Florida Department of Transportation HARBORVIEW ROAD …...Oct 14, 2019 · Project Manager: Steven Anthony Andrews The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TYPE 2 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Florida Department of Transportation

HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75

District: FDOT District 1

County: Charlotte County

ETDM Number: 5351

Financial Management Number: 434965-1-21-01

Federal-Aid Project Number: D117-053-B

Project Manager: Steven Anthony Andrews

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federalenvironmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by the Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding datedDecember 14, 2016 and executed by the Federal Highway Administration and FDOT. Submitted

pursuant 49 U.S.C. 303.

This action has been determined to be a Categorical Exclusion which meets the definition containedin 40 CFR 1508.4, and, based on past experience with similar actions and this analysis, does not

involve significant environmental impacts. Signature below constitutes Location and Design ConceptAcceptance:

October 14, 2019

Director of the Office of Environmental ManagementFlorida Department of Transportation

This document was prepared in accordance with the FDOT PD&E Manual.

This project has been developed without regard to race, color or national origin, age, sex, religion,disability or family status (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended).

On 12/06/2017 the State of Florida determined that this project is consistent with the Florida Coastal

Zone Management Program.

For additional information, contact:

Steven AndrewsPrjoect Manager

Florida Department of Transportation801 North Broadway Avenue

Bartow, Florida 33830863-519-2270

[email protected]

Prime Consulting Firm:AIM

Consulting Project Manager:Jeffrey Jacquin, P.E.

Table of Contents

1. Project Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

1.2 Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Planning Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Environmental Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Social and Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.2 Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.3 Land Use Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.4 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.5 Aesthetic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.6 Relocation Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.7 Farmland Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.2 Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.3 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.4 Other Protected Public Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.1 Protected Species and Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.2 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.3 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.4 Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.5 Sole Source Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.6 Water Quality and Stormwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.7 Aquatic Preserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.8 Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.10 Coastal Barrier Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6. Physical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.1 Highway Traffic Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6.3 Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6.4 Utilities and Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6.5 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7. Engineering Analysis Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

8. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

9. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

10. Project Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

11. Technical Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1. 1. Project Information

1. Project Information1.1. 1.1 Project Description

1.1 Project Description

Harborview Road (County Road [CR] 776) is an east-west minor arterial roadway in the Charlotte Harbor area of Charlotte

County that connects US 41 to I-75. Harborview Road is a two-lane undivided facility with 12-foot lanes (one in each

direction) and no paved shoulders. Stormwater runoff is collected in roadside swales. The posted speed limit within the

project limits is primarily 45 mph, decreasing to 35 mph through three of the horizontal curves within the project limits. In

general, existing right-of-way (ROW) along the project corridor is 80 feet. The project corridor lacks pedestrian, bicycle,

and transit facilities with the exception of small sidewalk segments extending from Melbourne Street to just east of Roll's

Landing Charlotte Harbor Condominium and four school bus stops. A full discussion of the existing roadway conditions

can be found in Section 2.0 of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) (May 2019), prepared under separate cover.

The proposed action involves widening Harborview Road from the existing two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane

divided roadway from Melbourne Street to west of I-75, a distance of 2.3 miles, as shown in Figure 1, the Project Location

Map. This improvement is necessary to provide additional capacity to accommodate future travel demand generated by

projected population and economic growth in Port Charlotte and Charlotte County. The proposed improvement will

improve access from US 41 and commercial and residential areas in Port Charlotte to I-75.

This project was screened through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process as ETDM Number 5351.

The results were published in the Planning Screen Summary Report on August 28, 2017, with comments from the

Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT). The ETAT evaluated the project's effects on various natural, physical

and social resources. The Final Programming Screen Summary Report was published on September 20, 2017.

Based on engineering and environmental factors, and comments received from the public, FDOT recommends the

Optimized Widening Alternative to meet the documented purpose and need for this project. The Preferred Alternative

results in the development of a four-lane divided roadway with 11-foot travel lanes, curb and gutter along the inside and

outside edges of pavement, and a 30-foot grassed median. Six-foot sidewalks and seven-foot buffered bicycle lanes will

accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the corridor. The widening alignment shifts both north and south of the

existing roadway to minimize residential relocations. A total of 114 feet of ROW width is needed to accommodate the

proposed improvements, which results in an estimated 11.0 acres of ROW to be acquired for roadway improvements and

9.5 acres to be acquired for stormwater management and historic storage compensation facilities. The Preferred

Alternative typical section is shown in Figure 2. The proposed design speed for this urban typical section is 45 mph.

