FINAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY REPORT · Final Project Development Summary Report 1-1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a Project

FINAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY REPORT

Anna Maria Island Bridge Project Development and Environment Study

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue)

From SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard Manatee County, Florida

Financial Project ID: 424436-1-21-01

Prepared for:

Florida Department of Transportation District One Environmental Management Office

801 North Broadway P.O. Box 1249

Bartow, FL 33831

June 2010

Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study Final Project Development Summary Report

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. v LIST OF CHARTS ................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Description .................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 1-3

1.3.1 Functional Classification ...................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Access Classification ............................................................ 1-3 1.3.3 Typical Section ..................................................................... 1-3 1.3.4 Right-of-Way ........................................................................ 1-3 1.3.5 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................... 1-5 1.3.6 Vertical Alignment................................................................ 1-5 1.3.7 Existing Pavement ................................................................ 1-5 1.3.8 Traffic Signals ....................................................................... 1-6 1.3.9 Utilities .................................................................................. 1-6 1.3.10 Crash History ........................................................................ 1-7 1.3.11 Kingfish Boat Ramp ............................................................. 1-7 1.3.12 Existing Structural Data ........................................................ 1-7

1.3.12.1 Type of Structure ................................................ 1-7 1.3.12.2 Condition and Year of Construction ................... 1-7 1.3.12.3 Span Arrangement .............................................. 1-8 1.3.12.4 Channel Data ....................................................... 1-8 1.3.12.5 Bridge Openings ................................................. 1-8 1.3.12.6 Vessel Height Data ........................................... 1-10

1.4 References ............................................................................................. 1-12

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITMENTS ........................................... 2-1 2.1 Recommendations ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Commitments .......................................................................................... 2-2

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Alternatives Considered .......................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Corridor Analysis .................................................................................... 3-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Section Title Page


ii

3.3 No-Build Alternative .............................................................................. 3-1 3.4 Transportation Systems Management Alternative .................................. 3-3 3.5 Rehabilitation Alternative ....................................................................... 3-3 3.6 Development of Build Alternatives ........................................................ 3-7

3.6.1 Design Criteria and Design Speed ........................................ 3-7 3.6.2 Level of Service Standard ..................................................... 3-7 3.6.3 Functional Classification ...................................................... 3-9 3.6.4 Access Classification ............................................................ 3-9 3.6.5 United States Coast Guard Guide Clearances ..................... 3-10 3.6.6 Kingfish Boat Ramp ........................................................... 3-10 3.6.7 Splash Zone ......................................................................... 3-10 3.6.8 Stormwater Management Facilities .................................... 3-11 3.6.9 Removal of Existing Bridge................................................ 3-12 3.6.10 Bridge Type ........................................................................ 3-12 3.6.11 Bridge Typical Sections ...................................................... 3-12 3.6.12 Horizontal Alignments ........................................................ 3-14

3.6.12.1 Center Alignment .............................................. 3-14 3.6.12.2 North Alignment ............................................... 3-14 3.6.12.3 South Alignment ............................................... 3-16 3.6.12.4 Alignment Conclusion ...................................... 3-16

3.7 Proposed Bridge Replacement Alternatives ......................................... 3-18 3.7.1 Alternative 1BN – Low-Level Bascule Bridge, Typical

Section B, North Alignment ............................................... 3-18 3.7.2 Alternative 1BS – Low-Level Bascule Bridge, Typical

Section B, South Alignment ............................................... 3-21 3.7.3 Alternative 2BN – Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B,

North Alignment ................................................................. 3-22 3.7.4 Alternative 2BS – Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B,

South Alignment ................................................................. 3-24 3.7.5 Alternative 3BN – High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical

Section B, North Alignment ............................................... 3-25 3.7.6 Alternative 3BS – High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical

Section B, South Alignment ............................................... 3-27 3.8 Tunnel Alternative ................................................................................ 3-28

3.8.1 Bored Tunnel ...................................................................... 3-28 3.8.2 Immersed Tube ................................................................... 3-29 3.8.3 Cut and Cover ..................................................................... 3-29 3.8.4 Limitations and Constraints ................................................ 3-30

3.9 Comparative Evaluation ........................................................................ 3-31 3.9.1 Non-Qualitative Evaluation ................................................ 3-34

3.10 Selection of Recommended Preferred Alternative ............................... 3-34


Section Title Page


iii

3.11 References ............................................................................................. 3-34

4.0 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ......................................... 4-1 4.1 Typical Sections ...................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Horizontal Alignment ............................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Vertical Alignment.................................................................................. 4-4 4.4 Drainage .................................................................................................. 4-4

4.4.1 Location Hydraulics .............................................................. 4-4 4.4.2 Pond Siting ............................................................................ 4-4

4.5 Structures ................................................................................................ 4-6 4.6 Design Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 4-6

4.6.1 Future Traffic Characteristics ............................................... 4-6 4.6.2 Traffic Projections ................................................................ 4-8 4.6.3 Levels of Service................................................................... 4-8

4.7 Access Management ............................................................................... 4-8 4.8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .......................................................... 4-12 4.9 Right-of-Way Requirements and Relocations ...................................... 4-12 4.10 Utilities and Lighting ............................................................................ 4-12 4.11 Traffic Control Plan .............................................................................. 4-12 4.12 Value Engineering ................................................................................ 4-13 4.13 Production Schedule ............................................................................. 4-13 4.14 Project Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 4-13 4.15 Aesthetics and Landscaping .................................................................. 4-13 4.16 References ............................................................................................. 4-13

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Social and Economic Impacts ................................................................. 5-1 5.1.1 Community Impact Assessment ........................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Utilities and Railroads ........................................................... 5-7

5.2 Cultural and Historical Resources ........................................................ 5-10 5.2.1 Archeological and Historical Resources ............................. 5-10 5.2.2 Parks and Recreation........................................................... 5-11

5.3 Natural and Physical Environment ....................................................... 5-12 5.3.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................ 5-12 5.3.2 Visual and Aesthetic Features ............................................. 5-13 5.3.3 Air Quality .......................................................................... 5-13 5.3.4 Noise ................................................................................... 5-13 5.3.5 Wetlands ............................................................................. 5-18 5.3.6 Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................... 5-21 5.3.7 Wildlife and Habitat ............................................................ 5-24 5.3.8 Aquatic Preserves................................................................ 5-29


Section Title Page


iv

5.3.9 Water Quality ...................................................................... 5-29 5.3.10 Outstanding Florida Waters ................................................ 5-30 5.3.11 Contamination ..................................................................... 5-30 5.3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................................................... 5-31 5.3.13 Floodplains .......................................................................... 5-32 5.3.14 Coastal Zone Consistency ................................................... 5-32 5.3.15 Coastal Barrier Island Resources ........................................ 5-32 5.3.16 Farmlands ............................................................................ 5-32 5.3.17 Scenic Highway .................................................................. 5-33 5.3.18 Navigation ........................................................................... 5-33 5.3.19 Construction ........................................................................ 5-34

5.4 References ............................................................................................. 5-35

6.0 SUMMARY OF PERMITS AND MITIGATION ............................................. 6-1 6.1 Permits .................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................ 6-1

7.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .................................................... 7-1

7.1 Public Involvement ................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 ETDM Screening .................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Advance Notification .............................................................................. 7-1 7.4 Newsletters .............................................................................................. 7-1 7.5 Small Group Meetings ............................................................................ 7-2 7.6 Metropolitan Planning Organization Meetings ....................................... 7-2 7.7 Board of County Commissioners Meetings ............................................ 7-2 7.8 Kickoff Letter .......................................................................................... 7-2 7.9 Web Site .................................................................................................. 7-2 7.10 Kickoff Public Meeting ........................................................................... 7-2 7.11 Agency and Public Coordination ............................................................ 7-3 7.12 Public Information Workshops ............................................................... 7-3 7.13 Public Hearing ........................................................................................ 7-4 7.14 U.S. Coast Guard Public Notice ............................................................. 7-6 7.15 References ............................................................................................... 7-6

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Preferred Alternative Conceptual Alternative Plan and Profiles

Appendix B: ETDM Programming Screen Summary Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page Number Title Number


v

1-1 Existing Right-of-Way Widths ...................................................................... 1-5 1-2 Existing Horizontal Alignment ...................................................................... 1-5 1-3 Existing Utilities in the Study Area ............................................................... 1-6

2-1 Recommended Preferred Alternative Impact and Cost Matrix ...................... 2-1

3-1 Summary of Anticipated Repairs for the No-Build Alternative .................... 3-2 3-2 Summary of Anticipated Repairs for the Rehabilitation Alternative ............. 3-5 3-3 Proposed Minimum Design Criteria .............................................................. 3-8 3-4 Access Class Standards ................................................................................ 3-10 3-5 Qualitative Alignment Evaluation Matrix ................................................... 3-17 3-6 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix .................................................................... 3-32

4-1 Roadway Length can be directed to Pond (feet) ............................................ 4-5 4-2 Existing K30 and T24 Values ........................................................................ 4-8

5-1 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ................................................................ 5-14 5-2 FLUCFCS Categories and Corresponding NWI Codes for Land

Uses and Land Covers Identified within the Anna Maria Bridge Study Area ................................................................................................... 5-19

5-3 Estimated Acreage of Direct Wetland and Surface Water Impact for all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 5-20

5-4 Managed Species with EFH Present within the Study Area ........................ 5-22 5-5 Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Anna Maria

Bridge Study Area........................................................................................ 5-25 5-6 Potential Contaminated Sites ....................................................................... 5-31

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart Page Number Title Number

1-1 Vessel Heights ............................................................................................. 1-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page Number Title Number


vi P:\Projects\FDOT\D1\Anna_Maria_Bridge\Reports\PDSR FINAL\QC\09 Changes Verified\AMIB FinalPDSR USCG changes QC 09 6_10_10 DJR.doc

1-1 Project Location Map ........................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Existing Bridge Typical Sections......................................................................... 1-4 1-3 Tender Log Summary .......................................................................................... 1-9

3-1 Proposed Bridge Rehabilitation Typical Sections ............................................... 3-4 3-2 Proposed Bridge Typical Section A ................................................................... 3-13 3-3 Proposed Bridge Typical Section B ................................................................... 3-15 3-4 Proposed Roadway Typical Section B ............................................................... 3-19

4-1 Recommended Preferred Alternative Bridge Typical Section B ......................... 4-2 4-2 Recommended Preferred Alternative Roadway Typical Section B ..................... 4-3 4-3 Future (2008) Design Hour Volumes .................................................................. 4-7 4-4 Future (2030) Design Hour Volumes .................................................................. 4-9 4-5 Existing (2008) Weekend Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) and

Average Delay ................................................................................................... 4-10 4-6 Future (2030) Weekend Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) and

Average Delay ................................................................................................... 4-11

5-1 Community Facilities Map .................................................................................. 5-2 5-2 City of Bradenton Existing Land Use .................................................................. 5-6 5-3 Future Land Use Designations ............................................................................. 5-8 5-4 Future Land Use Designations ............................................................................. 5-9

Anna Maria Island Bridge PD&E Study Final Project Development Summary Report 1-1

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to evaluate improvement alternatives for the Anna Maria Bridge over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The PD&E Study limits encompass the portion of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) from west of SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to east of Perico Bay Boulevard in Manatee County, Florida. The project location map (Figure 1-1) illustrates the location and limits of the Study.

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the PD&E Study was to provide documented environmental and engineering analyses to assist FDOT and the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the lead federal agency, in reaching a decision on the type, location and conceptual design of the necessary improvements, in order to accommodate future traffic demand in a safe and efficient manner. The PD&E Study also satisfies the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related state and federal environmental laws and regulations in order to qualify the project for federal-aid funding of future development phases of the project.

This PD&E Study documented the need for the roadway and bridge improvements, and presented the procedures utilized to develop and evaluate various improvement alternatives. Information relating to the engineering and environmental characteristics essential for development of alternatives and analytical decisions was collected. Design criteria was established and preliminary alternatives were developed. The comparison of alternatives was based on a variety of parameters utilizing a matrix format. This process was utilized to identify the Recommended Preferred Alternative which minimizes natural, physical, and socio-economic impacts, while providing the necessary future transportation improvements. The study also solicited input from the community and users of the facility. The design year for the analysis is 2030.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The PD&E Study limits encompass the portion of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) from west of SR 789 (East Bay Drive) at milepost (MP) 0.216 in the City of Holmes Beach on Anna Maria Island to east of Perico Bay Boulevard at MP 2.152 in the City of Bradenton, a distance of 1.936 miles (mi). The project is located within Sections 27 and 28, Township 34 South, Range 16 East, and within the Bradenton Beach United States Geological Survey (USGS) quad map. The Anna Maria Island Bridge is a low-level bascule structure (Bridge Number 130054) that spans the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a marked federal navigational channel which generally runs between the mainland and the nearly contiguous barrier islands along the Gulf of Mexico. SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is not part of the National Highway System (NHS), the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), or the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS); however, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway within the PD&E Study area is on the SIS. In addition, both SR 64 (Manatee Avenue)



and SR 789 (East Bay Drive) are designated evacuation routes by the Florida State Emergency Response Team (SERT). SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to 75th Street West is also designated as the Palma Sola Scenic Highway.

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) was originally constructed in 1957 to connect Anna Maria Island with the mainland in Manatee County. SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) provides one of three vehicular access routes to Anna Maria Island.

1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

1.3.1 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is currently classified by FDOT as an urban minor arterial. In addition, the cross street, SR 789 (East Bay Drive) is classified as an urban collector.

1.3.2 ACCESS CLASSIFICATION

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is classified by FDOT as Access Classification 6. SR 789 (East Bay Drive) is Access Classification 7.

1.3.3 TYPICAL SECTION

The existing SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) typical section is a two-lane rural section (flush shoulders with open drainage swales), with the exception of the west-bound shoulder from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to the Anna Maria Island Bridge, which utilizes a 2-foot (ft) curb-and-gutter. There is an 8-ft sidewalk along the northern side of the roadway except for the length of the existing bridge which has two 5-ft sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. The design speed of the bridge is 45 miles per hour (mph) and the posted speed is 40 mph. Existing bridge typical sections are provided in Figure 1-2.

1.3.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY

The existing right-of-way (ROW) widths are shown in Table 1-1.



TABLE 1-1 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS

North Side of Baseline Survey South Side of Baseline Survey

Total Width Station to Station Width Station to Station Width

86+56.95 91+07.14 60 ft 86+56.95 91+07.14 70 ft 130 ft91+07.14 100+53.78 100 ft 91+07.14 100+53.78 100 ft 200 ft 100+53.78 102+24.83 500 ft 100+53.78 102+24.83 100 ft 600 ft 102+24.83 104+57.57 500 ft 102+24.83 104+57.57 100-500 ft 600-1,000 ft 104+57.57 153+01.48 500 ft 104+57.57 153+01.48 500 ft 1000 ft 153+01.48 153+27.89 500-120 ft 153+01.48 153+27.89 500 ft 1,000-620 ft 153+27.89 153+44.97 120 ft 153+27.89 153+44.97 500 ft 620 ft 153+44.97 163+20.00 120 ft 153+44.97 163+20.00 142-134 ft 262-254 ft 163+20.00 170+49.03 75 ft 163+20.00 170+49.03 134-103 ft 209-178 ft 170+49.03 174+07.26 75 ft 170+49.03 174+07.26 103 ft 178 ft 174+07.26 207+77.61 75 ft 174+07.26 207+77.61 75 ft 150 ft 1.3.5 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

The existing horizontal alignment has two curves, as detailed in Table 1-2.

TABLE 1-2 EXISTING HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

PI Station Deflection Angle and Direction

Degree of Curvature Curve Radius Curve Length

108+09.93 05° 02’ 16” (RT) 0° 20’ 00” 17188.73 ft 1511.33 ft 158+82.08 04° 01’ 27” (RT) 0° 20’ 00” 17188.73 ft 1207.25 ft

1.3.6 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

The existing profile elevation at the beginning of the project is 6.65 feet (ft) and increases to elevation 16.00 ft as SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) crosses the bridge over Anna Maria Sound. The Anna Maria Island Bridge maintains elevation 16.00 ft until it approaches the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway channel where the bridge, through a 300-ft sag curve, increases in elevation with +2.8 percent grade. A 1000-ft crest curve reaches a maximum elevation of 30 ft over the channel, connecting to a -2.8 percent grade east of the channel through a 300-ft sag curve to return the bridge to a 0 percent flat grade at elevation 16.00 ft. The bridge touches down at elevation 6.65 ft and the profile grade rocks between 6.50 ft and 6.97 ft to the end of the study. The existing profile is shown on the conceptual alternative plan and profile sheets in Appendix A.

1.3.7 EXISTING PAVEMENT

According to the FDOT Transportation Statistics Office, Pavement Condition Geologic Information System (GIS) shape file downloaded May 19, 2008, the pavement condition of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is rated “good” for the entire length of the project.


1.3.8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS

In addition to the signals regulating the opening of the bascule span of the Anna Maria Island Bridge, there is one existing signalized intersection along the corridor at the SR 64 (Manatee Avenue)/SR 789 (East Bay Drive) intersection.

1.3.9 UTILITIES

Base maps were sent to utility providers in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 10 of the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual1 with a request to provide information on existing and planned utilities. Correspondence and sketches of the existing utilities are included in the project file. Table 1-3 summarizes the utility owner, location and type of the utilities which are present within the project corridor.

TABLE 1-3 EXISTING UTILITIES IN THE STUDY AREA

OWNER UTILITY

AERIAL (A) BURIED (B)

CONNECTED TO BRIDGE

(C)

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

SIDE STATION

FROM TO

Bright House Networks

Fiber 3-2” conduits B Crossing 95+80

Fiber A North 90+00 166+50

100+50 200+00

Fiber 3-2” Conduits B North 100+50

153+00 120+00 166+50

Fiber 1-6” Conduit B North 120+00 153+00

Florida Power and Light Company

Electric A North 90+00

152+00 103+50 200+00

B North 103+50 152+00 B Crossing 101+80

Manatee County Water Main

C South 121+00 137+50

135+00 150+00

B South 135+00 137+50

TECO/ Peoples Gas

4” PE Gas Main B North 90+00

161+00 113+50 200+00

4” HDPE Gas Main B North 113+50 161+00

Verizon TBD TBD North TBD TBD


1.3.10 CRASH HISTORY2

There is a history of vehicles crashing on the bridge. From the two years of readily available crash data (from the period of May 2002 through June 2004), there was reported a total of 13 crashes, or 6.5 crashes per year. Based on the reported severity and injuries from these crashes and using the crash costs recommended in the FDOT Plans Preparation Manual3, Article 23.2.2 (Justifications and Documentation), the injury and property cost of these crashes is estimated at $1,255,335, or $627,667 per year.

There are other reported crashes that are noteworthy, including three separate incidents in which a vehicle has vaulted off of the brush curb and over the bridge railing into the water and one incident where a vehicle crashed into the control house, all of which have occurred in the past ten years.

1.3.11 KINGFISH BOAT RAMP

The Kingfish Boat Ramp is a heavily-used, public boat ramp managed by Manatee County. It is located within the existing ROW immediately west of the existing bridge on the north side of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). Regular parking spaces and trailer spaces are available in an informal parking area immediately adjacent to the boat ramp. Parking has been reported to overflow onto the south roadway shoulder and border area. Picnic tables and trash receptacles are also available.

1.3.12 EXISTING STRUCTURAL DATA

1.3.12.1 Type of Structure

The existing Anna Maria Island Bridge is a 3,123 ft long concrete structure with a 128 ft-double leaf bascule span. The existing bridge provides a horizontal navigational clearance of 90 ft and a minimum vertical clearance of 17.5 ft above mean high water (mhw) above the fender system. The existing vertical clearance is less than the established guide clearance set by the USCG for this location along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The bascule machinery is a Hopkins Trunion design with an Earle 7DD gear reducer. The approaches to the main span are comprised of prestressed concrete girders on concrete pile bent foundations. The bridge drains directly to Anna Maria Sound.

1.3.12.2 Condition and Year of Construction

The bridge was constructed in 1957. As of January 2009, the State of Florida has not imposed any weight restrictions on the bridge. The April 2008 Bridge Inspection Report4 lists the bridge as containing fracture critical components and functionally obsolete. The bridge is not rated structurally deficient or scour critical; however, the bridge deck is susceptible to damage due to wave action during a severe storm. The deck, superstructure, and substructure are all rated fair, with an overall sufficiency rating of 37.3. A rehabilitation project will be completed in 2009 and the sufficiency ratings are expected to improve.


1.3.12.3 Span Arrangement

The existing bridge consists of the following span arrangements:

• 62 prestressed concrete girder approach spans (31 west and 31 east), each 48 ft long

• A 128-ft steel girder double-leaf bascule span

1.3.12.4 Channel Data

The Anna Maria Island Bridge carries SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which is the main federal navigation channel running along the Gulf of Mexico from the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County to Tampa Bay, and beyond. The channel depth is approximately 8 ft at the bridge location. A timber fender system along both sides of the channel protects the bridge from vessel impact.

In addition to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, there are two other navigable channels in the study area that require consideration. These two channels are located on the north side of the bridge, one on the west side, the other to the east. Both channels intersect the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Information regarding these two channels was found in the 1989 Final Preliminary Engineering Report5.

The west channel originates at the Kingfish Boat Ramp on the north side of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) on the west side of the bridge. The channel runs in a north direction from the ramp for approximately 700 ft, turns southeast, then runs parallel and adjacent to the existing bridge and intersects the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway just north of the bridge fender system. The west channel is approximately 150 ft wide and may be as shallow as 4 ft along the bridge. The south edge of the channel is offset from the existing bridge approximately 20 ft. The channel is marked with colored and numbered channel markers.

The channel on the east side originates at an existing marina (previously Perico Harbor Marina). The marina is not currently in operation but is planned as part of the Seven Shores development. The channel leaves the marina in a westerly direction for approximately 1000 ft before jogging south toward the bridge. The channel then turns westerly following parallel and adjacent to the bridge. The channel intersects the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway just north of the bridge fender system. The east channel is approximately 150 ft wide and may be as shallow as 5 ft along the bridge. The south edge of the channel is offset from the existing bridge approximately 25 ft.

1.3.12.5 Bridge Openings

The Anna Maria Island Bridge is manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The bridge opens on demand except from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. when the bridge opens every 20 minutes if boats requesting an opening are present. The bridge may only open every 30 minutes from January 15 to May 15. Figure 1-3 summarizes all of the bridge openings from March 2008 through June 2008, prior to the bridge closure during the rehabilitation construction project.



Average statistics over the time period include:

• Peak boat traffic month: April • Peak bridge opening month: May • Peak boat traffic day: Sunday • Peak bridge opening day: Friday • Average number of boats per day: 13.3 • Average number of openings per day: 9.7 • Average duration of opening: 4.95 minutes

These statistics were considered when developing future traffic projections, travel time, and delay of the various alternatives.

1.3.12.6 Vessel Height Data

Vessel (mast) heights were collected by the bridge tender as the vessels that required the bridge to open passed through the channel during the period from March 13, 2008, through June 3, 2008. The bridge tender contacted each boat Captain by radio to ascertain the vessel height. If no radio were available on a vessel, the bridge tender estimated the height. A total of 1092 vessels were logged during this period. Chart 1-1 summarizes the data by height, number of boats in each height range, and percentage of boats in each height range. The data indicates that 12.6 percent of the boats that currently require the bridge to open have heights between 21.5 ft and 30 ft. Similarly, approximately 38.6 percent of the boats that currently require the bridge to open are 45 ft or under. Approximately 99.7 percent of the boats that currently require the bridge to open are 65 ft tall or less. This data can be used to estimate the percentage of boats that will fit under alternative bridges with differing vertical navigational clearances.


CHART 1-1 VESSEL HEIGHTS

over 65 ft3 Boats0.28%3 openings55.1 - 65 ft

276 Boats25.28%190 openings

45.1 - 50 ft192 Boats17.58%117 openings



40.1 - 45 ft154 Boats14.10 %93 openings50.1 - 55 ft

200 Boats18.31%125 openings

Total boats = 1092 Total openings = 713 Total days = 83


1.4 REFERENCES

1. Project Development and Environment Manual, Part 2, Chapter 10; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida.

2. SR 64 (Anna Maria) Bridge Rehabilitation, Roadway Safety Evaluation; Florida Department of Transportation, Districts One and Seven Structures Maintenance Office; Tampa, Florida; March 2006.

3. Plans Preparation Manual, Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida.

4. Bridge Inspection Report; prepared by Volkert and Associates, Tampa Florida, for Florida Department of Transportation; April, 2008.

5. Final Preliminary Engineering Report; prepared by Figg and Muller Engineers, Inc., for the Florida department of Transportation; November 3, 1989.


SECTION 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMITMENTS

2.1 RECOMMENDATIONS

After the Public Hearing, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the lead federal agency, identified a Recommended Preferred Alternative based on the engineering and environmental analysis, agency coordination, and public comments. The Recommended Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3BS: a high-level fixed-bridge with Typical Section B along the southern alignment. Table 2-1 summarizes the impacts and costs of the Recommended Preferred Alternative.

TABLE 2-1 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPACT AND COST MATRIX


2.2 COMMITMENTS

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is committed to the following measures:

• The Florida Department of Transportation is committed to working closely with the Bridge Design Committee and the community during the Design phase to evaluate various aesthetic design features for the bridge and approaches. In addition, a portion of the project construction budget will be identified for landscaping.

• Wetland impacts that will result from the construction of this project are anticipated to be mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137 F.S. to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 United States Code 1344. Under Section 373.4137 FS, mitigation of FDOT wetland impacts will be implemented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The project is currently listed on FDOT’s wetland mitigation inventory, which is provided to the SWFWMD on an annual basis. It is anticipated that FDOT will provide funding to the SWFWMD for implementation of wetland mitigation required for this project.

• Further Coordination with the USACE will take place during design and prior to permitting to further coordinate wetland mitigation.

• Further consultation with the NMFS will be necessary to determine the most effective mitigation measures for the proposed impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) during the design and permitting phase of the project when more detailed information regarding the bridge design and construction method is available.

• An updated seagrass survey will be performed during design and prior to construction to determine seagrass presence within the proposed bridge footprint. The updated seagrass survey will include quantitative and qualitative assessment to better determine the functional loss.

• An addendum to the EFH Assessment will be prepared during the Final Design phase of this project. The addendum will document in detail the impacts and proposed mitigation to EFH and will be coordinated with the NMFS.

• As per the USFWS recommendations, FDOT will consider compensatory mitigation for the loss of fringe mangrove swamps along Manatee Avenue Causeway and the seagrass beds in Anna Maria Sound potential to be replaced in-kind within Anna Maria Sound.

• The FDOT has committed to implementing the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (July 2005) for all construction activities that have waters accessible to manatees.

• All seagrass beds in the immediate area not directly impacted by the project will be delineated and avoided by all vessels. No vessel movement, staging areas, or mooring activities will be permitted in these areas unless consultation is reinitiated with the USFWS prior to the impacts occurring.


• Designated manatee speed zones for the project area will be adhered to at all times.

• As per the USFWS recommendations to further protect the manatee, the FDOT will consider the placement of mooring fenders on barges and other large vessels such that, when moored together, the fenders provide a minimum stand-off distance, at and below the water line, of 4 feet under maximum compression.

• The Recommended Preferred Alternative will impact approximately 0.04 acres of sovereign submerged land outside of the existing right of way on the east approach. Coordination with FDEP will take place during the design phase prior to permitting to address the issuance of a new public easement or modification of an existing public easement.

• FDOT will conduct Level 2 testing on two sites ranked as High (the Anna Maria Bridge Tender House and Dalia Time Saver) during final design to determine the level of contamination, and if necessary, evaluate the options to remediate along with the associated costs.

• FDOT will determine what data is readily available regarding water quality prior to filing for permits. If no data is available, the department will implement water sampling and monitoring for a period sufficient to establish background water quality.


3-1

SECTION 3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The objective of the alternative analysis process is to identify technically and environmentally sound alternatives that provide a safe facility, that are acceptable to the community, and that are cost effective. The process results in the selection of a Recommended Preferred Alternative, which can be advanced to the Design phase. This section summarizes the alternatives considered in the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study.

Engineering, environmental, and economic factors as well as urban development conditions must be taken into consideration to develop an improved roadway facility for SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) that is in the best overall public interest. The improved facility should be designed to safely and efficiently accommodate the projected design year vehicular traffic as well as multi-modal traffic. The design and alignment of the improved facility must consider environmental conditions, public recreation areas, as well as sites potentially contaminated with hazardous and/or petroleum materials. The Preferred Alternative should optimize the potential for construction staging and traffic control while incorporating access control techniques that promote safe and efficient operations.

3.2 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is one of two facilities that provide vehicular access across Anna Maria Sound and over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between Bradenton and Anna Maria Island. A third bridge connects Anna Maria Island to Longboat Key to the south. The development of a new corridor would result in significant social and environmental impacts and would not address the problem of the deteriorating SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) bridge, which is a designated evacuation route. Therefore, developing a new corridor or improving a parallel roadway is not an option for this project. Rehabilitation or replacement of the current bridge within the existing corridor provides for the most feasible solution. Alternatives to the left, center, and right (north, center, and south) of the existing bridge will be evaluated to identify a preferred alignment for the bridge Build Alternatives within the existing corridor.

3.3 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative consists of continuing the normal maintenance and repair of the existing bridge in its current configuration while keeping the bridge operating in a safe condition and maintaining the existing typical sections as shown previously in Figure 1-2. This alternative includes installing cathodic protection pile jackets (structural and non-structural), repairing the concrete (sealing cracks, patching spalls, etc.), repairing the fender system, and repairing the bascule span steel in order to extend the service life 10 years. The repair schedule and costs are shown in Table 3-1. The No-Build Alternative does not require closure of the bridge to make the repairs. At the end of the 10-year period, a rehabilitation or replacement of the bridge would be required.


The No-Build Alternative does not require stormwater management facilities (SMF) since it does not alter the existing roadway or add additional capacity. The existing bridge will remain in its current configuration and no additional travel lanes are proposed.

TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REPAIRS FOR THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Period Repair Description* Cost*

Years 1-5

Install cathodic protection jackets (structural and non-structural) $1,620,000Repair concrete (seal cracks, patch spalls) $68,820Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency $337,764

Total years 1-5 $2,026,584

Years 5-10

Repair fender system $104,500Repair bascule leaf steel $100,000Repair concrete (seal cracks, patch spalls) $68,820Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency $54,664

Total Years 5-10 $327,984

Years 1-10 Total $2,354,568Source: FDOT District Structures Maintenance Department

Certain advantages would be associated with the implementation of the No-Build Alternative, including:

• No acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) or submerged land easements • Minimal initial cost • No disruption to vehicular and vessel traffic during the repairs, which has been a concern

to the business community on Anna Maria Island • No impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp • No impacts to utilities • Unlimited vertical clearance

The potential disadvantages of the No-Build Alternative include:

• A short service life (10 years) • An undesirable functional obsolescence for the life of the structure • Continued operating costs • Continued safety concerns associated with the raised curb and absence of adequate

shoulders • Continued safety concerns associated with vessels impacting the piles • Continued concern for effective and reliable hurricane evacuation and recovery should

mechanical systems malfunction or vehicles become disabled, blocking the through lane • No improvement in water quality in Anna Maria Sound since stormwater will not be

treated


• Continued vehicular delay caused by the bascule bridge openings • Continued delay as vessels wait for bridge to open • Continued vulnerability of the bridge to wave action in severe storms • No benefit of additional 10 ft horizontal guide clearance between fenders

The No-Build Alternative will remain under consideration throughout the alternatives analysis and evaluation process.

3.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE

The Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative consists of low cost capital improvements that maximize the efficiency of the existing system. TSM improvements include, but are not limited to, improved traffic signals and intersection geometries, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, signal timing, transit improvements and improved access features. While these improvements may provide additional capacity and access control, the purpose of this project is to address the structural condition of the existing bridge. Therefore, the TSM Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the project. However, the TSM Alternative may be implemented on an interim basis for some segments of the facility until the Recommended Preferred Alternative can be fully constructed.

3.5 REHABILITATION ALTERNATIVE

The Rehabilitation Alternative was developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Structures Maintenance Department. This alternative provides the necessary rehabilitation and repair of the existing bridge to keep it operating in a safe condition and extends the service life by 25 years. The bridge’s existing design speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) and posted speed of 40 mph will remain unchanged by this alternative. This alternative includes repairing the concrete, resurfacing the deck, installing cathodic protection pile jackets, installing crutch bents, repairing the fender system, repairing the electrical and mechanical systems, repairing and painting the bascule span steel, strengthening the beams using carbon fiber, and other repairs to extend the service life by 25 years. In addition, the existing 9 inch (in) high brush curbs and non-crash tested bridge railings will be removed. Raised sidewalks, 5 feet (ft) wide, will be constructed behind 6-in high mountable curbs. A 32-in vertical shape traffic barrier with an aluminum bicycle bullet railing will be constructed at the back of sidewalk as shown in Figure 3-1. The Rehabilitation Alternative requires a total of 140 days of bridge closure over the 25-year service life to make the repairs. The repair schedule, closure days, and costs are shown in Table 3-2. Note that some repairs require closures concurrent with other repairs that require closure; therefore, the total number of closure days can be limited to 120 days. Another rehabilitation program or a replacement of the bridge would be required at the end of the 25-year period.

The Rehabilitation Alternative does not require SMFs since it involves an alteration of the existing roadway without adding additional capacity. The existing bridge will remain in its existing configuration and no additional travel lanes are proposed.



TABLE 3-2 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REPAIRS FOR THE REHABILITATION

ALTERNATIVE

Period Repair Description* Bridge Closure

Duration (Days)*

Cost*

(2008 Dollars)

Years 1-5

Install cathodic protection jackets (structural and non-structural)

0 $1,620,000

Repair concrete (seal cracks, patch spalls) 0 $68,820Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency 0 $337,764Total years 1-5 0 $2,026,584

Years 5-10

Install cathodic protection jackets (structural and non-structural)

0 $5,200,000

Resurface additional deck area 60 $665,000Safety improvements 120 $3,161,900Strengthen concrete beams (carbon fiber) 0 $11,500,000Modify control house 0 $300,000Repair fender system 0 $104,500Paint structural steel 20 $240,000Repair bascule leaf steel 0 $100,000Replace flanking spans 30 $460,985Replace approach span steel bearings 30 $510,000Repair concrete (seal cracks, patch spalls) 0 $68,820Repair slope protection 0 $7,100Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency 0 $5,579,576Total years 5-10 120 $27,897,881

Years 10-15

Install additional crutch bents 0 $1,201,000

Reapply bascule pier metalizing 0 $155,750

Clean and seal deck joints 0 $77,700

Recondition mechanical system 0 $210,000

Recondition electrical system 0 $512,000

Replace bulkheads 0 $291,700

Replace fender system 0 $1,218,000

Repair concrete (seal cracks, patch spalls) 0 $68,820

Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency 0 $746,994

Total years 10-15 0 $4,481,964

TABLE 3-2 (cont.) SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED REPAIRS FOR THE REHABILITATION

ALTERNATIVE


Period Repair Description* Bridge Closure

Duration (Days)*

Cost*

(2008 Dollars)

Years 15-20

Install additional crutch bents 0 $1,201,000

Strengthen concrete beams (carbon fiber) 0 $11,500,000

Repair bascule leaf steel 0 $100,000

Paint structural steel 20 $240,000

Repair slope protection 0 $7,100


Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency 0 $3,279,230

Total years 15-20 20 $16,396,150

Years 20-25

Install additional crutch bents 0 $1,201, 000

Reapply bascule pier metalizing 0 $155,750

Repair fender system 0 $104,500

Clean and seal deck joints 0 $77,700

Repair slope protection 0 $7,100


Mobilization, MOT, and Contingency 0 $322,974

Total years 20-25 0 $1,937,844

Years 1-25 Total 140 $52,740,423Source: FDOT District Structures Maintenance Department

Certain advantages would be associated with the implementation of the Rehabilitation Alternative, including:

• No acquisition of ROW or submerged land easements • No impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp • No impacts to utilities • Unlimited vertical clearance


The potential disadvantages of the Rehabilitation Alternative include:

• A relatively short service life (25 years) • An undesirable functional obsolescence for the life of the structure • Continued and increasing operation, maintenance and repair costs • Continued safety concerns associated with the absence of adequate shoulders • Continued safety concerns associated with vessels impacting the piles • Continued concern for effective and reliable hurricane evacuation and recovery should

mechanical systems malfunction or vehicles become disabled, blocking the through lane • No improvement in water quality in Anna Maria Sound since stormwater will not be

treated • Continued vehicular delay caused by the bascule bridge openings • Continued delay as vessels wait for bridge to open • Continued vulnerability of the bridge to wave action in severe storms • Disruption to vehicular and vessel traffic during the rehabilitation program due to the

bridge repairs requiring closing the bridge to vehicular traffic for a total of 120 days in years 5-10 and another 20 days in years 15-20. The closing of the bridge was a concern to the business community on Anna Maria Island during the 2008 rehabilitation project. Vessel traffic will also be affected during construction

• No benefit of additional 10-ft horizontal guide clearance between fenders

The Rehabilitation Alternative will remain under consideration throughout the alternatives analysis and evaluation process.

3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF BUILD ALTERNATIVES

3.6.1 DESIGN CRITERIA AND DESIGN SPEED

In order for the proposed roadway improvements to fulfill the objective of accommodating motorized vehicles, and where appropriate, pedestrians and bicyclists in a safe and efficient manner, the proposed typical sections must adhere to specific design standards. The FDOT Plans Preparation Manual1, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) – A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway Streets2, the FDOT Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Commonly known as the “Florida Greenbook”)3, and the District One Straight Line Diagrams (SLD) were used as references in the development of proposed typical section design criteria for this project. Table 3-3 presents the pertinent design criteria used for this effort and their respective values or designations. A discussion of each criterion follows below.

3.6.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD

According to the FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook4, the Level of Service (LOS) standard for SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) and SR 789 (East Bay Drive) is LOS D.


TABLE 3-3 PROPOSED MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA

CRITERIA ROADWAY BRIDGE & TUNNEL DOCUMENTATION

Functional Classification Urban Minor Arterial FDOT SLD Roadway Section 13150000

Access Classification Class 6 FDOT PPM

Access Management Rule 14-97 Section 1.8, Table 1.8.2

Design Speed 45 mph FDOT PPM Section 1.9, Table 1.9.1

Travel Lane Width 12 ft FDOT PPM Section 2.1, Tables 2.1.1

Median Width Undivided N/A

Shoulder Width Full Width: 10 ft Paved Width: 5ft 10 ft FDOT PPM, Section 2.3, Table

2.3.3 & Section 2.0, Figure 2.0.2

Border Width 33 ft N/A FDOT PPM Section 2.5, Table 2.5.1

Bicycle Lane Width N/A N/A

Clear Zone/ Horizontal Clearance 24 ft N/A

FDOT PPM Section 2.11,

Table 2.11.11, Tables 2.11.1-2.11.11

Sidewalk Width 5 ft FDOT PPM Section 8.3.1

Horizontal Alignment Desirable Length of

Horizontal Curve 15V = 675 ft FDOT PPM Section 2.8, Table 2.8.2a

Minimum Length of Horizontal Curve 400 ft FDOT PPM

Section 2.8, Table 2.8.2a Maximum Horizontal Curve Using Limiting Values of “e”

(e Max = 0.10) Rural 10° 15' 00" FDOT PPM

Section 2.8, Table 2.8.3

Maximum Horizontal Curve Using Normal Cross Slopes

(-0.02) Rural 0° 30' 00" FDOT PPM


Max. Rate Superelevation 0.10 FDOT PPM Section 2.9

Max. Deflection w/o Horizontal Curve 0° 45' 00" FDOT PPM

Section 2.8, Table 2.8.1a

TABLE 3-3 (cont.)

PROPOSED MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA


CRITERIA ROADWAY BRIDGE & TUNNEL DOCUMENTATION

Vertical Alignment

Maximum Grade 5% FDOT PPM Section 2.6, Table 2.6.1

Maximum Grade Algebraic Difference w/o Vertical

Curve 0.70% FDOT PPM


Crest Vertical Curve "K" Value 98 FDOT PPM

Section 2.8, Table 2.8.5 Minimum Length of Crest

Vertical Curve 3V = 135 ft FDOT PPM Section 2.8, Table 2.8.5

Sag Vertical Curve "K" Value 79 FDOT PPM

Section 2.8, Table 2.8.6 Minimum Length of Sag Vertical Curve 3V = 135 ft FDOT PPM

Section 2.8, Table 2.8.6 Stopping Sight Distance for

Grades of 2% or Less 360 ft FDOT PPM Section 2.7, Table 2.7.1

Cross Slopes (ft/ft) 0.02 FDOT PPM Section 2.1, Figure 2.1.1

Minimum Vertical Clearance for Structures over Roadway 16’- 6” FDOT PPM


3.6.3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

The functional classification of a roadway affects elements of design such as design speed, LOS requirements, and local access accommodations. SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is currently classified by FDOT as an urban minor arterial throughout the project limits.

