources in project area� Three Public Lands within Project Area –

Section 4(f) Potential

Social Environment

Relocation potential associated with R/W acquisition in Seminole County

Relocation potential associated with R/W acquisition in Seminole County

Natural Environment

14.95 ac14.99 ac9.88 ac9.84 acFloodplains

YesYesNoNoWekivaRHPZ

1.81 ac1.81 ac0.84 ac0.84 acWetlands4321Alternative

Much of proposed alignment on active or abandoned railroad

Much of proposed alignment on active or abandoned railroad

Natural Environment

•Designated Wild and Scenic River and Aquatic Preserve

•Entire River Afforded Protections

•Designated Wild and Scenic River and Aquatic Preserve

•Entire River Afforded Protections

Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study Results - Wekiva River Basin Commission 6/13/2010

Physical Environment

� 13 potential contamination sites with Contamination Risk Potential Ratings of Medium or High

� No difference in risk per alternative

� 13 potential contamination sites with Contamination Risk Potential Ratings of Medium or High

� No difference in risk per alternative

Estimated Construction Costs

$11,399,000$11,990,000$6,628,000$6,036,000Estimated

Construction Costs

Alternative 4Alternative 3Alternative 2Alternative 1

Additional Elements

$11,784,000$26,290,000$13,269,000$1,664,000$6,916,000$564,000Estimated

Construction Cost

6. WekivaRiver Bridge

5. Wildlife Crossing 2

4. Wildlife Crossing 1

3. Adjacent Trail

2. WekivaPkwy

Bridge

1. Round Lake Road

Bridge

Additional Feature

Additional Elements Estimated Right-of-Way Costs

$24,734,0004$27,408,0003$35,125,0002$32,451,0001

Estimated R/W CostAlternative

Estimated $12M in R/W costs along Longwood-Lake Markham Road can be saved by placing facility within existing R/W

Estimated $12M in R/W costs along Longwood-Lake Markham Road can be saved by placing facility within existing R/W

Right-of-Way

Estimated $32M of Right-of-Way in private ownership

Estimated $32M of Right-of-Way in private ownership

QuestionsQuestions

Lance Lance DecuirDecuir, P.E., P.E.Florida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of Transportation

District 5District 5

Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study Results - Wekiva River Basin Commission 6/13/2010

Project Correspondence

URS Corporation 315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 245 Orlando, FL 32804

Phone: (407) 422 – 0353 Fax: (407) 423 – 2695

DATE: JOB #

RECORDED BY: CLIENT:

TALKED WITH: OF:

PHONE #: EMAIL:

NATURE OF CALL: Incoming Outgoing Meeting

ROUTE TO:

MAIN SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION:

Mr. Poplin returned a call to Ms. Meredith Byrd regarding a voicemail left to discuss the proposed Wekiva Parkway Trail. Ms. Meredith Byrd explained that this call was to collect any thoughts and concerns held by the Wekiva River Basin State Parks regarding the proposed trail as URS was currently contracted to perform a feasibility study of alternative trail alignments. Mr. Poplin made the following points:

� Needs to be evaluated where or not a paved multi-use trail is compatible with the original intent of land purchase, especially if this trail is to include motorized traffic

� Not in favor of the trail following the Ethel Drive alignment as the park would have no management of the trail 24 hours/day

� Would not be opposed to gate access to an unpaved trail along Ethel Drive, although it defeats the purpose of the wildlife crossings if a spur trail is put in along Ethel Drive

� Favors a trail that follows the alignment of the proposed Wekiva Parkway � An excellent location for a trailhead would be in Plymouth to access the multi-use trail and

then the Wekiva State Park � Not in favor of using the old SR 46 pavement for a trail (just another bisector of property and

wildlife crossings) � No way to control access to trail during planned burn events � Preference is that trail would be elevated at the wildlife crossings; wherever the proposed

parkway is elevated – protects the intent of the wildlife crossings keeping everyone safe