Type 2 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 101

HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75 // 434965-1-21-01

Figure 1 Project Location Map



1.2. 1.2 Purpose and Need

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is to correct current substandard roadway design elements and improve an existing traffic

bottleneck along Harborview Road (CR 776) from Melbourne Street to west of I-75 in central Charlotte County [also

referred to as "Mid Charlotte County"]. The need for the project is based on the following primary and secondary criteria:

PRIMARY CRITERIA

ROADWAY DEFICIENCIES: Address Substandard Roadway Design Elements

Figure 2 Recommended Typical Section



For the majority of the project segment, Harborview Road (CR 776) is a two-lane, undivided facility with two twelve-foot

travel lanes, unpaved shoulders, and an open drainage system. For years, the Charlotte County Maintenance Department

has placed gravel along both sides of the roadway pavement to stabilize each shoulder. There are no pedestrian facilities

along the roadway within the project limits except for sidewalks from Melbourne Street to just east of Roll's Landing

Charlotte Harbor Condominium. There are no Charlotte County Transit bus stops along the corridor; however, four

designated school bus stops are present [two located in each direction]. In addition, there are four horizontal curves within

the project limits with radii ranging from 588 feet to 2,864 feet; three of these curves do not meet county standards.

The proposed project will be designed to meet current county roadway standards.

AREA WIDE NETWORK/SYSTEM LINKAGE: Improve Transportation Network Connectivity

The project segment of Harborview Road (CR 776) is currently a two-lane facility which connects to a five-lane urban

typical section to the west and a four-lane divided rural typical section to the east creating a traffic bottleneck. The project

is intended to enhance transportation network connectivity by:

Providing a viable alternate route to parallel area east-west arterials [US 17, SR 776/CR 771, and a portion of US 41];Maintaining a critical link between a principal arterial [US 41] and a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility [I-75];andCreating a multi-modal corridor by including pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

SECONDARY CRITERIA

CAPACITY/TRANSPORTATION DEMAND: Improve Operational Conditions

The existing roadway is operationally deficient and is not able to accommodate the multiple transportation modes that

presently use the corridor. Conditions along the roadway are anticipated to be exacerbated if no improvements occur as

the roadway lacks the operational capacity to accommodate future travel demand. Multimodal activity is expected to

increase along the corridor as a result of projected growth in the area.

According to the 2050 Framework of Smart Charlotte 2050 [Charlotte County's comprehensive plan], the Harborview

Road (CR 776) corridor is a growing activity center of the county as it is surrounded by and connects several areas

targeted for redevelopment and new development [including the Charlotte County Community Redevelopment Area and a

number of Planned Unit Developments]. The Charlotte County-Punta Gorda Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO)

2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) indicates that a large portion of the county's population growth is expected

to occur in existing or redeveloping neighborhoods in Mid Charlotte County. Employment growth is anticipated around

major intersections and interchanges such as Harborview Road (CR 776) at US 41 and at I-75.

Harborview Road (CR 776) additionally serves as a freight distribution route as it connects US 41 [a designated regional

freight corridor] and I-75 [a SIS facility]. Approximately 7.2% of the 2015 annual average daily traffic volumes onType 2 Categorical Exclusion Page 4 of 101


Harborview Road (CR 776) is composed of trucks. Not only does this roadway facilitate truck traffic and the distribution of

goods to local activity areas [particularly west of I-75], Harborview Road (CR 776) functions as an important corridor for

commuters due to its access to major north-south transportation facilities [US 41 and I-75] and surrounding residential and

commercial hubs. The Harborview Road (CR 776) corridor specifically facilitates local commuter traffic between

residential neighborhoods to the east of I-75 and employment centers to the west in Port Charlotte. Likewise, the corridor

provides access to I-75 [via US 41] for residents and employees within Port Charlotte.

The project is anticipated to enhance operational conditions of the corridor and serve the mobility demands of the area by:

Increasing the capacity of the corridor andAccommodating for multiple transportation modes [particularly through the provision of paved shoulders andsidewalks].

SAFETY: Improve Safety Conditions

The Signal Four Analytics database revealed that the project segment of Harborview Road (CR 776) experienced 65

collisions, including one fatality and 28 injuries, for the five-year period from 2012 to 2016. Rear-end crashes were the

most common crash type recorded along the project corridor, followed by off road and sideswipe crashes. The project

facility experienced four collisions involving a non-motorist. These crash types may be attributed to the deficient roadway

operational conditions as well as the high percentage of heavy trucks on the corridor mixed with non-truck traffic. If no

improvements occur to the existing roadway, the greater the opportunity for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-

pedestrian/bicycle conflicts as traffic increases along the project facility.

Harborview Road (CR 776) serves as part of the emergency evacuation route network established for Charlotte County by

the Florida Division of Emergency Management due to its direct connection to US 41 and I-75 [designated north-south

evacuation facilities]. Harborview Road (CR 776) also serves as a critical facility for incident management regarding traffic

events that occur on either the US 41 or I-75 bridges over the Peace River. Harborview Road (CR 776) is the first exit to

the north of the Peace River for both bridges making it a significant corridor in the event of lane closures or a complete

closure on either the northbound or southbound direction of US 41 or I-75. The proposed project is anticipated to improve

safety conditions along the roadway by:

Alleviating a current traffic bottleneck between Melbourne Street and I-75 [thereby, dispersing traffic and improvingtraffic flow];Enhancing emergency evacuation, access, and response times; andAllowing for higher volumes of traffic to be accommodated in the event of a closure on either the US 41 or I-75 bridgesover the Peace River.