3.6.4 ACCESS CLASSIFICATION

The objective of the Access Classification system is to protect the public safety, enhance the mobility of people and goods, and preserve the functional integrity of the highway system. The FDOT Access Classification for SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is Access Class 6. The Access Class 6 standards are shown in Table 3-4 for posted speeds greater than 45 mph/less than or equal to 45 mph.


TABLE 3-4 ACCESS CLASS STANDARDS

Standard Access Class 6

Facility Design Features (Median Treatment & Access Roads) Non-Restrictive

Minimum Connection Spacing 440 ft / 245 ft

Minimum Directional Median Opening Spacing N/A

Minimum Full Median Opening Spacing N/A

Minimum Signal Spacing 1,320 ft

The current PD&E Study proposes that the current access classification will remain unchanged throughout this corridor.

3.6.5 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD GUIDE CLEARANCES

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) guide clearances have been established for new bridge crossing the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at this location. They are 21-ft vertical clearance at mean high water (mhw) for new drawbridges and 65-ft vertical clearance at mhw for new fixed-bridges. The horizontal guide clearance for all bridge replacement alternatives is 100 ft perpendicular between fenders, which is a 10-ft increase over the existing condition.

More information on specific alternatives is provided in the following sections.

3.6.6 KINGFISH BOAT RAMP

Kingfish Boat Ramp is a public boat ramp and picnic area located on the north side of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) immediately west of the existing bridge within existing ROW. The facility is maintained by Manatee County and is currently in the design phase of a major renovation to improve ramp operations, minimize and define access points, and improve traffic circulation throughout the staging and parking area.

3.6.7 SPLASH ZONE

One possible reason for the deterioration of the existing structure is its location in vertical proximity to the saltwater. According to the FDOT Structures Design Guidelines5, for concrete superstructures located where a significant corrosion potential exists, the desirable vertical clearance standard is a minimum of 12 ft above mhw (1.09 ft). This is referred to as the splash zone. Providing for this area in new bridge designs will significantly protect the structure from the effects of corrosion since the bridge superstructure will be less susceptible to salt water spray which can be absorbed into the concrete and cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel. All new structure concepts considered for this project would be constructed above the splash zone.


After accounting for the 1.09-ft mhw elevation of Anna Maria Sound and 8 ft of beam and deck, the approximate minimum deck elevation for all new structure concepts would be at or above elevation 21 ft over the water.

3.6.8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

Anna Maria Sound is part of the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System and these waters are designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs). Waters with this designation are afforded an extra measure of environmental protection and are thus subject to greater stormwater treatment volume requirements than regular surface waters.

Based upon October and November 2008 conversations with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) staff, the replacement bridge would be eligible for a General Noticed Permit for bridge replacement if the Preferred Alternative detours traffic during construction of the replacement bridge allowing the construction of the replacement bridge on the same horizontal alignment as the existing bridge (centered alignment). If the Preferred Alternative is not constructed along the same horizontal alignment, the project would have to comply with the stormwater requirements described in the SWFWMD Basis of Review (BOR).

BOR’s requirements vary depending on project size, designation of receiving water, and type of retention/detention system. As this project is less than 100 acres (ac) of impact, any stormwater facility would only treat the runoff from the first 1/2 in of rainfall. As this project discharges directly into an OFW, SWFWMD requires an additional 50 percent more treatment volume. Hence, the stormwater sites identified for all alternatives are sized on the basis of retaining 0.75 in of runoff over the contributing area (roadway plus pond area) in a dry retention/detention system and 1.5 in of runoff over the contributing area in a wet retention/detention system.

For a dry retention/detention system, the assumed pond bottom elevation is 3.0, which is two feet above the mhw elevation in the adjacent bay. For a wet retention/detention system, the assumed control elevation is 2.0.

It may be necessary to implement various design options for the design of the stormwater facility. These options include, but are not limited to, incorporating black base into the pavement design, over-excavating the pond areas and backfill with clean sands, or installing underdrain to maintain groundwater at least 1 foot below the pond bottom.

Using the current water management regulations as a basis for design will result in a reduction in pollutant loading because there is currently no stormwater treatment for the roadway and bridge. Thus, facilities discussed in this for each alignment alternative will meet the proposed rule in that Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed to provide the greatest pollutant removal in the most cost-effective manner given the limitation of the project site.

A Final Pond Siting Report6 (PSR) has been developed for this project. The purpose of the PSR is to determine the requirements for and potential locations of SMFs for the project. For this particular study, the purpose is to determine the feasibility of utilizing existing ROW within the project limits for the facilities’ locations. The PSR defines the stormwater treatment and management requirements and identifies viable treatment options and pond sites that are hydraulically feasible and environmentally permittable based on the best available information.


The project was divided into two basins: west and east of Anna Maria Sound. Each of the basins was then divided into subbasins so that the stormwater facility design would maximize the available ROW. The provided treatment and attenuation volumes were calculated and areas for the proposed pond sites were established according to the required treatment and attenuation volumes. Design criteria from SWFWMD and FDOT were used to determine the size of each pond site. Preliminary pond sites were located within the existing ROW for each bridge replacement alternative. The PSR includes detailed evaluation information for each pond site.

3.6.9 REMOVAL OF EXISTING BRIDGE

All bridge replacement alternatives include the removal of the existing bridge once traffic has been shifted to the new bridge. There are currently no plans to leave any portions of the existing bridge intact for recreational use.

3.6.10 BRIDGE TYPE

Three general bridge replacement alternatives were evaluated for this PD&E Study:

Alternative 1 − Low-Level Bascule: This concept proposes building a new bascule bridge with a minimum vertical navigational clearance of 21 ft above the fenders when the bascule leaves are lowered. This is the established vertical guide clearance set by the USCG and is the same vertical clearance as the existing bridge.

Alternative 2 − Mid-Level Bascule: This concept proposes a replacement bascule bridge with a navigation clearance of 45 ft. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at Anna Maria Island Bridge and allowing for tidal fluctuations, this height would allow approximately 39 percent of the waterway users that currently require the bridge to open to pass without an opening.

Alternative 3 – High-Level Fixed-Span: This concept proposes a high-level fixed-span replacement bridge over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway navigation channel. The vertical navigational clearance will be 65 ft. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at the Anna Maria Island Bridge and allowing for tidal fluctuations, this height would allow greater than 99 percent of boats that currently require the existing bridge to open to safely navigate under the proposed structure.

3.6.11 BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTIONS

Since this project is not intended to increase capacity, only two-lane typical sections were considered. Two different two-lane undivided bridge typical sections were considered. Both typical sections include two 12-ft travel lanes and two 10-ft shoulders, which can accommodate bicyclists and disabled vehicles. The design speed for all proposed typical sections is 45 mph with a posted speed of 40 mph. The difference between the typical sections is the sidewalk configurations.

Typical Section A includes one 12-ft sidewalk along the north side of the bridge, separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier wall. A 4.5-ft high pedestrian/bicycle railing will be provided on the outside of the 12-ft sidewalk. There will be no sidewalk on the south side. Typical Section A is shown in Figure 3-2 for the fixed and bascule bridge.



Typical Section B includes a 10-ft sidewalk along both the north and south sides of the bridge. Typical Section B is shown in Figure 3-3 for the fixed and bascule bridge.

3.6.12 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENTS

The evaluation of all bridge replacement alternatives included an evaluation of a center alignment, a north alignment, and a south alignment. The project length is not significantly different for the center, north or south alignments; however, costs, environmental impacts, effects on the Kingfish Boat Ramp, maintenance of traffic (vehicular and vessel), and permitting aspects may differ.

3.6.12.1 Center Alignment

The existing bridge is centered within the existing 1000-ft ROW over Anna Maria Sound. Therefore, a centered alignment would conflict with the existing bridge, and traffic could not be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Maintaining traffic would require a complicated and more costly construction phasing plan, requiring a detour or a temporary bridge (estimated construction cost greater than $10 million) to maintain traffic. A temporary bridge would require construction permits, and may hinder navigational traffic. A water main is attached to the south side of the fixed portion of the existing bridge, but is buried as it crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Since the water main is attached to the existing bridge, it will require relocation regardless of which alignment is chosen. Based on the above issues, the centered alignment was eliminated from further consideration.

3.6.12.2 North Alignment

Alternatives on a northern alignment would allow a 10-ft separation between the old and new bridge structures. This separation provides room for construction and demolition activities to occur without disrupting traffic on the existing bridge. In accordance with the FDOT Drainage Manual7, section 4.9.3.2, the minimum abutment protection of spill-through abutments with a 1:2 slope and bank-and-shore rubble riprap with a horizontal blanket from the toe is assumed for all alternatives. There are currently two navigational channels immediately adjacent to the existing bridge along the northern side which provide access to the Kingfish Boat Ramp to the west and a marina to the east. A new bridge constructed to the north would impact the navigability of these channels. Therefore, dredging may be required to maintain navigable depth and width.

Dredging will involve other issues such as water quality as this waterway is identified as an OFW, additional seagrass and mangrove impacts, possible essential fish habitat impacts, as well as USCG and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit approvals. Coordination with and approval from the local sponsors of the channel, Manatee County and/or the West Coast Inland Navigation District, will also be required. A northern alignment will also impact sovereign submerged land outside the ROW on the east approach. Any realignment to the north would cause significant direct impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp, including: the closure of one of the three planned driveways, reduced access to the boat ramps, loss of much of the planned parking, and impacts to the traffic circulation through the facility. A northern alignment would



place the new construction closer to the existing potential contamination sites than a southern alignment. Existing utilities on the north side of the bridge would be impacted by the northern alignment. A water main is attached to the south side of the fixed portion of the existing bridge, but is buried as it crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Since the water main is attached to the existing bridge, it will require relocation regardless of which alignment is chosen.

3.6.12.3 South Alignment

Any alternative on the southern alignment would allow a 14-ft separation between the old and new bridge structures. This separation provides room for construction and demolition activities to occur without disrupting traffic on the existing bridge, while avoiding impacts to the existing bridge tender house on the south side of the existing bridge. There is sufficient existing ROW to construct a new bridge on a south alignment without conflicting with the existing bridge, the boat ramp, or the navigational channel north of the existing bridge. However, some ROW will be required on the south side of the roadway, east of the bridge where the ROW narrows from 1000 ft to 190 ft, impacting sovereign submerged land. The new bridge would tie into the existing roadway using gentle, normal crown curves to the west and east of the bridge. As with the north alignment, there will be a spill-through abutment with a 1:2 slope and rubble riprap protection for all alternatives. Impacts to the mangroves and seagrasses will be greater than with a northern alignment. Additionally, negative impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp and impacts to the navigation channel on the north side will be avoided. Traffic operation at the boat ramp would be enhanced through increased storage capacity in the boat ramp driveways. A water main is attached to the south side of the fixed portion of the existing bridge, but is buried as it crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Since the water main is attached to the existing bridge, it will require relocation regardless of which alignment is chosen. The water main is the only utility located on the south side.

3.6.12.4 Alignment Conclusion

Table 3-5 summarizes the qualitative analysis for the north, center and south alignment options. Based on this analysis, the center alignment was eliminated from further consideration. Build Alternatives along both the north and south alignments were fully evaluated and displayed at the public workshop, held December 16, 2008. The bridge replacement alternatives, the No-Build Alternative, and the Rehabilitation Alternatives are described below.


TABLE 3-5 QUALITATIVE ALIGNMENT EVALUATION MATRIX

Two-Lane Bridge Replacement Issues Alignments

North Center South

Detour Temporary Bridge

Environmental

Wetlands N/D N/D N/D N/D Seagrass L N/A M M Habitat / Species L N/A M L Permitting H L H M Archaeological L N/A N/A L Contamination M L L L

Kingfish Boat

Ramp Section 4(f)

Access - Vehicles & Vessels H N/A N/A N/A Traffic Circulation H N/A N/A N/A Loss of Parking H N/A N/A N/A

ROW Neal Preserve N/A N/A N/A N/A Submerged Lands L N/A N/A L

Cost Roadway H L M H Structure M M H M Dredging H N/A N/A N/A

Construction

Constructability L L H L Duration M L H L Utilities H L L NA MOT / Detour L H M L

Operation

Drainage N/D N/D N/D N/D Traffic L H L L Waterway Navigation H L M L Emergency Response Time L H L L

Public Involvement Business Concerns L H L L

H = High

Alignment Eliminated from Further Consideration M = Medium Level of Impact, Cost, Effort, Complexity, etc.

L = Low N/D = No Difference Between Alternatives

Alignment Advanced to Evaluation Phase N/A = Issue is Not Applicable for Alternative


3.7 PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVES

For the purposes of the alternatives analysis, and to keep the number of alternatives to a manageable number, all of the bridge replacement alternatives utilize the “worst case” two-lane undivided Typical Section B as shown in Figure 3-3, with two 10-ft sidewalks. Therefore, the designation “B” has been added to the alternative names accordingly. Typical Section A shown in Figure 3-2 with one 12-ft sidewalk on the north side, could be substituted and a reduced footprint would result.

Bridge replacement alternatives evaluated include:

• Alternative 1BN: Low-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, North Alignment • Alternative 1BS: Low-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, South Alignment • Alternative 2BN: Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, North Alignment • Alternative 2BS: Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, South Alignment • Alternative 3BN: High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical Section B, North Alignment • Alternative 3BS: High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical Section B, South Alignment

The following sections include descriptions of each bridge replacement alternative. Each description is followed by a presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of that alternative.

3.7.1 ALTERNATIVE 1BN – LOW-LEVEL BASCULE BRIDGE, TYPICAL SECTION B, NORTH ALIGNMENT

Alternative 1BN would replace the existing Anna Maria Island Bridge with a new low-level bascule structure similar to the existing structure, with a 21-ft vertical navigational clearance when the bridge is closed. The new structure would be built 10 ft to the north of the existing structure, utilizing Typical Section B, as shown in Figure 3-3.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the proposed bridge barrier wall, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project, additionally, the curb-and-gutter provides more area for SMF “B-N,” as shown in Appendix A. The remaining shoulders on each side of the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current FDOT design standards. The bridge includes a 10-ft sidewalk on both sides. The 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed typical section of the roadway west and east of the bridge is shown in Figure 3-4. The roadway at the bridge approaches is similar except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment. The proposed roadway is consistent with the bridge typical section except that the northern sidewalk is decreased in width to 8 ft since it will be constructed by Manatee County as part of



the Kingfish Boat Ramp improvements on the west and matches the existing sidewalk width on the east.

Taking into account the mhw elevation of 1.09 ft, the proposed profile accommodates a minimum 21-ft vertical navigational clearance over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, similar to the existing clearance. Maximum grades of 2.8 percent are joined by a 549-ft cresting vertical curve through the bascule portion of the structure. The fixed approaches to the bascule bridge accommodate an 8-ft structure depth, except in the westernmost 226 ft and easternmost 246 ft of the bridge where the structure depth was reduced to 5 ft. This reduced structure depth was used to decrease environmental impacts by lowering the elevations of the west and east abutments which minimized the footprint of the proposed sloped abutments. The bascule span structure depth is assumed to be 10 ft. The proposed bascule bridge will be 3,596.07 ft in length, and will reach a maximum elevation of 33.31 ft in the closed position; this increase from the existing 30.00-ft elevation will allow for the 12-ft splash zone discussed earlier.

The bascule portion would consist of two bascule leaves forming a 192-ft span. As previously explained, all superstructure components would be located above the splash zone. Alternative 1BN will encroach on the existing navigational channels which run along the northern side of the existing bridge. This alternative will impede navigation which may require dredging to restore. Access from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) to the Kingfish Boat Ramp west of the bridge will also be impacted. Three driveways currently provide access to the boat ramp and help facilitate smooth vehicle circulation with logical points of entry and exit; this alternative will require the closure of the easternmost driveway and the truncation of the center driveway. These modifications will greatly decrease the available parking and hamper vehicle circulation, as well as reduce the staging area used by vehicles for launching and retrieving watercraft. The commercial driveways east of the bridge could continue operating similar to existing conditions. As with the existing condition, the proposed bridge will not accommodate vehicular traffic under the bridge from one side of the causeway to the other.

Certain advantages would be associated with the implementation of Alternative 1BN, including:

• Gulf Intracoastal Waterway vertical navigational height is unlimited when the bridge is open

• Improvement in water quality in Anna Maria Sound due to treatment of stormwater runoff

• Improved safety and functional adequacy of the facility due to added shoulders, a wider sidewalk, a crash tested barrier, and increased resistance to ship impact

• Increased horizontal distance between fenders will accommodate safer navigation • Maximum grades of 2.8 percent do not require flat landings on the sidewalk • 8 and 10-ft sidewalks are an improvement over the existing sidewalks and accommodate

one-way shared-use paths The potential disadvantages of Alternative 1BN include:

• Continued vehicular delay caused by the bascule bridge openings • Continued operating costs due to the need for a bridge tender


• Impacts to navigation within the local channel north of the bridge • Impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp, including loss of parking and vehicle circulation

3.7.2 ALTERNATIVE 1BS – LOW-LEVEL BASCULE BRIDGE, TYPICAL SECTION B, SOUTH ALIGNMENT

Alternative 1BS would replace the existing Anna Maria Island Bridge with a new low-level bascule structure similar to the existing structure, with a 21-ft vertical navigational clearance when the bridge is closed. The new structure would be built 14 ft to the south of the existing structure, utilizing Typical Section B, as shown in Figure 3-3.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the easternmost Kingfish Boat Ramp driveway, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project discussed in Section 3.4.3; additionally, the curb-and-gutter provides more area for SMF E, as shown in Appendix A. The remaining shoulders on each side of the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current FDOT design standards. The bridge includes a 10-ft sidewalk on both sides. The 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed typical section of the roadway west and east of the bridge is shown in Figure 3-4. The roadway is consistent with the bridge typical section except that the northern sidewalk is decreased in width to 8 ft by utilizing the existing sidewalk. The roadway at the bridge approaches is similar to the proposed bridge except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment.

Taking into account the mhw elevation of 1.09 ft, the proposed profile accommodates a minimum 21-ft vertical navigational clearance over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, similar to the existing clearance. Maximum grades of 2.8 percent are joined by a 549-ft cresting vertical curve through the bascule portion of the structure. The fixed approaches to the bascule bridge accommodate an 8-ft structure depth, except in the westernmost 225 ft and easternmost 248 ft of the bridge where the structure depth was reduced to 5 ft. This reduced structure depth was used to decrease environmental impacts by lowering the elevations of the west and east abutments which minimized the footprint of the proposed sloped abutments. The bascule span structure depth is assumed to be 10 ft. The proposed bascule bridge will be 3,596.07 ft in length, and will reach a maximum elevation of 33.31 ft in the closed position; this increase from the existing 30.00-ft elevation will allow for the 12-ft splash zone discussed earlier.

The bascule portion would consist of two bascule leaves forming a 192-ft span. As previously explained, all superstructure components would be located above the splash zone. Access from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) to the Kingfish Boat Ramp west of the bridge and the commercial driveways east of the bridge could continue operating similar to existing conditions. As with the existing condition, the proposed bridge will not accommodate vehicular traffic under the bridge from one side of the causeway to the other.


Certain advantages would be associated with the implementation of Alternative 1BS, including:


• Improved operation and safety of the Kingfish Boat Ramp • Improvement in water quality in Anna Maria Sound due to treatment of stormwater

runoff • Improved safety and functional adequacy of the facility due to added shoulders, a wider

sidewalk, a crash tested barrier, and increased resistance to ship impact • Increased horizontal distance between fenders will accommodate safer navigation • Maximum grades of 2.8 percent do not require flat landings on the sidewalk • 8 and 10-ft sidewalks are an improvement over the existing sidewalks and accommodate

one-way shared-use paths

The potential disadvantages of Alternative 1BS include:


3.7.3 ALTERNATIVE 2BN – MID-LEVEL BASCULE, TYPICAL SECTION B, NORTH ALIGNMENT

Alternative 2BN would replace the existing Anna Maria Island Bridge with a new mid-level bascule structure similar to the existing structure, with a 45-ft vertical navigational clearance when the bridge is closed. The new structure would be built to the north of the existing structure, utilizing Typical Section B, as shown in Figure 3-3.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the proposed bridge barrier wall, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project. The remaining shoulders on each side of the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current FDOT design standards. The bridge includes a 10-ft sidewalk on both sides. The 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed typical section of the roadway west and east of the bridge is shown in Figure 3-4. The roadway at the bridge approaches is similar except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment. The proposed roadway is consistent with the bridge typical section except that the northern sidewalk is decreased in width to 8 ft since it will be constructed by Manatee County as part of the Kingfish Boat Ramp improvements on the west and matches the existing sidewalk width on the east.


Taking into account the mhw elevation of 1.09 ft, the proposed profile accommodates a minimum 45-ft vertical navigational clearance over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at Anna Maria Island Bridge, this vertical clearance will allow approximately 39 percent of the waterway users that currently require the bridge to open to pass without an opening. Maximum grades of 4 percent are joined by a 784-ft cresting vertical curve through the bascule portion of the structure. The fixed approaches to the bascule bridge accommodate an 8-ft structure depth, except in the westernmost 226 ft and easternmost 246 ft of the bridge where the structure depth was reduced to 5 ft. This reduced structure depth was used to decrease environmental impacts by lowering the elevations of the west and east abutments which minimized the footprint of the proposed sloped abutments. The bascule span structure depth is assumed to be 10 ft. The proposed bascule bridge will be 3,596.07 ft in length, and will reach a maximum elevation of 56.31 ft in the closed position.

The bascule portion would consist of two bascule leaves forming a 192-ft span. As previously explained, all superstructure components would be located above the splash zone. Alternative 2BN will encroach on the existing navigational channels which run along the northern side of the existing bridge. This alternative will impede navigation which may require dredging to restore. Access from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) to the Kingfish Boat Ramp west of the bridge will also be impacted. Three driveways currently provide access to the boat ramp and help facilitate smooth vehicle circulation with logical points of entry and exit; this alternative will require the closure of the easternmost driveway and the truncation of the center driveway. These modifications will greatly decrease the available parking and hamper vehicle circulation, as well as reduce the staging area used by vehicles for launching and retrieving watercraft. The commercial driveways east of the bridge could continue operating similar to existing conditions. As with the existing condition, the proposed bridge will not accommodate vehicular traffic under the bridge from one side of the causeway to the other.



• Potentially reduced travel delay due to possibility of fewer bridge openings • Improvement in water quality in Anna Maria Sound due to treatment of stormwater

runoff • Improved safety and functional adequacy of the facility due to added shoulders, a wider

sidewalk, a crash tested barrier, and increased resistance to ship impact • Increased horizontal distance between fenders will accommodate safer navigation • Maximum grades of 4 percent do not require flat landings on the sidewalk • 8- and 10-ft sidewalks are an improvement over the existing sidewalks and accommodate


The potential disadvantages of Alternative 2BN include:



• Impacts to navigation within the local channel north of the bridge • Impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp, including loss of parking and vehicle circulation

3.7.4 ALTERNATIVE 2BS – MID-LEVEL BASCULE, TYPICAL SECTION B, SOUTH ALIGNMENT

Alternative 2BS would replace the existing Anna Maria Island Bridge with a new mid-level bascule structure similar to the existing structure, with a 45-ft vertical navigational clearance when the bridge is closed. The new structure would be built 14 ft to the south of the existing structure, utilizing Typical Section B, as shown in Figure 3-3.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the easternmost Kingfish Boat Ramp driveway, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project discussed previously; additionally, the curb-and-gutter provides more area for SMF E, as shown in Appendix A. The remaining shoulders on each side of the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current FDOT design standards. The bridge includes a 10-ft sidewalk on both sides. The 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed typical section of the roadway west and east of the bridge is shown in Figure 3-4. The roadway at the bridge approaches is similar except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment. Figure 3-4 shows the proposed roadway at grade west and east of Anna Maria Island Bridge, which is consistent with the bridge typical section.

Taking into account the mhw elevation of 1.09 ft, the proposed profile accommodates a minimum 45-ft vertical navigational clearance over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at Anna Maria Island Bridge, this vertical clearance will allow approximately 39 percent of the waterway users that currently require the bridge to open to pass without an opening. Maximum grades of 4 percent are joined by a 784-ft cresting vertical curve through the bascule portion of the structure. The fixed approaches to the bascule bridge accommodate an 8-ft structure depth, except in the westernmost 225 ft and easternmost 248 ft of the bridge where the structure depth was reduced to 5 ft. This reduced structure depth was used to decrease environmental impacts by lowering the elevations of the west and east abutments which minimized the footprint of the proposed sloped abutments. The bascule span structure depth is assumed to be 10 ft. The proposed bascule bridge will be 3,596.07 ft in length, and will reach a maximum elevation of 56.31 ft in the closed position.

The bascule portion would consist of two bascule leaves forming a 192-ft span. As previously explained, all superstructure components would be located above the splash zone. Access from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) to the Kingfish Boat Ramp west of the bridge and the commercial driveways east of the bridge could continue operating similar to existing conditions. As with the existing condition, the proposed bridge will not accommodate vehicular traffic under the bridge from one side of the causeway to the other.





• Potentially reduced travel delay due to possibility of fewer bridge openings. • Increased horizontal distance between fenders will accommodate safer navigation • Improved operation and safety of the Kingfish Boat Ramp • Improvement in water quality in Anna Maria Sound due to treatment of stormwater

runoff • Maximum grades of 4 percent do not require flat landings on the sidewalk • 8 and 10-ft sidewalks are an improvement over the existing sidewalks and accommodate



• Continued vehicular delay caused by the bascule bridge openings • Continued operating costs due to the need for a bridge tender • Potential effects on the natural environment

3.7.5 ALTERNATIVE 3BN – HIGH-LEVEL FIXED-BRIDGE, TYPICAL SECTION B, NORTH ALIGNMENT

Alternative 3BN proposes to replace the existing Anna Maria Island Bridge with a new high-level fixed structure providing 65 ft of vertical clearance over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The new structure would be built 10 ft to the north of the existing structure, utilizing Typical Section B (fixed bridge portion only), as shown in Figure 3-3.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the proposed bridge barrier wall, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project. The remaining shoulders on each side of the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current FDOT design standards. The bridge includes a 10-ft sidewalk on both sides. The 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed typical section of the roadway west and east of the bridge is shown in Figure 3-4. The roadway at the bridge approaches is similar except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment. The proposed roadway is consistent with the bridge typical section except that the northern sidewalk is decreased in width to 8 ft since it will be constructed by Manatee County as part of the Kingfish Boat Ramp improvements on the west and matches the existing sidewalk width on the east.


Taking into account the mhw elevation of 1.09 ft, the proposed profile accommodates a minimum 65-ft vertical navigational clearance over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at Anna Maria Island Bridge, this vertical clearance will allow approximately 99 percent of the waterway users that currently require the bridge to open to pass without an opening. Maximum grades of 4 percent are joined by a 784-ft cresting vertical curve. The fixed bridge accommodates an 8-ft structure depth, except in the westernmost 161 ft and easternmost 171 ft of the bridge where the structure depth was reduced to 5 ft. This reduced structure depth was used to decrease environmental impacts by lowering the elevations of the west and east abutments which minimized the footprint of the proposed sloped abutments. The proposed fixed bridge will be 3,455.79 ft in length, and will reach a maximum elevation of 74.31 ft.

As previously explained, all superstructure components would be located above the splash zone. Alternative 2BN will encroach on the existing navigational channels which run along the northern side of the existing bridge. This alternative will impede navigation which may require dredging to restore. Access from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) to the Kingfish Boat Ramp west of the bridge will also be impacted. Three driveways currently provide access to the boat ramp and help facilitate smooth vehicle circulation with logical points of entry and exit; this alternative will require the closure of the easternmost driveway and the truncation of the center driveway. These modifications will greatly decrease the available parking and hamper vehicle circulation, as well as reduce the staging area used by vehicles for launching and retrieving watercraft. The commercial driveways east of the bridge could continue operating similar to existing conditions. As with the existing condition, the proposed bridge will not accommodate vehicular traffic under the bridge from one side of the causeway to the other.




• Significant operational improvements and reduced vehicular delay due to lack of bridge openings

• No operating costs since no bridge tender is required • Increased horizontal distance between the fenders will accommodate safer navigation • Maximum grades of 4 percent do not require flat landings on the sidewalk • 8- and 10-ft sidewalks are an improvement over the existing sidewalks and accommodate


The potential disadvantages of Alternative 3BN include:

• Impacts to navigation within the local channel north of the bridge • Impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp, including loss of parking and vehicle circulation • 65-ft limited navigation height will require the detour of approximately one boat per

month, roughly 0.3 percent of boats that currently require the bridge to open


3.7.6 ALTERNATIVE 3BS – HIGH-LEVEL FIXED-BRIDGE, TYPICAL SECTION B, SOUTH ALIGNMENT

Alternative 3BS proposes to replace the existing Anna Maria Island Bridge with a new high-level fixed structure providing 65 ft of vertical clearance over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The new structure would be built 14 ft to the south of the existing structure, utilizing Typical Section B (fixed bridge portion only), as shown in Figure 3-3.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the easternmost Kingfish Boat Ramp driveway, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project discussed previously; additionally, the curb-and-gutter provides more capacity for SMF E, as shown in Appendix A. The remaining shoulders on each side of the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current FDOT design standards. The bridge includes a 10-ft sidewalk on both sides. The 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed roadway at the west and east bridge approaches is similar to the proposed bridge except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment. Figure 3-4 shows the proposed roadway at grade west and east of Anna Maria Island Bridge, which is consistent with the bridge typical section except that the northern sidewalk is decreased in width to 8 ft.

Taking into account the mhw elevation of 1.09 ft, the proposed profile accommodates a minimum 65-ft vertical navigational clearance over the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at Anna Maria Island Bridge, this vertical clearance will allow approximately 99 percent of the waterway users that currently require the bridge to open to pass without an opening. Maximum grades of 4 percent are joined by a 784-ft cresting vertical curve. The fixed bridge accommodates an 8-ft structure depth, except in the westernmost 147 ft and easternmost 187 ft of the bridge where the structure depth was reduced to 5 ft. This reduced structure depth was used to decrease environmental impacts by lowering the elevations of the west and east abutments which minimized the footprint of the proposed sloped abutments. The proposed fixed bridge will be 3,451.65 ft in length, and will reach a maximum elevation of 74.31 ft.

As previously explained, all superstructure components would be located above the splash zone. Access from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) to the Kingfish Boat Ramp west of the bridge and the commercial driveways east of the bridge could continue operating similar to existing conditions. As with the existing condition, the proposed bridge will not accommodate vehicular traffic under the bridge from one side of the causeway to the other.


• Improved operation and safety of the Kingfish Boat Ramp




• Significant operational improvements and reduced vehicular delay due to lack of bridge openings

• No operating costs since no bridge tender is required • Increased horizontal distance between the fenders will accommodate safer navigation • Maximum grades of 4 percent do not require flat landings on the sidewalk • 8 and 10-ft sidewalks are an improvement over the existing sidewalks and accommodate



• 65-ft limited navigation height will require the detour of approximately one boat per month, roughly 0.3 percent of boats that currently require the bridge to open

3.8 TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE

A Tunnel Alternative was also evaluated and documented in the Tunnel Alternative Technical Memorandum8. The purpose of the memorandum was to determine the feasibility of the different construction methodologies, including bored tunnel, immersed tube, and cut and cover. The availability of skilled labor, allocation of risk, environmental impacts, geology, ventilation, and other factors were considered. The initial construction cost, as well as operating and maintenance costs were also considered. Any tunnel alternative requires that the tunnel entrances be elevated high enough so that hurricane surge and waves will not inundate the tunnel, to approximately 18 ft. This requirement is accommodated in the design by providing a crest curve in the profile, and surrounding the open end of the tunnel (referred to as the boat section) with a wall.

Tunnel mechanical systems include ventilation, fire protection and drainage systems. Of these three mechanical systems, only ventilation requirements have a significant effect on the overall size of the tunnel cross-section.

The Tunnel Alternative was considered to be non-viable for reasons summarized below.

3.8.1 BORED TUNNEL

This method of construction would excavate the tunnel in place with the use of a tunnel boring machine (TBM). The circular tunnel for Typical Section A would require a boring approximately 69 ft in diameter, exceeding in diameter the largest TBM built or planned in the world. The desired cover over a tunnel boring machine in soft ground is typically one bore diameter, or 69 feet for Option A. Reducing the cover to less than the one diameter results in a lower factor of safety against buoyancy creating problems with balancing the face pressure. During construction, if the face pressure becomes too high, the face may float to the surface causing possible flooding of the TBM and the tunnel. Anchors and/or lead ballast will be required to hold the section


down. This is typically a problem with very large diameter bores since a large unused vertical space is provided over the roadway, increasing the buoyancy. The resulting profile using 7 percent grades and a 35-mile per hour design speed would transition into the causeway nearly one half mile inland of the shoreline, 240 ft east of SR 789 (East Bay Drive). The profile transitions to the existing roadway too close to SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to accommodate adequate sight distances. The bored tunnel alternative is determined to be unfeasible due to the excessive bore diameter and unavailability of a TBM, the expense of anchoring the tunnel to resist buoyancy and the excessive profile demands resulting from the depth of the tunnel adjacent to Anna Maria Island.

3.8.2 IMMERSED TUBE

This construction method consists of dredging a trench along the bottom of the waterway and immersing tunnel sections end-to-end within the trench. Prefabricated tunnel sections are floated into place, ballasted to overcome buoyancy, placed in the trench, then jacked against the previously placed section. The trench is then backfilled by placing the excavated material on top of the tunnel units. Immersed tubes can be constructed with a minimum of 5 ft of permanent cover over the top of the section, so the profile results in better sight distance approaching SR 789 (East Bay Drive).

The major disadvantage of this system is that the existing water depth is insufficient to float the immersed tube sections. The outfitted and ready-to-sink sections will carry a draft of approximately 29 ft. Water depths along the proposed alignment vary from 10 ft at its deepest to 2 ft at its shallowest requiring substantial dredging. Turbidity barriers would be required and would be difficult to maintain in place in the swift currents at the site. Furthermore, to maintain the integrity of the existing bridge, the centerline of the tunnel would have to be located 350 to 400 feet from the existing bridge centerline, creating ROW issues at landfall for the construction of the tunnel and the construction of ventilation and security monitoring facilities.

Based on the excessive dredging requirement for this alternative at and leading to the project site, the immersed tube tunnel alternative is determined to be economically and environmentally unfeasible due to water quality, turbidity, ROW, and seagrass impacts.

3.8.3 CUT AND COVER

The cut and cover tunnel is a conventional reinforced cast-in-place concrete structure, and its construction requires that the tunnel, the tunnel portals, and the approach boat sections be constructed in the dry. That is, it is to be constructed in a dewatered trench kept dry during the construction period. The typical dredging depth will be approximately 40 to 50 ft resulting in a large quantity of dredge material. A spoil area of sufficient size would have to be created to handle the dredge material.

The greatest water depth encountered during the investigation is approximately 10 ft deep located approximately 1500 ft offshore of Anna Maria Island. The profile at this point would be approximately 45 ft from sea level down to the roadway profile. The resulting profile is similar to the immersed tube section profile and would emerge approximately 1430 ft inland of the shoreline, 1170 ft east of East Bay Drive, using 7 percent grades and a 35 mph design speed.


The centerline of the tunnel would have to be located a minimum of 200 ft from the existing bridge centerline to maintain the integrity of the existing bridge, creating ROW issues at landfall for the construction of the tunnel and the construction of ventilation and security monitoring facilities. These issues, however, are substantially less than those for the immersed tube alternative.

3.8.4 LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

This section summarizes some of the limitations and constraints associated with tunnel construction for this project. For more detailed information, please refer to the Tunnel Alternative Technical Memorandum.

• Construction Equipment: Major tunneling equipment would need to be specially fabricated for this project.

• Labor Skills: The underground work requires specialized labor skills, which is not readily available in Florida so the labor pool would need to be relocated from other parts of the United States or overseas.

• Allocation of Risk: Tunnel construction, is by its very nature, complex, risky, and often fraught with geologic unknowns. Many owners now allocate risk to the party best suited to manage that risk. On underground projects, risk allocation measures such as Disputes Review Boards, Geotechnical Baseline Reports, and the use of a Differing Site Conditions clause are often used. The efficacy of other risk allocation measures such as Owner Controlled Insurance Programs and Escrow Bid Documentation has yet to be determined. Regardless, the types of risk allocation measures, or the lack thereof, have a profound influence on a contractor's decision whether to bid a project and the amount of contingency placed in a bid for risk. When dealing with tunnel construction in a location where soil conditions vary and are poor, the amount of risk the contractor will allocate to the project is not known and therefore the contractor may bid the project high, or may elect to bid other projects with less risk.

• Market Conditions: The size and complexity of a project has a large influence on the number of prospective contractors that have the financial capacity and technical experience needed to pursue the work. Large bonding and other financial requirements can be met by either a handful of large contractors or by smaller contractors that form a joint venture. Technical capability comes from personnel experience or by specialty contractors that do certain types of work, (e.g., jet grouting, soil-cement walls, etc.). In either case, financial and technical hurdles can reduce competition, and thus increase bid prices.

• Construction, Navigation, and Environmental Impacts: The construction of a tunnel to replace the Anna Maria Island bridge would be located 300 ft from the existing bridge resulting in the increased need for right-of-way acquisition. A temporary navigation detour would be required during construction to allow for excavation and dewatering across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. This would involve dredging a new temporary channel or total closure of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway for portions of the construction duration. Dredging would impact bay bottom and sea grass beds.


• Duration and sequence of construction: The construction of the tunnel would take approximately five years, including the construction of a cofferdam “island” along both sides of the proposed tunnel to allow dewatering and construction equipment as well as to prevent any storms from causing salt water from entering the tunnel during construction. This would impact navigation.

• Hurricane and Evacuation: It is anticipated that during hurricanes the tunnel will be completely closed to account for the possibility of power loss resulting in loss of lighting and ventilation of the tunnel and loss of positive drainage and dewatering systems.

• Maintenance and Operation Costs: It is anticipated that the annual maintenance and operation cost will be about one percent of the total construction cost, between $3 to $5 million per year, totaling $225 to $375 million over 75 years (not including inflation).

• Construction Cost: Concept-level preliminary quantities resulted in an estimated cut-and-cover tunnel construction cost of $412 million (2008 dollars). At this conceptual stage of the project, a range of +25 percent in the actual construction cost may be expected (resulting in a range of $309 million to $515 million, not including demolition of the existing bridge ($773,500), environmental mitigation, utility relocations or ROW acquisition.

The Tunnel Alternative was determined to be a non-viable alternative based on these issues.

3.9 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION

In order to evaluate the study alternatives, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation matrix shown in Table 3-6 was prepared using criteria from a multitude of categories including socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, potential hazardous material/petroleum contamination, and costs (design, ROW, construction, operations and maintenance, and construction engineering inspection). The matrix data was developed utilizing raster-based aerial photography depicting the proposed ROW needs for each alternative. A brief description of these qualitative and quantifiable evaluation criteria follows.

Life of Alternative: The alternatives have differing service lives.

ROW Impacts: Adverse property effects were quantified with two measures: number of parcels being affected by the roadway and SMFs and acreage of submerged lands to be acquired.

Natural, Environmental and Physical Impacts: A thorough investigation was undertaken to identify the impacts to the following factors:

• protected species and habitat • number of potential contamination sites • wetlands (mangrove forests) • seagrass beds may • archaeological site • Kingfish boat ramp parking


TABLE 3-6 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX


• Average travel; delay projections for year 2030 • Number of days required for Bridge closure during construction

Utility Impacts: Utility providers were notified by letter and requested to provide information relative to the location and type of existing or planned utilities.

Noise Impacts: Noise sensitive sites are areas associated with rest, recreation, concentration, and communication. Such sites include picnic areas, recreation facilities, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. The existing noise sensitive sites were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved Traffic Noise Model, (TNM) version 2.5. The existing and planned noise sensitive sites include:

• Westbay Cove Community • Westbay Cove South Community • Sunbow Bay Condominiums • Seven Shores Condominiums

Regardless of the selected alternative, noise levels at any residential site are not predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. Therefore, noise impacts were not included in the matrix.

Estimated Project Costs: Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for the alternatives, including separate estimates of design, ROW, construction, construction engineering inspection, and annual operation and maintenance costs over the life of the alternative. These project costs are presented in 2008 dollars.