Wekiva Parkway Trail Feasibility Study

Wekiva River Basin State Parks Warren Poplin

FDOTAmy Meredith Byrd

06-15-2009

RECORD OF CONVERSATION

12721740

FILE – 12721740 A9

407.884.2006 [email protected]

URS Corporation 315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 245 Orlando, FL 32804

Phone: (407) 422 – 0353 Fax: (407) 423 – 2695

DATE: JOB #

RECORDED BY: CLIENT:

TALKED WITH: OF:

PHONE #: EMAIL:


ROUTE TO:

MAIN SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION:

Mr. Bishop returned a call to Ms. Meredith Byrd regarding a voicemail left to discuss the proposed Wekiva Parkway Trail. Ms. Meredith Byrd explained that this call was to collect any thoughts and concerns held by the stakeholders of the Seminole State Forest regarding the proposed trail as URS was currently contracted to perform a feasibility study of alternative trail alignments. Mr. Bishop made the following points:

� Not in favor of the trail crossing the Wekiva River at the old railroad bridge crossing, south of SR 46

� Wants the old SR 46 pavement eliminated between the proposed Wekiva Parkway wildlife bridges

� No paved trails on State forest property � Prefer the trail is elevated at locations where the proposed Wekiva Parkway is elevated

Wekiva Parkway Trail Feasibility Study

Division of Forestry Joe Bishop

FDOTAmy Meredith Byrd

06-15-2009


12721740

FILE – 12721740 A9

407.884.2006 [email protected]

315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 245 Orlando, FL 32804

Phone: (407) 422 – 0353 Fax: (407) 423 – 2695

DATE: 3/8/10 JOB #:12721740

RECORDED BY: Chris Rizzolo CLIENT: FDOT

TALKED WITH: Jeff Duncan OF: National Park Service.


ROUTE TO: Lance Decuir - FDOT File (A9)

MAIN SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION: Wekiva River – Wild & Scenic River Status

I spoke with Jeff Duncan, the Wild and Scenic River Coordinator for the National Park Service (SE region) (423-987-6127) regarding the Wild & Scenic River Act and how it specifically relates to the Wekiva River and a potential second river crossing for the proposed trail. Any Federal involvement in the trail would invoke Section 7 of the Wild & Scenic River Act, which entails impacts to the free flow of the river or impacts to the rivers setting (aesthetics). He indicated that it would probably be tough to get a second river crossing passed. The Section 7 process would definitely need to be initiated.

Regarding the classification of the river (NOTE: Wild & Scenic Rivers are classified, in order of pristine status, as wild, scenic or recreational), the old railroad crossing is the division between a wild portion of the river (upstream) and a recreational portion (downstream). This classification is a measure of shoreline development. Regardless of classification, all Wild & Scenic Rivers are recognized for their ORV (outstanding remarkable value). Any type of bridge at the location of the old railroad crossing would constitute an impact to the wild setting of the upstream portion of the river.

Regarding the wetlands/floodplain along the western side of the river, there has been some discussion within NPS as to whether or not the Wild & Scenic River Act applies to just the “bed and banks” (up to normal high water) of a river or if impacts to associated wetlands and/or floodplains trigger jurisdiction.


315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 245 Orlando, FL 32804

Phone: (407) 422 – 0353 Fax: (407) 423 – 2695

The replacement of the SR 46 bridge proposed as part of the Wekiva Parkway PD&E Study is actually in the draft Comprehensive River Management Plan, so the Section 7 process would not be initiated for the Wekiva Parkway. A second river crossing would more than likely be ruled out after a formal evaluation because of direct and adverse impacts to aesthetics. Regarding the fact that there was once a bridge at this location, Section 7 relates to the condition of the river at the time of designation, which in the case of the Wekiva River is 2000. If in the future a new river crossing were amended into the Comprehensive River Management Plan, then Section 7 would not apply.

Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study

Documents

Transcript of Wekiva Trail Feasibility Study