1.3. 1.3 Planning Consistency

1.3 Planning Consistency

CurrentlyAdoptedLRTP-CFP

COMMENTS

Yes

CurrentlyApproved $ FY COMMENTS

PE (Final Design)Type 2 Categorical Exclusion Page 5 of 101


TIP Y 4,020,000 2020STIP Y 4,019,293 2020

R/WTIP Y 2,416,913 2023

STIP Y 1,868,752 >2022Construction

TIP NSTIP N



2. 2. Environmental Analysis Summary

2. Environmental Analysis Summary Significant Impacts?*

Issues/Resources Yes No Enhance NoInv

3. Social and Economic 1. Social 2. Economic 3. Land Use Changes 4. Mobility 5. Aesthetic Effects 6. Relocation Potential 7. Farmland Resources4. Cultural Resources 1. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 2. Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 3. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 4. Other Protected Public Lands5. Natural Resources 1. Protected Species and Habitat 2. Wetlands and Other Surface Waters 3. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 4. Floodplains 5. Sole Source Aquifer 6. Water Quality and Stormwater 7. Aquatic Preserves 8. Outstanding Florida Waters 9. Wild and Scenic Rivers 10. Coastal Barrier Resources6. Physical Resources 1. Highway Traffic Noise 2. Air Quality 3. Contamination 4. Utilities and Railroads 5. Construction

USCG PermitA USCG Permit IS NOT required.A USCG Permit IS required.

* Impact Determination: Yes = Significant; No = No Significant Impact; Enhance = Enhancement; NoInv = Issue absent,no involvement. Basis of decision is documented in the referenced attachment(s).



3. 3. Social and Economic

3. Social and Economic

The project will not have significant social and economic impacts. Below is a summary of the evaluation performed.

3.1. 3.1 Social

3.1 Social

The proposed widening of Harborview Road will improve emergency response times and access for the people living and

working within the project limits. The Preferred Alternative provides pedestrian and bicycle facilities to better serve the

context of the surrounding community. Access to these facilities will be maintained with minimal disruption during

construction, and the project construction contractors will be required by the FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and

Bridge Construction to maintain access for emergency services to all adjacent properties throughout construction.

This project was screened through the ETDM process as ETDM Number 5351. The results were published in the

Planning Screen Summary Report on August 28, 2017, with comments from the ETAT. The ETAT evaluated the project's

effects on various natural, physical and social resources. The Final Programming Screen Summary Report was published

on September 20, 2017, with the approved Class of Action determined as Type 2 Categorical Exclusion. Of the 21 issues

examined, none received a Degree of Effect (DOE) determination of "5" for Dispute Resolution. However, nine categories

received a DOE of "3 - Moderate" (Section 4(f) Potential, Historic and Archaeological Sites, Wetlands, Water Quality and

Quantity, Floodplains, Wildlife and Habitat, Coastal and Marine, Infrastructure, and Special Designations). Community

features identified within the one quarter-mile buffer of the project limits include: two Planned Unit Developments close to

the western end of the corridor, one Development of Regional Impact at the eastern project terminus, one assisted

housing facility, four homeowner and condominium associations, one school, five group care facilities, two mobile home

parks, five religious centers, archaeological and historic resources, and recreational trails. Access to these features will be

maintained during construction and no adverse effects resulting from this project have been identified. The public and

officials (elected and appointed) have been kept informed about the project through the use of meetings, newsletters, and

a project website.

An Advance Notification package was completed for this project and mailed to the Florida State Clearinghouse and local

and federal agencies on May 15, 2017, in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act and Presidential Executive

Order 12372. Comments received through the Advance Notification process were limited to wetland and navigation

impacts. There were no adverse comments regarding the proposed roadway improvements and all comments have been

addressed in the appropriate sections of this report.

Non-Discrimination Considerations

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations, signed by President

Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, directs federal agencies to take appropriate and necessary steps to identify and

address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-

income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.



As presented in the table below, the demographic characteristics for the 500-foot project buffer differ from the

characteristics for Charlotte County in that the 500-foot project buffer contains higher African-American, Other Race and

Hispanic population percentages; a higher percentage of individuals age 18 and under; a higher percentage of housing

units with no vehicle available; and a slightly lower median family income. The census blockgroups encompassing the

project contain 157 persons (1.90%) that "speak English less than very well". For this reason, Limited English Proficiency

(LEP) accommodations were not be required during public involvement efforts of the Project Development phase.

Project Demographics

*Source: US Census Bureau (2010 US Census)

**Source: US Census Bureau (2010 American Community Survey)

***"Other" includes Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander Alone, Some Other Race, & Two or

More Races.

This project has been developed without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status.

No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project, as

determined above. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) Order 6640.23a - FHWA Actions to Address Environmental justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations, no further Environmental Justice analysis is required.