• ROW acquisition cost includes the cost of private property purchase. Cost of ROW acquisition is related to the number parcels affected, the amount of acreage required, and any other damages, such as impacted signs, structures, etc. Since administrative costs are incurred with each land parcel impacted, regardless of the acreage, costs will be greater when parcel count increases. In addition, the greater the acreage required and the more improvements which are affected within the proposed ROW, the higher the costs will be. A combination of these factors produces the total estimated ROW costs. The ROW costs were determined using 2008 dollars and include all estimated ROW cost for the roadway and SMFs. It is important to note that the ROW cost estimates were prepared as an evaluation tool to compare alternatives. The estimates are also a budget tool used by FDOT to estimate total acquisition costs associated with the proposed ROW. A ROW cost estimate does not reflect an opinion of market value and is not a real estate appraisal; and is subject to change as the project progresses. FDOT understands that per 33 CFR 115.05, the USCG will not issue a bridge permit until FDOT has demonstrated the right to build on all applicable properties.

• Construction costs of each alternative were calculated using FDOT’s Long Range Estimates (LRE) pay item database. Construction cost estimates include all roadway and drainage items, stormwater management systems, signing and marking, embankment, bridge structures, and all other major construction components. Excluded are utility adjustments. Contingency costs were also included for project unknowns.


• Design (final design) and Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) costs were each estimated based upon a percentage (15 percent) of the construction cost.

3.9.1 NON-QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

The next step in the evaluation process was the consideration of factors which are qualitative, non-quantifiable, such as consistency with local transportation plans, user benefits, mobility, safety, neighborhood enhancement, economic prosperity, environment, and access. All Build Alternatives result in similar environmental impacts in the immediate vicinity of the roadway, are consistent with local transportation plans, meet the purpose and need for the project, result in acceptable LOS, are expected to improve safety and efficiency of the facility, and are expected to enhance economic prosperity in the region. Of all the Build Alternatives presented at the Public Workshop, Alternative 3BS garnered the most support. Manatee County has not yet officially voiced support for any particular alternative. Although the No-Build Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need for the project, it will remain under consideration along with the Rehabilitation and the bridge replacement alternatives throughout the alternative analysis and evaluation process.

3.10 SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The following alternatives were presented at the Public Hearing, held March 26, 2009 at the Saint Bernard Catholic Church activity center, 248 South Harbor Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida:

• No-Build Alternative • Rehabilitation Alternative • Alternative 1BN: Low-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, North Alignment • Alternative 1BS: Low-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, South Alignment • Alternative 2BN: Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, North Alignment • Alternative 2BS: Mid-Level Bascule, Typical Section B, South Alignment • Alternative 3BN: High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical Section B, North Alignment • Alternative 3BS: High-Level Fixed-Bridge, Typical Section B, South Alignment

After the Public Hearing, the FDOT, in coordination with the USCG, the lead federal agency, identified a Recommended Preferred Alternative based on the engineering and environmental analysis, agency coordination, and public comments. The Recommended Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3BS: a high-level fixed-bridge with Typical Section B along the southern alignment.

3.11 REFERENCES

1. Plans Preparation Manual; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; January 2009.


2. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; 2004.

3. Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways (Commonly known as the “Florida Greenbook”); Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; May 2005.

4. Quality/Level of Service Handbook; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; 2007.

5. Structures Design Guideline; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; January 2009.

6. Final Pond Siting Report; prepared by PBS&J, Tampa, Florida, for Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, FL; June 2009.

7. Drainage Manual; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, FL; January, 2009.

8. Tunnel Alternative Technical Memorandum, prepared by PBS&J, Tampa, Florida, for Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, Florida; December 2008.


4-1

SECTION 4.0 RECOMMENDED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Recommended Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3BS: a high-level fixed-bridge with Typical Section B along the southern alignment

4.1 TYPICAL SECTIONS

The Recommended Preferred Alternative is based on Typical Section B, which includes two 12-foot (ft) travel lanes and two 10-ft shoulders, which can accommodate bicyclists and disabled vehicles. Typical Section B also includes a 10-ft sidewalk along both the north and south sides of the bridge, separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier wall. A 4.5-ft high pedestrian/bicycle railing will be provided on the outside of each sidewalk. The design speed is 45 miles per hour (mph) with a posted speed of 40 mph. Typical Section B is shown in Figure 4-1 for the fixed bridge.

Both west and east of the bridge the roadway approach maintains the existing two-lane undivided rural roadway configuration. On the west approach, a 2-ft curb-and-gutter will be added on the north side of the roadway from the beginning of construction continuing to the proposed bridge barrier wall, consistent with the proposed Kingfish Boat Ramp improvement project, additionally, the curb-and-gutter provides more area for Stormwater Management Facility (SMF) E as shown in Appendix A. The shoulders on the proposed roadway will be 10 ft with 5 ft paved, increased from the existing 8-ft shoulders with 4 ft paved; this will bring the shoulders up to current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) design standards. The proposed 10 ft sidewalk on the north side will transition to the existing 8-ft sidewalk. On the south side of the roadway a new 10-ft sidewalk will be provided from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to Perico Bay Boulevard. The proposed typical section of the roadway west and east of the bridge is shown in Figure 4-2. The roadway at the bridge approaches is similar to the proposed bridge except it is elevated on embankment with a 1:2 slope on each side. The 1:2 slope will have a concrete slope pavement surface and will prevent the type of erosion evident in the existing sloped embankment.

4.2 HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT

The Recommended Preferred Alternative follows the southern alignment, offset 14 ft from the existing bridge. The southern alignment avoids impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp and the improvements to its parking area planned by Manatee County. The southern alignment avoids the majority of the utilities, which are buried along the north side of the existing bridge. The southern alignment also avoids impacts to the navigation channels along the north side of the bridge and, therefore, no dredging is required to widen or maintain these channels. The south alignment was supported by 75 percent of the public who returned surveys.


4-2


4-3


4-4

4.3 VERTICAL ALIGNMENT

The vertical alignment is included in Appendix A for the Recommended Preferred Alternative. The profile accommodates the 65 ft vertical navigation guide clearance established by United States Coast Guard (USCG). A crest curve is flanked by 4 percent grades which tie back to the existing grade with sag curves on each approach.

4.4 DRAINAGE

4.4.1 LOCATION HYDRAULICS

A Final Location Hydraulic Report1 (LHR) was prepared to evaluate existing drainage and floodplain conditions. The Recommended Preferred Alternative is within the coastal floodplain and is subject to flooding to some degree due to tidal storm surges. There will be a minor impact to the floodplain but flood elevations and risks will not be increased due to the changes in vertical or horizontal alignments presented in this study. Based upon the profile of the existing facility, and normal tidal elevations, the roadway is subject to flooding only during tidal events that would cause tidal surges in excess of 6 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum NGVD. These events would be associated with tropical storms. The proposed profile for all alignments will be at or above the existing profile elevations. The proposed roadway alignments do traverse coastal floodplain shorelines and thus have the potential to impact wetlands which provide habitat for various fauna.

4.4.2 POND SITING

A Final Pond Siting Report2 (PSR) was prepared to determine the requirements for and potential locations of SMFs for the bridge replacement alternatives. If this project proceeds from the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) phase into design, it will be several years before construction begins, and it is likely that there will be a Statewide Stormwater Rule at that time. Based upon language in Section 12.2 of the Draft Statewide Stormwater Rule, it is assumed that stormwater treatment will be encouraged for replacement projects, particularly those that discharge to Special Waters. Current language in that Draft Rule suggests that the stormwater treatment requirement shall be to “…provide the greatest pollutant removal in the most cost-effective manner given the limitation of the project site.” The project would fall within the current thresholds of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and thus require an Individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). Stormwater treatment is required pursuant to the requirements for issuance of this permit. If the systems are designed in accordance with current permit requirements, then they should be in compliance with the anticipated future Statewide Stormwater Rule because pollutant loading will be reduced. There is sufficient area within existing right-of-way (ROW) to develop stormwater treatment facilities that would meet current South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) stormwater treatment standards and that would reduce existing pollutant loads to Anna Maria Sound.

Removal efficiencies for Dry Detention systems vary considerably, dependent upon whether there is substantial retention of stormwater. The pond bottom should be at least one foot above the seasonal high water table and if filter drains are utilized, they should be designed for stormwater recovery only rather than groundwater control. Given those design parameters, and


4-5

the assumption that at least 25 percent of the stormwater infiltrates into the ground (is retained) the higher end of the efficiency range (for dry detention) is achieved. Dry retention with side bank filtration if needed, or wet detention, are the suggested treatment methods for this bridge replacement project.

Under current conditions, there is 3100 feet (ft) of bridge that discharges runoff through scuppers directly to the receiving water and another 3000 +/- ft of roadway that does not have stormwater treatment. There is sufficient ROW within the project limits to construct stormwater treatment facilities for the north and south alignments. However, the profile of the alignment determines the limits of roadway and bridge that can be effectively collected and conveyed to the stormwater treatment facilities. The potential roadway length that can be conveyed to the ponds is summarized in Table 4-1 for each of the north and south horizontal and vertical alignments and associated pond option.

TABLE 4-1

*All ponds are Dry facilities unless otherwise noted. 1Length noted is for 30-foot width. 2Wet Pond is applicable to Typical Section A only.

The Low- and Mid-Level Bascule Alternatives allow for about 740 ft of bridge length at each end to be conveyed to stormwater treatment facilities without a deck drainage collection and conveyance system whereas the Recommended Preferred Alternative (High-Level Fixed- Bridge Alternative) allows for runoff from the full length of the bridge to be conveyed to the bridge ends and into stormwater treatment facilities. The High-Level Alternative results in the best alternative from a stormwater standpoint because of the ability to direct bridge runoff to stormwater treatment facilities without the use of a collection and conveyance system. A collection and conveyance system would be needed to direct all bridge runoff from the Low-level and Mid-level bridge alternatives; these systems are costly to construct and to maintain. Ponds B, C, and D will be sufficient to treat runoff from the Recommended Preferred Alternative. Pond E could provide minor supplemental treatment volume if needed.

Roadway Length That Can Be Directed to Pond (feet) Pond Option* Recommended Preferred Alternative

South Alignment Pond A 400

(101+00 to 105+00)

Pond B 1268 (103+50 to 116+18)

Pond C 1959 (117+00 to 136+57)

Pond E1 300 (112+16 to 115+16)

Pond D 2492 (136+08 to 161+00)

Pond D (wet) 3392 (136+08 to 169+00)

Pond B-N n/a Pond B-N (wet)2 n/a

Pond D-N Lt n/a Pond D-N Rt n/a


4-6

The alignments and profiles discussed in this report are not final; they were developed in a conceptual manner for the purpose of comparison so that the most appropriate horizontal and vertical alignment can be selected for further development and refinement in the final design phase. Likewise, the pond sites are conceptually depicted for the purpose of determining sites within the ROW that would have the capacity to provide stormwater management for the project. Final pond configuration and pond aesthetics (fencing, landscaping, side slopes) will be determined during final design.

4.5 STRUCTURES

The Recommended Preferred Alternative is a high-level fixed-bridge providing 65 ft of vertical navigation clearance and 100 ft of horizontal clearance perpendicular between fenders. The proposed structure will meet minimum acceptable new construction design standards for shoulder width and traffic barrier design.

4.6 DESIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES

An evaluation of existing and design year traffic conditions is provided in the Final Traffic Report3 and summarized herein. The existing weekend average daily traffic (WADT) volume was multiplied by the K30 factor of 10.57 percent to develop non-directional peak hour volumes. The directional peak hour volumes were then determined by applying a D30 factor of 54.25 percent to develop peak direction approach volumes and 1-D30 or 45.76 percent to develop non-peak direction approach volumes at the intersections. The resulting approach volumes were distributed based on existing turning movement percentages at the respective locations. For any east-west movements along SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) and north-south movements along SR 789 (East Bay Drive), the existing design hour volume (DHV) was developed using the existing WADT, and the K30 and D30 factors. The DHVs for all other movements on other roadways/driveways in the study area were assumed to be same as the corresponding peak season adjusted peak hour turning movement volume. The resultant existing DHVs are shown in Figure 4-3.

4.6.1 FUTURE TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS

The 30th highest hour of the year peak hour factor (K30) obtained from weekend/holiday bidirectional vehicle counts was 9.84 percent and K30 factor obtained by averaging historical K30 factors over a period of twelve years at the closest permanent count station was 10.57 percent. A comparison of the above obtained K30 factors was made and it was observed that the weekend/holiday K30 factor obtained from the bidirectional counts is lesser than average weekday K30 obtained from 2007 Florida Traffic Information DVD4. Given the fact that SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) gets higher traffic during the weekends when compared to the weekdays, it was determined that a K30 factor of 10.57 percent be used for this study.

The K30, the 30th highest hour of the year directional distribution factor (D30) , and the daily truck factor (T24) for SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) were calculated by averaging historical values over a period of twelve years. As standard practice, the design hour truck factor (DHT) is assumed to be one half of the daily truck factor (T24). This data has been summarized in Table 4-2 and was used for future operational analyses.


4-7


4-8

TABLE 4-2 EXISTING K30, D30, AND T24 VALUES

K30 D30 T24

10.57% 54.24% 4.85%

Based on the boat traffic data provided by FDOT, suitable assumptions were made for the purpose of simulating the number of boats requiring operation of the low-level bascule bridge that provides access to/from Anna Maria Island. For the purpose of simulation, the bridge openings were assumed to be pre-timed and scheduled to open at regular intervals irrespective of the magnitude of boat traffic.

4.6.2 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS

The future WADT volumes were developed for the 2030 design year roadway system located in the study area. The existing WADT volumes were grown by a simple annual growth rate of 1.00 percent per year for a period of 22 years to obtain 2030 WADT volumes. These future volumes were then used to obtain future design hour traffic projections. Similar to the procedure followed under existing conditions, the 2030 WADT volumes were multiplied by a K30 factor of 10.57 percent to develop non-directional peak hour volumes. The directional peak hour volumes were then determined by applying a D30 factor of 54.25 percent to develop peak direction approach volumes and 1-D30 or 45.76 percent to develop non-peak direction approach volumes at the intersections. The resulting approach volumes were distributed based on existing design hour volumes at the respective locations. The resultant 2030 PM DHVs are shown in Figure 4-4.

4.6.3 LEVELS OF SERVICE

The results of the operational analyses for 2007 existing and 2030 future alternatives (which include low-level bascule bridge opening every 20 minutes, mid-level bascule bridge opening 30 minutes and high-level fixed bridge) were determined using a simulated network which considered measures of effectiveness (MOEs) such as travel times, queue lengths, and delays. Travel times were recorded along SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) between the west and east ends of the study area, between SR 789 (East Bay Drive) and the east end of the study area, and network-wide for all vehicles. Queue counters were set up to determine the average and maximum queue lengths at all intersections and approaches to the bridge. Average travel and stopped delays per vehicle were recorded for the whole network, at the bascule bridge, and for all the intersections in the study area. The level of service (LOS) and delay in seconds per vehicle for existing and future alternatives is displayed in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6, respectively.

4.7 ACCESS MANAGEMENT

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is classified by FDOT as Access Classification 6. SR 789 (East Bay Drive) is Access Classification 7. Neither access classification is proposed to be changed with implementation of the Recommended Preferred Alternative.


4-9


4-10


4-11


4-12

4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

No designated on-street bicycle facilities currently exist along the segment of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) encompassing the Anna Maria Island Bridge. Paved shoulders, however, run along the entire project length. A discontinuous 8-ft sidewalk is present on the north side of the project. Five-ft wide sidewalks are located on both sides of the bridge, separated from the travel lanes by a 9-inch (in) concrete curb.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are not identified specifically in the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan5 (LRTP) for this project; however, a section of the Manatee County Greenways Trail System (Palma Sola Trail) is proposed to run within the project corridor.

The No-Build Alternative does not change the pedestrian and bicycle facilities available. The Rehabilitation Alternative will include improved sidewalks along the bridge, but not along the rest of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The existing 9-in high curbs and bridge railings will be removed. Raised sidewalks, 5 ft wide, will be constructed behind 6-in high mountable curbs. A 32-in vertical shape traffic barrier with an aluminum bicycle bullet railing will be constructed at the back of sidewalk. All of the Build Alternatives (low-level bascule, mid-level bascule, or high-level fixed-span bridge on a north or south alignment) include improvements for pedestrians and bicycles with two different proposed typical sections (Typical Section A and B). Both typical sections include two 12-ft travel lanes and two 10-ft shoulders, which can accommodate bicyclists. The difference in the two typical sections is the sidewalk configurations. Typical Section A includes one 12-ft sidewalk along the north side of the bridge, separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier wall. A 4.5 ft high pedestrian/bicycle railing will be provided on the outside of the 12-ft sidewalk. Typical Section A does not include a sidewalk on the south side. Typical Section B includes a 10-ft sidewalk along both the north and south sides of the bridge

4.9 RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS AND RELOCATIONS

The Recommended Preferred Alternative requires 0.04 acres (ac) of additional ROW from one parcel (sovereign submerged lands).

4.10 UTILITIES AND LIGHTING

The Recommended Preferred Alternative, taking the southern alignment, will minimize impacts to underground utilities. A list of the utility providers who responded to requests for information and the locations of existing utilities are included in Section 1.3.9 of this report.

4.11 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) provides access to numerous residences and businesses along this corridor. Due to its importance as one of only three only vehicular connections to Anna Maria Island, SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) must remain functional throughout the duration of the construction activities. The replacement bridge can be constructed along the south side of the existing bridge. Then traffic can be moved to the new bridge before demolishing the existing


4-13

bridge. The existing number of travel lanes should be maintained to the maximum extent possible. Lane closures, if necessary, should occur during off-peak hours.

Both vehicular and vessel maintenance of traffic plans will be required during construction.

4.12 VALUE ENGINEERING

A Value Engineering Study was not performed on this project.

4.13 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

No future phases of this project are currently identified in the FDOT 2009 - 2014 Tentative Five Year Work Program.

4.14 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES

Construction costs were estimated using the FDOT Long Range Estimate (LRE) program. Preliminary engineering (design) and Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) costs were estimated at 15 percent of the estimated construction costs.

This section will be completed after the selection of the Preferred Alternative.

4.15 AESTHETICS AND LANDSCAPING

Aesthetics are an important consideration in any transportation project. The Recommended Preferred Alternative can be designed with longer spans with single piers instead of a group of piles like the existing bridge. The result would provide more open, spacious views from both water and nearby land uses. FDOT may consider context sensitive solutions such as aesthetic features and landscaping during the design phase so that the project is in harmony with the community and preserves and/or enhances the natural, environmental, scenic, and aesthetic values of the area. Currently, there are no provisions or commitments made regarding specific aesthetic features, such as landscaping or hardscaping plans or details for this section of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners has appointed a Bridge Design Committee to work with FDOT during the design of the bridge to assist in the identification of potential aesthetic features and possible landscaping to be incorporated into the design of the Anna Maria Island Bridge. The Florida Department of Transportation is committed to working closely with Bridge Design Committee and the community during the Design phase to evaluate various aesthetic design features for the bridge and approaches. In addition, a portion of the project construction budget will be identified for landscaping.

4.16 REFERENCES

1. Final Location Hydraulic Report, prepared by PBS&J, Tampa, Florida, for Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, Florida; June 2009.

2. Final Pond Siting Report, prepared by PBS&J, Tampa, Florida, for Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, Florida; June 2009.


4-14

3. Final Traffic Report; prepared by PBS&J, Tampa, Florida, for Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, Florida; June 2009.

4. Florida Traffic Information DVD; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida, 2007.

5. 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan; Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization; Sarasota, Florida; February 2006.


SECTION 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

5.1.1 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Community Services

Community services typically serve the needs of the surrounding area and provide a focal point for adjacent neighborhoods and communities. Community services include churches, cemeteries, schools, parks, recreational facilities, and public buildings and facilities. There are no cemeteries, emergency treatments facilities, fire stations, or police stations located within the project study area. The following community services are located with the project study area (defined as ½ mile [mi]):

There are two churches located within the project study area: St. Bernard Catholic Church (245 South Harbour Drive), and Church of the Annunciation (4408 Gulf Drive). One public school, Anna Maria Elementary (4700 Gulf Drive), is located within the project study area. One public building is located within the project study area, the Manatee County Tax Collector (3340 East Bay Drive). There is one recreational facility, the Kingfish Boat Ramp, located within the existing SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) right-of-way (ROW) on the north side of the western bridge approach. Existing community services are shown on Figure 5-1.

There will not be any effects to the community service facilities from the Recommended Preferred Alternative, the high-level fixed-bridge on a south alignment. The project could have beneficial results for the community by providing enhanced access for emergency services to and from the mainland and Anna Maria Island since the traffic would not be required to stop periodically for the bascule bridge to open. This will decrease response times for emergency services (there is a fire station on Anna Maria Island) and aid in emergency evacuation.

Community Cohesion

Since the Recommended Preferred Alternative involves the improvement of an existing facility with limited ROW acquisition, no splitting or isolation of neighborhoods will occur. The project is not anticipated to adversely impact elderly persons; handicapped individuals; non-drivers; transit-dependent individuals; or minorities. The proposed project is expected to enhance the quality of life in the study area due to the proposed improvements. It is anticipated that the project improvements will not affect community cohesiveness. Therefore, this project has been developed to comply with Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, issued on February 11, 1994.



Environmental Justice and Title VI and Title VIII Considerations

In February 1994, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) requiring federal agencies to analyze and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of federal actions on ethnic and cultural minority populations and low income populations, when such analysis is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. An adverse effect on minority and/or low-income populations occurs when: (1) The adverse effect occurs primarily to a minority and/or low income population; or, (2) The adverse effect suffered by the minority and/or low-income population is more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect suffered by the non-minority and/or non-low-income populations.

An evaluation of environmental, public health, and interrelated social and economic effects of the proposed projects on minority and/or low-income populations is required. All proposed projects should include measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse impacts and provide offsetting benefits and opportunities to enhance communities, neighborhoods, and individuals affected by these activities.

The 17 environmental justice criteria identified in Executive Order 12898 are: (1) air pollution; (2) noise; (3) water pollution; (4) soil contamination; (5) destruction of manmade resources; (6) destruction of natural resources; (7) diminution of aesthetic values; (8) detriment to community cohesion; (9) diminution of economic viability; (10) detriment to facilities access - public and private; (11) detriment to services access - public and private; (12) vibration; (13) diminution of employment opportunities; (14) displacement; (15) traffic congestion and impairment to mobility; (16) exclusion, isolation, or separation; and (17) diminution of Department of Transportation (DOT) benefits.

In addition to compliance with Executive Order 12898, any proposed federal project must comply with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides that no person will, on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, disability, or family composition be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination under any program of the federal, state, or local government. Title VIII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act guarantees each person equal opportunity in housing.

This project has been developed in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and in accordance with Executive Order 12898. The proposed project will not result in any disproportionate adverse effects to any distinct minority, ethnic, elderly or handicapped groups, and/or low-income households. Title VI information was made available at the Public Hearing.

Controversy Potential

A Public Involvement Plan was implemented to keep the public, elected officials and interested agencies aware of the progress of this study. An Advance Notification (AN) Package was distributed to local, state, and federal agencies at the initiation of the project study. Three responses were received; however, none of the comments were of controversial nature and all have been taken into consideration during the development of this project.


Two public information workshops have been held as a part of this study. The first public information workshop was held on April 3, 2008 at the St. Bernard Catholic Church in Holmes Beach and was attended by 180 citizens and elected officials. This workshop was an introduction to the study process. Prior to the workshop, a study survey was mailed out to property owners and interested citizens to obtain the public’s opinion on the type of improvement they preferred. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) received 879 completed surveys prior to the workshop, at the workshop and in the comment period following the public meeting. The results indicated that 82 percent favored replacement of the bridge.

An alternatives public information workshop was held on December 16, 2008 at the St. Bernard Catholic Church in Holmes Beach and was attended by 100 citizens and elected officials. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a study update; present the results of the surveys to date; and present and obtain feedback on the alternative concepts. An audiovisual presentation was shown continuously to explain the No-Build, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Alternatives. FDOT received 58 surveys at the workshop and in the comment period following the public meeting. The FDOT also received approximately 30 comments at the workshop, on the study web site, via e-mail, and by letters received following the workshop. The results indicated that 77 percent favored replacement of the bridge.

In addition to the public workshops, the FDOT was invited to give the following presentations:

• April 1, 2008 – Sandpiper Resort Cooperative to provide residents with a status update on the study.

• May 3 2008 – Save Anna Maria, Inc. (SAM) to present members with the results of the April 3, 2008 public information workshop.

A formal public hearing was held on March 26, 2009 at the Saint Bernard Catholic Church in Holmes Beach and was attended by 111 citizens and elected officials. The public hearing was held to inform the public of the results of the Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study and to give the public the opportunity to express their views regarding specific location, design, socio-economic effects, and environmental impacts associated with the viable alternatives, which included low-level and mid-level drawbridges, a high-level fixed-bridge, the rehabilitation alternative and the no-build alternative. FDOT and its consultant were present at the meeting site for one hour prior to the formal proceedings to informally discuss the project with the general public. Aerial photographs with the viable alternatives and poster boards were displayed. Informational brochures/handouts were offered to attendees. The brochures included a description of the ROW acquisition procedures with particular reference to state and federal relocation assistance programs. Surveys and comment sheets were offered for the public to complete. Following introductory remarks, a video of the project was presented. The video included a summary of the need for the facility and advantages and disadvantages of the viable alternatives and the no-build alternative. Socio-economic and environmental impacts were presented. Twelve persons spoke for the public record at the hearing. FDOT also received approximately 85 comment sheets, comments submitted on the study web site, e-mails, and letters following the hearing.

Prior to the hearing, a study survey1 was mailed to over 4,000 property owners and interested citizens. The purpose of the survey was to offer the public a final opportunity to state an opinion


on the type of improvement preferred for the Anna Maria Island Bridge. FDOT received approximately 500 completed surveys prior to the hearing, at the hearing, and in the 14-day comment period following the public hearing.

FDOT compiled the results of the completed surveys received in March and April 2009. The results indicated:

• 83 percent favored replacement of the bridge while 17 percent favored rehabilitation. 11 percent said their opinion had changed from previous surveys, while 89 percent said it had not.

• 25 percent favored a north alignment for a future bridge replacement, 75 percent favored a south alignment.

• 77 percent preferred a high-level fixed-bridge, 7 percent wanted a mid-level drawbridge, 15 percent preferred a low-level drawbridge, and 1 percent favored another solution or had no preference.

• 23 percent favored a new bridge with one sidewalk (Typical Section A), 77 percent favored a new bridge with two sidewalks (Typical Section B).

In addition to findings from the engineering and environmental studies, results of the final survey were also utilized to select a Recommended Preferred Alternative.

Following the hearing, presentations announcing the Recommended Preferred Alternative were given to the Council of Governments on April 15, 2009; the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on May 4, 2009; the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners on May 5, 2009; the Sarasota/Manatee MPO Citizens Advisory Committee on June 4, 2009; and the Sarasota/Manatee MPO Technical Advisory Committee on June 8, 2009.

Based on comments received during and following the public information workshops and the public hearing, the general public and elected officials generally support the proposed action.

Land Use

Existing Land Use The project area consists of land uses from Manatee County and the City of Bradenton. The City of Holmes Beach is covered under the jurisdiction of Manatee County. The existing land uses in the area adjacent to and surrounding SR 64 (Manatee Avenue), consist of residential (single family, mobile homes, and high density), vacant, retail/office, public (marinas/docks and recreational), and agricultural/conservation. An overview of the existing land use is shown in Figure 5-2.

One development of regional impact (DRI), Perico Bay Club Development, is adjacent to the project, south of the SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) eastern study limits. Residential developments adjacent to the north side of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) in the vicinity of the eastern study limits are: the Perico Isles Community and Seven Shores Condominiums (under construction). At the western project study limits, the Westbay Cove community is located adjacent to the north side of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue), whereas, the Westbay Cove South and Sunbow Bay communities are located adjacent to the south side. Commercial uses are also present including grocery, bank,



restaurants, and other retail businesses. Recreational uses located within project corridor include the Kingfish Boat Ramp and two paddling trails. The Neal Preserve is also located within the project corridor, just south of the existing ROW, at the eastern end of the project. The Grassy Point Preserve is also located within the project study area. Neither preserve currently includes recreational facilities.

Future Land Use The designated land uses on the City of Bradenton and Manatee County Future Land Use Maps1, 2 (FLUM) indicate that future land uses are similar to and consistent with the existing land uses. Future land use designations include: residential, vacant, retail/office, public (marinas/docks and recreational), and agricultural/conservation, as shown in Figures 5-3 and 5-4. SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is an existing corridor and has been identified as a constrained facility; therefore, capacity will not be added beyond the existing two lanes. The replacement of the Anna Maria Island Bridge and the improvements to the roadway approaches are not expected to disrupt existing land use patterns or induce secondary development. The minor ROW acquisition required to construct the proposed project is not likely to affect the area land uses. Future land use changes within the project study limits are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project.

Relocation Potential

The Recommended Preferred Alternative will require a nominal amount of ROW acquisition and will not result in any relocations. Therefore, the proposed project, as presently conceived will not displace any residences or businesses within the community. Should this change over the course of the project, the FDOT will carry out a ROW and Relocation Program in accordance with Florida Statute (F.S.) 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 minimize the unavoidable effects of ROW acquisition and displacement of people and businesses pursuant to F.S. 339.09. The brochures that describe in detail the FDOT’s relocation assistance program and ROW Acquisition Program are “Your Relocation: Residential”, “Your Relocation: Business, Farms, and Nonprofit Organizations”, “Your Relocation: Signs”, and “The Real Estate Acquisition Process”. These brochures were distributed at the public hearings and are made available upon request to any interested persons.

5.1.2 UTILITIES AND RAILROADS

In order to evaluate potential aerial, surface, and subsurface utility conflicts associated with the project, FDOT requested information from utility companies pertaining to the type, location, and ownership of the existing utilities within the project area. Base maps were sent to utility providers in accordance with Part 2, Chapter 10 of the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual3 with a request to provide information on existing and planned utilities. All information received from the various utility companies is located in the project file. The following utility providers have existing facilities within the project area:

• TECO/Peoples Gas • Florida Power and Light




• Bright House Networks • Verizon • Manatee County Utilities

Most of the utilities are on the north side of the bridge; however a water main is attached to the south side of the bridge. The southern alignment of the Recommended Preferred Alternative avoids the majority of the utilities, which are buried along the north side of the existing bridge. Coordination with all affected utilities will be completed during final design.

There are no active railroad crossings within the project limits. Therefore, no involvement with railroads is anticipated.

5.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources include archaeological and historical resources and recreational facilities. The cultural resources associated with the project are discussed in the following sections.

5.2.1 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES

In accordance with procedures contained in Chapter 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800 (revised May 1999), a Final Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS)4, including literature review and field survey, has been performed for the proposed project. The survey has been completed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (Public Law 89-665); Executive Order 11593; and the implementing regulations, as well as the provisions contained within the revised Chapter 267, F.S. All work was carried out in conformity with Part 2, Chapter 12 (“Archaeological and Historical Resources”) of FDOT’s Project Development and Environment Manual, and the standards contained in the Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual5.

The purpose of the CRAS was to locate, identify, and bound any prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites and historic structures within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess the significance of these resources in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) according to the criteria set forth in 36 CFR 60.4. The historical/architectural and archaeological surveys were conducted in October and November 2008. Field surveys were preceded by background research. Such work served to provide an informed set of expectations concerning the kinds of cultural resources that might be anticipated to occur within the project APE, as well as a basis for evaluating any new sites discovered.

For this project, the archaeological APE is defined as the existing ROW, except between Stations 153 and 170 where 50 feet (ft) may be added south of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue), and the proposed stormwater management facility (SMF) sites (A, B, C, D-North, D-South, and E). The historical APE is defined similar to the archaeological APE, but also includes the immediate viewshed on Perico Island, and approximately two blocks north and south of the SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) corridor on Anna Maria Island to account for a potentially elevated bridge and ramp.


Background research indicated that four components of previously recorded archaeological site 8MA6 (areas A, C, D, and E) may lie within the project APE (in the eastern portion of the project corridor) and may be of value to Native Americans and/or eligible for listing in the NRHP. In addition, one historic structure was previously recorded within the APE. As a result of field survey, shovel test pits and excavation units revealed deeply buried and intact portions of 8MA6A and 8MA6E. This site is considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Preservation of these significant deposits in situ (in place) is recommended; however, if impacts due to bridge and/or SMF construction cannot be avoided, then mitigative measures will be necessary.

As a result of the historic structures field survey, it was determined that the previously recorded historic structure (8MA1192) is no longer extant and the Anna Maria Island Draw Bridge (FDOT Bridge #130054), built in 1957, was recorded as 8MA1571. The bridge is an example of a commonly occurring bridge type in Florida with no exceptional architectural elements, or significant historic associations; therefore, it does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative should have no adverse effect on the significant archaeological site, since the proposed bridge structure (where piers and/or foundations would be required) are all located west of the archaeological site. The at-grade roadway improvements should have no adverse effect on the deeply buried archaeological site.

The CRAS was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on February 4, 2009 for review and concurrence that the project will have no adverse effect on any cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The SHPO responded in a letter dated February 26, 2009 concurring that 8MA1192 and 8MA1571 were not eligible for listing in the NRHP. They also concurred that all of site 8MA6 was eligible for listing in the NRHP and requested further consultation regarding the impacts and effects of the proposed undertaking on site 8MA6. The FDOT revised some graphics from the CRAS with updated information to show the currently identified site boundaries, ROW needs, and pond sites. The revised graphics and a description of the Recommended Preferred Alternative were submitted to the SHPO on June 1, 2009. Based on this information, the proposed project should have no adverse effect on site 8MA6 or any other cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. The SHPO concurrence letter, dated July 6, 2009, is included in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment6 (EA).

The CRAS was also submitted to the Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida Section 106 and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Representative on February 4, 2009, as requested during the ETDM process. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida reviewed the CRAS and responded in a letter dated March 2, 2009 that the Tribe has no objections to the project. This correspondence is included as Appendix B of the EA.

5.2.2 PARKS AND RECREATION

Parks and recreation facilities within the project study area (1/2 mi vicinity) include: a boat ramp, two parks (preserves), a public beach, two paddling trails, and a marine facility. See Figure 5-1. There is also a proposed multi-use trail for this portion of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue).


The Kingfish Boat Ramp is a public boat ramp, canoe launch, and picnic area located on the north side of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) immediately west of the existing bridge within existing ROW. The facility is maintained by Manatee County and is currently in the design phase of a major renovation to improve ramp operations, minimize and define access points, and improve traffic circulation throughout the staging and parking area. The Recommended Preferred Alternative will not impact the Kingfish Boat Ramp.

A Manatee County public beach is a located at the west end of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) at Gulf Drive on Anna Maria Island, within the city of Holmes Beach.

The Neal Preserve is located along the south side of the project corridor at the eastern end of the project and is owned by Florida Communities Trust and Manatee County. Grassy Point Preserve is located along the east coast of Anna Maria Island and south of the project corridor. Both Neal Preserve and Grassy Pont Preserve are designated for habitat restoration as part of the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Habitat Restoration and Gulf Coast Heritage Trail. This program will also provide enhancements for shoreline access including: paddling trails access, wildlife observation, and picnic facilities. The Neal Preserve has a new enhancement project included in the Sarasota-Manatee County MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for pathways and boardwalks in fiscal year 2012/13. Neither one of these preserves will be impacted by the Recommended Preferred Alternative.

The Palma Sola Bay paddling trail is part of the Paddle Manatee Trail, a 75 mi paddling trail developed through the Manatee County Blueways Program. This portion of the trail passes under the Anna Maria Island Bridge along the west coast of Perico Island. The Florida State Circumnavigational Trail is also located within Anna Maria Sound and passes under the bridge. Palma Sola Trail (multi-use trail on land) is proposed as part of the Manatee County Greenways Master Plan, adopted on July 23, 2002, but is not funded yet. A portion of this trail runs along SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) within the project study area.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative will have beneficial results for the community by providing enhanced safety for pedestrian and bicyclists utilizing SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) as a part of the future Manatee County Greenways Palma Sola Trail.

5.3 NATURAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

5.3.1 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES

No designated on-street bicycle facilities currently exist along the segment of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) encompassing the Anna Maria Island Bridge. Paved shoulders, however, run along the entire project length. A discontinuous 8-ft sidewalk is present on the north side of the project. Five-ft wide sidewalks are located on both sides of the bridge, separated from the travel lanes by a nine-inch concrete curb.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are not identified specifically in the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan6 (LRTP) for this project; however, a section of the Manatee County Greenways Trail System (Palma Sola Trail) is proposed to run within the project corridor.


The Recommended Preferred Alternative includes improvements for pedestrians and bicycles. Typical Section B includes two 12-ft travel lanes and two 10-ft shoulders which can accommodate bicyclists. This typical section includes a 10-ft sidewalk along both the north and south sides of the bridge, separated from the shoulder by a concrete barrier wall. A 4.5-ft high pedestrian/bicycle railing will be provided on the outside of the sidewalks.

5.3.2 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC FEATURES

Aesthetics are an important consideration in any transportation project. The Recommended Preferred Alternative can be designed with longer spans with single piers instead of a group of piles like the existing bridge. The result would provide more open, spacious views from both water and nearby land uses. FDOT may consider context sensitive solutions such as aesthetic features and landscaping during the design phase so that the project is in harmony with the community and preserves and/or enhances the natural, environmental, scenic, and aesthetic values of the area. Currently, there are no provisions or commitments made regarding specific aesthetic features, such as landscaping or hardscaping plans or details for this section of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The Manatee County Board of County Commissioners has appointed a Bridge Design Committee to work with FDOT during the design of the bridge to assist in the identification of potential aesthetic features and possible landscaping to be incorporated into the design of the Anna Maria Island Bridge. The FDOT is committed to working closely with the Bridge Design Committee and the community during the Design phase to evaluate various aesthetic design features for the bridge and approaches. In addition, a portion of the project construction budget will be identified for landscaping.

5.3.3 AIR QUALITY

The project is located in an area that has been designated as attainment for all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by Clean Air Act of 1990 and subsequent amendments. Therefore, demonstration of conformity with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is not required for this project.

Construction activities may cause minor short-term air quality effects in the form of dust from earthwork and unpaved roads and smoke from open burning. These effects will be minimized by adherence to all state and local regulations and to the latest edition of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction7.

5.3.4 NOISE

A Final Noise Study Report8 was prepared for this project. The traffic noise study was completed in accordance with Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (23 CFR 772) following methodology and procedures established by FDOT in its Project Development and Environment Manual, Part 2, Chapter 17 (revised April 18, 2007). Predicted noise levels were produced using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM), version 2.5. Noise levels developed for this analysis are expressed in decibels (dB) using an “A”-scale (dBA) weighting. All reported noise levels are hourly equivalent noise levels (LAeq1h). The LAeq1h is defined as the steady-state sound level that, in an hourly period, contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level for the hourly period. Use of the dBA and LAeq1h metrics to evaluate traffic noise is consistent with 23 CFR 772.


The amount of traffic noise is dependent on vehicle speed with the amount of noise generated by traffic increasing as vehicle speed increases. The existing and proposed build condition roadway geometry was reviewed to identify maximized traffic volumes that would allow vehicles to travel at speeds consistent with speed limits established for SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). Vehicle volumes resulting in Level of Service (LOS) C operating conditions generally produce the worst-case traffic noise environment. Because the project does not increase the number of through lanes, LOS C conditions of 11,040 vehicles for the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume was used for existing, design year (2030) No-Build, and 2030 Build alternatives. The AADT was reduced to an hourly volume using a peak-hour factor of 10.57 percent, peak directional factor of 54.24 percent, medium truck factor of 1.65 percent, and heavy truck factor of 0.78 percent. Posted speed within the project limits varies from 35 to 40 miles per hour (mph). All vehicles were assigned a speed of 40 mph as a worst-case traffic noise condition.

The FHWA has established noise levels at which noise abatement must be considered for various types of noise sensitive sites. These noise levels are referred to as Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). As shown in Table 5-1, the NAC vary according to the Activity Category. Noise abatement measures are considered when predicted traffic noise levels for design year (2030) build conditions approach or exceed the NAC. Following FDOT procedure, an approach is defined as within 1 dBA of the FHWA criteria.

TABLE 5-1 FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

ACTIVITY CATEGORY LEQ(H) DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE ACTIVITY CATEGORY

A 57 (Exterior)

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.

B 67 (Exterior)

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C 72 (Exterior)

Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.

D -- Undeveloped lands.

E 52 (Interior)

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Source: 23 CFR Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, FHWA, 2007.

Abatement measures must also be considered when a substantial increase in traffic noise would occur as a direct result of the transportation project. Following FDOT procedure, a substantial increase is defined as 15 dBA, or more, above existing conditions. A substantial increase typically occurs in areas where traffic noise is a minor component of the existing noise environment, but would become a major component after the project is constructed. Because SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is an existing facility and there is no proposed increase in the number of through lanes, a substantial increase in traffic noise is not expected to occur at any location along the project corridor.


A noise sensitive site is any property where frequent exterior human use occurs and where a lowered noise level would be of benefit. Noise sensitive sites within the vicinity of the construction area include the Westbay Cove community (eastbound bridge approach, north of SR 64 [Manatee Avenue]), the Westbay Cove South community (eastbound bridge approach, south of SR 64 [Manatee Avenue]), Sunbow Bay Condominiums (eastbound bridge approach, south of SR 64 [Manatee Avenue]), and Seven Shores Condominiums (westbound bridge approach, north of SR 64 [Manatee Avenue], under construction). Except for one community swimming pool, all of the noise sensitive sites are residential and all the sites are classified as Activity Category B of the NAC.

There are additional residential areas within the project limits to the east (Perico Isles and Perico Bay Club communities), but the project construction ends 2,000 ft to the west of the nearest residence. Since the project does not include additional through lanes and any shift in horizontal or vertical alignment would take place more than 2,000 ft to the west, noise levels at these residences will not be affected by any Build Alternative.

In order to determine the required extent of potentially affected noise sensitive sites, the distance from the nearest SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) travel lane to where an approach of the NAC for Activity Category B (66 dBA) would occur was determined. A noise level of 66 dBA is predicted to occur approximately 41 ft from the nearest travel lane, which is within the existing ROW in the vicinity of residential areas.

Comparison of Alternatives

For the proposed project Build Alternatives on a southern alignment, the difference between predicted noise levels for Alternative 1 South (low-level bascule bridge), Alternative 2 South (mid-level bascule bridge), and Alternative 3 South (high-level fixed-span bridge) is negligible at 0.3 dBA or less in the vicinity of noise sensitive areas with no particular proposed project Build Alternative consistently showing higher or lower noise levels in residential communities. Likewise, for the proposed bridge alternatives on a northern alignment, the difference between predicted noise levels for Alternative 1 North (low-level bascule bridge), Alternative 2 North (mid-level bascule bridge), and Alternative 3 North (high-level fixed-span bridge) is negligible at 0.1 dBA or less with no particular proposed project Build Alternative consistently showing higher or lower noise levels in residential communities.

For residences in close proximity to SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) [i.e., within 115 ft], the difference between southern alignment and northern alignment alternatives is 0.7 dBA or less. Nearby SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is a dominant noise source at these residential sites and there is no difference in the proposed horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway in the immediate vicinity. The difference in noise levels is primarily attributable to proposed stormwater management facilities associated with a particular alternative. Although the difference is negligible, predicted noise levels are generally slightly higher for the southern alignment alternatives by 0.7 dBA or less.

More distant residences do not have a nearby dominant noise source. Consequently, the horizontal or vertical alignment associated with each bridge alternative can have a small effect on predicted noise levels. The difference between southern alignment and northern alignment alternatives is 2.0 dBA or less. The difference generally occurs at the more distant residences


located south of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) along the east shore of Anna Maria Island. Predicted noise levels at these residences are generally lower for the northern alignments because of the slightly increased distance to SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) with some of the difference attributable to proposed stormwater management facilities. These more distant residences have very low predicted outdoor noise levels of less than 52.4 dBA regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative.

The predicted noise level is variable depending on the location of the residence and the alternative. However, at 2.0 dBA or less, the predicted difference in noise levels for the various proposed project Build Alternatives is not perceptible to the average human ear. Consequently, the noise environment in residential areas will be largely unaffected regardless of the Recommended Preferred Alternative.

Following is a summary of the noise analysis for each community in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Westbay Cove Community

For the Westbay Cove community, predicted existing outdoor noise levels range from 57.1 dBA to 61.7 dBA. The highest predicted existing noise level of 61.7 dBA occurs at a second-floor Westbay Cove residence located approximately 100 ft from the nearest travel lane on SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The highest predicted outdoor noise level for any of the proposed project Build Alternatives (low-level, mid-level, or high-level bridge on a northern or southern alignment) is also 61.7 dBA. Therefore, noise levels will not approach or exceed the NAC at any residence regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative.

Compared to existing noise levels, the highest predicted increase at any residence for any proposed project Build Alternative is 0.4 dBA. Therefore, no residence will experience a substantial increase regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative. The effect of the project on traffic noise is negligible because the nearby portion of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) is a dominant noise source, the horizontal alignment in the vicinity of the residences is unchanged and the nearest bridge touchdown for any proposed project Build Alternative is at least 950 ft east of the residences. Any increase in predicted noise levels is primarily attributable to proposed stormwater management facilities to the east of Westbay Cove.

Westbay Cove South Community

For the Westbay Cove South community, predicted existing outdoor noise levels range from 46.9 dBA to 59.8 dBA. The highest predicted existing noise level of 59.8 dBA occurs at a second floor Westbay Cove South residence located approximately 115 ft from the nearest travel lane on SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The highest predicted outdoor noise level for any of the proposed project Build Alternatives (low-level, mid-level, or high-level bridge on a northern or southern alignment) is also 59.8 dBA. Therefore, noise levels will not approach or exceed the NAC at any residence regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative.

Compared to existing noise levels, the highest predicted increase at any residence for any proposed project Build Alternative is 2.0 dBA. Therefore, no residence will experience a substantial increase regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative. The effect of the project


on traffic noise is small because the horizontal alignment in the vicinity of the residences is unchanged and the nearest bridge touchdown for any proposed project Build Alternative is at least 750 ft east of the residences. Any increase in predicted noise levels is primarily attributable to proposed stormwater management facilities to the east of Westbay Cove South.

Sunbow Bay Condominiums

For the Sunbow Bay Condominium community predicted existing outdoor noise levels range from 45.6 dBA to 52.4 dBA. The condominiums are at least partially shielded from SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) by other multi-floor residential buildings. The highest predicted existing noise level of 52.4 dBA occurs at a third floor condominium located approximately 380 ft from the nearest travel lane on SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The highest predicted outdoor noise level for any of the proposed project Build Alternatives (low-level, mid-level, or high-level bridge on a northern or southern alignment) is 52.3 dBA. Therefore, noise levels will not approach or exceed the NAC at any residence regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative.

Compared to existing noise levels, the highest predicted increase at any residence for any proposed project Build Alternative is 1.5 dBA. Therefore, no residence will experience a substantial increase regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative. The effect of the project on traffic noise is small because the horizontal alignment in the vicinity of the residences is unchanged and the nearest bridge touchdown for any proposed project Build Alternative is at least 700 ft east of the residences. Slight increases in predicted noise levels are associated with the southern alignment proposed project Build Alternatives which relocate the travel lanes a little closer to the residences, particularly those residences located along the eastern shore of Anna Maria Island that have an unobstructed view of the bridge.

Seven Shores Condominiums

The Seven Shores Condominiums is a proposed residential site that has been cleared; however, there was no residential construction activity at the time of the noise analysis. Noise levels were predicted using a proposed site plan. A receiver point was placed at the ground floor corner of a proposed building nearest SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) since the configuration of condominiums in a building was unknown. The predicted existing noise level of 57.8 dBA occurs about 150 ft from the nearest travel lane on SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The highest predicted outdoor noise level for any of the proposed project Build Alternatives (low-level, mid-level, or high-level bridge on a northern or southern alignment) is 58.2 dBA. Therefore, noise levels will not approach or exceed the NAC at any residence regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative.

With a maximum predicted increase of 0.4 dBA, no residence will experience a substantial increase regardless of the proposed project Build Alternative. Slight increases in predicted noise levels are associated with the northern alignment proposed project Build Alternatives which relocate the travel lanes a little closer to the proposed residences. Based upon this information, the Recommended Preferred Alternative will not result in any residences experiencing a substantial increase.


Noise Abatement

Noise levels at any residential site are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC as a result of the Recommended Preferred Alternative. In addition, there will be no substantial increase in traffic noise attributable to the proposed project. Therefore, consideration of noise abatement measures is not warranted.

Construction Noise and Vibration

During the construction phase of the proposed project, short-term noise may be generated by construction equipment and activities. The construction noise will be temporary at any location and will be controlled by adherence to provisions documented in the most recent edition of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

Using FDOT’s listing of vibration sensitive sites, residences were identified as land uses potentially sensitive to vibration during construction. If during final design it is determined that provisions to control vibration are necessary, the project’s construction provisions can be modified as needed.

5.3.5 WETLANDS

In accordance with Executive Order 11990 “Protection of Wetlands” (May 1977), the proposed project was evaluated for potential impacts to wetlands. Wetland and surface water systems receive federal protection through provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972) and the Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899). The State of Florida also provides protection to wetlands (Chapter 373 F.S.). Detailed information about the biotic communities as well as the analysis conducted for each alternative concept is contained in the Final Wetland Evaluation Report/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (WER/EFHA)9 prepared separately.

General field surveys of the study area were conducted on December 17-19, 2007, and June 23, 2008, by environmental scientists familiar with Florida wetland communities. The purpose of the field investigation was to locate and verify wetland areas identified during the database review, as well as to estimate boundaries of wetland areas not identified by the available literature. Pedestrian and snorkeling surveys were conducted within the study area.

Wetland areas within the study area were assessed using the state wetland jurisdictional methodology, as described in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual10 (1987) applying the “three parameter” approach: presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology to estimate boundaries of wetlands. Nuisance and exotic plant infestations, shifts in historical plant communities, and any other disturbances were also noted.

Upland and wetland habitats in the study area were identified and classified using FDOT’s Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System11 (FLUCFCS). See Table 5-2.

A total of 28 wetlands, seagrass areas, oyster bars, and other surface water (OSW) features were identified within the study area. Wetland habitat identified within the study area includes mangrove swamp and salt flat habitat. Seagrass habitat includes relatively healthy beds of shoal


grass (Halodule Wrightii), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), and turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum).

TABLE 5-2 FLUCFCS CATEGORIES AND CORRESPONDING NWI CODES FOR LAND USES AND LAND COVERS IDENTIFIED WITHIN

THE ANNA MARIA BRIDGE STUDY AREA

FLUCFCS* FLUCFCS Description NWI Code** NWI Description Estimated

Acreage Urban Land Use

130 Residential, High Density N/A N/A 22.24 139 High Density Under Construction N/A N/A 3.36 140 Commercial and Services N/A N/A 7.52 180 Recreational N/A N/A 2.46 190 Open Land (Urban) N/A N/A 6.80 814 Roads & Highways N/A N/A 13.95

Upland Land Use 261 Fallow Crop Land N/A N/A 4.89 422 Brazilian Pepper N/A N/A 3.24 437 Australian Pine N/A N/A 11.21

Wetlands and Surface Waters

510 Streams and Waterways (other surface waters) R2UBHx

Riverine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, excavated

0.11

534 Reservoirs <10 acres (ac) (other surface waters) L2US5x

Lacustrine, littoral, unconsolidated shore, vegetated, excavated

1.87

540 Bays & Estuaries E1OW Estuarine, Subtidal, Open Water 120.23

612 Mangrove Swamps E2SS3/ E2FO

Estuarine, Intertidal Scrub Shrub, Broad-Leaved Evergreen/ Estuarine, Intertidal, Forested

41.88

660 Salt Flats E2FL Estuarine, Intertidal, Flats 0.38 Marine Habitat

911 Seagrass E2AB2 Estuarine, Intertidal, Aquatic Bed, Aquatic Moss 60.77

654 Oyster Bars E2RF1 Estuarine, Intertidal, Reef, Mollusc 0.55

*FLUCFCS = Based on Florida Land Use Cover Forms Classification System, third ed. 1999. **NWI = Based on US Fish & Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands & Deepwater Habitats of the United States, 1979 The No-Build and Rehabilitation Alternatives would result in no direct wetland or seagrass impacts. Each of the proposed project Build Alternatives will result in unavoidable direct wetland and seagrass impacts. See Table 5-3.


TABLE 5-3 ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF DIRECT WETLAND AND SURFACE

WATER IMPACT FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Estimated Acres of Direct

Wetland and Other Surface Water Impacts

Estimated Acres of Direct Impact to Anna

Maria Sound

Estimated Acres of Seagrass

Impacts No-Build 0.00 0.00 0.001B North 0.72 5.26 0.202B North 0.72 5.26 0.203B North 0.85 5.36 0.201B South 1.07 5.28 1.792B South 1.07 5.28 1.793B South 1.11 5.29 1.81

Wetland impacts for all proposed project Build Alternatives range from 0.72 acres (ac) to 1.11 ac. The proposed project Build Alternatives on a southern alignment (low-level, mid-level, or high-level bridge) result in over 1 ac of wetland impacts for each alternative. The proposed project Build Alternatives on a northern alignment (low-level, mid-level, or high-level bridge) result in wetland impacts of less than 1 ac.

Seagrass impacts for all proposed project Build Alternatives range from 0.20 ac to 1.81 ac. Of the proposed project Build Alternatives, the northern alternatives would result in the least amount of direct impacts to seagrass areas, approximately 0.20 ac. All proposed project Build Alternatives on a southern alignment would impact over 1 ac of seagrass areas for each alternative. Alternatives to the north result in the least amount of direct seagrass area impact.

Wetland and seagrass habitat functionality was evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). Potential direct wetland and seagrass impact areas were scored under the UMAM (Chapter 62-345 Florida Administrative Code) to determine the loss function that each alternative would incur. There is only one wetland type, mangrove swamp (FLUCFCS 612), and one OSW (OSW 8) that will be impacted by the construction of any of the proposed bridge replacement alternatives. All of the wetlands within the study area have been impacted by the surrounding landscape and adjacent land uses including proximity to SR 64 (Manatee Avenue). The wetland areas also have experienced habitat fragmentation due to surrounding development. In general, coastal wetlands are able maintain their functions when compared to freshwater wetlands that have been similarly impacted. The wetlands received a score of 0.77 units indicating that the wetlands are functioning at about 77 percent from optimal. All mangrove swamp wetlands received the same score because they have similar vegetation, similar hydrology, and are situated in the same landscape. OSW 8 appears to have been constructed in wetland soils and offers minimal wetland habitat and received a score of 0.67. The score of OSW 8 is a consequence of natural recruitment that has taken place in the OSW and its connection to an adjacent wetland that provides adequate hydrology to the OSW. The seagrass areas received a score of 0.80 indicating that the seagrass areas are functioning at about 80 percent. In general, the seagrass beds are relatively healthy.


Impact delta (functions performed by the wetlands) for wetlands impacted by the proposed bridge replacement alternatives are 0.77 units for all mangrove swamp wetlands. OSW was scored at 0.67 units. The impact delta is then multiplied by the ac of impact to determine the functional loss. The proposed project Build Alternatives on a southern alignment for the low- level and mid-level bascule bridges result in a functional loss of 0.82 units and the high-level fixed bridge results in a functional loss of 0.85 units. The proposed project Build Alternatives on a northern alignment for the low- level and mid-level bascule bridges result in a loss of 0.55 units and the high-level fixed bridge results in a loss of function to wetland habitat of approximately 0.66 units.

Selection of any of the northern proposed project Build Alternatives would result in the least amount of lost function to seagrass areas; 0.16 units. The proposed project Build Alternatives on a southern alignment would result in a functional loss greater than 1 unit.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative, 3B South, will result in approximately 1.11 acres of wetland impacts and 1.81 acres of seagrass impacts. Unavoidable wetland impacts will require mitigation. Wetland impacts that will result from the construction of this project are anticipated to be mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137 F.S. to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 United States Code 1344. Under Section 373.4137 FS, mitigation of FDOT wetland impacts will be implemented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The project is currently listed on FDOT’s wetland mitigation inventory, which is provided to the SWFWMD on an annual basis. It is anticipated that FDOT will provide funding to the SWFWMD for implementation of wetland mitigation required for this project.

The WER was submitted to the agencies for review on March 30, 2009.The USACE reviewed the WER and in an email dated April 30, 2009, they concurred with the functional analysis of the wetland impacts but reserved the right to request additional information when the pre-construction application is submitted. The USACE had no comments on the proposed mitigation plan since the WER did not include specific details. They noted that the project lies within the service area of the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank.

The proposed project was evaluated for potential wetland impacts in accordance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.

5.3.6 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment was conducted under the provisions of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended through 1998 and currently regarded as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). EFH is defined as the water and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. The MSFCMA established standards for fishery conservation and management, and created eight regional Fishery Management Councils (FMC) to apply those national standards in fishery management plans (FMP). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a service of the United Stated Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is responsible for implementing this mandate.


Consultation with the NMFS is required as part of this process. A discussion of effects on EFH within the project study has been provided in the WER. The potential effects must be evaluated individually and cumulatively. The NMFS provides comments and recommendations to the responsible federal permitting agency.

Within the study area, five habitats qualify as EFH based on NOAA’s Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies12 (NOAA 1999, revised 2000). The EFH identified within the study area includes mangrove wetlands (mangroves), estuarine emergent wetlands (salt flats), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), mud/sand/shell/rock substrates (non-vegetated bottom), and estuarine waters.

The five types of EFH that were identified within the study area provide foraging areas and shelter for a variety of species. The Environmental Impact Statement13 for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the FMP of the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA, 2004) was reviewed to determine the managed species with EFH in the study area.

During the FDOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, NMFS provided comments on the project (dated December 20, 2007) as a part of the Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT). NMFS identified the estuarine habitats in Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Bay as EFH, per the 2005 Generic Amendment Number 3 of the FMP for the Gulf of Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (GMFMC), as required by the MSFCMA. Furthermore, NMFS indicated that EFH within the study area has been identified for the species shown in Table 5-4.

TABLE 5-4 MANAGED SPECIES WITH EFH PRESENT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Fishery Management

Plan

Species Life Stage Potentially Occurring in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name Egg Larvae Post-

larvae Juvenile Sub-adult Adult

Penaeid Shrimp

brown shrimp Penaeus aztecus � � � pink shrimp Penaeus duorarum � � � white shrimp Penaeus setiferus � � �

Red Drum red drum Sciaenops ocellatus � � � � Snapper Grouper

gray snapper Lutjanus griseus � � � � gag grouper Mycteroperca microlepis �

Coastal Migratory Pelagics

Spanish mackerel

Scomberomorus maculatus �

Project-related activities may have direct (e.g., physical disruption) or secondary (e.g., loss of prey species) effects on EFH and may be site-specific or habitat-wide. The potential effects must be evaluated individually and cumulatively.

Permanent Direct Impacts: The proposed project Build Alternatives will likely result in permanent direct impacts to all four EFH habitats identified. At this time, the locations of the proposed bridge piers are unknown. Therefore, the impacts to the EFH habitats were calculated based on the entire limit of construction. Thus, the impact estimates provided below are overestimates of the actual impacts that will occur from the proposed project. These estimates


will be revised during the design phase and prior to permitting, once project specific data is available. Additional coordination will take place with the NMFS during the design and permitting process.

Impacts to the each wetland area (Wetlands 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and OSW 8) range from 0.01 to 0.52 ac and impacts to each seagrass area (Seagrass Beds 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9) range from 0.01 to 0.96 ac, depending upon the proposed project Build Alternative. In addition, impacts to the waters of the Anna Maria Sound range from 4.64 to 5.36 ac. Impacts to non-vegetated bottom habitat range from 3.12 to 5.16 ac.

Temporary Direct Impacts: The method of construction for the proposed Anna Maria Island Bridge has not yet been determined. Thus, any temporary direct impacts that may occur from the proposed construction activities cannot be calculated at this time. Further coordination with the regulatory agencies, including the NMFS will take place during the design phase and prior to permitting when temporary impacts can be determined.

Secondary impacts are defined as those effects caused by the action that are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Thus, the secondary impacts from the proposed project will occur outside of the project footprint and/or subsequent to project completion.

Permanent secondary Impacts: Permanent secondary impacts to EFH resulting from the proposed construction would include new bridge structures within the estuarine waters and potential EFH loss resulting from shading impacts from the proposed bridge. The new structure within the estuarine waters (bridge piers) will provide substrate for a variety of marine organisms, such as bivalves and mollusks, and provide structure and food sources for a variety of fish species. Permanent secondary impacts to EFH due to shading from the proposed bridge will be addressed in a shading effects evaluation and documented in an addendum to the EFH Assessment during the final design and permitting phase of this project.

Temporary Indirect Impacts: The proposed project’s temporary indirect impacts to EFH would include increased turbidity within the estuarine waters resulting from construction activities. Turbidity will be addressed through established permit conditions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion and sedimentation.

The WER, which includes the EFH Assessment, was submitted to the NMFS on March 30, 2009. Since the EFH Assessment included a discussion of impacts for all of the alternatives being evaluated, the NMFS met with FDOT on April 21, 2009 to discuss the alternatives and provide technical assistance. In an e-mail dated April 22, 2009, the NMFS stated that they would conduct a complete Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act for the project when a preferred alternative had been selected and project details, such as construction methodology and demolition techniques, had been determined.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative, 3B South, will result in approximately 1.11 ac of wetland impacts and 1.81 ac of seagrass impacts. In addition, the proposed project will result in approximately 5.29 ac of impact to the waters of the Anna Maria Sound and 3.48 ac of impacts to non-vegetated bottom habitat.


Proposed wetland mitigation, as discussed in Section 5.3.5, includes the potential impacts to EFH. Further consultation will be necessary to determine the most effective mitigation measures for the proposed impacts during the design and permitting phase of the project when more detailed information regarding the bridge design and construction method is available. An updated seagrass survey will be performed during design and prior to construction to determine seagrass presence within the proposed bridge footprint. The updated seagrass survey will include quantitative and qualitative assessment to better determine the functional loss. An addendum to the EFH Assessment will be prepared during the Final Design phase of this project. The addendum will document in detail the impacts and proposed mitigation to EFH.

5.3.7 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

This project has been evaluated for potential impacts to threatened and endangered species in accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), the project study area has been evaluated for the potential presence of federally-protected plant and animal species. The study area was also evaluated for the occurrence of plant and animal species protected by the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act (Chapter 379.2291, Florida Statutes). No federally-designated Critical Habitat for protected species occurs within the study area.

Several data sources were reviewed to determine the occurrence, or the potential occurrence, of state and federally protected plant and animal species within the study area. Database reviews were conducted to identify potential habitat for protected species and critical habitat within and near the study area bounded by East Bay Drive to the west, Perico Bay Boulevard to the east, and 500 ft from the centerline of the existing bridge to the north and south.

Surveys for state and federally protected species were performed in December 2007 and June 2008 by environmental scientists familiar with Florida natural communities and protected species. Based on this evaluation, 21 state and federally-protected plant and animal species were identified that may be affected by the proposed project alternatives. General pedestrian and snorkeling surveys of the study area produced direct observations of four state-protected animal species and no observations of federally-protected animal species. No plant species were observed within the study area. A list of the species targeted during the general surveys is presented below in Table 5-5. The table was developed utilizing the Florida Natural Areas Inventory’s (FNAI) Biodiversity Index, which provides a statewide database on documented, likely, and potentially occurring rare species; habitat available on site; whether the species was observed; and the ETDM Programming Screen Summary Report for this project.

FDOT has made a determination of effect of the Build Alternatives on the protected species that are known to occur within the project corridor. The golden leather fern, Gulf sturgeon, and brown pelican received a “no effect” determination. Species receiving a “may affect, not likely to affect” include: the roseate spoonbill, limpkin, reddish egret, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, snowy egret, white ibis, piping plover, American oystercatcher, West Indian manatee, Eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, the loggerhead turtle, green turtle, leatherback turtle, Kemp’s Ridley turtle, and hawksbill turtle. The wood stork received a “may affect” determination.


TABLE 5-5 PROTECTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ANNA MARIA

BRIDGE STUDY AREA

Species USFWS Status FFWCC Status Observed

Plants golden leather fern (Acrostichum aureum) None Threatened No FISH Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Threatened Species of Special Concern No REPTILES loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) Threatened Threatened No green turtle (Chelonia mydas) Endangered Endangered No leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Endangered Endangered No Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Threatened Threatened No hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Endangered Endangered No gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) None Threatened No Kemp’s Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) Endangered Endangered No BIRDS roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja) None Species of Special Concern No limpkin (Aramus guarauna) None Species of Special Concern No piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened Threatened No little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) None Species of Special Concern Yes reddish egret (Egretta rufescens) None Species of Special Concern No snowy egret (Egretta thula) None Species of Special Concern Yes tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor) None Species of Special Concern No white ibis (Eudocimus albus) None Species of Special Concern Yes American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) None Species of Special Concern No wood stork (Mycteria americana) Endangered Endangered No brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) None Species of Special Concern Yes MAMMALS West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) Endangered Endangered No USFWS =United States Fish and Wildlife Service FFWCC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Potential impacts to protected species were evaluated for all of the proposed alternatives. The No-Build and Rehabilitation Alternatives would not involve new construction, but would involve the routine maintenance or rehabilitation of the current bridge. No permanent impacts to protected species or their habitat is anticipated under these alternatives. These alternatives would not cause direct impacts to threatened or endangered species. However, rehabilitation of the current bridge would likely temporarily increase boat and barge traffic in the study area. This temporary increase would be attributed to construction and support equipment needed to perform the bridge rehabilitation. With the increase in equipment the risk of conflict with wildlife increases. Use of the Standard Manatee Construction Conditions, Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo Snake, and the Sea Turtle Construction Conditions, will eliminate or reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to these species during rehabilitation activities.

All of the proposed project Build Alternatives would result in temporary and permanent unavoidable impacts to protected species foraging and nesting areas.

Permanent impacts to seagrass and mangrove swamp habitat would result from the construction of any of the proposed project Build Alternatives. These habitats provide potential wading bird and wood stork nesting and foraging habitat. Seagrass habitat impacts potentially affect the


foraging habitat of the manatee and the green turtle. An expanded discussion of wetland and seagrass impacts is provided in the Section 5.3.5 Wetlands and the WER, which includes the EFH Assessment.

Seven state-protected wading birds species (roseate spoonbill, limpkin, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, snowy egret, reddish egret, and white ibis) potentially occur within the study area. These species are listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as species of special concern (SSC). Within a 9-mi radius there are four documented wading bird breeding colonies. The closest of the wading bird breeding colonies is Atlas no. 615023, which is approximately 2.5 mi south of the study area. Of the seven species listed, the little blue heron, snowy egret, and white ibis were observed during field evaluations. These species were observed flying overhead and foraging in a stormwater management facility. Impacts to wetland habitats utilized by these species will be mitigated for pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (FS) and 33 US Code (USC) 1344. Therefore the project may affect, but is not likely to affect the roseate spoonbill, limpkin, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, snowy egret, reddish egret, and white ibis.

The piping plover is listed as threatened by both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and FFWCC. The piping plover may uses coastal habitats such as those found within the study area. This species overwinters in the state. No high-use wintering areas are known within the study area. No piping plovers were observed during the field surveys. Winter surveys for this species will be conducted during the construction phase. Should this species be identified within the work area during surveys, construction will be suspended until the piping plover (s) has departed the work area. Therefore, the project “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the piping plover.

The American oystercatcher is listed by the FFWCC as a species of special concern. The oystercatcher uses beach, mud flat, and shell fish beds for nesting and foraging. No American oystercatchers were observed during the field surveys. Surveys for this species will be conducted during the construction phase. Should this species be identified within the work area during surveys, construction will be suspended until the oystercatcher (s) has departed the work area. Therefore, the project may affect, not likely to adversely affect the American oystercatcher.

The wood stork is listed by both the USFWS and FFWCC as endangered. According to current state data, the entire study area falls within the 15.6 mi Core Foraging Area (CFA) of a known wood stork nesting colony. Impacts to wetland habitats utilized by these species will be mitigated for pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (FS) and 33 US Code (USC) 1344. Therefore the project “may affect” the wood stork.

The bird species previously identified, as well as various other passerine, shore bird, wading bird and raptor species, are classified as migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended. The proposed project will not add additional capacity to the existing bridge, but will replace the existing bridge along a nearby parallel alignment across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, resulting in a higher bridge profile and a shift of the existing traffic-related impacts. While minor noise and other associated impacts are expected to occur during construction, the proposed project impacts are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to migratory birds or their habitat. Migratory birds utilize a variety of upland, wetland and aquatic habitat types within and adjacent to the project limits. The various alternatives presented are expected to


have similar impacts to migratory birds. Upland habitat impacts within the existing transportation right-of-way impacted are expected to be generally replaced in-kind. Minimal impacts to beach habitat used by nesting shore birds will result from project activities. Impacts to open water aquatic habitat are expected to be minimal. Impacts to wetlands within the project limits (i.e., mangroves, and seagrasses) that will result from the construction of this project are anticipated to be mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137 F.S., or as otherwise agreed to with the appropriate regulatory agencies. As practicable during the Design phase of this project, measures to discourage birds roosting on the bridge will be considered.

The West Indian manatee is protected as endangered by the USFWS and FFWCC. Critical Habitat has not been designated within the study area. However, manatees are anticipated to travel in the project vicinity. Standard Protection Measures adopted by the USFWS for the species will be implemented during construction to assure there is no adverse affect to the manatee. Through implementation of these guidelines, the project “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the manatee.

The Eastern indigo snake is protected as a threatened species by both the USFWS and the FFWCC. The Eastern indigo snake occurs throughout most of Florida and can be found in a range of habitats including mangrove swamps. Mangrove swamp and suitable upland habitat for the Eastern indigo snake occur within the study area, although this species was not observed during the field evaluations. The FDOT will implement the Construction Precautions for the Eastern indigo snake during construction. With the use of the construction precautions, the project “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Eastern indigo snake.

The gopher tortoise is protected as threatened by the FFWCC. No gopher tortoises or burrows were observed during the field survey. However, ruderal habitat that may be used by gopher tortoises is present within the study area. The FDOT will conduct species specific surveys for the gopher tortoise prior to construction and will adhere to all FFWCC regulations. With adherence to state permitting requirements for this species, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the gopher tortoise.

Five marine turtle species potentially occur in the study area: the Atlantic loggerhead turtle, green turtle, the leatherback turtle, the hawksbill turtle, and Kemp’s Ridley turtle. USFWS and the NMFS share jurisdiction of marine turtles. The USFWS maintains jurisdiction over nesting areas while NMFS maintains jurisdiction over the pelagic habitats of sea turtles. As no suitable nesting beaches are present for marine turtles in the project area, NFMS will be responsible for any issues regarding marine turtles on this project. Marine turtles were not observed during field reviews and the project corridor does not provide suitable nesting habitat for these species. However, these species do have the potential to occur in the area within coastal waters. The FDOT will utilize the NMFS Sea Turtle Construction Conditions during bridge construction. Therefore, the project “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” the loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, or Kemp’s Ridley turtles.

All of the proposed project Build Alternatives would result in both unavoidable temporary and permanent impacts to habitats potentially used by protected species. All of the proposed project Build Alternatives would impact mangrove swamp and seagrass habitat. The proposed project Build Alternatives would result in the loss of potential nesting and foraging habitat for wading birds and the wood stork. The proposed project Build Alternatives would also result in the loss of


potential foraging habitat of the manatee and green sea turtle. However, all permanent impacts would be mitigated by FDOT; thereby, offsetting the loss of habitat.

The proposed project Build Alternatives would necessitate new construction within Anna Maria Sound. New construction in Anna Maria Sound will result in unavoidable temporary and permanent impacts. As with the Rehabilitation Alternative, the proposed project Build Alternatives would necessitate a temporary increase in boat and barge traffic. This temporary increase would be attributed to construction and support equipment needed for construction activities. Through the use of standard protection measures for the species, these impacts will be minimized.

A Final Endangered Species Biological Assessment Report14 (ESBA) was prepared as part of the overall PD&E Study. The ESBA was submitted to USFWS, NMFS, and FFWCC for review and determination of effect on the identified species for the proposed project Build Alternatives on March 26, 2009. The USFWS responded in a letter dated May 4, 2009, which is included as Appendix C of the EA. The USFWS provided a “no effect” finding for the following listed species: green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, wood stork, eastern indigo snake, and gulf sturgeon. he letter clarified that the effect determinations on sea turtles addressed in the consultation is based on the information that no suitable nesting beaches occur within the action area. The USFWS jurisdiction of these species primarily applies to nesting activities, whereas the NMFS jurisdiction generally pertains to sea turtles in open water. The USFWS concurred with the finding of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the West Indian manatee.

According to the USFWS letter in regards to the West Indian manatee, the immediate area is heavily utilized by this species for foraging as well as a travel corridor during seasonal migrations. The proposed project is within the southwest management unit for manatees which appears to be in decline. The USFWS letter noted that shading impacts to seagrasses resulting from potential new structures have not been included in the estimate of impacts. According to the USFWS letter, all seagrass beds in the immediate area not directly impacted by the selected alternative will need to be delineated and avoided by all vessels. No vessel movement, staging areas, or mooring activities will be permitted in these areas unless consultation is reinitiated with the USFWS prior to the impacts occurring. In addition, the FFWCC have designated manatee speed zones for this area. Adherences to these restrictive laws are mandatory at all times.

The FDOT has committed to implementing the Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (July 2005) for all construction activities that have waters accessible to manatees. In addition to these precautionary measures, the USFWS recommended that the FDOT include the placement of mooring fenders on barges and other large vessels such that, when moored together, the fenders provide a minimum stand-off distance, at and below the water line, of four feet under maximum compression. With the inclusion of these protective measures, impacts to manatees will be insignificant and discountable. No adverse modification of designated critical habitat is anticipated from this action. In addition, since the project is not expected, either directly or indirectly, to result in incidental take of manatees, the project, as proposed complies with the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

As noted in their letter, the USFWS conducted a field review of the study corridor to assess the quality of resources that may be impacted by the various alternatives under consideration for the


Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). The existing facility transects Anna Maria Sound which is an important area to the Southwest Region subpopulation of manatees in Florida. The FDOT has not developed a detailed mitigation plans at this phase of the project development, rather proposes to mitigate the wetland and submerged aquatic vegetation impacts utilizing Chapter 373.4137, Florida Statutes. The USFWS recommends compensatory mitigation for the loss of the fringe mangrove swamps along Manatee Avenue Causeway and the seagrass beds in Anna Maria Sound to be replaced in-kind within Anna Maria Sound. The USFWS supports the NMFS’s April 2009 coordination with the FDOT requiring the mitigation be completed and deemed successful prior to initiation of construction.

5.3.8 AQUATIC PRESERVES

Aquatic Preserves are designated as such, in order to maintain an area in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological, and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations (Section 258.36, F.S.). The project is not located within a designated Aquatic Preserve as per the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual Part 2 Chapter 19.

However, the submerged lands of Anna Maria Sound, outside of the existing ROW, are sovereign State lands, which would require issuance of a new public easement or modification of an existing public easement from the FDEP Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF). Although this is a proprietary issue rather than a regulatory matter, the approval of the easement has been linked to the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process and may impact permitting schedules. Coordination with FDEP will take place during the design phase prior to permitting to address the issuance of a new public easement or modification of an existing public easement.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative will impact approximately 0.04 ac of sovereign submerged land outside of the existing ROW on the east approach. The submerged lands of Anna Maria Sound, outside of the existing ROW are sovereign State lands, which would require issuance of a new public easement or modification of an existing public easement from the FDEP Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF). Although this is a proprietary issue rather than a regulatory matter, the approval of the easement has been linked to the ERP process and may impact permitting schedules. Coordination with FDEP will take place during the design phase prior to permitting to address the issuance of a new public easement or modification of an existing public easement.

5.3.9 WATER QUALITY

An Individual Environmental Resource Permit is expected to be required for the project from the SWFWMD and USACE to permit anticipated wetland impacts and the construction of the proposed stormwater treatment facilities State stormwater regulations are currently proposed for revision which may affect stormwater management facility design. The Recommended Preferred Alternative (High-Level Fixed- Bridge Alternative) allows for runoff from the full length of the bridge to be conveyed to the bridge ends and into stormwater treatment facilities. The High-Level Alternative results in the best alternative from a stormwater standpoint because of the ability to direct bridge runoff to stormwater treatment facilities without the use of a collection


and conveyance system. For more information, please refer to the Pond Siting Report. For this project, FDOT District One requires that all stormwater treatment facilities would remain within the existing ROW. A Water Quality Impact Evaluation (WQIE) checklist was prepared and is provided in Appendix D of the EA.

If stormwater treatment is required, the stormwater facility design will include, at a minimum, the water quantity requirements for water quality impacts as required by the SWFWMD in Chapter 40D-40, F.A.C. and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Therefore, no further water quality mitigation measures will be needed.

The proposed bridge structure is anticipated to accommodate stormwater treatment facilities at both the east and west ends of the bridge, within existing ROW, to meet treatment requirements for the Recommended Preferred Alternative. The stormwater treatment facilities are conceptually depicted for the purpose of determining sites within the ROW that would have the capacity to provide stormwater management for the project. Final configuration and aesthetics (fencing, landscaping, side slopes) for the stormwater treatment facilities will be determined during final design. If this project proceeds from the PD&E phase into design, it will be several years before construction begins, and it is likely that there will be a Statewide Stormwater Rule at that time.

A Water Quality Certificate (WQC) will be required for the construction of this project. The WQC is issued as part of the State’s Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process. As this project is currently in the PD&E phase, the ERP application has not been submitted. The ERP application and any subsequent water quality coordination will be completed during the Design phase of the project. FDOT will determine what data is readily available regarding water quality prior to filing for permits. If no data is available, the department will implement water sampling and monitoring for a period sufficient to establish background water quality.

5.3.10 OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS

Anna Maria Sound is part of the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System and these waters are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Waters with this designation are afforded an extra measure of protection and are thus subject to greater treatment volume requirements than regular surface waters. See information regarding proposed stormwater treatment and permits described in Section 5.3.9 above.

5.3.11 CONTAMINATION

In accordance with FDOT requirements, a contamination screening evaluation has been performed to evaluate potential involvement with contaminated sites to the project. A Final Contamination Screening Evaluation Report15 (CSER) has been prepared pursuant to the FDOT Project Development and Environment Manual Part 2, Chapter 22. A Level I assessment was conducted to identify and evaluate sites containing hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other sources of potential environmental contamination along the SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) project area. Risk rankings were assigned after reviewing data obtained from on-site reviews of the parcels, a review of historical land use, review of aerial photos, hazardous petroleum regulatory site lists, and other pertinent information.


A total of three sites were identified through the database search and field review, as shown in Table 5-6 and on the concept plans included as Appendix A. Two sites are ranked High and one site is ranked Low for potential contamination hazard. These rankings may be adjusted depending upon the final alignment of the bridge, roadway tie-ins, and ROW requirements. As the process moves forward, a more complete investigation of these sites, as well as a revisiting of the regulatory files may be warranted.

TABLE 5-6 POTENTIAL CONTAMINATED SITES

Map ID

Facility ID

Facility Name

Facility Address Facility Type Potential

Contaminant Facility Status

Hazard Ranking

1 N/A

Anna Maria Bridge Tender

Station 137+00 (at Bridge

Tender House) Concrete House PCB/Lead

Paint Active High

2 8942830

Perico Harbor Marina LLC.

12310 Manatee

Avenue West, Bradenton

Marine/Coastal Fuel Storage Fuel/Petroleum Closed Low

3 8623886 Dalia Time Saver

12300 Manatee

Avenue West, Bradenton

Retail Station Fuel/Petroleum Closed High

The Recommended Preferred Alternative involves the potential of two High contamination sites, the Anna Maria Bridge Tender House and Dalia Time Saver, and one Low site, the Perico Harbor Marina.

An asbestos and lead paint survey was also conducted for the Anna Maria Island Bridge (Bridge Number 130054) in 2005. Asbestos found in the bridge tender house has been abated. The lead paint abatement for the bridge is part of the current rehabilitation. The equipment containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) has been removed from the bridge tender house but there are still stains on the concrete floor that contain PCBs.

For the Recommended Preferred Alternative, a high-level fixed-bridge on a south alignment, FDOT will conduct Level 2 testing on the two sites ranked as High during final design to determine the level of contamination, and if necessary, evaluate the options to remediate along with the associated costs. There are no Medium ranked sites. At known contamination sites, estimated areas of contamination will be marked on design drawings and resolution of problems will be coordinated with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Prior to construction, any necessary cleanup plans will be developed. Actual cleanup will take place during construction.

5.3.12 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

There are no rivers within the project area listed in the National Park Service Southeastern Rivers Inventory; therefore, the coordination requirement for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not apply to this project.


5.3.13 FLOODPLAINS

In accordance with Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” DOT Order 5650.2, “Floodplain Management and Protection,” and Chapter 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 650A, encroachment to floodplains from the construction of the proposed project alternatives were considered. A Final Location Hydraulic Report16 (LHR) was prepared to comply with 23 CFR 650 and 23 CFR 771. The flood risk associated with encroachment to floodplains was analyzed and was identified as not significant encroachment. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel numbers 125114 0003 D (City of Holmes Beach, dated February 1, 1984) and 120155 0005 C (City of Bradenton, dated November 16, 1983) show the Anna Maria Island Bridge location. FEMA FIRM maps are included in the LHR, published separately.