No comment has been received during this study regarding conflicts with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or related

statutes. Furthermore, the project is not anticipated to negatively affect community resources important to elderly persons,

disabled individuals, non-drivers, transit-dependent individuals, or minorities.

Community Cohesion

The proposed action is not expected to result in significant changes to community cohesion. There is no potential for

isolating neighborhoods. Considering the comprehensive public outreach program and minimal effects to social

resources, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no significant impact on the social aspects of this community.

Demographic 500-Foot Buffer Charlotte County Difference

White (Race)* 87.4% 90.9% -3.5%

African-American (Race)* 7.1% 5.7% +1.4%

"Other"*** (Race)* 5.5% 4.3% +1.2%

Hispanic (Ethnic Group)* 7.1% 5.8% +1.3%

Age 65+** 32.5% 34.1% -1.6%

Under Age 18** 16.5% 14.3% +2.2%

Housing Units with No Vehicle Available** 8.7% 4.7% +4.0%

Median Family Income** $52,259 $52,533 -$274



3.2. 3.2 Economic

3.2 Economic

The proposed action is anticipated to improve the economy of the local community. The project corridor poses as a

growing activity center of the county as it is surrounded by and connects areas targeted for redevelopment and new

development. Harborview Road serves as a distribution route of the established Freight Mobility Corridor network as it

connects US 41 and I-75, and functions as an important commuter corridor as it connects residential and commercial

hubs. The project will address operational deficiencies and accommodate the mobility needs of the area.

The project is within the Charlotte County Enterprise Zone and may potentially provide additional short-term, construction-

related employment opportunities. Supporting Charlotte County growth initiatives, the proposed project is anticipated to

better facilitate the westerly movement of freight in Charlotte County from I-75 by providing a viable alternate route to

parallel east-west arterials and maintaining a critical link between US 41 (a principal arterial) and I-75 (an SIS facility).

Improvements on Harborview Road may also increase access between I-75 and both employment centers and tourist

destinations within Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte. The proposed action is expected to enhance the economy of the

region.

3.3. 3.3 Land Use Changes

3.3 Land Use Changes

Existing land uses along the project corridor mainly consist of medium and low density residential uses as well as open

land; smaller amounts of high density residential and institutional activities are also present. The Harborview Road

corridor is a growing activity center of the County as it is within, surrounded by, and/or connects several areas targeted for

redevelopment and new development, including the Charlotte County Enterprise Zone, Charlotte County Community

Redevelopment Area, a number of Planned Unit Developments, and Developments of Regional Impact. The Charlotte

County Future Land Use Map indicates that the area surrounding the western and central portions of the project corridor

will continue to support residential activities and the area surrounding the eastern portion of the project corridor will

support public/institutional and mixed-use activities. The project is included in the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO

2016/2017 - FY 2020/2021 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Cost Feasible Plan of the Charlotte County-

Punta Gorda MPO's 2040 LRTP, the FDOT FY 2016/2017 - FY 2020/2021 Work Program, and the FDOT State

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

While additional ROW will be needed to accommodate the proposed operational improvements along Harborview Road

and access to proximate land uses could temporarily be affected during project construction, overall effects and changes

to surrounding land uses because of the project are anticipated to be limited. Overall, the Preferred Alternative is

expected to have no significant impact on land use along the Harborview Road corridor.

3.4. 3.4 Mobility

3.4 Mobility

The project section of Harborview Road is classified as a two-lane, undivided urban minor arterial and connects US 41 to

I-75. Harborview Road not only facilitates truck traffic and the distribution of goods to local activity areas, it also functions



as an important corridor for commuters due to its access to major north-south transportation facilities, such as US 41 and

I-75, and surrounding employment/commercial hubs. Harborview Road is part of the emergency evacuation route network

established for Charlotte County and is a critical facility for incident management regarding traffic events that occur on

either the US 41 or I-75 bridges over the Peace River. Additionally, the corridor is located within a Transportation

Disadvantaged Service Provider Area and within the vicinity of recreational trails. The improved traffic operations along

the corridor resulting from the proposed action are expected to improve overall mobility in the area by:

Providing a viable alternate route to parallel east-west arterials and maintaining a critical link between US 41 and I-75;Enhancing the movement of freight;Improving safety conditions along the roadway (including enhancing the roadway's ability to serve as a viable route foremergency evacuation/response as well as a facility for managing traffic incidences that occur on either the US 41 or I-75 bridges over the Peace River); andCreating a viable corridor for multi-modal use through the provision of dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is expected to enhance the mobility of the project area.

3.5. 3.5 Aesthetic Effects

3.5 Aesthetic EffectsFeatures associated with aesthetics that occur within the project vicinity include residential and water-related features.

The area surrounding the project is targeted for redevelopment and new development as indicated through the presence

of several Developments of Regional Impact and Planned Unit Developments. Charlotte County Future Land Use Map

reveals that the project area will continue to support residential, public/institutional, and mixed-use activities.