The entire project falls within flood zone A, classified as a special flood hazard area inundated by the 100-year flood. The base flood elevation is EL 12 NGVD for the eastern section of the project and EL 9 NGVD for the western section.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative is on the approximate same alignment as the existing bridge within the coastal floodplain, but will not increase flood hazards or promote incompatible development within the floodplain. There will be a minor impact to the floodplain but flood elevations and risks will not be increased due to the changes in the vertical and horizontal alignments for the Recommended Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the proposed structure will perform hydraulically in a manner equal to or greater than the existing structures, and backwater surface elevations are not expected to increase. As a result, there will be no significant adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. There will be no significant change in flood risk, and there will not be a significant change in the potential for interruption or termination of emergency service or emergency evacuation routes. Therefore, it has been determined that this encroachment is not significant.

5.3.14 COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY

In a letter dated May 16, 2008, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) through Florida State Clearinghouse has determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The state’s continued concurrence with the project will be based, in part, on the adequate resolution of any issues identified during this and subsequent reviews. Final concurrence with the project will be determined during the environmental permitting stage.

5.3.15 COASTAL BARRIER ISLAND RESOURCES

This project is not located in the vicinity of or within a coastal barrier resource unit as defined by the Governor’s Executive Order 8 1-105 and the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 1999.

5.3.16 FARMLANDS

Through coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, it has been determined that the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 do not apply to this project.


5.3.17 SCENIC HIGHWAY

SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) from SR 789 (East Bay Drive) to 75th Street West is also designated by FDOT as the Palma Sola Scenic Highway, through the Florida Scenic Highway Program (FSHP). The corridor has numerous recreational areas, including beaches and picnic areas with restrooms, which allow travelers to enjoy the unlimited offering of water sports such as fishing, sailing, water skiing, and jet skiing along the entire causeway.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative will not have an impact on the elements that are considered for the scenic highway designation of SR 64 (Manatee Avenue) within the limits of the project. The proposed project will have potential benefits with the inclusion of sidewalks. In addition, the Manatee County Board of County Commissioner’s establishment of the Bridge Design Committee to work with FDOT during the design of the bridge to assist in the identification of potential aesthetic features and possible landscaping to be incorporated into the design of the Anna Maria Island Bridge will also be beneficial.

5.3.18 NAVIGATION

The existing Anna Maria Island Bridge (FDOT Bridge Number 130054) is a low-level bascule structure that spans over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a marked federal navigational channel. The Recommended Preferred Alternative, a 65-ft high-level fixed-bridge on a south alignment, will require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Permit.

The USCG guide clearances have been established for the Intracoastal Waterway at this location. They are 21-ft vertical clearance at mean high water (MHW) for new drawbridges and 65-ft vertical clearance at MHW for new fixed-bridges. The existing vertical clearance is less than the established guide clearance set by the USCG for this location along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Based on data provided by the bridge tender at the Anna Maria Island Bridge and allowing for tidal fluctuations, the 65-ft height of the Recommended Preferred Alternative would allow greater than 99 percent of boats that currently require the existing bridge to open to safely navigate under the proposed structure. The horizontal guide clearance for all bridge replacement alternatives is 100 ft perpendicular distance between fenders, which is a 10-ft increase over the existing condition.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative (southern alignment) avoids impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp and the improvements to its parking area planned by Manatee County. The southern alignment also avoids impacts to the navigation channels along the north side of the bridge; therefore, no dredging is required to widen or maintain either of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway channels. The south alignment was supported by 75 percent of the public who returned surveys.

After consultation with the Coast Guard Seventh District Bridge Administration Office, it has been concluded that all presented bridge replacement alternatives would meet the reasonable needs of navigation for this stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The Coast Guard preferred the southern bridge alignment alternatives over the northern bridge alignment alternatives because the southern alignment alternatives eliminate impacts to the Kingfish Boat Ramp and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway channels would not be impacted.


5.3.19 CONSTRUCTION

Construction activities for the project may have short-term air, noise, vibration, water quality, traffic flow, and visual effects for those residents and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project.

The air quality effect will be temporary and will primarily be in the form of emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment and dust from embankment and haul road areas. Air pollution associated with the creation of airborne particles will be effectively controlled through the use of watering or the application of other controlled materials in accordance with FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

Noise and vibration effects will be from the heavy equipment movement and construction activities, such as pile driving and vibratory compaction of embankments. Noise control measures will include those contained in FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Specific noise level problems that may arise during construction of the project will be addressed by the Construction Engineer in cooperation with the appropriate Environmental Specialist.

Water quality effects resulting from erosion and sedimentation during construction will be controlled in accordance with FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and through the use of BMPs.

Short term construction related wetland impacts will be minimized by adherence to FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. These specifications include measures known as BMPs, which include the use of siltation barriers, dewatering structures, and containment devices that will be implemented for controlling turbid water discharges outside of construction limits.

Maintenance of traffic and sequence of construction will be planned and scheduled to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. Signs will be used to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent information to the traveling public. The local news media will be notified in advance of road closings and other construction-related activities so that motorists, residents, and business persons can make other accommodations. All provisions of FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction will be followed.

Construction of the roadway and bridge may require excavation of unsuitable material (muck), placement of embankments, and use of materials, such as limerock, asphaltic concrete, and portland cement concrete. Demucking will be controlled by Section 120 of FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The removal of structures and debris will be in accordance with local and state regulation agencies permitting this operation. The contractor is responsible for his methods of controlling pollution on haul roads, in borrow pits and other materials pits, and in areas used for disposal of waste materials from the project. Temporary erosion control features, as specified in FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, will consist of temporary grassing, sodding, mulching, sandbagging, slope drains, sediment basins, sediment checks, artificial coverings, and berms.


Blasting may be required for the demolition of the existing structure. If blasting is necessary, the Marine Wildlife Safety Plan (MWSP) provided in Appendix E of the EA will be implemented to assure the protection of protected marine wildlife species, including the West Indian manatee and the five marine turtles potentially occurring in the project area.

5.4 REFERENCES

1. Anna Maria Island Bridge Survey #3; Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, Florida; March 2009

2. Future Land Use Maps; City of Bradenton; EAR Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Adopted September 24, 2008.

3. Future Land Use Maps; Manatee County Board of County Commissioners; Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use.


5. Final Cultural Resource Assessment Survey; Archaeological Consultants, Inc.; Sarasota, Florida; December 2008.

6. Environmental Assessment; PBS&J; Tampa, Florida; June 2010.

7. Cultural Resource Management Standards and Operational Manual; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; 1995.

8. 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan; Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization.

9. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida.

10. Final Noise Study Report; PBS&J; Tampa, Florida; June 2009.

11. Final Wetland Evaluation Report/Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; PBS&J; Sarasota, Florida; July 2009.

12. Wetland Delineation Manual; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 1987.

13. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida.

14. Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies; United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Washington, DC; 1999, updated 2000.


15. Environmental Impact Statement, for the Generic Essential Fish Habitat Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico; United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Washington, DC; 2004.

16. Final Endangered Species Biological Assessment Report; PBS&J; Sarasota, Florida; July 2009.

17. Final Contamination Screening Evaluation Report; PBS&J; Tampa, Florida; July 2009.

18. Final Location Hydraulic Report; PBS&J; Orlando, Florida; June 2009.


SECTION 6.0 SUMMARY OF PERMITS AND MITIGATION

6.1 PERMITS

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) regulate wetlands impacts within the study area. Because a United States Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Permit is required, the USCG has agreed to be the lead federal agency and will include Section 404 permit requirements within their review. Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines includes verification that all wetland impacts have first been avoided to the greatest extent possible, that unavoidable impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and that unavoidable impacts have been mitigated in the form of wetlands creation, restoration, and/or enhancement. Because the USCG will function as the lead federal agency, the USACE is anticipated to review the project under Nationwide 15 for “U.S. Coast Guard Approved Bridges.” The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), review and comment on the USCG permit applications. It is currently anticipated that the following permits will be required for this project: Permit Issuing Agency Environmental Resource Permit (ERP): SWFWMD Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (Nationwide): USACE National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES): EPA U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit: USCG The SWFWMD regulates impacts to wetlands. Impacts must be justified by the site design and the applicant must demonstrate that wetland impacts have been eliminated or reduced to the greatest extent practicable. The SWFWMD will require mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts. Any project which results in the clearing of one or more acres of land will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the EPA, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 122 and 124. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will utilize a Notice of Intent to use the general permit issued by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). In association with this permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which will be implemented during the construction of the project, will also be required. The primary functions of the NPDES requirements are to insure that sediment and erosion during construction of the project is controlled. These permits typically require Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure compliance.

6.2 MITIGATION

Wetland impacts that will result from the construction of this project are anticipated to be mitigated pursuant to Section 373.4137 F.S. to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 United States Code 1344. Under Section 373.4137 FS, mitigation of


FDOT wetland impacts will be implemented by the SWFWMD. The project is currently listed on FDOT’s wetland mitigation inventory, which is provided to the SWFWMD on an annual basis. It is anticipated that FDOT will provide funding to the SWFWMD for implementation of wetland mitigation required for this project.

Further coordination with the USACE will take place during design and prior to permitting to further coordinate wetland mitigation.

An updated seagrass survey will be performed during design and prior to construction to determine seagrass presence within the proposed bridge footprint. The updated seagrass survey will include quantitative and qualitative assessment to better determine the functional loss. An addendum to the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment will be prepared during the Final Design phase of this project. The addendum will document in detail the impacts and proposed mitigation to EFH. Further consultation with the NMFS will be necessary to determine the most effective mitigation measures for the proposed impacts to EFH during the design and permitting phase of the project when more detailed information regarding the bridge design and construction method is available.


SECTION 7.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

7.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A Public Involvement Program was prepared in compliance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Project Development and Environmental Manual1; Florida Statute 339.155; Executive Orders 11990 and 11988; CEQ Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and, 23 CFR 771.

7.2 ETDM SCREENING

The project was evaluated through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process. The ETDM Summary Report2, finalized March 3, 2008, is provided in Appendix B.

7.3 ADVANCE NOTIFICATION

FDOT, through the Advance Notification (AN) Process, informed a number of federal, state, and local agencies of the existence of this project and its scope. FDOT initiated early project coordination on March 14, 2008, by distribution of an AN package to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection - State Clearinghouse and other applicable agencies. Responses were received from:

• Florida Department of Community Affairs • Florida Department of Environmental Protection • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission • Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council • Southwest Florida Water Management District

In general, the comments received through the AN process were either “no comment” or were related to respective agency permitting requirements and stressed avoidance and minimization of environmental impacts. Comments have been addressed in the appropriate sections of this report.

7.4 NEWSLETTERS

Newsletters were mailed to public officials, property owners, and interested citizens in February, July, and December 2008 and March 2009. In addition, a study survey mailed in March 2008 acted as an invitation to a public information workshop held on April 3, 2008. The February newsletter introduced the PD&E Study to the public and officials. The July issue provided the results of a survey conducted from March through May 2008. The December issue was used to announce a public information workshop held on December 16, 2008, and present the viable alternatives. The March issue served as an invitation to the March 26, 2009, public hearing. A final newsletter will be distributed to announce approval of the recommended preferred alternative by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).


7.5 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS

FDOT has made presentations to two groups during the PD&E Study.

• April 1, 2008 – Sandpiper Resort Cooperative, 2601 Gulfport Drive, Bradenton Beach, Florida. FDOT project manager, Chris Piazza, provided residents a status update on the study.

• May 3, 2008 – Save Anna Maria, Inc. (SAM) at the Island Branch Library. Mr. Piazza presented the results of the April 3, 2008, public information workshop to members of SAM.

7.6 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETINGS

FDOT has advised Michael Howe, Executive Director of the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), on the status of the ongoing Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study. Following the public hearing, FDOT made a presentation to the MPO on May 4, 2009, to announce the recommended alternative that will be submitted to the USCG for approval. Also, presentations were scheduled on June 4, 2009 to the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee and June 8, 2009 to the MPO Technical Advisory Committee.

7.7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS

FDOT advised various members of the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the progress of the PD&E Study. Also, FDOT gave a formal presentation to the BOCC on May 5, 2009, to announce the recommended alternative that will be submitted to the USCG.

7.8 KICKOFF LETTER

The February 2008 issue of the study newsletter was used to notify public officials and the general public of the initiation of the study.

7.9 WEB SITE

A study web site www.annamariaislandbridge.com was published in January 2008 and has been updated monthly to provide news about the PD&E Study. The site has also allowed viewers to access public meeting materials and provide input by completing the “Contact Us” page. Over 10,000 hits were recorded.

7.10 KICKOFF PUBLIC MEETING

On April 3, 2008, FDOT conducted a public information workshop to introduce and explain the PD&E Study process to attendees. The workshop was held at the St. Bernard Catholic Church activity center, 248 South Harbor Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida.


7.11 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION

FDOT attended the March 17, 2008, meeting of the Island Transportation Planning Organization at Bradenton Beach City Hall. FDOT project manager, Chris Piazza, gave an update on the study and announced a public information workshop to be held April 3, 2008.

On April 15, 2009, Chris Piazza, FDOT project manager, gave a formal presentation to the Council of Governments to announce the recommended alternative that will be submitted to the USCG. The council is a group of representatives from city governments and the county commission of Manatee County.

Presentations announcing the recommended preferred alternative were also given to the following:

• May 4, 2009 – Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

• May 5, 2009 – Manatee County Board of County Commissioners

• June 4, 2009 – Sarasota/Manatee MPO Citizens Advisory Committee

• June 8, 2009 – Sarasota/Manatee MPO Technical Advisory Committee

7.12 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOPS

Public information workshops were held on April 3, 2008, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and December 16, 2008, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the St. Bernard Catholic Church activity center in Holmes Beach. The April 3 workshop acted as an introduction to the study process. An audiovisual presentation explained the process. Approximately 180 citizens and public officials attended the public meeting. Attendees viewed aerial photographs of the existing bridge and its surroundings. Project handouts and study surveys were offered to attendees. Scribes and comment sheets were available for public comments.

FDOT received 879 completed surveys prior to the workshop, at the workshop and in the comment period following the public meeting. In addition, FDOT also received approximately 80 comment sheets, e-mails comments submitted on the study web site, and letters following the workshop. Results of the surveys and comments provided FDOT with a sampling of the preferences interested citizens have for the future of the Anna Maria Island Bridge.

FDOT compiled the results of completed surveys received in April and May 2008. The results indicated:

• 82 percent favored replacement of the bridge. • 23 percent favored further rehabilitation. • Of those in favor of a bridge replacement, 66 percent preferred a high-level fixed bridge,

11 percent wanted a mid-level drawbridge, 9 percent preferred a low-level drawbridge, and 3 percent favored another solution.


• Regarding the existing bridge, the main concerns included: Hurricane/emergency evacuation, access to the mainland, and roadway traffic.

In addition to findings from the engineering and environmental studies, results of the survey were utilized to develop alternatives that would be presented at an Alternatives Public Information Workshop in December 2008.

FDOT presented alternative concepts at the December 16, 2008, workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a study update; present the results of the surveys; and present and obtain feedback on the alternative concepts. Invitational newsletters were mailed to approximately 3,800 individuals. Approximately 100 persons attended the workshop. An audiovisual presentation was shown continuously to explain the no-build, rehabilitation, and replacement alternatives. Project handouts and a second study survey3 were offered to attendees. The survey requested public preferences regarding the alternatives presented at the workshop. Scribes and comment sheets were available for public comments.

FDOT received 58 surveys at the workshop and in the comment period following the public meeting. FDOT also received approximately 30 comments at the workshop, on the study web site, via e-mail, and by letter received following the workshop. The surveys and comments provided FDOT with the public’s preferences regarding future replacement or rehabilitation of the existing bridge, the alignment and vertical clearance of a possible replacement bridge, and the typical cross section.

The FDOT compiled the results of 58 completed surveys received through January 2009. The results indicated:

• 77 percent favored replacement of the bridge and 23 percent opposed. Five percent said their opinion had changed from the initial survey, while 91 percent said it had not.

• 30 percent favored a north alignment for a future bridge replacement, 44 percent favored a south alignment, and 26 percent had no preference.

• 70 percent preferred a high-level fixed bridge, 4 percent wanted a mid-level drawbridge, 21 percent preferred a low-level drawbridge, and 5 percent favored another solution or had no preference.

• 20 percent favored a new bridge with one sidewalk (Typical Section A), 73 percent favored a new bridge with two sidewalks (Typical Section B), and 7 percent had no preference.

Results of the second survey were analyzed and, together with in-depth analyses completed in the engineering and environmental studies, used to further refine the alternatives that would be presented at a formal public hearing in March 2009.

7.13 PUBLIC HEARING

A formal public hearing was held on Thursday, March 26, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. at the Saint Bernard Catholic Church activity center, 248 South Harbor Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida. The public hearing was held to inform the public of the results of the PD&E Study and to give the public the opportunity to express their views regarding specific location, design, socio-


economic effects, and environmental impacts associated with the viable alternatives, which included low-level and mid-level drawbridges, a high-level fixed bridge, the rehabilitation alternative and the no-build alternative.

Chris Piazza, P.E., project manager, moderated the hearing. FDOT and its consultant were present at the meeting site for one hour prior to the formal proceedings to informally discuss the project with the general public. Aerial photographs with the viable alternatives and poster boards were displayed. Informational brochures/handouts were offered to attendees. The brochures included a description of the ROW acquisition procedures with particular reference to state and federal relocation assistance programs. Surveys and comment sheets were offered for the public to complete.

A total of 111 persons registered as having attended the public hearing. Following introductory remarks, a video of the project was presented. The video included a summary of the need for the facility and advantages and disadvantages of the viable alternatives and the no-build alternative. Socio-economic and environmental impacts were presented.

Following the presentation, a brief intermission was held during which attendees reviewed the displays and asked questions. The next portion of the public hearing was devoted to comments and questions directed to the hearing moderator. Specific questions and comments were answered at the public hearing during informal discussions with concerned individuals or by personal letter or e-mail following the hearing. Twelve persons spoke for the public record at the hearing. FDOT also received approximately 85 comment sheets, comments submitted on the study web site, e-mails, and letters following the hearing.

Substantive comments made at and subsequent to the public hearing focused almost exclusively on preferences for one of the alternatives presented. FDOT responded that the comments will be reviewed and incorporated with the engineering and environmental analyses to develop the recommended preferred alternative that will be submitted to the USCG for approval.

Prior to the hearing, a study survey was mailed to over 4,000 property owners and interested citizens. The purpose of the survey was to offer the public a final opportunity to state an opinion on the type of improvement they preferred for the Anna Maria Island Bridge. FDOT received approximately 500 completed surveys prior to the hearing, at the hearing, and in the 14-day comment period following the public hearing.

FDOT compiled the results of completed surveys received in March and April 2009. The results indicated:

• 83 percent favored replacement of the bridge while 17 percent favored rehabilitation. 11 percent said their opinion had changed from previous surveys, while 89 percent said it had not.

• 25 percent favored a north alignment for a future bridge replacement, 75 percent favored a south alignment.

• 77 percent preferred a high-level fixed bridge, 7 percent wanted a mid-level drawbridge, 15 percent preferred a low-level drawbridge, and 1 percent favored another solution or had no preference.


• 23 percent favored a new bridge with one sidewalk (Typical Section A), 77 percent favored a new bridge with two sidewalks (Typical Section B).

In addition to findings from the engineering and environmental studies, results of the final survey were utilized to develop a recommended preferred alternative that would be submitted to USCG for approval.

7.14 U.S. COAST GUARD PUBLIC NOTICE

To ensure notification of the proposed bridge replacement project was widely disseminated, USCG published a legal advertisement in the classified section of The Bradenton Herald, a daily newspaper with circulation covering a minimum 25-mile radius from the proposed bridge replacement site, including the Cities of Holmes Beach, Anna Maria and Bradenton Beach. The ad ran for seven consecutive days from October 5 through October 11, 2009, offering interested citizens the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed project.

USCG received 22 comments regarding the proposed replacement project. Thirteen comments favored construction of a new bridge, with all but one comment favoring a high-level fixed bridge. Nine comments opposed a new bridge. USCG responded by letter or e-mail on February 19, 2010, to persons whose comments required a response.

7.15 REFERENCES


2. The ETDM Summary Report; Florida Department of Transportation ETDM; March 2008.

3. Anna Maria Island Bridge Survey #3; Florida Department of Transportation, District One; Bartow, Florida; March 2009.

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Preferred Alternative Conceptual Alternative Plan and Profiles

Appendix B: ETDM Programming Screen Summary Report

APPENDIX A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVE PLAN AND PROFILES

APPENDIX B ETDM PROGRAMMING SCREEN SUMMARY REPORT

ETDM Summary Report

Project #9751 - SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge #130054

Finalized Programming Screen - Published on 03/03/2008

Printed on: 8/14/2008

Table of ContentsOverview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1 Project Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1. Project Description Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2. Purpose & Need Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Alternative #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1. Alternative Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2. Segment Description(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3. Project Effects Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4. ETAT Reviews: Natural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.1. Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4.2. Coastal and Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4.3. Contaminated Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4.4. Farmlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.5. Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.4.6. Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.4.7. Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.4.8. Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.4.9. Water Quality and Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.4.10. Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.4.11. Wildlife and Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.5. ETAT Reviews: Cultural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.5.1.Historic and Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

2.5.2. Recreation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2.5.3. Section 4(f) Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.6. ETAT Reviews: Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.6.1. Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.6.2. Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2.6.3. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

2.6.4. Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

2.6.5. Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2.6.6. Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

2.7. ETAT Reviews: Secondary and Cumulative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2.7.1.Secondary and Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

3 Eliminated Alternative Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723.1. Eliminated Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4 Project Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734.1. General Project Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.2. Required Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.3. Required Technical Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.4. Class of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4.5. Dispute Resolution Activity Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5 Alternative #1: Hardcopy Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986.1. Degree of Effect Legend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

6.2. GIS Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Screening Summary Reports

Introduction to Programming Screen Summary Report

The Programming Screen Summary Report shown below is a read-only version of information contained in the

Programming Screen Summary Report generated by the ETDM Coordinator for the selected project after

completion of the ETAT Programming Screen review. The purpose of the Programming Screen Summary

Report is to summarize the results of the ETAT Programming Screen review of the project; provide details

concerning agency comments about potential effects to natural, cultural, and community resources; and

provide additional documentation of activities related to the Programming Phase for the project. Available

information for a Programming Screen Summary Report includes:

Screening Summary Report chart

Project Description information (including a summary description of the project, a summary of public

comments on the project, and community-desired features identified during public involvement

activities)

Purpose and Need information (including the Purpose and Need Statement and the results of agency

reviews of the project Purpose and Need)

Alternative-specific information, consisting of descriptions of each alternative and associated road

segments; an overview of ETAT Programming Screen reviews for each alternative; and agency

comments concerning potential effects and degree of effect, by issue, to natural, cultural, and

community resources.

Project Scope information, consisting of general project commitments resulting from the ETAT

Programming Screen review, permits, and technical studies required (if any)

Class of Action determined for the project

Dispute Resolution Activity Log (if any)

The legend for the Degree of Effect chart is provided in an appendix to the report.

For complete documentation of the project record, also see the GIS Analysis Results Report published on the

same date as the Programming Screen Summary Report.

Page 1 of 99 Summary Report - Project #9751 - SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge #130054 Printed on: 8/14/2008

9751 - SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge #130054

District District 1 Phase Programming Screen

County Manatee County From East of SR 789

Planning Organization FDOT District 1 To 1500' East of Existing Bridge

Plan ID Financial Management No.Federal Involvement Federal Funding

Contact Name / PhoneChris Piazza

(863) 519-2293 Contact Email [email protected]

Programming Screen Summary Report Re-published on 03/03/2008

Overview

Evaluation of Direct Effects

Natural Cultural Community

Legend

N/A N/A / No Involvement

0 None (after 12/5/2005)

1 Enhanced

2 Minimal (after 12/5/2005)

3 Moderate

4 Substantial

5

Dispute Resolution

(Programming)

Air Q

ua

lity

Co

asta

l a

nd

M

arin

e

Co

nta

min

ate

d S

ite

s

Fa

rm

la

nd

s

Flo

od

pla

in

s

In

fra

stru

ctu

re

Na

vig

atio

n

Sp

ecia

l D

esig

na

tio

ns

Wa

te

r Q

ua

lity a

nd

Q

ua

ntity

We

tla

nd

s

Wild

life

a

nd

H

ab

ita

t

Histo

ric a

nd

A

rch

ae

olo

gica

l S

ite

s

Re

cre

atio

n A

re

as

Se

ctio

n 4

(f) P

ote

ntia

l

Ae

sth

etics

Eco

no

mic

La

nd

U

se

Mo

bility

Re

lo

ca

tio

n

So

cia

l

Se

co

nd

ary a

nd

C

um

ula

tive

E

ffe

cts

ETAT Review Period From 11/26/2007 To 1/10/2008

Alternative #1 From East of SR 789 To 1500' Eastof Existing Bridge- Reviewed from 11/26/2007 to1/10/2008- Re-Published: 3/3/2008

0 4 2 0 2 1 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 3


1. Project Details1.1. Project Description Data

1.2. Purpose & Need Data

Project Description Data

Description Statement

This project will evaluate the feasibility of continued rehabilitation versus replacement of the existing 2-lane SR 64

(Manatee Avenue) Anna Maria Island Bridge (#130054) (MP 0.712). A new structure would consist of one (1)

twelve-foot (12') travel lane in each direction, 10-foot shoulders, and sidewalks. A new structure would also

conform to all applicable Florida Department of Transportation design standards and height requirements set forth

by the United States Coast Guard. The project will also involve an assessment of the feasibility of further repair and

rehabilitation of the existing structure.

Summary of Public Comments

Summary of public comments not available.

Consistency

Consistent with Air Quality Conformity.-Consistency information for Coastal Zone Management Program is not available.-Consistency with Local Government Comp Plan is unknown.-

Comment: The Department has determined that this project is not considered a major capacity

improvement. The project description identifies the project as a bridge replacement. As a result, this project

is not subject to comprehensive plan consistency review.

-

Submitted By: FL Department of Community Affairs-Comment Date: 2008-01-09 15:34:53.0-

Consistent with MPO Goals and Objectives.-

Lead Agency

US Coast Guard

Exempted Agencies

No exemptions have been assigned for this project.

Community Desired Features

No desired features have been entered into the database. This does not necessarily imply that none have been

identified.

Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need Statement

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SR 64 is one of two major east-west access points connecting Anna Maria Island to western Manatee County.

Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have shown that the SR 64 -

Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. This condition is anticipated to

deteriorate further as the bridge is reaching its service life of 50 years. Recognizing its importance as a vital

connection between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland, local officials and the public have

expressed the great need to replace the existing bridge structure. Serving as a critical hurricane evacuation route

for residents living on the barrier islands, improvements to this facility are imperative. Connecting to both US 41

and I-75, two principal facilities of the state, this corridor also plays an important role in circulating traffic throughout

Manatee County.


An improved bridge will not only divert traffic from surrounding facilities (Gulf Drive and Cortez Bridge), but it will aid

in the alleviation of congestion and improve traffic flow on the SR 64 corridor. In addition, improvements to this

facility are anticipated to enhance overall safety, emergency access, and truck access in this area of Manatee

County.

CONDITION OF EXISTING BRIDGE

Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have shown that the Anna Maria

Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. Substandard geometry such as the lack of

shoulders, 10-inch wide concrete curbs separating the travel lanes from the sidewalk, and obsolete bridge railing

add to the further deficiency of the existing structure.

Due to the naturally corrosive environment, the substructure and superstructure of the Anna Maria Island Bridge

has continued to degrade and will need further repair in the near future. The necessary repairs will be costly and

more frequent as the existing structure, constructed in 1957, ages beyond its service life of 50 years. Further

degradation of the existing structure will result in a lower sufficiency rating that may eventually require it to be

replaced. As of this year, the bridge sufficiency rating is 37.3. According to the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), a bridge receiving a sufficiency rating below 50.0 is considered to be a candidate for replacement funding.

The bridge can continue to be rehabilitated indefinitely; however, that becomes more cost prohibitive over time, at

which replacement becomes viable. Based on the above stated sufficiency rating of 37.3, it is clear that the existing

Anna Maria Island Bridge is in need of vital repairs or replacement.

PUBLIC SUPPORT

Current rehabilitation of the Anna Maria Island Bridge is anticipated to extend the service life of the bridge an

estimated 10-15 years. Local officials and the public, however, have greatly expressed the need to replace the

existing structure. These opinions were voiced at a recent Manatee County Board of County Commissioners

(BOCC) meeting held on October 23, 2007 and at an Anna Maria Island public information workshop held on

October 29, 2007.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION

SR 64 serves as a primary east-west evacuation route in Manatee County and is part of the evacuation route

network established by the Florida Division of Emergency Management. Serving as one of two fixed access points

to the Island of Anna Maria, the SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge plays a critical role in the timely evacuation of

the area. SR 64 also provides the most direct evacuation route for the City of Holmes Beach and is a critical

secondary route for the residents of Longboat Key. As such, the improvement of this facility is important in

enhancing the overall safety of the barrier island residents.

REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY

The SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge provides a vital east-west connection between Manatee County and the

communities and activity centers located on the county's coastal barrier islands; it is one of two bridges connecting

Anna Maria Island to the mainland. Also connecting to both US 41 and I-75, two principal facilities of the state, the

SR 64 corridor plays an important role in circulating traffic throughout Manatee County.

A bridge of improved condition will aid in the alleviation of congestion and improve traffic flow on the SR 64

corridor. An improved bridge will also likely divert traffic off of Gulf Drive and the Cortez Road Bridge. In addition,

improvements to this facility are anticipated to enhance overall safety, emergency access, and truck access in this

area of Manatee County.

TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONSISTENCY

The rehabilitation of the Anna Maria Island Bridge over Anna Maria Sound is not specifically included in the

Sarasota-Manatee MPO 2030 LRTP. The 2030 Highway System Plan Map Series of the LRTP, however, does

show this segment of SR 64 as a constrained facility.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES


No designated on-street bicycle facilities currently exist along the segment of SR 64 encompassing the Anna Maria

Island Bridge. Paved shoulders, however, run along the entire project length. A discontinuous sidewalk is present

on the north side of the project segment.

While bicycle and pedestrian improvements are not identified specifically in the Sarasota-Manatee MPO 2030

LRTP for this project, both bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) could be

incorporated as part of the construction of the new eastbound and westbound bridge lanes. In addition, a section of

The Manatee County Greenway Trail System is proposed to run adjacent to the project corridor.

TRANSIT

Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) currently operates the public transportation service in Manatee County. Two

transit routes currently operate on the existing SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge segment. Both routes provide

extensive east-west service connecting the barrier islands with the mainland. An intermodal transfer station is

located on SR 64 at the Gulf Drive intersection. The transfer point enables riders to transition between different

transportation modes, as well as to access the entire MCAT transit network.

Presently, high frequency bus service (15 - 30 minute headways) is proposed on the project corridor. This service

is anticipated to 1) enhance mobility between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland and 2)

improve accessibility for service industry workers by providing later evening and more frequent connections

between Anna Maria Island and Downtown Bradenton.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Table 4 provides 2006 and projected 2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes and truck traffic

percentages for the SR 64 segment encompassing the Anna Maria Island Bridge. The 2006 AADT volume and

truck traffic percentage are derived from the 2006 Florida Traffic Information software. The 2030 AADT volume is

derived from the Sarasota/Manatee/Charlotte Counties (SMC) Model. Assuming the percentage of trucks on this

roadway segment will remain the same as the base year percentage, a future truck traffic percentage is derived.

Table 4: 2006 and Projected 2030 AADT Volumes and Truck Traffic Percentages on SR 64 - Anna Maria Island

Bridge

2006 AADT (1): 14,300

2030 AADT (2): 26,600

2006 Truck Traffic Percentage (1): 5.8% (829 trucks/day)

2030 Truck Traffic Percentage (3): 5.8% (1,543 trucks/day)

Sources:

(1) 2006 AADT volume and truck traffic percentage derived from the Florida Traffic Information software, 2006.

(2) Projected 2030 AADT volume derived from Sarasota/Manatee/Charlotte Counties Model.

(3) Projected 2030 truck traffic percentage is assumed to remain the same as 2006 figure.

The 2006 and projected 2030 levels of service (LOS) on the segment of SR 64 encompassing the Anna Maria

Island Bridge are displayed in Table 5 and are derived from the Florida Department of Transportation's 2002

Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Based on this information, the corridor is currently operating at LOS

C/D. Since traffic on this portion of SR 64 in Manatee County is expected to increase significantly through 2030, the

LOS is projected to deteriorate.

Table 5: 2006 and Projected 2030 Levels of Service on SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge

2006 LOS: C/D

2030 LOS: E/F

Source:

Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook, 2002.


Purpose and Need Reviews

US Fish and Wildlife Service Comments

Agency Acknowledgment Review Date

US Fish and Wildlife Service Understood 11/29/2007

Comments

No purpose and need comments were found.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Comments


Natural Resources Conservation Service Understood 12/19/2007

Comments


National Marine Fisheries Service Comments


National Marine Fisheries Service Understood 12/20/2007

Comments


FL Department of Environmental Protection Comments


FL Department of Environmental Protection Understood 1/2/2008

Comments


FL Department of State Comments


FL Department of State Understood 1/4/2008

Comments


Federal Highway Administration Comments



Federal Highway Administration Understood 1/7/2008

Comments

Purpose and Need

The project cost and funding source has not been provided. This information is important at the programming

phase for the community in order to weigh the benefits of proceeding with this project at the expense of not

funding other needed projects, and determining whether the project will be a replacement or rehabilitation.

Providing the cost estimate in the screening tool also serves the opportunity to verify if the estimates used in the

LRTP are reasonable, or if they should be updated to more closely reflect the cost of the project so that the

LRTP will be reflective of a plan that is fiscally constrained. This estimate should be included in the Programming

Screen Summary Report.

US Environmental Protection Agency Comments


US Environmental Protection Agency Understood 1/8/2008

Comments

It is not clear if the new bridge will have the exact alignment as the existing bridge? How is the replacement

process be carries out? Is the foot print of the new bridge going to overlap with the existing bridge? This may

substantially effect the level of impact of this project.

FL Department of Community Affairs Comments


FL Department of Community Affairs Understood 1/9/2008

Comments


Southwest Florida Water Management District Comments


Southwest Florida Water Management District Understood 1/9/2008

Comments


FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Comments


FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Understood 1/10/2008

Comments



US Coast Guard Comments


US Coast Guard Accepted 2/19/2008

Comments



2. Alternative #1

2.1. Alternative Description

2.2. Segment Description(s)

2.3. Project Effects Overview

Alternative #1

Alternative Description

From East of SR 789

To 1500' East of Existing Bridge

Type Bridge

Status Work Program

Total Length 1.3 mi.

Cost

Modes Roadway

Segment Description(s)

Location and LengthSegmentNo.

Name BeginningLocation

EndingLocation

Length(mi.)

RoadwayId

BMP EMP

Segment

#1

SR 64-

Anna Maria

Island

Bridge

East of SR

789

1500' East

of Existing

Bridge

1.332 Digitized

Jurisdiction and ClassSegment No. Jurisdiction Urban Service Area Functional ClassSegment #1 In/Out

Base ConditionsSegment No. Year AADT Lanes ConfigSegment #1 2006 14300

Interim PlanSegment No. Year AADT Lanes ConfigSegment #1

Needs PlanSegment No. Year AADT Lanes ConfigSegment #1 2030

Cost Feasible PlanSegment No. Year AADT Lanes ConfigSegment #1 2030 26600

Funding SourcesNo funding sources found.

Project Effects Overview

Issue Degree of Effect Organization Date Reviewed


NaturalAir Quality 0 None US Environmental Protection Agency 1/08/2008

Coastal and Marine 4 Substantial Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Coastal and Marine 4 Substantial National Marine Fisheries Service 12/20/2007

Contaminated Sites 2 Minimal FL Department of Environmental

Protection

1/10/2008

Contaminated Sites 2 Minimal Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Contaminated Sites 2 Minimal US Environmental Protection Agency 1/08/2008

Contaminated Sites 2 Minimal Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Farmlands 0 None Natural Resources Conservation

Service

12/19/2007

Floodplains 2 Minimal Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Floodplains 0 None US Environmental Protection Agency 1/08/2008

Infrastructure N/A N/A / No Involvement Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Navigation 3 Moderate US Coast Guard 2/20/2008

Navigation 3 Moderate Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Special Designations 4 Substantial Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Special Designations 3 Moderate US Environmental Protection Agency 1/09/2008

Special Designations 4 Substantial Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Water Quality and

Quantity

3 Moderate FL Department of Environmental

Protection

1/10/2008

Water Quality and

Quantity

4 Substantial Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Water Quality and

Quantity

2 Minimal US Environmental Protection Agency 1/09/2008

Wetlands 4 Substantial FL Department of Environmental

Protection

1/10/2008

Wetlands 4 Substantial Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Wetlands 4 Substantial US Environmental Protection Agency 1/09/2008

Wetlands 3 Moderate US Fish and Wildlife Service 12/21/2007

Wetlands 4 Substantial National Marine Fisheries Service 12/20/2007

Wildlife and Habitat 3 Moderate FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission

1/10/2008

Wildlife and Habitat 4 Substantial Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008


2.4. ETAT Reviews: Natural

Wildlife and Habitat 4 Substantial Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Wildlife and Habitat 3 Moderate US Fish and Wildlife Service 12/21/2007

CulturalHistoric and

Archaeological Sites

2 Minimal Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Historic and


4 Substantial Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Historic and


4 Substantial FL Department of State 1/04/2008

Historic and


4 Substantial Miccosukee Tribe 11/29/2007

Recreation Areas 3 Moderate FL Department of Environmental

Protection

1/10/2008

Recreation Areas 3 Moderate Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Recreation Areas 0 None US Environmental Protection Agency 1/09/2008

Recreation Areas 3 Moderate Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Section 4(f) Potential 3 Moderate Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

CommunityAesthetics 3 Moderate FDOT District 1 1/10/2008

Economic 1 Enhanced FDOT District 1 1/10/2008

Land Use 2 Minimal FDOT District 1 1/10/2008

Land Use N/A N/A / No Involvement FL Department of Community Affairs 1/09/2008

Mobility 1 Enhanced FDOT District 1 1/10/2008

Mobility 3 Moderate Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Relocation 2 Minimal FDOT District 1 1/10/2008

Social 3 Moderate FDOT District 1 1/10/2008

Social N/A N/A / No Involvement FL Department of Community Affairs 1/09/2008

Social 0 None US Environmental Protection Agency 1/09/2008

Social 3 Moderate Federal Highway Administration 1/07/2008

Secondary and CumulativeSecondary and

Cumulative Effects

2 Minimal FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission

1/10/2008

Secondary and

Cumulative Effects

3 Moderate Southwest Florida Water Management

District

1/09/2008

Secondary and

Cumulative Effects

4 Substantial FL Department of State 1/04/2008

ETAT Reviews: Natural


2.4.1. Air Quality

2.4.2. Coastal and Marine

Air Quality

Coordinator Summary

0

Summary Degree of Effect

Air Quality Summary Degree of Effect: NoneReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The USEPA did not identify any air quality issues associated with this project. Manatee County is not in an air

quality non-attainment or maintenance area for any of the four pollutants - nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon

monoxide, and small particulate matter - specified by the USEPA in National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Based on this information, a Summary DOE of None for Air Quality has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: An Air Quality Report will not be required for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Air Quality

0

ETAT Review by Maher Budeir, US Environmental Protection Agency (01/08/2008)

Air Quality Effect: NoneCoordination Document:No Selection

Dispute Information:N/A

Identified Resources and Level of Importance:None found.

Comments on Effects to Resources:None found.

Coordinator Feedback:None

No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection-No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration-

Coastal and Marine

Coordinator Summary

4


Coastal and Marine Summary Degree of Effect: SubstantialReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)


Comments:The NMFS conducted a site inspection of the project area to assess potential concerns to living marine

resources within Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Bay. The NMFS noted that certain estuarine habitats within

the project area have been identified as essential fish habitat (EFH) in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Both Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota

Bay have been identified as EFH for red drum, gray snapper, gag grouper, Spanish mackerel and penaeid

shrimp under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NMFS stated that federal agencies which permit,

fund, or undertake activities which may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS. In addition,

an EFH Assessment must be prepared to accompany the consultation request. Coordination Document: PD&E

Support Document as per PD&E Manual.