Overall, the proposed project improvements are consistent with the future land use vision and aesthetic character of the

corridor. The project improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative are expected to have no significant impact

on the aesthetics of the corridor.

3.6. 3.6 Relocation Potential

3.6 Relocation Potential

The Preferred Alternative will result in the relocation of three residential buildings. The two residences located at 24494

Harborview Road Unit 4 are part of a quadplex, with two duplex buildings. The residence located at 25059 Harborview

Road is classified as a single family residence. At this time, the project team is not aware of any handicapped or disabled

residential occupants needing special assistance. A summary of the impacted residences is shown in the below table. A

Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan (CSRP) (April 2019), prepared under separate cover, was developed to assess the

demographic makeup of the greater project area and to determine the availability of suitable replacement housing. The

CSRP provides additional information relating to relocation assistance.

Residential Relocations



Therefore, based on the implementation of this program, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no significant

impacts.

In order to minimize the unavoidable effects of Right of Way acquisition and displacement of people, the FloridaDepartment of Transportation (FDOT) will carry out a Right of Way and Relocation Assistance Program in accordancewith Florida Statute 421.55, Relocation of displaced persons, and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real PropertyAcquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17).

3.7. 3.7 Farmland Resources

3.7 Farmland ResourcesThe project was evaluated for farmlands impacts pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part658).

A Farmlands Evaluation was conducted in February 2019 through coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS). The evaluation assessed impacts to farming operations and Prime and Unique Farmlands and the

resulting Farmlands Evaluation coordination is attached. The evaluation indicated 1.3 acres of soils classified as Prime

and Unique Farmlands may occur; however, the project area does not include active farming operations and, according to

the Charlotte County Future Land Use Map, the area surrounding the western and central portions of the project corridor

will continue to support residential activities while the area surrounding the eastern portion of the project corridor will

support public/institutional and mixed-use activities. The NRCS Farmlands Conversion Impact Rating of 67 was less than

the 160 points required for further consideration of protection of farmlands. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is

expected to have no significant impact on farmlands within the project area.

Station Owner Parcel AddressParcelNumber

116+50 Snyder Real Estate LLC 24494 Harborview Rd Unit 4 402330230001

116+50 Snyder Real Estate LLC 24494 Harborview Rd Unit 4 402330230001

129+50 Corporacion Euanitos SA 25059 Harborview Rd 402329108003



4. 4. Cultural Resources

4. Cultural Resources

The project will not have significant impacts to cultural resources. Below is a summary of the evaluation performed.

4.1. 4.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

4.1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation ActA Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS), conducted in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, was performed for theproject, and the resources listed below were identified within the project Area of Potential Effect (APE). FDOT found thatthese resources do not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register, and State Historic PreservationOfficer (SHPO) has concurred with this evaluation. Therefore, FDOT, in consultation with SHPO, has determined that theproposed project will result in No Historic Properties Affected.

CRAS concurrence was granted by the SHPO on December 19, 2018, and documentation is included as an attachment.

The purpose of the CRAS was to locate and identify any cultural resources within the APE, and to assess their

significance in terms of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Based on the scale and

nature of the proposed undertaking, which includes widening Harborview Road from two lanes to four lanes, the

archaeological APE was defined as the existing and proposed ROW. The historic/architectural APE includes the

archaeological APE and immediately adjacent parcels.

Historic/architectural background research, including a review of the FMSF and the NRHP, indicated that twelve historic

resources were previously recorded within the historic APE, including eleven buildings (8CH01338, 8CH01444,

8CH01446, 8CH01451-8CH01456, 8CH01461-8CH01462) and one linear resource (8CH02053). None of these resources

has been evaluated by the SHPO. Thus, these resources were reevaluated and updated Florida Master Site File (FMSF)

forms were prepared. A review of Charlotte County property appraiser data indicated the potential for six more historic

resources (50 years of age or older) within the APE. Field survey confirmed the presence of these resources (8CH02722-

8CH02727), all of which are residential buildings constructed between 1958 and 1961. None of the previously recorded or

newly identified resources is a distinctive embodiment of a type, period, or method of construction. In addition,

background research did not reveal any historic associations with significant persons and/or events. Therefore, none of

the twelve previously recorded or six newly identified historic resources within the APE is considered potentially eligible for

the NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district.

Archaeological background research, which included a review of the ETDM Report (#5351), the FMSF, and the NRHP,

indicated that no archaeological sites were recorded within the archaeological APE, but two previously recorded sites,

8CH00502 and 8CH00499, were recorded within one mile of the APE. A review of relevant site locational information for

environmentally similar areas within Charlotte County and the surrounding region indicated areas of moderate potential for

the occurrence of prehistoric sites within the APE. The background research indicated that prehistoric sites, if present,

would most likely be small shell middens or artifact scatters. As a result of field survey, no archaeological sites were

identified within the APE.