The SWFWMD commented that the project crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW), which is a federal

channel marked with federal aids to navigation. In addition, nearly 700 linear feet of environmentally sensitive

shorelines, approximately 14 acres of land from the Submerged Lands Act, and approximately 2 acres of

continuous seagrass beds are located within the project's 100-foot buffer. The SWFWMD also reported that the

project's 500-foot buffer contains nearly 41 acres of continuous and nearly 16 acres of discontinuous seagrass

beds. Furthermore, the SWFWMD 2004 land use data shows that the project's 200-foot buffer contains 31

acres of bays and estuaries (FLUCFCS 540) and 7.4 acres of mangrove swamps (FLUCFCS 612). The District

has assigned a degree of effect of substantial to this issue due to the potential adverse affects to shorelines

within the vicinity of the project corridor. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

The EST GIS analysis results indicate that approximately 4,592 acres of environmentally sensitive shorelines

are located within the project's 200-foot buffer. In addition, the 200-foot buffer contains 31.6 acres (46.9 %) of

bays and estuaries, 6.0 acres (8.9 %) of mangrove swamps, and 0.32 acres (0.5 %) of tidal flats within the

project's 200-foot buffer. For these reasons, a Summary DOE of Substantial for Coastal and Marine has been

assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment will be included in the scoping

recommendations for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Coastal and Marine

4

ETAT Review by C. Lynn Miller, Southwest Florida Water Management District (01/09/2008)

Coastal and Marine Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The project crosses a federal channel, the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway that is marked with federal Aids to

Navigation. The bridge is also marked for safe passage of waterborne traffic. The entire project is part of

the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), NOAAs Coastal Assessment

Framework (CAF) (Sarasota Bay System), and in the USFWS Consultation Area for the endangered West

Indian Manatee.

Nearly 700 linear feet (LF) of environmentally sensitive shorelines (525 LF of exposed solid man-made

structures, and 165 LF of fine to medium grain sand beaches) intersect within a 100 foot buffer of the

proposed project alignment. There are approximately 14 acres of land from the Submerged Land Act

within 100 feet of the project corridor. There are approximately 2 acres of continuous sea grass beds

within 100 feet of the proposed project. Within 500 feet, there are nearly 41 acres of continuous and nearly

16 acres of discontinuous sea grass beds. According to the SWFWMD 2004 land use data, coastal

systems within 200 feet of the proposed project alignment that may be adversely affected include 31 acres


of bays and estuaries (FLUCFCS 540) and 7.4 acres of mangrove swamps (FLUCFCS 612).

Comments on Effects to Resources:The effects to shorelines within the vicinity of the proposed project will greatly depend on whether the

bridge is replaced or if continued repairs are to occur on the existing bridge. The effects to shorelines are

likely to be minimal if repairs to the existing bridge are continued.

If the existing bridge is replaced, effects to shorelines may include, but are not limited to, loss of

mangroves and sea grass beds, adverse impact to the habitat for the West Indian Manatee, increased

shading effects, increased turbidity within the Waterway, and ingress of additional untreated stormwater to

Anna Maria Sound. Additionally, it is anticipated that temporary impacts will occur in the existing dredged

channel, which may include adverse impact to individual West Indian manatees.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the degree of impact as Substantial due to the potential adverse impacts to

shorelines within the vicinity of the project corridor. Because Sovereign Submerged Lands (SSL) will be

involved with this project, a thorough research of title records and information is needed to determine the

location and extent of any such lands. Appropriate proprietary authorizations relating to activities in, on or

over sovereign submerged lands will need to be properly accounted for. If this project's proprietary

authorizations qualify as a project of heightened public concern, additional steps will be required during the

review and prior to ERP approvals. Coastal Zone Management will be notified during the application

review process.


4

ETAT Review by David A. Rydene, National Marine Fisheries Service (12/20/2007)

Coastal and Marine Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Mangroves and seagrasses within Anna Maria Sound utilized as fish habitat by managed fish species and

their prey.

Comments on Effects to Resources:NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the information contained in the

Environmental Screening Tool for ETDM Project # 9751. The Florida Department of Transportation District

1 proposes either rehabilitating or replacing the existing 2-lane SR 64 Anna Maria Island Bridge in

Manatee County, Florida. If the bridge is replaced, the new bridge would also be 2 lanes.

NMFS staff conducted a site inspection of the project area on December 18, 2007, to assess potential

concerns to living marine resources within Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Bay. Certain estuarine

habitats within the project area are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) as identified in the 2005

generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico. The generic amendment

was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council as required by the 1996 amendment to

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Anna Maria

Sound and Sarasota Bay, which exist in the project area, have been identified as EFH for

postlarval/juvenile, subadult and adult red drum and gray snapper; juvenile gag grouper and Spanish


2.4.3. Contaminated Sites

mackerel; and postlarval/juvenile and sub-adult penaeid shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Mangrove wetland, seagrass,

estuarine water column, and non-vegetated bottom are specific categories of EFH that may be impacted

by the project. Mangroves and seagrasses occur along the shorelines of both the east and west bridge

causeways. In addition, seagrasses occur immediately adjacent to the bridge structure on both its north

and south sides. The area adjacent to the south side of the bridge appeared to support more seagrasses

than the north side did.

According to the Environmental Screening Tools (EST) GIS analysis of National Wetlands Inventory data,

approximately 32.20 acres of estuarine wetlands occur within the projects 200 ft buffer zone. The ESTs

GIS analysis of the Wetlands 2004 data, indicates that approximately 7.36 acres of mangrove swamp

occur within the projects 200 ft buffer zone. Finally, the GIS analysis of Seagrass Beds data shows that

about 5.19 acres of continuous seagrass beds and 2.72 acres of discontinuous beds exist within the 200 ft

buffer zone.

Federal agencies which permit, fund, or undertake activities which may adversely impact EFH are required

to consult with NMFS and, as a part of the consultation process, an EFH assessment must be prepared to

accompany the consultation request. Regulations require that EFH assessments include:

1. A description of the proposed action;

2. an analysis of the effects (including cumulative effects) of the proposed action on EFH, the managed

fish species, and major prey species;

3. the Federal agencys views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and,

4. proposed mitigation, if applicable.

Provisions of the EFH regulations [50 CFR 600.920(c)] allow consultation responsibility to be formally

delegated from federal to state agencies, including FDOT. Whether EFH consultation is undertaken by the

Federal Highway Administration or FDOT, it should be initiated as soon as specific project design and

construction impact information are available. EFH consultation can be initiated independent of other

project review tasks or can be incorporated in environmental planning documents. Upon review of the EFH

Assessment, NMFS will determine if it is necessary to provide EFH Conservation Recommendations on

the project.



Contaminated Sites

Coordinator Summary

2


Contaminated Sites Summary Degree of Effect: Minimal


Reviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDEP reviewed the EST GIS analysis results for the project area and reported that two petroleum tanks

are located within the project's 500-foot buffer. Considering the proximity to potential petroleum contamination

sites, the FDEP stated that a Contamination Screening Evaluation Report may need to be conducted along the

project right-of-way.

The FHWA reported that, according to the EST GIS analysis results, two petroleum tanks are present within

the project's 100-foot buffer. The FHWA stated that these sites should be evaluated for their risk of

contamination.

The SWFWMD conducted site visits and commented that two petroleum contamination sites are present within

100 feet of the eastern terminus. No other potential contaminated sites were observed within 500 feet of the

project. The SWFWMD recommends that an environmental audit be conducted at the appropriate level and a

Contamination Assessment Report be prepared to 1) identify any specific facilities of interest and 2) to develop

a plan for their proper removal and abandonment. Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document as per

PD&E Manual.

The USEPA commented that, based on EST data, two petroleum tanks are located within the project's 200-foot

buffer. The USEPA recommends that a site specific survey be conducted to determine if any groundwater or

soil contamination exists within the 200-foot buffer area.

According to the EST GIS analysis results, only two geocoded petroleum tanks are located within the vicinity of

the project. No geocoded dry cleaners, geocoded gas stations, hazardous waste sites, National Priority List

sites, nuclear site locations, solid waste facilities, Superfund hazardous waste sites, or Toxic Release Inventory

sites have been identified within the project's 500-foot buffer. Based on the foregoing, a Summary DOE of

Minimal for Contaminated Sites has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: Preparation of a Contamination Screening Evaluation Report will be included in

the scoping recommendations for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Contaminated Sites

2

ETAT Review by Lauren P. Milligan, FL Department of Environmental Protection (01/10/2008)

Contaminated Sites Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Two petroleum tank sites are identified within the 500-ft. buffer of the project.

Comments on Effects to Resources:A Contamination Screening Evaluation (similar to Phase I and Phase II Audits) may need to be conducted

along the project right-of-way in considering the proximity to potential petroleum contamination sites. The

Contamination Screening Evaluation should outline specific procedures that would be followed by the

applicant in the event drums, wastes, tanks or potentially contaminated soils are encountered during

construction. Special attention should be made in the screening evaluation to historical land uses (such as

solid waste disposal) that may have an affect on the proposed project, including storm water retention and

treatment areas.


-- In the event contamination is detected during construction, DEP and the FDOT may need to address the

problem through additional assessment and/or remediation activities. Please note that revisions to

Chapters 62-770, 62-782, 62-785, 62-777, F.A.C., and a new rule, Chapter 62-780, F.A.C., all involving

contamination assessment and cleanup along with other notification requirements, took effect on April 17,

2005.

-- Groundwater monitoring wells (and possibly water production wells) are likely present at/near the project

corridor. Arrangements need to be made to properly abandon (in accordance with Chapter 62-532, F.A.C.)

and or replace any wells that may be destroyed or damaged during construction. These wells may also be

used to gather data for the Contamination Screening Evaluation report.

-- Depending on the findings of the Contamination Screening Evaluation and the proximity to known

contaminated sites, projects involving "dewatering" should be discouraged, since there is a potential to

spread contamination to previously uncontaminated areas and affect contamination receptors, site workers

and the public. Dewatering projects would require permits/approval from the Southwest Florida Water

Management District, Water Use Section and coordination with the County Environmental Management

Office.

-- Any land clearing or construction debris must be characterized for proper disposal. Potentially

hazardous materials must be properly managed in accordance with Chapter 62-730, F.A.C. In addition,

any solid wastes or other non-hazardous debris must be managed in accordance with Chapter 62-701,

F.A.C.

-- Staging areas, with controlled access, should be planned in order to safely store raw material paints,

adhesives, fuels, solvents, lubricating oils, etc. that will be used during construction. All containers need to

be properly labeled. The project managers should consider developing written construction Contingency

Plans in the event of a natural disaster, spill, fire or environmental release of hazardous materials stored /

handled for the project construction.


2


Contaminated Sites Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Site visits revealed that two potential petroleum contamination sites exist within 100 feet of the east

terminus: one abandoned Citgo Gas Station, located at the eastern edge of the bridge approach ramp, on

the northern side of State Road 64; and Perico Harbor Marina, a closed marina adjacent to this gas station

that may have contained buried fuel storage tanks or have had waste oil storage tanks on site.

No other potential contaminated sites were observed within 500 feet of the project. Two sites mentioned in

the EST appear to be outside of the 500-foot buffer.

The DRASTIC Pollution Vulnerability Indexes for the surficial aquifer and intermediate aquifer in the

project area are 169 and 51, respectively, on a relative scale out to 500 feet from the project. The Floridan

Aquifer is not present at reasonable depths within the 500-foot buffer. Data indicate that the higher


pollution vulnerability is associated with the surficial aquifer followed by the Intermediate Aquifer, then the

Floridan Aquifer. The project area is a low-volume discharge area rather than a recharge area for the

Floridan Aquifer.

Comments on Effects to Resources:If encountered and disturbed during construction, any contaminated site could result in surface and/or

groundwater pollution. It is expected that groundwater pollution potential due to the disturbance of

contaminated soils is likely to pose a moderate risk to the surficial aquifer and a minimal risk to the

intermediate aquifer. Pollution entering the surficial aquifer has the potential to degrade surface waters.

Additional Comments (optional):The degree of effect is considered minimal due to the low potential for: (1) Encountering significant

contaminated sites, both known and unknown, within the project corridor; and (2) Degrading the water

quality of surface water bodies as a result of the disturbance of contaminated subsurface materials.

Stormwater management facilities should be located outside of all potential contamination sites or steps

must be taken (such as use of impermeable liners) to isolate stormwater from contaminated soil or

groundwater. The District recommends that an environmental audit be conducted at the appropriate level

and a Contamination Assessment Report prepared to identify specific facilities of interest and to develop a

plan for their proper removal or abandonment. Prior to beginning construction, it will be necessary to

confirm the presence or absence of existing potable supply wells and potential well sites, both public and

domestic, and to identify precisely all potential sources of contamination within the path of construction or

in proximity of the proposed surface water management systems.


2




Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Groundwater and soils

Comments on Effects to Resources:Based on data avaialable on the EST a couple of petroleum tanks were identified to be within 200 foot of

the proposed project. It is recommended that a site specific survey is performed to establish if any

groundwater or soil contamination exists in that buffer.


2

ETAT Review by BSB Murthy, Federal Highway Administration (01/07/2008)


2.4.4. Farmlands



Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Contamination

According to the GIS analysis, two petroleum tanks are located within 100 feet of the project.

Comments on Effects to Resources:These sites should be evaluated for their risk of contamination. The project costs may increase due to the

need for special construction techniques to avoid contamination from these sites


Farmlands

Coordinator Summary

0


Farmlands Summary Degree of Effect: NoneReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The NRCS stated that even though there is agricultural land present within the 500-foot (0.5 of an acre) and

one mile (153 acres) buffer widths, the agricultural lands are classified as mixed-agricultural without any

row/commodity crops present. No agricultural land classified as prime or unique farmland occurs within the

project area. Based on the foregoing, a Farmlands DOE of None has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: A Farmlands Assessment will not be required for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Farmlands

0

ETAT Review by Rick Allen Robbins, Natural Resources Conservation Service (12/19/2007)

Farmlands Effect: NoneCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Even though there is agricultural land within the 500 (.5 of an acre) and 5280 (153 acres) buffer widths, the


2.4.5. Floodplains

agricultural lands are mixed ag without any row/commodity crops. Therefore, no agricultural resources,

such as Prime or Unique Farmlands are within the project area.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Therefore, no effect to farmland resources.


No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration-

Floodplains

Coordinator Summary

2


Floodplains Summary Degree of Effect: MinimalReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The SWFWMD reported that the entire project is located within the 100-year floodplain; approximately 61% of

the project alignment is located within FEMA Flood Zone VE (subject to the 100-year flood as well as storm

waves associated with coastal floodplains) and the remaining area is located within Flood Zone AE (subject to

the 100-year flood). The SWFWMD noted that flooding effects may be significant at the western project

terminus and changes to the existing drainage system will require consideration of freshwater flooding.

Coordination Document: Permit Required.

The USEPA did not identify any floodplain issues associated with this project.

The EST GIS analysis results indicate that the project's 200-foot buffer contains approximately 5,296 linear feet

of coastline. Additionally, approximately 63% (42 acres) of the project's 200-foot buffer has been classified as

FEMA Flood Zone "VE" and approximately 37% (25 acres) of the project's 200-foot buffer has been classified

as FEMA Flood Zone "AE". Due to the fact that the project occurs within a coastal flood zone, no floodplain

compensation is required. A Floodplains Assessment will be required, however, in order to determine the

bridge design elevation. For this reason, a Summary DOE of Minimal for Floodplains has been assigned to this

project.

Commitments and Responses: A Floodplains Assessment, as per FDOT PD&E Guidance, will be included in

the scoping recommendations for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Floodplains

2



2.4.6. Infrastructure

Floodplains Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The entire project is located with a 100-year coastal flood plain. Approximately 61 percent of the area

within 200 feet of the proposed project alignment is located in FEMA FIRM Zone VE (subject to the 100-

year flood as well as storm waves associated with coastal floodplains); the remaining area is located in

FEMA FIRM Zone AE (subject to 100-year flood).

Comments on Effects to Resources:Effects on freshwater flooding may be significant at the western terminus for the project and any changes

to the drainage system will require consideration of freshwater flooding.

Additional Comments (optional):None.


0


Floodplains Effect: NoneCoordination Document:No Selection






Infrastructure

Coordinator Summary


2.4.7. Navigation

1


Infrastructure Summary Degree of Effect: EnhancedReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:According to the EST GIS analysis results, no major infrastructure facilities exist within the vicinity of the

project. The only resources that are present that can be considered part of the community's infrastructure are

recreational and paddling trails. These noted features occur within the 100-foot project buffer. Due to the fact

that limited infrastructure facilities are present, impacts are anticipated to be minimal. It should be noted that

the bridge replacement/rehabilitation project in itself is a transportation infrastructure improvement. For this

reason, a Summary DOE of Enhanced for Infrastructure has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: None.

ETAT Reviews for Infrastructure

N

/A


Infrastructure Effect: N/A / No InvolvementCoordination Document:No Involvement






Navigation

Coordinator Summary

3


Navigation Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (2/20/2008)

Comments:


The SWFWMD commented that the project crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW), which is used

extensively by both recreational boats and small commercial vehicles. The drawbridge provides one of the

primary access routes to Sarasota Bay and is the main access point for Palma Sola Bay. The SWFWMD states

that during project construction, use of the GICW by recreational and smaller commercial boats, as well as use

of the Kingfish Boat Ramp by recreational boats, may be impaired. The final project should include clearance

beneath the bridge that permits large vessels to pass through Anna Maria Sound. The SWFWMD considers

impacts to be moderate. Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required.

A USCG Bridge Permit will be required for this project. For these reasons, a Summary DOE of Moderate for

Navigation has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: A USCG Bridge Questionnaire and Permit will be required for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Navigation

3

ETAT Review by Randy Overton, US Coast Guard (02/20/2008)

Navigation Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Maritime Navigation on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW)- high importance.

Comments on Effects to Resources:There are established guide clearances for bridges constructed across the GICW, however, because of

the unique location of this bridge a waterway/boat assessment is essential to determine the appropriate

waterway clearances for any proposed replacement bridge.

Additional Comments (optional):Please contact me at [email protected] or 305-415-6752 during PD&E for additional guidance.


3


Navigation Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The project traverses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW), a federal channel on which there are Aids to

Navigation maintained by the US Coast Guard. The GICW is used extensively by recreational boats and

some smaller commercial vessels. The drawbridge in the existing bridges midsection provides one of the

primary access routes to Sarasota Bay, and is the chief access point for Palma Sola Bay. There is a


2.4.8. Special Designations

Manatee County Boat Ramp (Kingfish Boat Ramp) located on the north side of the project.

Comments on Effects to Resources:During construction, the project may impair the use of the GICW by recreational and smaller commercial

boats and the use of the Kingfish Boat Ramp by recreational boats. The final project must include

clearance beneath the bridge or a drawbridge that permits large vessels to pass through Anna Maria

Sound.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the degree of effect as Moderate because the disruption of traffic will be temporary

and the completed project will benefit the flow of waterborne traffic under the bridge.


No review submitted from the US Army Corps of Engineers-No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration-

Special Designations

Coordinator Summary

4


Special Designations Summary Degree of Effect: SubstantialReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FHWA reported that an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) body exists within 500 feet of the proposed

project. In addition, mangrove areas are present within the project's 500-foot buffer. The FHWA recommends

that the project avoid, or at a minimum, provide the least amount of impacts to these resources. For any

unavoidable impacts to aquatic preserves and OFWs, the special provisions chapter of the PD&E Manual for

special designations should be consulted.

The SWFWMD reported that the project crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW), which is part of the

Sarasota Bay Estuarine System, an OFW. The project is also located in Class II waters and in two SWFWMD

Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) waterbodies. In addition, the following designated

resources are located within 100 feet of the proposed alignment: 14 acres of land within the Submerged Lands

Act, approximately 700 linear feet of environmentally sensitive shoreline, 14 acres of coastal wetlands, 2 acres

of mangrove swamps, and 2 acres of continuous seagrass beds. The SWFWMD considers the degree of effect

as substantial due to the high potential for impacts to waters designated as Class II and OFW, as well as to

coastal habitats including mangroves and seagrasses. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

The USEPA commented that the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System is an OFW, which are worthy of special

protection due to their natural attributes. This special designation is intended to protect and maintain existing

water standards. Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required.

According to the EST GIS analysis results, there are approximately 6 acres of mangroves located within the

project's 200-foot buffer. In addition, the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System (an OFW) and Neal Preserve


(designated public land) are located within the project's 200-foot buffer. For these reasons and based on

agency comments, a Special Designations DOE of Substantial is recommended for this project.

Commitments and Responses: During the Project Development phase, the special provisions chapter of the

PD&E Manual for special designations will be consulted.

ETAT Reviews for Special Designations

4


Special Designations Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The project crosses a federal channel, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which is marked with federal Aids

to Navigation. The bridge is also marked for safe passage of waterborne traffic. The entire Gulf

Intracoastal Waterway is part of the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System, an Outstanding Florida Water

(OFW). The project is also located in Class II waters (Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting) and in two

SWFWMD Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) waterbodies (Lower Tampa Bay and

Sarasota Bay).

The following designated resources are located within 100 feet of the proposed project alignment: 14

acres of lands included under the Submerged Lands Act; Approximately 700 linear feet of environmentally

sensitive shorelines; 14 acres of coastal wetlands (FLUCFCS 540); Two acres of mangrove swamps

(FLUCFCS 612); and Two acres of continuous seagrass beds.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Water quality impacts potentially could occur both during and after construction as a result of erosion and

sedimentation from the construction site and from additional untreated stormwater runoff from the

construction site and the completed project. Impacts to mangroves include elimination or damage during

construction. Impacts to seagrass beds include elimination to accommodate new facilities and/or

smothering from sedimentation entering the water from the construction site.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the Degree of Effect as Substantial due to the high potential for water quality and

habitat impacts to waters designated as Class II and OFW, and to coastal habitats including mangroves

and sea grasses. Because Sovereign Submerged Lands (SSL) may be involved with this project, a

thorough research of title records and information is needed to determine the location and extent of any

such lands.

The FDOT may have a bottom easement from the TIITF that grants them special privileges regarding

special designations. If this is the case, the FDOT should provide a legal description of the easement.

Details of the construction method and easements will help to determine if any Coastal Zone Consistency

issues are associated with the environmental resource permit anticipated for this project.

If this project's proprietary authorization qualifies as a project of Heightened Public Concern, additional

steps will be required during the review and prior to ERP approvals, up to and including Governor and

Cabinet review and approvals.



3


Special Designations Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:SARASOTA BAY ESTUARINE SYSTEM

Comments on Effects to Resources:The Sarasota bay Estuarine System is an Outstanding Florida Waters, (OFW), are waters designated

worthy of special protection because of their natural attributes. This special designation is applied to

certain waters, and is intended to protect and maintain existing acceptable quality standards.


4


Special Designations Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Special Designations (Alt 2: None; Alt 3,5,6: Substantial; Alt 7: Moderate) The EST identified The

Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and Outstanding Florida Water within 500 feet of alternatives 3, 5, and 6.

The Little Manatee River is also an OFW, and is located within 500 feet of Alternatives 3,5, and 6.

Alternative 7 is located within 500 feet of mangrove areas.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Alternatives should be selected that avoid these resources, or at a minimum, provide the least impact to

these resources. For any impacts to aquatic preserves, please see the special provisions in the chapter of

the PD&E Manual for aquatic preserves for coordination needs.


No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection-


2.4.9. Water Quality and Quantity

Water Quality and Quantity

Coordinator Summary

3


Water Quality and Quantity Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDEP noted that the project area is within the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System, which currently has good

water quality. No impaired waters exist within the project's 500-foot buffer. The FDEP stated that every effort

should be made to maximize the treatment of stormwater runoff from the proposed bridge project since the

project is located within the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System, an area designated as an OFW. Coordination

Document: Permit Required.

The SWFWMD noted that the project area does not include any watersheds that are on FDEP's list of impaired

waters, nor have any draft or final TMDLs been promulgated for Sarasota Bay. The SWFWMD stated,

however, that the project has the potential to 1) degrade water quality as a direct result of sedimentation and

untreated stormwater runoff, 2) encroach on floodplains, and 3) contaminate the surficial aquifer. Coordination


The USEPA commented that surface water quality is likely to be impacted during construction and operation of

the replacement bridge due to the added impervious surface. The USEPA stated that it is necessary to

minimize such impacts by optimizing stormwater treatment and controls during the construction phase.

Although the project will be designed to meet state water quality and quantity standards, based on agency

comments, a Summary DOE of Moderate for Water Quality and Quantity has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: A Water Quality Impact Evaluation will be included in the scoping


ETAT Reviews for Water Quality and Quantity

3


Water Quality and Quantity Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The project area is located within the estuarine resources of Anna Maria Sound within the Sarasota Bay

Estuarine System. Presently, the sound experiences good water quality, and no impaired waters exist

within the 500-ft. buffer zone of the project.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Every effort should be made to maximize the treatment of stormwater runoff from the proposed bridge

project since the project is located within the Sarasota Bay Estuarine System, an area designated as

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) and afforded a high level of protection under sections 62-4.242(2) and

62-302.700, F.A.C. Site plans should include details on the proposed stormwater treatment system, which

must be designed to prevent water quality degredation of the receiving waters in Anna Maria Sound. The

applicant must demonstrate that the proposed stormwater system meets the design and performance

criteria established for the treatment/attenuation of discharges to OFWs, pursuant to Rule 40D-4, F.A.C.,


and the Southwest Florida Water Management District's Basis of Review for ERP Applications.


4


Water Quality and Quantity Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:From east to west, the project occupies and/or traverses the following drainage basins:

Direct Runoff to Bay (WBID 1868)

Tampa Bay (WBID 1558)

Direct Runoff to Bay (WBID 1862)

The Sarasota Bay Drainage Basin (WBID 1968B) is adjacent to Tampa Bay to the south and the Palma

Sola Bay Drainage Basin (WBID 1883) is adjacent to the Direct Runoff to Bay Drainage Basin (WBID

1868) to the south.

At the eastern terminus, there are several water-related features: a swale and two cross drains; a water

line apparently in the project right-of-way; and a wastewater force main that is perpendicular to the project

right-of-way. Currently, untreated stormwater runoff from the existing bridge discharges directly to Anna

Maria Sound, which is hydrologically continuous with Sarasota Bay and Tampa Bay. Any adverse impacts,

such as degradation of water quality, will directly impact these coastal systems.

The area occupied by ETDM #9751 does not include any watersheds that are included in FDEPs Adopted

(6/20/05) Verified List of Impaired Waters. Sarasota Bay (WBID 1968B) was identified in the 1998 303(b)

List as impaired for nutrients. The Bay is included in the (6/20/05) Delist List for nutrients.

No Draft or Final TMDL has been promulgated for Sarasota Bay.

Water quality and hydrologic data are available for Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay from FDEPs Impaired

Waters Rule database, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, and the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. Data

from these stations are contained within EPAs STORET database. The current FDEP 305(b) report lists

Sarasota Bay as in good condition. Evaluation of the water quality dataset for these sampling stations

could be valuable for determining the predevelopment conditions of the water quality of waters of interest

within the area of potential project impact. Parameters of particular interest include: dissolved oxygen,

turbidity, and nutrients.

Several ERP permits have been issued near the proposed bridge repair/replacement and along the

approaches, including:

ERP # Permittee Name

002287 Several permit modifications, -.000 & -.001 = SBG Investment Co 1st Commercial Marketing, -

.002 = SBG Investment, -004 = Tappan & Stross/Perico Storage Partnership

005456 Several permit modifications, -.000 = Spoonbill Landings Assoc, -.002 = Six Eighty-Four

Associates


010415 Several permit modifications, -.000, -.001, -.003, & -.005 = Florida Department of Transportation

018813 Several permit modifications, -.000 & -.001 = Benderson Development Co Inc.

021900 Several permit modifications, -.000 = The Village at Holmes Beach Development LLC, -.001 =

Regions Bank

022065 -.000 = Gaprop Inc.

029028 Several permit modifications, -.000 = St. Joe Residential Aquisitions, -.001 = St Joe Co

Manatee County lies within the Southwest Central Florida Groundwater Basin and is underlain by a multi-

layered freshwater aquifer system which includes the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifer systems.

In the project area, the surficial aquifer occurs in the undifferentiated sands that are approximately 25 feet

thick. These sands yield limited quantities of water, primarily for lawn irrigation, and are economically

mined for their silica sand and shell hash content. The intermediate aquifer occurs in the Hawthorn

Formation which is present throughout the County and varies in thickness from less than 200 feet to more

than 350 feet (Scott, 1981). The upper Hawthorn is a green sand and clay containing black phosphate

grains. The lower Hawthorn is yellow to white sand, clay, and limestone residual from carbonate rock. The

fine sand is quartz and black or brown phosphate (Cathcart, 1966). Lenses of pure limestone, clay and

sand exist throughout the aquifer. Below the Miocene to Recent age deposits are a thick sequence of

sedimentary rocks which comprise the Floridan aquifer system, the primary artesian aquifer throughout

Florida (SWFWMD, 2001). Within the project area, the Floridan does not supply potable water. Further, in

the project area, recharge to the Floridan does not occur as the Aquifer discharges at a rate of less than

1.0/year and the Aquifer occurs at such depths as to be irrelevant to project activities.

The DRASTIC Pollution Vulnerability Index for the surficial aquifer in the project area is 169 on a relative

scale out to 500 feet from the project. The DRASTIC Pollution Vulnerability Index for the Intermediate

Aquifer is 51 on a relative scale out to 500 feet from the project. The Floridan Aquifer is not present at

reasonable depths within the 500 foot buffer. Data indicate that the higher pollution vulnerability is

associated with the surficial aquifer followed by the Intermediate Aquifer, then the Floridan Aquifer. The

project area is a low-volume discharge area rather than a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Project impacts may include: increased runoff volumes, decreased runoff quality, sedimentation, bank

erosion, and increased flooding potential. The end result may be a degradation of water quality in Class II

waters that area also designated as OFW due to sedimentation from the construction site and untreated

stormwater from both the construction site and from the completed structure. The project also may require

the re-location of the water line and/or the wastewater force main and pipeline.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the degree of effect as Substantial due to the projects potential to:

(1) Degrade the water quality of extremely sensitive Class II/OFW surface waters directly as a result of

untreated stormwater runoff and sedimentation;

(2) Cause additional encroachment on area floodplains where significant floodplain encroachment has

occurred previously;

(4) Contaminate the surficial aquifer with stormwater runoff; and

(3) Contaminate the surficial aquifer because of intercepting a contaminated site during construction.

An Environmental Resource Permit will be required for this project. However, the final determination of the

type of permit will depend upon the final design configuration. If wetland impacts exceed threshold limits

for a general permit and an individual permit is required, the FDOT may want to consider applying for an

Incidental Site Activities Permit (40D-40.302(6)(a), F.A.C.). The ISA permit allows early start on some site

construction and may be advantageous, particularly if the project is a design-build or fast-tracked project.


The project must not cause backwatering or dewatering effects in streams and wetlands crossed. The

modification or replacement of existing flow-accommodation facilities at stream crossings must not result

in a lowering of the controlling elevation of the stream at that point. Further, flow regimes that are

appropriate for the sensitive estuarine areas downstream of the project must be maintained.

The project should address the issue of water quality treatment or compensation method for stormwater

runoff from the proposed bridge.

Depending on the type of project proposed, stormwater quality treatment may be required for the entire

new bridge or for runoff from the new pavement proposed plus the runoff from all other directly connected

impervious areas (DCIAs) contributing on-line to the treatment systems, both on and off-site.

Due to the OFW and Class II designations for the waters under the current and proposed bridge,

additional best management practices may be necessary during construction including:

(1) Delineating adjacent, submerged, aquatic resources to eliminate incursions,

(2) Debris capture, control, and removal during demolition, repair and construction.

Existing stormwater treatment capacity, displaced by any roadway project, will require additional

compensating treatment volume for replacement. For example, the existing treatment capacity that is

displaced by project construction in neighborhood ponds/swales will need to be replaced in new project

facilities with suitable treatment volume from the existing contributing area and the road project area.

Equivalent stormwater quality treatment from alternate existing areas, as described following, should be

avoided if possible.

In the case of roadway widening projects, and if equivalent stormwater quality treatment of runoff from

alternate existing areas is to be considered, the FDOT must reasonably demonstrate the following:

a) The alternate, existing, contributing areas need to be hydrologically equivalent to the new and existing

watershed areas that would otherwise contribute to the new treatment system and existing point of

discharge,

b) The alternate pollution sources and loading characteristics from the alternate, existing, contributing

areas need to be equivalent to the project watershed areas being substituted, and

c) The treatment benefits being substituted need to occur in the same receiving waters and in the same

locality as the existing point of discharge from the new project area.

Improved structural stormwater treatment facilities or other BMPs will be required for pollution reductions

in stormwater runoff to implement future TMDLs as they are developed. New statewide stormwater design

and performance standards are under development by FDEP to address this issue. The District

recommends that FDOT participate as a stakeholder in future Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP)

activities to ensure that stormwater facilities associated with the proposed project will address these

reductions. The FDEP conducts this process, in which stakeholders take the lead.

Chapter 5.8.b of the Districts BOR establishes the contributing area(s) for on-line and off-line stormwater

systems to be used in calculating the required treatment volume for alterations to existing public roadways.

For widening activities, total pavement areas are considered in treatment volume calculations, unless

drainage of existing pavement areas is maintained separate from proposed pavement areas. If the existing

and proposed stormwater runoff is designed for conveyance, storage and treatment on-line, then

treatment capacity will be required for the entire roadway and other DCIAs contributing to the treatment

facilities. Alternatively, if the new system can be designed with off-line storage and treatment of the first-

flush of runoff from new DCIAs, then the existing roadway contributing areas may be considered as

isolated. The District recommends using off-line stormwater quality treatment facilities for runoff from both

the new and existing contributing areas to the treatment facilities. Use of appropriate tailwater information

will be necessary in all cases.


In-stream water quality protection and treatment of stormwater discharge will be needed for this new

project in accordance with Chapters 3 and 5 of the ERP Basis of Review. Stormwater quality treatment will

be required for runoff from all contributing areas to the new surface water management system serving the

proposed project, and in-stream water quality must not be adversely impacted by construction activities or

subsequent road operations. Stormwater quality treatment will be required for runoff from the bridges,

roadways and related facilities, including the runoff from the project related watershed areas, both on and

off-site, contributing to each treatment system.

Prior to beginning construction demolition and clearing, it will be necessary to locate and inventory all

existing wells on-site and others in proximity to the proposed surface water management system facilities

that are used for public and domestic supply. Unused wells within the project area must be properly

plugged and abandoned prior to beginning construction, as required by Chapters 62-532 and 40D-3,

F.A.C., using a licensed water well contractor who will acquire the appropriate well

abandonment/construction permits.

Due to the potential for contamination of the surficial aquifer, it is recommended that the stormwater ponds

be designed as shallow as practical and geotechnical evaluation of specific pond sites be conducted to

determine the potential for sinkhole development. Should the results of the geotechnical study indicate a

potential for ground water contamination as a result of stormwater pond construction/operation, or if an

aquitard, limerock or undocumented sinkhole is inadvertently encountered during construction/operation,

the District may require additional stormwater BMPs for the project surface water management systems.

If this projects proprietary authorizations qualify as a project of Heightened Public Concern, additional

steps will be required during the review process and prior to ERP approvals.

The District requests that the FDOT submit names and addresses of individuals or entities, whose

property will be necessary for the roadway improvements, with the ERP application. Since the FDOT has

power of eminent domain, the District will use this information to provide notice to these individuals,

pursuant to Rule 40D-1.607(7), F.A.C. If this project will require the acquisition of new right-of-way areas,

any issued permit may include special conditions prohibiting construction until the FDOT provides

evidence of ownership and control.

The District has assigned a pre-application file (PA #7083) for the purpose of tracking its participation in

the ETDM review of this project. The pre-application file is maintained at the Districts Sarasota Service

Office. Please refer to the pre-application file when contacting District regulatory staff regarding this

project.


2


Water Quality and Quantity Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Surface water quality in the Sarasota Bay

Comments on Effects to Resources:


2.4.10. Wetlands

The added impervious surface is likely to impact surface water quality during construction and during

operation of the replacement bridge. It is necessary to minimize such impact by optimizing stormwater

treatment, and controls during the construction phase.



Wetlands

Coordinator Summary

4


Wetlands Summary Degree of Effect: SubstantialReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDEP noted that approximately 116.05 acres of estuarine wetlands, 3.67 acres of palustrine wetlands, and

57 acres of seagrass habitat occur within the 500-foot project buffer. The FDEP recommended that the new

construction be within the same alignment as the existing bridge or immediately north of the existing bridge due

to extensive seagrass habitat south of the bridge. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

During a site inspection, the NMFS observed that seagrasses were present on both sides of the existing

bridge. The NMFS noted, however, that the south side of the bridge appeared to support more seagrasses

than the north side. Based on the EST GIS analysis results, the NMFS also noted that approximately 32 acres

of estuarine wetlands and 7 acres of mangrove swamp occur within the project's 200-foot buffer. Coordination

Document: PD&E Support Document as per PD&E Manual.

The SWFWMD also noted the presence of seagrass habitat south of the existing bridge and recommended

that any replacement bridge be located north of the existing structure. The SWFWMD stated that if all project

construction is restricted to the area within the 100-foot project buffer, impacts to wetlands are expected to be

moderate. If project construction extends into the area between the 200-foot and the 500-foot buffers, however,

the degree of effect is expected to be substantial due to: (1) the potential to adversely impact up to 15 acres of

mangroves and 0.3 acres of salt flats that are within, and adjacent to, the existing right-of-way; (2) the potential

to adversely impact up to 4.13 acres of remaining Priority Wetlands; (3) the potential to degrade/eliminate

some of the remaining wetland systems in the area; (4) the potential to eliminate wildlife that depend on

mangroves for roosting and/or nesting and that forage on salt flats; and (5) the high potential for further wetland

loss as a result of the construction of stormwater facilities in or immediately adjacent to wetlands. The

SWFWMD recommends that a Wetland Evaluation Report (WER) be prepared. Coordination Document:

Permit Required.

The USEPA commented that the existing bridge is in close proximity to mangroves. As such, the USEPA

stated that the impact on wetlands must be fully mitigated.

Based on review of the EST GIS analysis results, the USFWS commented that estuarine wetlands

(mangroves, salt marsh) and submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrasses) may be impacted by the proposed

project. The USFWS recommends that wetlands in the project area be delineated and evaluated using an


evaluation technique such as the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) or the Uniform Mitigation

Assessment Method (UMAM). If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, the USFWS recommends minimizing

the impacts to the greatest extent practicable and mitigating all impacts to wetlands. Mitigation should be in-

kind and within the same watershed basin as the proposed impact. Coordination Document: PD&E Support

Document as per PD&E Manual.

Due to agency comments, as well as the presence of seagrass habitat and the issues associated with

mitigation of impacts to seagrass habitat, a Summary DOE of Substantial for Wetlands has been assigned to

this project.

Commitments and Responses: Preparation of a Wetlands Evaluation Report will be included in the scoping


ETAT Reviews for Wetlands

4


Wetlands Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The National Wetlands Inventory GIS report indicates that a total of 116.05 acres (64.67%) of estuarine

wetlands and 3.67 acres of palustrine wetlands occur within the 500-ft. buffer zone of the project.

Additionally, 40.73 acres (22.7%) of continuous seagrass beds and 15.83 acres (8.8%) of discontinuous

seagrasses occur within the 500-ft. project buffer zone. Emergent species are dominated by mangrove

and needlerush, and primarily submerged seagrasses include turtle grass, cuban shoalgrass and manatee

grass extending throughout the project area. These seagrass species are susceptible to damage from

increased turbidity and sedimentation.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The project will require an environmental resource permit (ERP) from the Southwest Florida Water

Management District or possibly the DEP Southwest District Office, given the DEP's history with past

permitting actions. The ERP applicant will be required to eliminate or reduce the proposed wetland

resource impacts from the bridge project to the greatest extent practicable:

- Minimization should emphasize avoidance-oriented corridor alignments, wetland fill reductions via pile

bridging and steep/vertically retained side slopes, and median width reductions within safety limits.

- Wetlands should not be displaced by the installation of stormwater conveyance and treatment swales;

compensatory treatment in adjacent uplands is the preferred alternative.

- After avoidance and minimization have been exhausted, mitigation must be proposed to offset the

adverse impacts of the project to existing wetland functions and values. Significant attention is given to

seagrass beds and forested wetland systems, which are difficult to mitigate.

- The cumulative impacts of concurrent and future roadway improvement projects in the vicinity of the

subject project should also be addressed.

Additional Comments (optional):The DEP's Southwest District Office has considerable history with this project (DEP File No. 41-2178603,

DEP Case Nos. OGC-95-1073 and 95-1094). ERP permitting staff reviewed the proposal in June 2001

when it was submitted to the Florida State Clearinghouse and provided the following recommendations:

1) Reconstruct any new bridge, if at all possible, within the same alignment as the existing bridge. If that is

positively not feasible, then any new construction should be aligned immediately to the north of the


existing bridge. It has been shown that this could be done without seriously impacting the wide navigation

channels adjacent to the existing bridge (north side) or the operation of an adjacent marina.