In total, 62 shovel tests were excavated within the archaeological APE. The shovel tests exhibited evidence of a disturbed

archaeological APE. This was due to buried utilities, drains, and ditches. All 62 shovel test pits were negative for cultural

materials and no evidence of precontact or historic period archaeological sites, features, or artifacts was encountered in

the APE. This lack of cultural materials was expected, given the extensive disturbance of the archaeological APE.



Based on the results of the historic and archaeological investigation, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no

impacts to sites protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

4.2. 4.2 Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended

4.2 Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended There are no properties in the project area that are protected pursuant to Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966.

4.3. 4.3 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

4.3 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965There are no properties in the project area that are protected pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Land and Water ConservationFund of 1965.

4.4. 4.4 Other Protected Public Lands

4.4 Other Protected Public LandsThere are no other protected public lands in the project area.



5. 5. Natural Resources

5. Natural Resources

The project will not have significant impacts to natural resources. Below is a summary of the evaluation performed:

5.1. 5.1 Protected Species and Habitat

5.1 Protected Species and HabitatThe following evaluation was conducted pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended aswell as other applicable federal and state laws protecting wildlife and habitat.

A Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) (January 2019) report was prepared under separate cover as part of consultation

required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The evaluation included literature review,

database searches, and field assessments of the project area to identify the potential occurrence of protected species

and/or presence of federal-designated critical habitat.

Project environmental scientists conducted field reviews of the project study area during June of 2017 and during January

and May of 2018. The evaluation included coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Florida Fish

and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Based on evaluation of

collected data and field reviews, the federal- and state-listed species discussed below were observed as having the

potential to occur within or adjacent to the project area. An effect determination was then made for each of these federal-

and state-listed species based on an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project on each species. A

summary of the determinations is shown below.

Summary of Species Effects

Project ImpactDetermination Federal Listed Species

"No effect" Beautiful pawpaw (Deeringothamnus pulchellus)

Aboriginal prickly apple (Harrisia aboriginum)

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

"May affect, but is not likelyto adversely affect" Smalltooth sawfish (Prisitis pectinata)

American alligator (Alligator Mississippiensis)

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)

Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)

American crocodile (Crocodylus acustus)

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi)

Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus)

Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)



The NRE was submitted to the USFWS, FWC, and NMFS on February 7, 2019. The concurrence letter from FWC, dated

March 6, 2019, is included as an attachment. There is anticipated to be less than 0.5 acres of impacts to smalltooth

sawfish critical habitat which will not result in a significant impact to critical habitat for the species; however, coordination

with NMFS resulted in a commitment to initiate formal smalltooth sawfish consultation during the project design phase

when design-level construction methodology information is available. Coordination with USFWS has also resulted in a

commitment to initiate Florida bonneted bat consultation during the project design phase. Copies of the coordination with

NMFS and USFWS have been included as an attachment. Additionally, a commitment has been made to implement the

USFWS standard protection measures for the Eastern indigo snake during construction. Therefore, based on adherence

to these commitments, the preparation of updated species surveys during the design phase, and design-level agency

consultation, this project is expected to have no significant impacts on protected species or habitat.

Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway)

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)

Wood stork (Mycteria Americana)

Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus)

West Indian Manatee (Trichecus manatus)

Project ImpactDetermination State Listed Species

"No effect anticipated" Many-flowered grass-pink (Calopogon multiforus)

Iguana hackberry (Celtis igunaea)

Florida beargrass (Nolina atopocarpa)

Sleeping beauty waterlily (Nolina brittoniana)

Hand fern (Ophioglossum palmatum)

Giant orchid (Pteroglossaspis ecristata)

Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana)

"No adverse effectanticipated" Golden Leather Fern (Acrostichum aureum)

Gopher tortoise ( Gopherus Polyphemus)

Pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus)

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus)

Black skimmer (Rynchops niger)

Florida sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis pratensis)

Least tern (Sternula antillarum)

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea)

Tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor)

Roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja)

Southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus)

Snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus)



5.2. 5.2 Wetlands and Other Surface Waters

5.2 Wetlands and Other Surface WatersThe following evaluation was conducted pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 11990 of 1977 as amended, Protectionof Wetlands and the USDOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands.

An NRE (August 2018) report was prepared under separate cover for this project. The purpose of this evaluation was to

assure the protection, preservation, and enhancement of wetlands to the fullest extent practicable.

Field reviews identified a total of 62 wetlands and surface water types within the project study area. Wetland and surface

water habitats include bays and estuaries, mangrove swamps, vegetated non-forested wetlands, saltwater marshes,

exotic wetland hardwoods - Brazilian pepper, canals, and numerous excavated drainage features (e.g., ditches). Culverts

under Harborview Road and bridge crossings provide hydrologic connections between wetland systems located on either

side of the highway (maps are available in the NRE under separate cover).