2) Avoid any construction to the south of the existing bridge. This is an area of extensive seagrass

meadows and diverse and abundant vertebrate and invertebrate marine life.

3) Future environmental documentation should provide information regarding the protection of

environmental resources, such as:

a) Identification, demarcation, and protection of any adjacent submerged aquatic resources (seagrass

beds, oyster beds, soft corals, etc.);

b) Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be utilized during bridge/road repair, demolition, and

construction activities to prevent violations of state water quality standards within receiving waters of the

state, per Rule 62-302, F.A.C.; and

c) Implementation of standard manatee protection conditions during in- and over-water construction

activities.


4


Wetlands Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Nearly 700 linear feet of environmentally sensitive shorelines (525 LF of exposed solid man-made

structures, and 165 LF of fine to medium grain sand beaches) intersect within a 100 foot buffer of the

proposed project alignment. Project data shows FFWCC reporting just over four acres (2.3%) of priority

wetlands for 4-6 focal species within 500 feet of the project limits. Within one mile of the bridge, FFWCC

reports 443 acres (11.7%) of priority wetlands for 4-6 focal species. A review of vegetative cover indicates

that there are two acres (6.2%) of mangrove habitat within 100 feet of the project alignment. Within 500

feet, this acreage increases to nearly 15 acres (8.3%). Within 500 feet, there is also 0.26 acres (.2%) of

salt flats. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data within 100 feet of the project corridor shows 14.16 acres

(42.8%) of wetlands, and nearly 120 acres (66.7%) within 500 feet. FLUCFCS data, on the other hand,

reports 14.1 acres of bays and estuaries (FLUCFCS 540) and 2.05 acres of mangrove swamps

(FLUCFCS 612) within 100 feet of the project corridor. Within 500 feet, the acreage of bays and estuary

habitat increases to 111.4 acres, mangrove swamps increase to nearly fifteen acres, and there are 0.26

acres of salt flats (FLUCFCS 6423).

Vegetated wetlands were observed during field visits on December 3 and 5, 2007, which consisted mainly

of red, black, and white mangroves lined along the perimeter of the shorelines on both ends of the Anna

Maria Island Bridge. Heterogeneous meadows of sea grasses (turtle grass and manatee grass) were also

observed growing along the shallow waters near the shoreline. The field visit on December 5, 2007,

indicated that mangrove areas on both sides of the right-of-way were recently cut and cleared. At the east

terminus, the mangrove swamps are invaded by Brazilian pepper and the ornamental snake plant. The

quality of the mangrove swamps within the 200 buffer area is poor to moderate.


Comments on Effects to Resources:Potential impacts to wetlands within and adjacent to the right-of-way include: the reduction in the areal

extent of mangroves, reduction of wetland systems functional value relating to wildlife habitat, increased

turbidity during construction, the loss of the flood surge protection of the shoreline afforded by mangroves,

and the transport of sediment to salt flats adjacent to the project or marine waters contiguous to the

estuary system.

The result of project impacts to wetlands may be a loss of wetland-dependent wildlife foraging habitat for

protected species, such as the Florida Manatee and various sea turtle species, a decrease in wildlife

diversity, deterioration of water quality, damage to remaining wetland vegetation, and a loss of flood

protection benefits now provided by wetlands. Further, wetlands may be adversely affected as a result of

sediment transport to sensitive areas.

Additional Comments (optional):If all project construction is restricted to the area within the 100 buffer, the degree of effect is expected to

be Moderate due to: (1) the potential to impact adversely up to 2.04 acres of mangroves wetlands that are

within and adjacent to, the existing right-of-way; (2) the potential to degrade/eliminate some of the

remaining wetland systems in the area; and (3) the high potential for further wetland loss as a result of the

construction of stormwater facilities immediately adjacent to wetlands.

However, if project construction extends into the area between the 200 and the 500 buffers, the degree of

effect is expected to be Substantial due to: (1) the potential to impact adversely up to 15 acres of

mangroves and 0.3 acres of salt flats that are within, and adjacent to, the existing right-of-way; (2) the

potential to impact adversely up to 4.13 acres of remaining Priority Wetlands; (3) the potential to

degrade/eliminate some of the remaining wetland systems in the area; (4) the potential to eliminate wildlife

that depend on mangroves for roosting and/or nesting and that forage on salt flats; and (5) the high

potential for further wetland loss as a result of the construction of stormwater facilities in or immediately

adjacent to wetlands.

If a parallel alignment is necessary to construct a new, replacement bridge, it may be advisable to locate it

immediately north of the current alignment as that may adversely affect fewer acres of sea grass meadows

and the habitat provided to vertebrate and invertebrate marine life.

The area of total impact to wetlands may depend upon the bridge design as follows: a bascule bridge

would confine larger-sized boat traffic to the primary channel while a high-span bridge would allow more

boats to meander beneath the bridge.

Additional best management practices may be necessary during construction including:



The project has the potential to cause substantial sediment transport into sensitive coastal wetlands. An

approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is recommended during the design phase of this

project in order to minimize turbidity and degradation of water quality during the construction phase of the

project. It is also recommended that the FDOT prepare a Wetland Evaluation Report (WER) and an

Endangered Species Biological Assessment (ESBA) for further analysis.

Wetland impacts can be reduced by the: (1) replacement of the bridge without an increased footprint avoid

additional impacts to wetlands to the degree practicable, (2) implementation of strict controls over

sediment transport off site during construction, (3) restriction of all construction activity and facilities to the

existing right-of-way, (4) avoidance of Priority Wetlands; and (5) selection of treatment pond sites away

from wetlands and environmentally sensitive shorelines.

The final determination of the type of permit will depend upon the final design configuration. If wetland

impacts exceed threshold limits, requiring an individual ERP permit, the FDOT may want to consider


applying for an Incidental Site Activities Permit (40D- 40.302(6)(a) F.A.C), particularly if the project is a

design-build or fast-tracked project.

Adequate and appropriate wetland mitigation activities will be required for unavoidable wetland and

surface water impacts associated with the project. The project mitigation needs may be addressed in the

FDOT Mitigation Program (Chapter 373.4137, F.S.) which requires the submittal of anticipated wetland

and surface water impact information to the SWFWMD. This information is utilized to evaluate mitigation

options, followed by nomination and multi-agency approval of the preferred options. These mitigation

options typically include enhancement of wetland and upland habitats within existing public lands, public

land acquisition followed by habitat improvements, and the purchase of private mitigation bank credits.

The SWFWMD may choose to exclude a project in whole or in part if the SWFWMD is unable to identify

mitigation that would offset wetland and surface water impacts of the project. Under this scenario, the

SWFWMD will coordinate with the FDOT on which impacts can be appropriately mitigated through the

program as opposed to separate mitigation conducted independently. Depending on the quantity and

quality of the impacted wetlands, the SWFWMD may propose purchasing additional credits from a

mitigation bank and/or pursue and propose alternative locations for mitigation. For ERP purposes of

mitigating any adverse wetland impacts within the same drainage basin, the project and associated

wetland impacts are located within the Lower Coastal Basin. Since the potential wetland and surface water

impacts associated with the bridge project can substantially vary in quantity and quality based on the final

scope of the project design, the need, availability and associated costs of proposed mitigation options will

substantially vary. As a result, the SWFWMD requests that the FDOT continue to collaborate on the

potential wetland impacts as this bridge project proceeds into future phases, and include the associated

impacts on FDOTs annual inventory.

SWFWMDs programmatic goal is to achieve no net loss of wetlands (ERP Basis of Review, 3.1.0). A

wetland location map, formal delineation, and acreage calculations will be required together with a UMAM

assessment for all wetlands affected by the project, pursuant to Ch. 62-345, F.A.C. The District will require

that the wetland and surface water features located within the project area be field verified by District staff,

pursuant to Ch. 62-340, F.A.C.

Coordination with FFWCC and USFWS will be required for wetland-dependent listed species. It is

recommended that the FDOT prepare a Wetland Evaluation Report (WER) and an Endangered Species

Biological Assessment (ESBA) and provide the results to the District. Specific surveys should be

conducted to detect the occurrence and abundance of Listed Species that are likely to utilize the wetlands

and other surface waters within a 200 buffer and at proposed treatment pond sites. The potential impact of

the roadway project on these species should be assessed.

The District requests that the FDOT submit names and addresses of individuals or entities, whose

property will be necessary for the roadway improvements, with the ERP application. Since the FDOT has

power of eminent domain, the District will use this information to provide notice to these individuals,

pursuant to Rule 40D-1.607(7), F.A.C. If this project will require the acquisition of new right-of-way areas,

any issued permit may include special conditions prohibiting construction until the FDOT provides

evidence of ownership and control.

The District has assigned a pre-application file (PA #7083) for the purpose of tracking its participation in

the ETDM review of this project. The pre-application file is maintained at the Districts Sarasota Service

Office. Please refer to the pre-application file when contacting District regulatory staff regarding this

project.



4


Wetlands Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Mangroves and wetlands

Comments on Effects to Resources:The Existing bridge is in a very close proximity of mangroves. Without a definite foorprint and profile of a

replacement bridge the potential impact on these resopurces is difficult to quantify. The "substantial" rating

is given based on the potential loss of habitat. It is necessary to define the boundary of the impacted area

of the replacement bridge, then delineate the wetlands (mangroves and seagrasses). The impact on

wetlands must be fully mitigated.


3

ETAT Review by Todd Samuel Mecklenborg, US Fish and Wildlife Service (12/21/2007)

Wetlands Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Federally listed plant and animal species, migratory birds, the habitats they occupy and are supported by

(foraging, sheltering, and breeding), and wetlands. These trust resources have a high level of importance.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The Service has reviewed our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database and the GIS database on

the Environmental Screening Tool for recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered

species on or adjacent to the project study area. The Services GIS database is a compilation of data

received from several sources. After a literature review utilizing the 200 foot buffer of the proposed

alignments, the Service has the following comments and recommendations:

The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is known to occur in Tampa Bay and the

adjacent waters. To minimize the potential adverse impacts to manatees, the Service recommends that

FDOT utilize the Standard Manatee Construction Conditions during the construction phases over all open

water areas accessible by manatees. In addition, Manatee Protection Areas and Critical Habitat have been

designated for this species in the Tampa Bay watershed. Consultation with the Service will need to be

initiated if there is any involvement with these areas.

A review of the GIS database associated with the Environmental Screening Tool depicts estuarine

wetlands (mangroves, salt marsh) and submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrasses) that may be impacted

by the proposed project. The Service would recommend that wetlands in the project area be delineated

and evaluated using an evaluation technique such as the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP)

or the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, the

Service would recommend minimizing the impacts to the greatest extent practicable and that all impacts to

wetlands are mitigated. Mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed basin as the proposed


impact.

Additional Comments (optional):Comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as

amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712 et seq.), and the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).


4

ETAT Review by David A. Rydene, National Marine Fisheries Service (12/20/2007)

Wetlands Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Mangroves and seagrasses within Anna Maria Sound utilized as fish habitat by managed fish species and

their prey.

Comments on Effects to Resources:NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the information contained in the

Environmental Screening Tool for ETDM Project # 9751. The Florida Department of Transportation District

1 proposes either rehabilitating or replacing the existing 2-lane SR 64 Anna Maria Island Bridge in

Manatee County, Florida. If the bridge is replaced, the new bridge would also be 2 lanes.

NMFS staff conducted a site inspection of the project area on December 18, 2007, to assess potential

concerns to living marine resources within Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Bay. Certain estuarine

habitats within the project area are designated as essential fish habitat (EFH) as identified in the 2005

generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico. The generic amendment

was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council as required by the 1996 amendment to

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Anna Maria

Sound and Sarasota Bay, which exist in the project area, have been identified as EFH for

postlarval/juvenile, subadult and adult red drum and gray snapper; juvenile gag grouper and Spanish

mackerel; and postlarval/juvenile and sub-adult penaeid shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Mangrove wetland, seagrass,

estuarine water column, and non-vegetated bottom are specific categories of EFH that may be impacted

by the project. Mangroves and seagrasses occur along the shorelines of both the east and west bridge

causeways. In addition, seagrasses occur immediately adjacent to the bridge structure on both its north

and south sides. The area adjacent to the south side of the bridge appeared to support more seagrasses

than the north side did.

According to the Environmental Screening Tools (EST) GIS analysis of National Wetlands Inventory data,

approximately 32.20 acres of estuarine wetlands occur within the projects 200 ft buffer zone. The ESTs

GIS analysis of the Wetlands 2004 data, indicates that approximately 7.36 acres of mangrove swamp

occur within the projects 200 ft buffer zone. Finally, the GIS analysis of Seagrass Beds data shows that

about 5.19 acres of continuous seagrass beds and 2.72 acres of discontinuous beds exist within the 200 ft

buffer zone.


2.4.11. Wildlife and Habitat

Federal agencies which permit, fund, or undertake activities which may adversely impact EFH are required

to consult with NMFS and, as a part of the consultation process, an EFH assessment must be prepared to

accompany the consultation request. Regulations require that EFH assessments include:

1. A description of the proposed action;

2. an analysis of the effects (including cumulative effects) of the proposed action on EFH, the managed

fish species, and major prey species;

3. the Federal agencys views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and,

4. proposed mitigation, if applicable.

Provisions of the EFH regulations [50 CFR 600.920(c)] allow consultation responsibility to be formally

delegated from federal to state agencies, including FDOT. Whether EFH consultation is undertaken by the

Federal Highway Administration or FDOT, it should be initiated as soon as specific project design and

construction impact information are available. EFH consultation can be initiated independent of other

project review tasks or can be incorporated in environmental planning documents. Upon review of the EFH

Assessment, NMFS will determine if it is necessary to provide EFH Conservation Recommendations on

the project.


No review submitted from the US Army Corps of Engineers-No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration-

Wildlife and Habitat

Coordinator Summary

4


Wildlife and Habitat Summary Degree of Effect: SubstantialReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/25/2008)

Comments:Based on the EST GIS analysis results, the FFWCC commented that the 500-foot project buffer contains good

quality wetland, upland, and aquatic habitats consisting mainly of native plant communities. In addition,

biodiversity hotspots and FWC's Priority Wetlands for Wetland Dependent Listed Species have been

established in the area. The FFWCC indicated that the following fish and wildlife issues associated with this

project should be addressed: 1) loss and/or degradation of diverse marine habitat systems, upland and

freshwater wetland plant community types from construction activities or excavation of drainage retention areas

and 2) adverse project effects on both listed and recreationally important wildlife species which are supported

by habitat systems in the vicinity of the bridge during construction activities. The FFWCC stated that best

management practices should be employed in a manner to avoid, minimize, or mitigate project effects to

wildlife species and their habitat. Confidential: Review will not be displayed on Public Access website.

Coordination Document: To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required.


The FHWA noted that the following resources occur within the project's 200-foot buffer: manatee consultation

area, piping plover consultation area, mangroves, and seagrass beds. The FHWA stated that extensive

coordination with the resource agencies should take place to ensure protection of these species. Confidential:

Review will not be displayed on Public Access website.

The SWFWMD considers the project impacts to be substantial due to the following:

(1) The potential to produce impacts on public conservation lands,

(2) The potential to eliminate existing seagrass habitat,

(3) The possible elimination of remaining remnants of Biodiversity Hot Spots and Strategic Habitat,

(4) The possible elimination or impairment of remaining Priority Wetlands,

(5) The potential for further elimination and degradation of upland and wetland habitats,

(6) The possible direct impacts to listed species during construction,

(7) The possible increased sediment loads to coastal waters and salt flats used by listed species,

(8) The potential elimination of known nest sites for great blue heron, and

(9) The possible increase in number of wildlife fatalities due to the additional width of pavement.

The SWFWMD states that coordination with FFWCC, USFWS, and the Bureau of Imperiled Species

Management will be required for wetland-dependent listed species. The SWFWMD recommends that the

FDOT prepare an Endangered Species Biological Assessment for further analysis. A Section 7 consultation

with USFWS should be initiated for the West Indian manatee and piping plover. In addition, the most current

version of the FFWCC's Manatee Protection Plan, as well as best management practices, should be

implemented during construction. Coordination Document: Permit Required.

The USFWS commented that the West Indian manatee occurs in the project area and that manatee protection

areas and critical habitat have been designated for the manatee in the Tampa Bay watershed. The USFWS

recommends that the FDOT utilize the Standard Manatee Construction Conditions during the construction

phases over all open water areas accessible by manatees. Consultation with the USFWS will need to be

initiated if there is any involvement with these areas. Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document as per

PD&E Manual.

Based on agency comments, a Summary DOE of Substantial for Wildlife and Habitat has been assigned to this

project.

Commitments and Responses: Preparation of an Endangered Species Biological Assessment will be included

in the scoping recommendations for this project.

ETAT Reviews for Wildlife and Habitat

3

ETAT Review by Scott Sanders, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (01/10/2008)

Wildlife and Habitat Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The Habitat Conservation Scientific Services Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission (FWC) has coordinated an agency review of ETDM #9751, Manatee County, and provides

the following comments related to potential effects to fish and wildlife resources on this Programming

Phase project.

The Project Description Summary states that this project work involves either the rehabilitation or

replacement of the existing bridge which connects Anna Maria Island and the barrier island to the west.

The bridge has been recently declared functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The ongoing project


will assess the feasibility of further repair or rehabilitation, or replacement, of the existing structure.

A GIS inventory and analysis was performed to assess fish and wildlife and habitat resources within 500

feet along both sides of the Right-of-way (ROW). This assessment shows that the project area is

dominated by native wetland plant communities which total 61.8 percent (113.5 acres), and the vast

majority, or about 58 percent, of this total area includes open marine waters (103 acres). Native wetland

plant communities are characterized by mangrove swamp; coastal saltmarsh; sandy intertidal shorelines

and beaches; and small amounts of mixed wetland forest, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. Uplands

account for approximately 17.8 acres or 9.8 percent of the project area, and are characterized by upland

hardwood hammock, mixed hardwood-pine forests, pineland, and shrub and brushland. High and Low

Impact Urban land uses constitute over 24.9 percent (44.7 acres) of the project area.

The quality of the wetland, upland, and aquatic habitats within the 500-foot assessment area along the

roadway is rated as good according to the results of the following FWC GIS data layers, which are based

on past modeling of vegetation types and an assessment of habitat requirements or needs of a wide array

of wildlife species: Biodiversity Hotspots have been established in the area which are capable of

supporting 7 or more focal species; and FWCs Priority Wetlands for Wetland Dependent Listed Species

data layer also shows that habitat in this area is capable of supporting 4 to 6 species in wetland areas. Our

resource screening also shows the potential importance of this regional area for the support of birds,

mammals, amphibians, and reptiles which are officially listed by our agency as Endangered (E),

Threatened (T), or Species of Special Concern (SSC), as the habitat systems within or adjacent to the

project area have been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the formal Consultation

Areas for the West Indian manatee (E) and piping plover (T). In addition, a Strategic Habitat Conservation

Area (SHCA) has been established within or adjacent to the project area for wading birds; the project is

adjacent to the Neal Preserve, which is public land or a Florida Managed Area; and the project is within an

area of increased environmental sensitivity due to the presence of significant areas of mangrove forest

habitat, and continuous and discontinuous seagrass beds within the shallow submerged areas of Anna

Maria Sound.

The project area bisects both marine and freshwater wetlands and upland areas. Based on known range

and preferred habitat types, the following species, which are listed by our agency, may either potentially

occur within the project area, or be affected in offsite areas: gopher tortoise (T), eastern indigo snake (T),

Florida pine snake (SSC), snowy egret (SSC), little blue heron (SSC), tricolored heron (SSC), white ibis

(SSC), wood stork (E), Southeastern American kestrel (T), peregrine falcon (E), limpkin (SSC), Florida

burrowing owl (SSC), Florida sandhill crane (T), reddish egret (SSC), roseate spoonbill (SSC), brown

pelican, and least tern (T), as well as the West Indian manatee (E) and juvenile loggerhead (T), Kemps

ridley (E), and green (E) sea turtles in marine systems, including tidal creeks, mangrove swamps, and

coastal saltmarsh.

Fish and wildlife issues associated with this project which the Florida Department of Transportation

(FDOT) should specifically address during the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

include: (1) loss and/or degradation of diverse marine habitat systems such as tidal creeks, mangrove

swamp, coastal saltmarsh, and seagrass beds from road construction activities; (2) loss of upland and

freshwater wetland plant community types from construction activities along the project ROW, or in offsite

Drainage Retention Areas (DRAs); and (3) adverse project effects on both listed and recreationally

important wildlife species which are supported by habitat systems along the roadway, including the West

Indian manatee (E) and various sea turtle species, either during demolition of the old bridge or new bridge

construction activities.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Direct effects of the project could be at least moderate due to habitat loss from bridge removal and

construction, and the excavation of DRAs. A moderate number of important listed species could potentially

be adversely affected.

Additional Comments (optional):The following recommendations and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are offered for consideration in


planning the PD&E Study so that adequate funding can be justified to design the project in a manner to

avoid, minimize, or mitigate project effects to wildlife species and their habitat:

1. A vegetative cover map and accounting by acreage for each plant community type should be made for

the affected project area. Compensatory mitigation for all upland and wetland habitat loss should be

accomplished. If wetlands are mitigated under the provisions of Chapter 373.4137, F.S., the proposed

mitigation sites should be located within the immediate or same regional area; be functionally equivalent;

equal to or of higher functional value; and as or more productive as the affected wetlands. Land acquisition

and restoration of appropriate tracts adjacent to existing public conservation lands, or tracts placed under

conservation easement or located adjacent to large areas of jurisdictional wetlands that currently serve as

regional core habitat areas, would be supported by FWC. An important focus of the selection process for

mitigation lands for this project should include a strong consideration of, and habitat replacement for, the

birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles which are discussed above as potentially occurring in the

project area.

2. Surveys for listed species should be accomplished within and adjacent to the ROW and proposed sites

for DRAs. The methodology for these surveys should be coordinated with FWC early in the PD&E Study

and follow appropriate survey techniques or guidelines to determine presence, absence, or probability of

occurrence of various species, and to assess habitat quality. These study methods should be designed

considering the listed species discussed above. Please note that some species are known to use atypical

habitat types and transitional habitat areas; therefore, due diligence and thorough coverage during field

investigations are key to adequately determining presence or absence of all species. Based on the survey

results, a plan should be developed to address direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the project on

wildlife and habitat resources, including listed species. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures

should also be formulated and implemented.

3. We recommend that FDOT develop and implement customized BMPs especially formulated for this

project as they pertain to dredging and filling, control of siltation and turbidity, and the nutrient loading

associated with discharge of roadside runoff, to reduce effects within freshwater basin wetlands and

riparian systems. These BMPs should be implemented only after all efforts to avoid and minimize effects

are completed. Furthermore, use of the median and roadway swales could reduce the need for offsite

DRAs, possibly resulting in significant reductions in habitat loss.

4. Since no information was provided in terms of seasonality of bridge replacement, the length or duration

of project work, demolition methods for removing the old structures or constructing the new bridge, and

type of dredging to be utilized, it would be premature for us to recommend specific avoidance and

minimization measures for the manatee and sea turtles at this time. However, possible manatee protection

measures which may be required by our agency could include Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water

Work, restrictions on blasting, monitoring of turbidity barriers, exclusionary grating on culverts, presence of

manatee observers during in-water work, a defined or limited construction window, and no nighttime work.

If blasting is to be considered as a method of demolition, please be aware that in the area of the project, it

is important to perform the blasting during specific times of the year, if possible. In addition, an extensive

blast plan and marine species watch plan will need to be developed, and submitted to FWC for approval

as early in the process as possible. Further coordination with our agency will be necessary in order to

determine site-specific measures for this project. For example, bridge lighting will have to be reviewed and

approved by our agency, especially if the bridge is elevated to ensure that bridge lights do not impact

adjacent nesting beaches used by sea turtles. Please contact our Imperiled Species Management Section

in Tallahassee very early in the planning process for technical assistance in the Project Development and

Environment (PD&E) Study. Please call Dr. Robbin Trindell for technical assistance and coordination on

sea turtle issues, or Ms. Mary Duncan on issues related to the manatee at (850) 922-4330.

5. Construction equipment staging areas; storage of oils, greases, and fuel; fill and roadbed material; and

equipment maintenance activities should be sited in previously disturbed areas far removed from streams,

wetlands, or surface water bodies. Staging areas, along with borrow areas, should also be surveyed for

listed species.


We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on highway design and the conservation of fish and wildlife

resources. Please contact Terry Gilbert at (850) 402-6311 or email [email protected] to initiate

the process for initial agency coordination on this project.


4


Wildlife and Habitat Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:Permit Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The project lies wholly within the USFWS Consultation Area for the West Indian Manatee (E) and piping

plover (T). A 1999 synoptic survey documented a West Indian manatee occurrence approximately 1500

feet south of the Anna Maria Island Bridge just west of Perico Island. Northwest of the project limits, the

islands of Egmont Key and Mullet Key are designated areas of critical habitat for the piping plover.

Potential impacts to the West Indian manatee and piping plover should be assessed and a Section 7

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service should be initiated. The proposed project corridor lies within

one mile of documented cases of the Golden Leather Fern, a state protected plant species (T).

Historic surveys of wood stork rookeries from 2004 surveys reveal that wetlands within the project corridor

are wholly located within the Core Foraging Area (CFA, equal to 15 miles) of one documented wood stork

rookery. Review of data from the FFWCC Marine Research Institute revealed several documented cases

of sea turtle nesting and sea turtles stranding themselves along the beaches of Anna Maria Island. Review

of data also revealed one historic case (1992) of a Kemp Ridley sea turtle stranding was documented on

the southern bank of the eastern most limits of the Anna Maria Island Bridge.

Along the entire length of the project within 100 feet are located 14 acres of lands included under the

Submerged Lands Act, approximately 700 linear feet of environmentally sensitive shorelines (primarily

coastal wetlands and beaches), and approximately 2 acres of continuous seagrass beds. According to the

SWFWMD 2004 land use data, coastal systems that may be adversely affected include 14 acres of bays

and estuaries (FLUCFCS 540) and 2 acres of mangrove swamps (FLUCFCS 612). Within 500 feet, the

acreage of bays and estuary habitat increases to 111 acres, mangrove swamps increase to 15 acres, and

there are 0.3 acres of salt flats (FLUCFCS 6423).

Upland habitat in the project area consists of remnant upland hardwood (FLUCFCS 430) and pine forests

(probably FLUCFCS 411). Between the 100 and 500 buffers, native uplands occupy 5% of the area.

Habitat quality is poor to moderate as these areas have been invaded by Brazilian pepper and Australian

pine. Project data shows FFWCC reporting just over four acres of priority wetlands for 4-6 focal species

within 500 feet of the project alignment.

A total of 0.33 acre of FFWCC Biodiversity Hot Spots supporting seven or more Focal Species is located

at the east terminus on both the north and south sides of the project within the 100 buffer area. That

acreage increases to 1.1 acres and 2.5 acres for the 200 and 500 buffers, respectively. A total of 0.75 acre

of FFWCC Strategic Habitat for wading birds is located at the east terminus on both the north and south

sides of the project within the 100 buffer area. That acreage increases to 2.2 acres and 11 acres for the

200 and 500 buffers, respectively. All of the acreage for both Biodiversity Hot Spots and Strategic Habitat

is located at the east terminus.


During a field visit on December 3, 2007, listed species observed included a white ibis and six wood storks

on wing. Other non-listed avian species observed were multiple cormorants and three great blue herons.

Conversations with local fisherman revealed statements of seeing both manatees and sea turtles in the

nearby areas of Perico and Anna Maria Islands. During a field visit on December 5, 2007, species

observed included snowy egret, little blue heron, and brown pelican. Also noted were two active great blue

heron nests which were located in a single Australian pine at the east end of the Kingfish Boat Ramp

property. During field reviews conducted on December 5, 2007, foraging, nesting, and denning habitat for

the following protected species was observed within 100 feet of the project: wood stork (E), piping plover

(T), American oystercatcher (SSC), brown pelican (SSC), reddish egret (SSC), little blue heron (SSC),

tricolored heron (SSC), snowy egret (SSC), roseate spoonbill (SSC), and white Ibis (SSC). The salt flats in

the project area are used by several of these species for foraging, while wood storks and brown pelicans

utilize mangroves for roosting and nesting.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The project may eliminate habitat within the footprint of the bridge improvements and associated facilities.

The projects potential impacts on wildlife and habitat include:

(1) The elimination of habitat utilized by listed species;

(2) The disruption of foraging areas for listed species;

(3) Following construction, undesirable plant species may invade disturbed habitats, further degrading

former high quality habitats;

(4) The elimination and/or degradation of FFWCC Biodiversity Hot Spots; and

(5) The production of temporary impacts during construction (noise, dust, habitat damage, and potential

turbidity in the adjacent coastal waters and salt flats).

Animals crossing the widened roadway will be at increased risk upon completion of the project. This

project impact is of particular concern in the case of certain bird species.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the degree of effect as Substantial due to the following:

(1) The potential to produce impact on public conservation lands;

(2) The potential to eliminate existing high quality sea grass habitat;

(3) The possible elimination of remaining remnants of Biodiversity Hot Spots and Strategic Habitat;

(4) The possible elimination or impairment of remaining Priority Wetlands;

(5) The potential for further elimination and degradation of upland and wetland habitats;

(6) The possible direct impact to Listed Species during construction;

(7) The possible increased sediment loads to coastal waters and salt flats used by Listed Species;

(8) The potential elimination of known nest sites for great blue heron; and

(9) The possible increase in number of wildlife fatalities due to the additional width of pavement.

If a parallel alignment is necessary to construct a new, replacement bridge, it may be advisable to locate it

immediately north of the current alignment as that may adversely affect fewer acres of sea grass meadows

and the habitat provided to vertebrate and invertebrate marine life.

The area of total impact to wildlife and wildlife habitat may depend upon the bridge design as follows: a

bascule bridge would confine larger-sized boat traffic to the primary channel while a high-span bridge

would allow more boats to meander beneath the bridge.

It is advisable to implement standard West Indian Manatee protection measures during in- and over-water

construction activities.

Additional best management practices may be necessary during construction including:



The FDOT must provide reasonable assurance that the design, construction and operation of the project


will not impact the values of wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the

District so as to cause adverse impacts to the:

(a) Abundance wildlife and listed species and;

(b) Habitat of wildlife, and listed species (ERP Basis of Review 3.2.2).

Because of the documented presence of Listed Species, it is recommended that the FDOT conduct a

specific wildlife survey of the habitats within and immediately adjacent to the ROW for the purposes of:

(a) Describing the diversity and abundance of species using the habitats;

(b) Determining the utilization by Listed Species (foraging, cover, protection, breeding); and

(c) Determining the abundance of wildlife utilizing the habitats.

Coordination with FFWCC, USFWS and Bureau of Imperiled Species Management will be required for

wetland-dependent listed species. The District recommends that the FDOT prepare a Wetland Evaluation

Report (WER) and an Endangered Species Biological Assessment (ESBA) for further analysis. A Section

7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service should be initiated for the West Indian manatee and the

piping plover. In addition, during construction, the most current version of the FFWCCs Manatee

Protection Plan should be implemented by the chosen contractor.


4


Wildlife and Habitat Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Wildlife and Habitat

(Moderate - substantial)

The EST indicates that the following resources within 200 feet: Manatee Consultation Area; Piping Plover

Consultation Area; mangroves and seagrass beds. Extensive coordination with the resource agencies to

ensure protection of these species is needed. .

Comments on Effects to Resources:The alternatives should be selected which can best avoid impacts to these resources


3

ETAT Review by Todd Samuel Mecklenborg, US Fish and Wildlife Service (12/21/2007)

Wildlife and Habitat Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual



2.5. ETAT Reviews: Cultural

2.5.1. Historic and Archaeological Sites

Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Federally listed plant and animal species, migratory birds, the habitats they occupy and are supported by

(foraging, sheltering, and breeding), and wetlands. These trust resources have a high level of importance.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The Service has reviewed our Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database and the GIS database on

the Environmental Screening Tool for recorded locations of federally listed threatened and endangered

species on or adjacent to the project study area. The Services GIS database is a compilation of data

received from several sources. After a literature review utilizing the 200 foot buffer of the proposed

alignments, the Service has the following comments and recommendations:

The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) is known to occur in Tampa Bay and the

adjacent waters. To minimize the potential adverse impacts to manatees, the Service recommends that

FDOT utilize the Standard Manatee Construction Conditions during the construction phases over all open

water areas accessible by manatees. In addition, Manatee Protection Areas and Critical Habitat have been

designated for this species in the Tampa Bay watershed. Consultation with the Service will need to be

initiated if there is any involvement with these areas.

A review of the GIS database associated with the Environmental Screening Tool depicts estuarine

wetlands (mangroves, salt marsh) and submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrasses) that may be impacted

by the proposed project. The Service would recommend that wetlands in the project area be delineated

and evaluated using an evaluation technique such as the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP)

or the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM). If impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, the

Service would recommend minimizing the impacts to the greatest extent practicable and that all impacts to

wetlands are mitigated. Mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed basin as the proposed

impact.

Additional Comments (optional):Comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as

amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712 et seq.), and the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).


No review submitted from the FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services-No review submitted from the US Forest Service-

ETAT Reviews: Cultural

Historic and Archaeological Sites

Coordinator Summary

4


Historic and Archaeological Sites Summary Degree of Effect: Substantial


Reviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:All of the agencies noted sensitive cultural resources within the vicinity of the project. As such, the agencies

recommended that prior to any ground-disturbing activity a systematic Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

be conducted for the project alignment.

The FDOS commented that the project corridor was subject to a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey in

1989. Due to the fact that the bridge itself was constructed in 1957, the FDOS stated that the bridge should be

recorded and evaluated. Confidential: Review will not be displayed on Public Access website.

The FHWA commented that Section 106 consultation as well as tribal coordination should take place.

Confidential: Review will not be displayed on Public Access website. Coordination Document: PD&E Support


The Miccosukee Tribe stated that if the Cultural Resource Survey shows that there are no archaeological sites

that will be impacted by this project, then no further consultation is necessary. If the Cultural Resource Survey

does show that archaeological sites will be impacted by this project, then further consultation with the

Miccosukee Tribe should be conducted.

The SWFWMD commented that while the potential for the project to impact cultural resources exists, the

District considers the degree of effect to be minimal; sufficient data appear to be available to allow the

avoidance of impact to these resources. As such, avoidance measures can be built into the project design.

Confidential: Review will not be displayed on Public Access website. Coordination Document: To Be

Determined: Further Coordination Required.

Commitments and Responses: Preparation of a Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS), as per FDOT

Guidance and in coordination with the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes, will be included in the project scoping

recommendations. Consultation with the State Archaeologist, as well as the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes,

will also be required under Chapter 872.05 of the Florida Statutes.

ETAT Reviews for Historic and Archaeological Sites

2


Historic and Archaeological Sites Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Within 500 feet of the project, there have been six Cultural Resources Surveys that have evaluated the

existing bridge alignment and Perico Island. Within 100 of the east terminus, there is one archaic burial

and habitation site (Perico Island - MA00006) that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This site extends on both sides of the east terminus. Within 500 of the

project, there is a pre-historic site (MA00025) located SE of the east terminus that has not been evaluated

by the State Historic Preservation Officer. A third site (South Ditch MA01184) is a pre-historic camp site

located 950 north of the project on the east end. One occupied historic structure (Tenant House -

MA01192) is located 105 north of the project.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The project has a potential to produce adverse effects on one NRHP-eligible archaic site (MA00006), two

pre-historic sites (MA00025, MA01184), and one historic structure (MA01192).


Additional Comments (optional):While the potential to impact cultural resources sites exists, the District considers the degree of effect as

Minimal; sufficient data appear to be available to allow the avoidance of impact to these resources.

Avoidance measures can be built in to the project design.


4


Historic and Archaeological Sites Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Historic/Archaeological Sites

The EST GIS tool lists one archaeological site from the Florida Master Site File within 100 feet of the

project. The data indicates that this site may be potentially eligible for the NRHP.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Section 106 consultation is needed regarding this resource, including tribal consultation. Please send a

sufficient number of copies of the Section 106 materials to FHWA for forwarding to the Tribes as well as

SHPO.


4

ETAT Review by Sherry Anderson, FL Department of State (01/04/2008)

Historic and Archaeological Sites Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Historic Standing Structures

Buffer distance: 500 feet

MA01192 TENANT HOUSE, ineligible by SHPO


MA01368 108 36TH STREET, not evaluated by SHPO





Florida Site File Archaeological or Historic Sites


MA00006 PERICO ISLAND PREHISTORIC BURIAL(S) ARCHAIC, 8500 B.C.-1000 B.C. ELIGIBLE FOR

NRHP POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR NRHP


MA00025 NN LAND-TERRESTRIAL PREHISTORIC INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION NOT EVALUATED

BY SHPO

Comments on Effects to Resources:The project corridor was subjected to a cultural resource assessment survey in 1989. Within 100 feet of

this project is a prehistoric burial that has been determined potentially eligible by SHPO. Within 500 feet is

another archaeological site that has not been evaluated by SHPO. The bridge itself was constructed in

1957 and should be recorded and evaluated.

Given that a survey was conducted 18 years ago, our office recommends a cultural resource assessment

survey. The area of potential effect for this project should take into consideration the proposed height of

any new bridge and any visual impacts that the bridge may have on surrounding historic properties.


4

ETAT Review by Steve Terry, Miccosukee Tribe (11/29/2007)

Historic and Archaeological Sites Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:There is one prehistoric burial within 100' of this project and 2 other archaeological sites within 1,320' of

this project. A Cultural Resources Survey needs to be done to ascertain if there are any ijmpacts to these

sites and to see if there are any other sites located within the project boundaries with potential impacts.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The effects cannot be determined until a Cultural Resources Survey is done.

Additional Comments (optional):If the Cultural Resources Survey shows there are no archaeological sites that will be impacted by this

project, then no further consultation is necessary. However, if the Cultural Resources Survey does show

that archaeological sites will be impacted by this project, then further consultation with the Miccosukee

Tribe should be done.


2.5.2. Recreation Areas


No review submitted from the Seminole Tribe-

Recreation Areas

Coordinator Summary

3


Recreation Areas Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDEP noted that Manatee County's 119-acre Neal Preserve is located within the 500-foot project buffer.

Interested in preserving the functions and natural communities of this land, the Department recommended that

an evaluation be conducted of the primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed bridge

construction on the above public land and proposed acquisition sites.

The FHWA noted that a boat ramp and existing recreational trail are located within 200 feet of the project. The

FHWA stated that if the bridge replacement requires elevation, there is more likelihood that these resources

will be affected. A Section 4(f) Determination of Applicability may be needed for the listed resources.

The SWFWMD commented that multiple public lands and trails are located in the vicinity of the project area

including: the Palma Sola Scenic Highway; the Perico-Desoto Trail; the Palma Sola Trail; the Neal Preserve;

and high priority paddling trails, including the Manatee County Blueway. SR 64 provides the only vehicular

access to the Palma Sola Causeway Park. The SWFWMD recommends that, to the maximum practicable

extent, no additional right-of-way acquisition occur for the roadway footprint or for stormwater management

facilities within public lands. In addition, design accommodations should be included to eliminate or reduce

potential impacts to public lands and recreational areas/facilities. Coordination Document: PD&E Support


The USEPA stated that the footprint of the replacement bridge is unclear; therefore, it is difficult to address

impacts to recreational facilities in the vicinity of the bridge. Coordination Document: To Be Determined:

Further Coordination Required.

Based on the foregoing, a Recreation Areas DOE of Moderate is recommended for this project.

Commitments and Responses: A Section 4(f) Determination of Applicability (DOA) will be required for this

project.

ETAT Reviews for Recreation Areas

3



Recreation Areas Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Manatee County's 119-acre Neal Preserve is located within the 500-ft. buffer zone of the project. The

preserve contains both upland and wetlands resources typical of the Anna Maria Sound estuary.

Comments on Effects to Resources:This preserve contains significant natural communities and numerous element occurrences of listed

species, as indicated by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. The Department is interested in preserving

the area's natural communities, wildlife corridor functions, natural flood control, stormwater runoff filtering

capabilities, aquifer recharge potential, and recreational trail opportunities. Therefore, future environmental

documentation should include an evaluation of the primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts of bridge

construction on the above public lands and any proposed acquisition sites.


3


Recreation Areas Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The project is a segment of the Palma Sola Scenic Highway. It is the sole vehicular access to the Palma

Sola Causeway Park. The Perico-Desoto trail was proposed in 2005 to wind around the Robinson

Preserve, a 400-acre natural preserve located just over a mile northeast of the Anna Maria Island Bridge,

and interconnect with the pathway of the Palma Sola trail. The 5.25-mile Palma Sola Trail on Perico Island

is located within 100 of the project at its eastern terminus. A total of 200 linear feet of the Trail are located

within 100 of the project. The entire project is also in a high priority Paddling Trail area. The Manatee

County Blueway is a 75 mile paddling trail, a portion of which passes under the Anna Maria Island Bridge

along the west coast of Perico Island. Portions of the Neal Preserve exist directly adjacent to the project

limits, south of the existing right of way. The Neal Preserve is recently acquired land. As of date, no

restoration efforts have been made. The intent is for existing exotic species (Austrailian pine, melaleuca)

to be removed and replaced by cabbage palm hammocks. The area will be open to the public and will

include picnic shelters and a boat ramp. Furthermore, the Grassy Point Preserve is located within one mile

of the project, though public use is minimal to non-existent.

The project area is used extensively for fishing, swimming, boating, bird watching, and other forms of

recreation. During a field visit conducted on December 3, 3007, several individuals of the general public

were observed fishing off the sides of the Anna Maria Island Bridge. Additional persons were observed

fishing from the Kingfish Boat Ramp, a public boat dock run by Manatee County, located west of the

intercoastal waterway, within 200 feet of the proposed project. Picnic tables and beach access are

provided at the boat ramp area. A drawbridge approximately 40 meters in length is located in the

midsection of the existing bridge to allow large recreational and commercial watercraft to pass through

Anna Maria Sound while using the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.


The following recreational resources are located on Anna Maria Island and are most readily accessed via

the Anna Maria Island bridge from the mainland: Holmes Beach (including Manatee County public beach),

Holmes Beach Marina, Back Bay Boathouse, and Captains Marina (located within one mile); and Anna

Maria City Pier, Five OClock Marina, Marina, Bay Front Park and fishing pier, Sunset Beach, 63rd Street

Memorial Park, a community center, and another public beach (located more than one mile away).

Comments on Effects to Resources:Potential recreational impacts include: impacts to recreational activities that currently exist on/off/under the

existing bridge, including Kingfish Boat Ramp; impacts to the water quality in the vicinity of recreational

activities; and impacts accessing recreational sites west of the proposed alignment.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the degree of impact as Moderate due to the potential for the temporary elimination

or reduction of access to important recreational facilities.

During field visits, the bridge appeared to have considerable, direct use by fishermen, bicyclists, and an

occasional jogger or walker. The bridge itself has apparently become a recreational feature.

To the maximum practicable extent, it is recommended that no additional ROW acquisition occur for the

roadway footprint or for stormwater management facilities within public lands. These lands were

specifically acquired for natural resource conservation, recreation, and environmental protection purposes.


0


Recreation Areas Effect: NoneCoordination Document:To Be Determined: Further Coordination Required



Comments on Effects to Resources:It is not clear what the footprint of the replacement bridge will be. Therefore it is difficult to address impact

on the Boat Ramp or the other recreational facilities in the vicinity of the existing bridge.


3


Recreation Areas Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:No Selection


2.5.3. Section 4(f) Potential


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Recreation

A boat ramp and existing recreational trail is located within 200 feet of the project. If a bridge replacement

would require elevation, there is more likelihood that these resources would be affected.

Comments on Effects to Resources:The PD&E needs to address whether the bridge height would be elevated under the replacement option. A

Section 4(f) determination of applicability may be needed for these recreational resources. Impacts to

these recreational resources should be avoided.


No review submitted from the National Park Service-

Section 4(f) Potential

Coordinator Summary

3


Section 4(f) Potential Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The SWFWMD commented that multiple public lands and trails are located in the vicinity of the project area

including: the Palma Sola Scenic Highway; the Perico-Desoto Trail; the Neal Preserve; and high priority

paddling trails, including the Manatee County Blueway. SR 64 provides the only vehicular access to the

Manatee County Kingfish Boat Ramp, which is located within 100 feet of the project on the north side of the

existing right-of-way. The SWFWMD recommends that, to the maximum practicable extent, no additional right-

of-way acquisition occur for the roadway footprint or for stormwater management facilities within public lands.

In addition, design accommodations should be included to eliminate or reduce potential impacts to public lands

and recreational areas. Coordination Document: PD&E Support Document as per PD&E Manual.

Due to the fact that access to these noted recreational lands and facilities may be impacted (i.e. temporarily

during bridge construction or permanently post-construction), as well as the fact that Section 4(f) impacts to

cultural resources may occur, a Summary DOE of Moderate for Section 4(f) Potential has been assigned to this

project.

Commitments and Responses: A Section 4(f) Determination of Applicability (DOA) will be required for this

project.

ETAT Reviews for Section 4(f) Potential


2.6. ETAT Reviews: Community

2.6.1. Aesthetics

3


Section 4(f) Potential Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:PD&E Support Document As Per PD&E Manual


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Multiple public lands and trails are located in the vicinity of the project area: the Palma Sola scenic

highway, a trail that runs east of Palma Sola Bay to East Bay Drive in Holmes Beach; the Perico-Desoto

trail, proposed in 2005 to wind around the Robinson Preserve; the Neal Preserve; and high priority

paddling trails including the Manatee County Blueway. The Grassy Point Preserve is located within one

mile of the project, though public use is minimal to non-existent.

SR 64 provides the only vehicular access to the Manatee County Kingfish Boat Ramp, which is located

within 100 of the project on the north side of the existing right-of-way; the facility provides a boat and

canoe launch, picnic tables, grills, and a beach.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Because the public actively utilizes the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, and other public boat dock facilities

within the area, access to recreational lands and facilities may be impaired on a temporary basis during

bridge construction and may be permanently altered post-construction.

Additional Comments (optional):The District considers the Degree of Effect as Moderate due to the potential for direct impact to 4(f) lands

heavily used by the public and the impact to access to 4(f) lands.

To the maximum practicable extent, it is recommended that no additional ROW acquisition occur for the

roadway footprint or for stormwater management facilities within public lands. Design accommodations

should be included to eliminate or reduce potential impacts to public lands and recreational areas.



ETAT Reviews: Community

Aesthetics

Coordinator Summary

3


Aesthetics Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDOT District 1 comments note that over 50 acres of residential land use exists within the quarter-mile


project buffer. The residential use consists primarily of condominium development included in the Perico Bay

Development of Regional Impact (DRI). There are no eye clinics or senior care facilities located in the vicinity

of the project, indicating that noise and vibration related impacts associated with bridge rehabilitation or

construction are likely to be of little concern. Given the bridge structure's importance to the identity of the

community, however, potential aesthetic impacts to residents and businesses of the barrier islands and

mainland will be important to consider. Based on the above reasons, a Summary DOE of Moderate for

Aesthetics has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: With respect to corridor aesthetics, the residents of the communities located on

both the barrier islands and mainland are likely to express an interest in the visual appearance of the bridge, as

well as a preference for beautification standards. The FDOT District 1 will coordinate with the Sarasota-

Manatee MPO to conduct public outreach to solicit community opinion regarding aesthetic treatments along the

SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge and potential project noise impacts.

ETAT Reviews for Aesthetics

3

ETAT Review by Lauren Brooks, FDOT District 1 (01/10/2008)

Aesthetics Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Quarter-Mile (1,320-Foot) Buffer:

Perico Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI)

2004 Land Use

Commercial and Services - 26.8 acres (4.9%)

Residential High Density (>6 DUs/acre) - 56.7 acres (10.3%)

Comments on Effects to Resources:Over 50 acres of residential land use exists within the quarter-mile project buffer. The residential use

consists primarily of condominium development included in the Perico Bay Development of Regional

Impact (DRI). There are no eye clinics or senior care facilities located in the vicinity of the project,

indicating that noise and vibration related impacts associated with rehabilitation or construction are likely to

be of little concern. Given the bridge structure's importance to the identity of the community, however,

potential aesthetic impacts to residents and businesses of the barrier islands and mainland will be

important to consider.

Recommendation:

The residential communities of the barrier islands and mainland are likely to express an interest in the

aesthetic appeal of the corridor. During Project Development, coordination will take place with the

Sarasota-Manatee MPO, as well as other active area civic groups, to solicit opinions from community

members and businesses located along the project corridor on potential project effects related to corridor

aesthetics.



2.6.2. Economic

No review submitted from the Sarasota/Manatee MPO-No review submitted from the Federal Highway Administration-

Economic

Coordinator Summary

1


Economic Summary Degree of Effect: EnhancedReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDOT District 1 stated that SR 64 is identified as a major arterial in both the Joint Regional Roadway

Network adopted by the Sarasota-Manatee MPO and the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO, as well as in

the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee Regional Roadway Network. Connecting to both

US 41 and I-75, this corridor plays an important role in circulating traffic throughout Manatee County. The Anna

Maria Island Bridge also provides access to the beaches/coastal recreation amenities within Bradenton and

Anna Maria Island. Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have

shown that the SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. Serving as

a vital connection between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland, improvements to this

facility are anticipated to enhance overall safety, emergency access, and truck access in this area of Manatee

County. In addition, accessibility to businesses located on both the barrier islands and mainland will be

improved. Based on the foregoing, a Summary DOE of Enhanced for the Economic issue has been assigned

to this project.

Commitments and Responses: During the Project Development phase, the FDOT District 1 will coordinate with

the Sarasota-Manatee MPO to conduct public outreach in order to solicit input on the project from the general

public, including businesses, supported by the SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge. As intermittent bridge

closures may be necessary during project construction (rehabilitation or replacement), impacts to residents and

businesses located on the barrier islands will be avoided to the greatest extent practicable.

ETAT Reviews for Economic

1


Economic Effect: EnhancedCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Quarter Mile (1320-Foot) Buffer:


2004 Land Use



Comments on Effects to Resources:


2.6.3. Land Use

SR 64 is identified as a major arterial in both the Joint Regional Roadway Network adopted by the

Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda

MPO as well as the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee Regional Roadway

Network. Connecting to both US 41 and I-75, two principle facilities of the state, this corridor plays an

important role in circulating traffic throughout Manatee County. The Anna Maria Island Bridge also

provides access to the beaches/coastal recreation amenities within Bradenton and Anna Maria Island.

Of the developable land within the quarter-mile project buffer (all land excluding Bays and Estuaries, Tidal

Flats, and Mangrove Swamps), approximately 27% of the existing land use is designated as commercial.

The Perico Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is also present within the quarter-mile project

buffer.

Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have shown that the SR

64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. This condition is

anticipated to deteriorate further as the bridge has reached its service life of 50 years. Serving as a vital

connection between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland, improvements to this facility

are anticipated to enhance overall safety, emergency access, and truck access in this area of Manatee

County. In addition, accessibility to businesses located on both the barrier islands and mainland will be

improved. It should be noted, however, that the businesses located on the barrier islands may be impacted

during project construction (rehabilitation or replacement) as intermittent bridge closures may be

necessary.

Recommendation:

Public outreach will be conducted in coordination with the Sarasota-Manatee MPO during Project

Development to solicit input on the project from the general public, including businesses supported by the

SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge.



Land Use

Coordinator Summary

2


Land Use Summary Degree of Effect: MinimalReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDCA determined and commented that this bridge replacement/rehabilitation project is not considered a

major capacity improvement. As a result, the project is not subject to a comprehensive plan consistency

review.

The FDOT District 1 indicated that the predominant land uses composing the 500-foot buffer area include

public/semi-public, comprising 11.7% of the existing land use, and retail/office, comprising 4.5%. The Perico


Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) occurs within the quarter-mile project buffer. Given the fact that the

majority of land adjacent to the project area is preserved as natural area, minimal project impacts on land uses

are anticipated. While this project is not specifically reflected in either the Sarasota-Manatee MPO 2030 Long

Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) or the adopted Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, the 2030 Highway

System Plan Map Series of the LRTP, does show this segment of SR 64 as a constrained 2-lane facility. Based

on the foregoing, a Summary DOE of Minimal for Land Use has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: During the Project Development phase, coordination will take place with the

Sarasota-Manatee MPO to ensure that the project is reflected in both the amended Manatee County

Comprehensive Plan, as well as in the Sarasota-Manatee MPO 2030 LRTP. In conjunction with the MPO,

public outreach will also be conducted to obtain feedback from residents, elected officials, and other

stakeholders of Manatee County on the proposed bridge rehabilitation or replacement.

ETAT Reviews for Land Use

2


Land Use Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Quarter Mile (1320-Foot) Buffer:


Comments on Effects to Resources:As indicated in the table below, existing land uses were analyzed within the 500-foot project buffer. The

predominant land uses composing this buffer area include public/semi-public, comprising 11.7% of the

existing land use, and retail/office, comprising 4.5%. The Perico Bay Development of Regional Impact

(DRI) occurs within the quarter-mile project buffer.

Existing Generalized Land Use for District One (500-foot project buffer):

ACREAGE NOT ZONED FOR AGRICULTURE - 0.2 acres (0.1%)

PARCELS WITH NO VALUES - 15.2 acres (8.5%)

PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC - 11.7 acres (6.5%)

RESIDENTIAL - 0.2 acres (0.1%)

RETAIL/OFFICE - 4.5 acres (2.5%)

VACANT NONRESIDENTIAL - 1.2 acres (0.7%)

WATER - 4.2 acres (2.3%)

Given the fact that the majority of land adjacent to the project area is preserved as natural area, minimal

project impacts on land uses are anticipated.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

This project is not specifically reflected in either the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) or the adopted Manatee County Comprehensive

Plan. The 2030 Highway System Plan Map Series of the LRTP, however, does show this segment of SR

64 as a constrained 2-lane facility.

Recommendation:

During Project Development, coordination will take place with the Sarasota-Manatee MPO to ensure that

the project is reflected in both the amended Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, as well as in the


2.6.4. Mobility

Sarasota-Manatee MPO 2030 LRTP. In conjunction with the MPO, public outreach will also be conducted

to obtain feedback from residents, elected officials, and other stakeholders of Manatee County on the

proposed bridge rehabilitation or replacement.


N

/A

ETAT Review by Gary Donaldson, FL Department of Community Affairs (01/09/2008)

Land Use Effect: N/A / No InvolvementCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The Department has determined that this project is not considered a major capacity improvement. The

project description identifies the project as a bridge replacement. As a result, this project is not subject to

comprehensive plan consistency review.




Mobility

Coordinator Summary

1


Mobility Summary Degree of Effect: EnhancedReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDOT District 1 comments state that SR 64 is one of two major east-west access points connecting Anna

Maria Island to western Manatee County. Designated as a critical hurricane evacuation route for residents

living on the barrier islands, improvements to this facility are imperative. SR 64 is also identified as a major

arterial in both the Joint Regional Roadway Network adopted by the Sarasota-Manatee MPO and the Charlotte

County-Punta Gorda MPO, as well as in the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee

Regional Roadway Network. Connecting to both US 41 and I-75, two principle facilities of the state, this


corridor plays an important role in circulating traffic throughout Manatee County.

Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have shown that the SR 64 -

Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. Improvements to this facility are

anticipated to enhance accessibility between the barrier islands and mainland, as well as overall safety,

emergency access, and truck access in this area of Manatee County. The new structure is proposed to consist

of improvements that will enhance connectivity between residential areas and recreational facilities of the

community, which, in turn, will enhance overall pedestrian and bicycle mobility. The final structure is also

anticipated to provide enough clearance to permit larger vessels to pass through Anna Maria Sound resulting

in the improved flow of waterborne traffic. In addition, high frequency bus service (15-30 minute headways) is

proposed on the project corridor.

The FHWA commented that the public has identified concerns related to mobility during construction when the

existing bridge is closed to traffic. As such, the FWHA recommends that the maintenance of traffic issues be

addressed in the PD&E and coordinated through public outreach to residents and area businesses.

Based on the foregoing, a Summary DOE of Enhanced for Mobility has been assigned to this project.


the Sarasota-Manatee MPO to conduct public outreach in order to solicit community opinions and preferences

regarding mobility needs along the corridor. Alternative transportation choices, including bicycle and pedestrian

facility improvements (e.g. sidewalks and bike lanes) as well as transit operations, will be reviewed during

Project Development. As intermittent bridge closures may be necessary during project construction

(rehabilitation or replacement), impacts to residents and businesses located on the barrier islands, as well as

impacts to recreational uses associated with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GICW), will be avoided to the

greatest extent practicable. Traffic issues associated with the intermittent bridge closures will also be

addressed.

ETAT Reviews for Mobility

1


Mobility Effect: EnhancedCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:100-Foot Buffer:

Palma Sola Recreational Trail

Greenways Ecological Priority Linkages (Low)

OGT: Multi-Use Trails Priorities (Medium)

OGT: Paddling Trails Priorities (High)

Number of Housing Units with No Vehicle Available: 134

Quarter-Mile (1,320-Foot) Buffer:

Bus Routes (3, 5)

Bus Stops (Total = 11)

Comments on Effects to Resources:SR 64 is one of two major east-west access points connecting Anna Maria Island to western Manatee

County. Designated as a critical hurricane evacuation route for residents living on the barrier islands,

improvements to this facility are imperative.


SR 64 is also identified as a major arterial in both the Joint Regional Roadway Network adopted by the

Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda

MPO as well as the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee Regional Roadway

Network. Connecting to both US 41 and I-75, two principle facilities of the state, this corridor plays an

important role in circulating traffic throughout Manatee County. The Anna Maria Island Bridge also

provides access to the beaches/coastal recreation amenities within Bradenton and Anna Maria Island.

Current bridge inspection reports and recently prepared bridge rehabilitation plans have shown that the SR

64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. This condition is

anticipated to deteriorate further as the bridge has reached its service life of 50 years. Serving as a vital

connection between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland, improvements to this facility

are anticipated to enhance overall safety, emergency access, and truck access in this area of Manatee

County. In addition, the improvements are anticipated to enhance accessibility between the barrier islands

and mainland.

It should be noted, however, that the residents and businesses located on the barrier islands may be

impacted during project construction (rehabilitation or replacement) as intermittent bridge closures may be

necessary. It should also be noted, that during construction, travel delays are anticipated to occur. In

addition, the construction activities may impair the use of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) by

recreational and smaller commercial boats, as well as the use of the Kingfish Boat Ramp.

The new structure is proposed to consist of one (1) twelve-foot (12') travel lane in each direction, 10-foot

(10') shoulders, and sidewalks. These proposed improvements will enhance connectivity between

residential areas and recreational facilities of the community (i.e. Palma Sola Recreational Trail,

Greenways Ecological Priority Linkages, and OGT: Multi-Use Trails Priorities), which, in turn, will enhance

overall pedestrian and bicycle mobility. The final structure is also anticipated to provide enough clearance

to permit larger vessels to pass through Anna Maria Sound. As a result, the flow of waterborne traffic

under the bridge is anticipated to improve.

In addition, according to the Sarasota-Manatee MPO 2030 LRTP, high frequency bus service (15-30

minute headways) is proposed on the project corridor. This service is anticipated to 1) enhance mobility

between the barrier islands of Manatee County and the mainland and 2) improve accessibility for service

industry workers by providing later evening and more frequent connections between Anna Maria Island

and Downtown Bradenton.

Recommendation:

Public outreach will be conducted in coordination with the Sarasota-Manatee MPO during Project

Development to solicit community opinions and preferences, targeting input from the transportation

disadvantaged population, regarding mobility needs along the corridor. Alternative transportation choices,

including bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements (e.g. sidewalks, bike lanes and crosswalks) as well

as transit operations, will be reviewed during Project Development.


3


Mobility Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:No Selection


2.6.5. Relocation


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Mobility

The public has identified concerns related to mobility during construction when the existing bridge is

closed to traffic.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Maintenance of traffic issues should be addressed in the PD&E and coordinated through public outreach

to residents and area businesses.


No review submitted from the Sarasota/Manatee MPO-No review submitted from the Federal Transit Administration-

Relocation

Coordinator Summary

2


Relocation Summary Degree of Effect: MinimalReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDOT District 1 comments indicate that while commercial and residential uses are present within the 200-

foot project buffer, open space comprises the majority of the buffer parcels at each end of the bridge. As such,

commercial and residential relocations are not anticipated to occur. Overall, relocation issues associated with

the SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge rehabilitation or replacement are expected to be minimal. Based on the

foregoing, a Summary DOE of Minimal for Relocation has been assigned to this project.

Commitments and Responses: As more detailed and finalized project information becomes available,

relocation effects will be assessed with greater accuracy during the Project Development phase.

ETAT Reviews for Relocation

2


Relocation Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:No Selection



2.6.6. Social




Comments on Effects to Resources:While commercial and residential uses are present, as indicated in the table below, open space comprises

the majority of the buffer parcels at each end of the bridge. As such, commercial and residential

relocations are not anticipated to occur. Overall, relocation issues associated with the SR 64 - Anna Maria

Island Bridge rehabilitation or replacement are expected to be minimal.

Existing Land Uses within the 200-Foot Project Buffer Area (subject to relocation):

BAYS AND ESTUARIES - 31.4 acres (46.6%)

COMMERCIAL AND SERVICES - 5.4 acres (8.1%)

MANGROVE SWAMPS - 7.4 acres (10.9%)

OPEN LAND - 13.8 acres (20.4%)

RECREATIONAL - 0.7 acres (1.0%)

RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY - 5.2 acres (7.7%)

UPLAND HARDWOOD FORESTS - 3.6 acres (5.3%)

Recommendation:

As more detailed and finalized project information becomes available, it is recommended that further

assessment of relocation effects be conducted in the Project Development phase.



Social

Coordinator Summary

3


Social Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:According to the EST GIS analysis results, the following community features exist within the 100- and 500-foot

buffers: recreational trails, paddling trails, marine facilities, and a number of cultural resources. Other cultural

resources, as well as a Development of Regional Impact, appear in the quarter-mile project buffer. No census

blocks with a minority population greater than 40% were identified within the quarter-mile buffer. The proposed

improvements included as part of the bridge project will enhance connectivity between residential areas and

recreational facilities. As such, the improvements are anticipated to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety

and mobility. Due to the presence of the identified cultural resources, however, project impacts to social

aspects of the community are anticipated to be moderate. Based on the foregoing, a Summary DOE of

Moderate for Social has been assigned to this project.


It should be noted that the FDCA determined that this project is not considered a major capacity improvement.

As a result, this project is not subject to comprehensive plan consistency review.


the Sarasota-Manatee MPO to solicit input from the general public to ensure that the social needs of the

community and the transportation needs of the residents are not negatively impacted by the project. Interaction

with other active civic groups will also take place to account for their opinions regarding the bridge. The

completion of paved shoulders and sidewalks on this facility will be beneficial in supporting mobility through the

expansion of alternative transportation modes. As such, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements will be

considered.

ETAT Reviews for Social

3


Social Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:No Selection



Field Survey Project Boundaries (3)

List of Florida Site File Archaeological or Historic Sites (1)

Palma Sola Recreational Trail

Greenways Ecological Priority Linkages (Low)

OGT: Multi-Use Trails Priorities (Medium)

OGT: Paddling Trails Priorities (High)

Anna Maria Island Bridge/Causeway East End - Marine Facility

500-Foot Buffer:

Field Survey Project Boundaries (3)

Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures (1)


Galati Perico Harbor

Kingfish Ramp

Quarter-Mile (1,320-Foot) Buffer:


Florida Site File Historic Standing Structures (1)


Comments on Effects to Resources:The following community features exist within the 100- and 500-foot buffers: recreational trails, paddling

trails, marine facilities, and a number of cultural resources. Other cultural resources, as well as a

Development of Regional Impact, appear in the quarter-mile project buffer. Due to the presence of the

noted cultural resources, project impacts to social aspects of the community are anticipated to be

moderate.

The table below shows the demographics for the quarter-mile buffer as compared to Manatee County.

Overall, the quarter-mile buffer portrays a higher median family income ($17,227 greater) and a lower

percentage of households without a car (2.7% less) than Manatee County as a whole. In addition, the


quarter-mile buffer contains a higher elderly population and a slightly lower youth population compared to

those populations of the county. According to the EST GIS analysis results, the quarter-mile buffer does

not contain any census blocks with a minority population greater than 40%.

African-American - 0.08% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 8.7% (Manatee County)

American Indian - 0.2% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 0.3% (Manatee County)

Asian - 1.7% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 1.3% (Manatee County)

White - 95.0% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 88.8% (Manatee County)

Hispanic - 3.7% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 11.8% (Manatee County)

Age 65+ - 27.6% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 22.5% (Manatee County)

Under age 18 - 17.6% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 21.4% (Manatee County)

HH w/o car - 3.8% (Quarter-Mile Buffer); 6.5% (Manatee County)

Med. Family Income - $58,646 (Quarter-Mile Buffer); $41,419 (Manatee County)

Source: EST and US Census Bureau

Proposed improvements included as part of the SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge project will enhance

connectivity between residential areas and recreational facilities. As such, the improvements are

anticipated to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility.

Recommendation:

During the Project Development phase, coordination will take place with the Sarasota-Manatee MPO to

solicit input from the transportation disadvantaged, elderly, and youth populations to ensure that the social

needs of the community and the transportation needs of the residents are not negatively impacted by the

project. Interaction with other active civic groups will also take place to account for their opinions regarding

the bridge. The completion of paved shoulders and sidewalks on this facility will be beneficial in supporting

mobility through the expansion of alternative transportation modes.


N

/A

ETAT Review by Gary Donaldson, FL Department of Community Affairs (01/09/2008)

Social Effect: N/A / No InvolvementCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:The Department has determined that this project is not considered a major capacity improvement. The

project description identifies the project as a bridge replacement. As a result, this project is not subject to

comprehensive plan consistency review.




2.7. ETAT Reviews: Secondary and Cumulative

2.7.1. Secondary and Cumulative Effects

0


Social Effect: NoneCoordination Document:No Selection





3


Social Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:No Selection


Identified Resources and Level of Importance:Community/Social/Mobility

The project is not consistent with the Sarasota-Manatee LRTP. The project description does not indicate

whether the project is consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. The absence of this

roadway in these cost feasible documents must be reconciled for the project before federal funds can be

used for design, right-of-way, or construction.

Comments on Effects to Resources:Consistency issues will also need to be addressed if the project is to be added to the STIP and TIP


No review submitted from the Sarasota/Manatee MPO-No review submitted from the FL Department of Environmental Protection-

ETAT Reviews: Secondary and Cumulative

Secondary and Cumulative Effects

Coordinator Summary


3


Secondary and Cumulative Effects Summary Degree of Effect: ModerateReviewed By:FDOT District 1 (1/24/2008)

Comments:The FDOS noted that a significant archaeological site is located adjacent to the project area. As such,

secondary and cumulative impacts may be substantial.

The FFWCC stated that indirect project effects should be minimal since no additional capacity improvements

are planned. Water quality effects could be offset by retrofitting the project area with improved stormwater

treatment facilities, or accomplishing compensatory water quality mitigation elsewhere within the basin if bridge

scuppers are utilized for direct discharge to Anna Maria Sound. The FFWCC recommended that compensatory

mitigation for all upland and wetland habitat loss be accomplished.

The SWFWMD stated that the project has a potential to produce secondary adverse effects on cultural

resources as a result of the increased possibility of uncontrolled access to the resources during construction.

The District considers the degree of effect to be moderate in the absence of measures to reduce uncontrolled

access to the cultural resources during construction. The SWFWMD stated that coordination with the State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be necessary. The District will also consider impacts to historical and

archeological resources as part of its Secondary Impacts evaluation (ERP Basis of Review 3.2.7).

In addition, the SWFWMD identified the following potential secondary impacts to wetlands: 1) the elimination of

sufficient acreage of existing wetlands so as to leave remnant systems that have little or no wetland function or

value; 2) the transport of sediment to valuable salt flats during construction and post-construction; and 3)

further disturbance to remaining Priority Wetlands. The SWFWMD also reiterated their same concerns

previously stated under the Water Quality and Quantity and Wildlife and Habitat issues. Coordination


Based on the foregoing, a Secondary and Cumulative Effects DOE of Moderate is recommended for this

project.

Commitments and Responses: None.

ETAT Reviews for Secondary and Cumulative Effects

2

ETAT Review by Scott Sanders, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (01/10/2008)

Secondary and Cumulative Effects Effect: MinimalCoordination Document:No Selection


At-Risk Resource:Wildlife and Habitat

Comments on Effects:Indirect effects should be minimal on this project within the region since no additional capacity

improvements are planned. Increased stormwater runoff and sedimentation could lower water quality

within some freshwater and marine wetlands and streams. However, water quality effects could be offset

to some degree by retrofitting the project area with improved stormwater treatment facilities, or

accomplishing compensatory water quality mitigation elsewhere within the basin if bridge scuppers are

utilized for direct discharge to Anna Maria Sound.


Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures:Compensatory mitigation for all upland and wetland habitat loss should be accomplished. If wetlands are

mitigated under the provisions of Chapter 373.4137, F.S., the proposed mitigation sites should be located

within the immediate or same regional area; be functionally equivalent; equal to or of higher functional

value; and as or more productive as the affected wetlands.

Recommended Actions to Improve At-Risk Resources:None found.


3


Secondary and Cumulative Effects Effect: ModerateCoordination Document:Permit Required


At-Risk Resource:Archaeological and Historic Resources

Comments on Effects:The project has a potential to produce secondary adverse effects on one NRHP-eligible archaic site

(MA00006), two pre-historic sites (MA00025, MA01184), and one historic structure (MA01192) as a result

of the increased possibility of uncontrolled access to the sites during construction which could lead to

damage to the sites. The District considers the degree of effect as Moderate in the absence of measures

to reduce uncontrolled access to the sites during construction. With such measures in place, the degree of

effect is considered None.

Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures:Sufficient data appear to be available to develop measures to limit unauthorized access to the sites.

Coordination with the SHPO will be necessary. The District will consider impacts to historical and

archeological resources as part of its Secondary Impacts evaluation (ERP Basis of Review 3.2.7). If

additional historical or archeological artifacts are discovered at any time on the project site, the FDOT shall

notify the District and the Florida Department of State Division of Historic Resources immediately (40D-

4.381 (1)(w)).

Recommended Actions to Improve At-Risk Resources:Eliminating unauthorized access to the sites during construction will eliminate secondary impacts.

________________________________

At-Risk Resource:Wetlands

Comments on Effects:Potential secondary impacts to wetlands within and adjacent to the right-of-way include (1) the elimination

of sufficient acreage of existing wetland so as to leave remnant systems that have little or no wetland

function or value, (2) the transport of sediment to valuable salt flats during construction and post-


construction, and (3) further disturbance to remaining Priority Wetlands.

Pursuant to 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, F.A.C., the District will consider secondary and cumulative effects

to wetlands in accordance with the ERP Basis of Review 3.2.7 and 3.2.8.

Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures:Wetland impacts can be reduced by:

(1) Adjustment of the construction footprint and cross section to reduce direct impacts to wetlands to the

degree practicable,

(2) Implementation of strict controls over sediment transport off site during construction

(3) Restriction of the activity of vehicles and equipment to only those areas that must be utilized for

construction and staging,

(4) Selection of treatment pond sites away from wetlands, and

(5) Reconstructing a bascule bridge may reduce the total impact to adjacent seagrass beds by restricting

large boats to the primary channel while a high-span bridge would allow boat traffic to deviate more under

the bridge.

An approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is recommended during the design phase of

this project in order to minimize turbidity and degradation of water quality in receiving waters, located

within and adjacent to the right-of-way during the construction phase of the new roadway alignment.

Recommended Actions to Improve At-Risk Resources:For surface water resources, reduce pollutant loads to the waterbodies in the project area by treating

stormwater runoff from currently untreated areas, by controlling erosion from the project site, by limiting

activities in surface water, and by protecting surface water from the ingress of grease and oils from

equipment.

________________________________

At-Risk Resource:Wildlife and Habitat

Comments on Effects:Potential secondary impacts to wildlife and habitat include: the further dissection of remaining uplands and

wetlands, including Priority Wetlands; the further elimination of wetland and upland habitat utilized by listed

species; the further disruption of salt flats used for foraging for listed species; the further disturbance of

wetland edges, reducing their habitat quality; and the degradation of water quality in wetlands and streams

by the completed facility from untreated or under-treated stormwater runoff. Additional width of pavement

and higher traffic volumes will increase the potential for animal fatalities on the roadway.

Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures:Excessive habitat damage can be eliminated by restricting construction equipment to the road ROW and

designated staging areas. Turbidity will be addressed in the ERP and can be reduced by the use and


maintenance of effective stormwater pollution prevention and control measures that are appropriate to the

terrain involved. A Wetland Evaluation Report and an Endangered Species Biological Assessment are

recommended.

It is specifically recommended that wildlife movement accommodations be evaluated during the design of

this project to allow for wildlife movement between the remaining habitats (including public lands) on either

side of the project. A detailed plan should be prepared and implemented to mitigate adverse impacts,

using habitat guidelines developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or an acceptable alternative.

During construction, the most current version of the FFWCCs Manatee Protection Plan should be

implemented by the chosen contractor.

Recommended Actions to Improve At-Risk Resources:None.

________________________________

At-Risk Resource:Water Quality and Quantity

Comments on Effects:Project impacts may include increased runoff volumes and decreased runoff quality from the additional

areas of pavement, resulting in further water quality impacts in Sarasota Bay and coastal habitats.

Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures:Treating all stormwater runoff from the new bridge and approaches would reduce the degree of effect to

Minimal.

Recommended Actions to Improve At-Risk Resources:Intercept and treat stormwater runoff from the new facility to eliminate secondary impacts.


4

ETAT Review by Sherry Anderson, FL Department of State (01/04/2008)

Secondary and Cumulative Effects Effect: SubstantialCoordination Document:No Selection


At-Risk Resource:Archaeological and Historic Resources


Comments on Effects:A significant archaeological site is located adjacent to the project area. Secondary and cumulative impacts

may be substantial.

Recommended Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures:Staging and construction areas should avoid 8MA6 and any other significant site identified as a result of

the cultural resource assessment survey.

Recommended Actions to Improve At-Risk Resources:None found.



3. Eliminated Alternative Information3.1. Eliminated Alternatives

Eliminated Alternatives

No eliminated alternatives present.


4. Project Scope

4.1. General Project Commitments

4.2. Required Permits

4.3. Required Technical Studies

Project Scope

General Project Commitments

No General Project Commitments Found

Required Permits

Permit Name Type Conditions Review Org ReviewDate

Environmental Resource Permit Water FDOT

District 1

01/25/08

U.S Coast Guard Bridge Permit Other A Coast

Guard

permit is

required.

FDOT

District 1

01/25/08

Required Technical Studies

Technical Study Name Type Conditions Review Org ReviewDate

Contamination Screening Evaluation

Report

ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

4 (f) Determination Other FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

Wetlands Evaluation Report ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

EFH Assessment Other FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

Cultural Resource Assessment Survey

Report

Other FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

WQIE Other FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

Floodplains Assessment Other FDOT

District 1

01/24/08

Location Hydraulics Report ENGINEERING FDOT

District 1

01/25/08

Endangered Species Technical

Memorandum

Other FDOT

District 1

01/25/08

Cultural Resource Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

01/25/08

Project Development Summary Report Other FDOT

District 1

01/25/08


4.4. Class of Action

Class of Action Determination ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

01/31/08

Advance Notification/ICAR Package ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

01/31/08

Finding of No Significant Impact ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

03/03/08

Draft Environmental Assessment ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

03/03/08

Public Hearing Transcript ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

03/03/08

Public Involvement Plan ENVIRONMENTAL FDOT

District 1

03/03/08

Class of Action

Class of Action Determination

Class of Action Other Actions

Environmental Assessment None

Lead Agency Cooperating Agency/Agencies

US Coast Guard Federal Highway Administration

Class of Action Signatures

US Coast Guard

Name: Randy Overton

Review Status: ACCEPTED

Date: 3/3/2008

ETDM Role: Lead Agency ETAT Member

Comments: Normally a bridge replacement along the same alignment would not warrant an

Environmental Assessment however, due to the the feedback received in the ETDM

screening tool I agree that an EA is the appropriate Class of Action.

FDOT District 1

Name: Gwen G. Pipkin

Review Status: ACCEPTED

Date: 2/22/2008

ETDM Role: FDOT ETDM Coordinator

Comments: This project is the study to replace the existing 50 year old functionally obsolete and

structurally deficient Anna Maria Bridge. If the study concludes with a

recommendation for replacement, it is expected to be replaced with either a bascule

or fixed span essentially in the same location, either immediately north or south of

the existing bridge.

Of the 21 issues examined, seven received a Degree of Effect (DOE) of Substantial.

These issues included Coastal and Marine, Special Designations, Water Quality and


4.5. Dispute Resolution Activity Log

Quantity, Wetlands, Wildlife and Habitat, Historic and Archaeological Sites and

Secondary and Cumulative Effects. Two of the 21 issues, Economic and Mobility,

received a DOE of enhanced.

Since the project proposes to consider the possible replacement of the existing two-

lane bridge with a two-lane bridge immediately adjacent to the existing structure,

additional right-of-way acquisition is expected to be minimal. Likewise, adverse

impacts noted as substantial concern by environmental agencies are expected to be

minimal. Close coordination with all responding agencies will be a focus of the study

effort.

At this time, the Department feels that there will be no significant effects resulting

from this bridge replacement. However, a Class of Action for an Environmental

Assessment is proposed.

Dispute Resolution Activity Log

No Dispute Actions Found.


5. Alternative #1: Hardcopy Maps

Alternative #1: Hardcopy Maps























6. Appendices

6.1. Degree of Effect Legend

6.2. GIS Analyses

Appendices

Degree of Effect Legend

Legend

Color Code Meaning ETAT Public Involvement

N/A Not Applicable /

No Involvement

There is no presence of the issue in relationship to the project, or the issue is irrelevant

in relationship to the proposed transportation action.

0 None (after

12/5/2005)

The issue is present, but the project will have no

impact on the issue; project has no adverse

effect on ETAT resources; permit issuance or

consultation involves routine interaction with the

agency. The None degree of effect is new as of

12/5/2005.

No community opposition to the

planned project. No adverse effect

on the community.

1 Enhanced

Project has positive effect on the ETAT resource

or can reverse a previous adverse effect leading

to environmental improvement.

Affected community supports the

proposed project. Project has

positive effect.

2 Minimal

Project has little adverse effect on ETAT

resources. Permit issuance or consultation

involves routine interaction with the agency. Low

cost options are available to address concerns.

Minimum community opposition to

the planned project. Minimum

adverse effect on the community.

2Minimal to None

(assigned prior

to 12/5/2005)

Project has little adverse effect on ETAT

resources. Permit issuance or consultation

involves routine interaction with the agency. Low

cost options are available to address concerns.

Minimum community opposition to

the planned project. Minimum

adverse effect on the community.

3 Moderate

Agency resources are affected by the proposed

project, but avoidance and minimization options

are available and can be addressed during

development with a moderated amount of agency

involvement and moderate cost impact.

Project has adverse effect on

elements of the affected community.

Public Involvement is needed to

seek alternatives more acceptable

to the community. Moderate

community interaction will be

required during project

development.

4 Substantial

The project has substantial adverse effects but

ETAT understands the project need and will be

able to seek avoidance and minimization or

mitigation options during project development.

Substantial interaction will be required during

project development and permitting.

Project has substantial adverse

effects on the community and faces

substantial community opposition.

Intensive community interaction with

focused Public Involvement will be

required during project development

to address community concerns.

5Potential

Dispute

(Planning

Screen)

Project may not conform to agency statutory

requirements and may not be permitted. Project

modification or evaluation of alternatives is

required before advancing to the LRTP

Programming Screen.

Community strongly opposes the

project. Project is not in conformity

with local comprehensive plan and

has severe negative impact on the

affected community.

5Dispute

Resolution

(Programming

Screen)

Project does not conform to agency statutory

requirements and will not be permitted. Dispute

resolution is required before the project proceeds

to programming.

Community strongly opposes the

project. Project is not in conformity

with local comprehensive plan and

has severe negative impact on the

affected community.

No ETAT

Consensus

ETAT members from different agencies assigned a different degree of effect to this

project, and the ETDM coordinator has not assigned a summary degree of effect.

No ETAT

Reviews

No ETAT members have reviewed the corresponding issue for this project, and the

ETDM coordinator has not assigned a summary degree of effect.

GIS Analyses

Since there are so many GIS Analyses available for Project #9751 - SR 64 - Anna Maria Island Bridge #130054, they

have not been included in this ETDM Summary Report. GIS Analyses, however, are always available for this project


on the Public ETDM Website. Please click on the link below (or copy this link into your Web Browser) in order to view

detailed GIS tabular information for this project:

http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?tpID=9751&startPageName=GIS%20Analysis%20Results

Special Note: Please be sure that when the GIS Analysis Results page loads, the Programming Screen SummaryReport Re-published on 03/03/2008 Milestone is selected. GIS Analyses snapshots have been taken for Project

#9751 at various points throughout the project's life-cycle, so it is important that you view the correct snapshot.


Documents

FINAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY REPORT · Final Project Development Summary Report 1-1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a Project