The Preferred Alternative may impact an estimated 0.80 acres of wetlands and 2.70 acres of surface waters. The project

study area is located within the service areas of the Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank. The mitigation bank is within the

Charlotte Harbor Drainage Basin and service portions of Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Sarasota, and Desoto Counties. As of

August 5, 2019, there are over 73 forested freshwater credits and over 147 herbaceous freshwater credits remaining

within the Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank.

The Preferred Alternative will result in an estimated Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) loss of 1.35

functional units. All UMAM scores, UMAM calculations, preliminary wetland lines and determinations discussed are

subject to revisions and approval by regulatory agencies during the permitting process. The exact type of mitigation used

to offset wetland impacts from the proposed Harborview Road improvements will be coordinated with the US Army Corps

of Engineers (USACE) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) during the permitting phase(s)

of this project. The NRE was submitted to the USACE and SWFWMD, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Division of Agriculture and Consumer

Services on February 7, 2019. The SWFWMD has reviewed the NRE findings and has requested further coordination

during the design permitting phase. SWFWMD correspondence has been included as an attachment.

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 impacts to

wetlands which may result from such use. Wetland impacts that result from the construction of this project will be

mitigated pursuant to 373.4137 F.S. to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373 and 33 U.S.C. 1344.

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no significant impact on wetlands.

5.3. 5.3 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

5.3 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment has been prepared and consultation has been completed in accordance withthe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). It has been determined that this projectwill not have adverse effects to EFH. Should any changes occur during the design and permitting process that affect theconsultation, re-initiation of the consultation process will be coordinated with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).



An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment has been prepared and consultation has been completed in accordance with

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). Further coordination will be conducted

during the final design phase; however, it is anticipated that this project will not have adverse effects to EFH. Should any

changes occur during the design and permitting process that affect the consultation, re-initiation of the consultation

process will be coordinated with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The project study area spans over a small area of estuarine habitat towards the east end of the project. There is no

seagrass or shellfish habitat identified within the project study area. Due to the nature of the project, no populations of any

of the 55 managed species and the coral complex listed by the GMFMC are expected to be adversely affected by the

proposed project. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no significant impact on EFH.

5.4. 5.4 Floodplains

5.4 FloodplainsFloodplain impacts resulting from the project were evaluated pursuant to Executive Order 11988 of 1977, FloodplainManagement.

A Location Hydraulic Report (LHR) (August 2018) was prepared under separate cover for the project.

The purpose of the LHR is to address base floodplain encroachments resulting from the roadway improvements evaluated

in the PD&E Study. The intent is to avoid or minimize highway encroachments with the 100-year floodplains and to avoid

supporting land use development incompatible with floodplain values. The Preferred Alternative does not encroach into a

regulatory floodway. The majority of the project is located within Zone AE and Zone VE. Zone AE is defined as an area

subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood), for which a base flood elevation (BFE) has been

determined. Zone VE is defined as a coastal flood zone with velocity hazard (wave action), for which a BFE has been

determined. Since all Zone AE and Zone VE floodplains within the project limits are tidal, floodplain compensation is not

required.

Therefore, it has been determined that this project will have no significant impact on floodplains.

5.5. 5.5 Sole Source Aquifer

5.5 Sole Source AquiferThere is no Sole Source Aquifer associated with this project.

5.6. 5.6 Water Quality and Stormwater

5.6 Water Quality and StormwaterA Pond Siting Report (PSR) (August 2018) was completed under separate cover as part of the PD&E study. The purpose

of the PSR is to estimate the volume required to mitigate stormwater issues and identify ROW needs for any necessary

off-site stormwater management facilities. The report identified six pond sites and one historic basin storage

compensation site for the project improvements and documents possible environmental impacts associated with the

ponds and compensation site. Six drainage sub-basins were delineated along the project.

Stormwater runoff from Harborview Road will be collected and conveyed to stormwater management facilities via curb

and gutter and a closed drainage system. The stormwater management facilities will provide water quality (treatment) and

water quantity (attenuation). The method of stormwater treatment for this project includes wet detention and upflow

filtration, as necessary, to achieve the required nutrient removal. The pond sizes were estimated using SWFWMD and



FDOT water quality treatment and attenuation requirements.

A Water Quality Impact Evaluation (WQIE) (January 2019) was prepared under separate cover for the project. The project

is located within the Sunrise Waterways (Water Body Identification Number 2056E), which is impaired for nutrients;

therefore, the project is required to demonstrate a net improvement for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP).

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no significant impact on water quality and quantity.

5.7. 5.7 Aquatic Preserves

5.7 Aquatic PreservesThere are no aquatic preserves in the project area.

5.8. 5.8 Outstanding Florida Waters

5.8 Outstanding Florida WatersThere are no Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) reported within the project vicinity; however, the Gasparilla Sound-

Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve OFW occurs less than one mile from the eastern project terminus. The project will be

designed to meet state criteria for stormwater discharge, and best management practices will be utilized during

construction to prevent impacts to downgradient estuarine habitats. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative will have no

significant impact on OFWs.

5.9. 5.9 Wild and Scenic Rivers

5.9 Wild and Scenic RiversThere are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project area.

5.10. 5.10 Coastal Barrier Resources

5.10 Coastal Barrier ResourcesThere are no Coastal Barrier Resources in the project area.



6. 6. Physical Resources

6. Physical Resources

The project will not have significant impacts to physical resources. Below is a summary of the evaluation performed forthese resources.

6.1. 6.1 Highway Traffic Noise

6.1 Highway Traffic NoiseThe following evaluation was conducted pursuant to 23 CFR 772 and Section 335.17, F.S., Procedures for Abatement ofHighway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.

A Noise Study Report (NSR) (October 2018) was prepared under separate cover for this project following FDOT

procedures that comply with Title 23 CFR, Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction

Noise. The evaluation uses methodologies established by FDOT and documented in the PD&E Manual. The prediction of

traffic noise levels with and without the roadway improvements was performed using FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM)

Version 2.5.

For the Preferred Alternative, noise levels were predicted at 139 noise sensitive sites located adjacent to Harborview

Road. Of the 139 noise sensitive sites evaluated, 38 residences are predicted to experience future noise levels that

approach, meet, or exceed the Noise Abatement Category (NAC) for Activity Category B. None of the evaluated sites will

experience a substantial increase (15 dB(A) or more) of traffic noise as a result of the proposed widening.

Noise abatement measures were evaluated for the 38 residences. It was determined that traffic system management

techniques, alignment modifications and property acquisition are not reasonable abatement measures. However, land use

controls were identified as a feasible abatement measure that could be used in the future by local officials to minimize the

permitting and construction of incompatible land uses along the Harborview Road corridor.

Noise barriers were found not to be a feasible abatement measure for 14 of these sites because FDOT guidance

stipulates that a minimum of two impacted sites must achieve a 5 dB(A) or greater reduction in order for a noise barrier to

be considered feasible. There are 14 instances where only one impacted site occurs in a particular area along the

Harborview Road study area and therefore a noise barrier was not considered for that location.

The TNM was used to evaluate the effectiveness of noise barriers for the remaining 24 residences and barriers were

found to be a cost reasonable and feasible abatement measure for the impacted sites at five different locations along

Harborview Road. The five locations where noise barrier systems are potentially cost reasonable and feasible are as

follows:

Birchwood CondominiumsMulti-Family residences east of Drance StreetHarbor View Mobile Home ParkMulti-Family residences between Date Street and Coconut StreetSingle Family homes between Coconut Street and Drance Street

A review will be performed during the future project Design phase to identify potential noise sensitive sites that may have

received a building permit subsequent to the noise study but prior to the project's Date of Public Knowledge. The date that



the Type 2 Categorical Exclusion is approved will be the Date of Public Knowledge. If the review identifies noise sensitive

sites that have been permitted prior to the date of public knowledge, those sites will be evaluated for traffic noise and

potential abatement considerations.

Based on the results of the traffic noise analysis, the consideration of noise barriers to mitigate traffic noise impacts, and

the consideration of potential construction noise, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no significant impact on

noise sensitive sites located adjacent to Harborview Road.

6.2. 6.2 Air Quality

6.2 Air QualityThis project is not expected to create adverse impacts on air quality because the project area is in attainment for allNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and because the project is expected to improve the Level of Service(LOS) and reduce delay and congestion on all facilities within the study area.

This project is expected to improve traffic flow by adding capacity to relieve congestion, which should reduce operational

greenhouse gas emissions.

Construction-phase air quality impacts will be short-term and will primarily be in the form of emissions from diesel-

powered construction equipment and dust from construction activities. 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 as directed by the FDOT Project

Engineer.

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative is expected to have no significant impact on air quality.

6.3. 6.3 Contamination

6.3 Contamination

A Level I contamination evaluation was conducted for the study and a Contamination Screening Evaluation Report

(CSER) (October 2018) was prepared under separate cover pursuant to FHWA's Technical Advisory T 6640.8A and the

FDOT PD&E Manual, Part 2 Chapter 20. A Level I assessment was conducted to identify and evaluate sites containing

hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other sources of potential environmental contamination along Harborview

Road from Melbourne Street to west of I-75.

Based on a document and site review, five sites along the corridor were evaluated and found to have no potential

contamination risk to the study. Level II testing is not recommended, and the Preferred Alternative will result in no

significant contamination impacts.



6.4. 6.4 Utilities and Railroads

6.4 Utilities and Railroads

Overhead and buried utilities extend along both sides of Harborview Road through the project limits. There are no existing

railroad facilities within the project area. The utility companies were contacted in August and September of 2017 to identify

the locations and types of utilities within the project limits. Plan sheets were transmitted to the companies with a request to

identify the location(s) of existing facilities and planned facilities. The existing utilities include overhead electric, buried

communication lines, and water and sewer lines. The list of utility agencies/owners known to operate utilities within the

project corridor include:

Charlotte County Lighting DistrictCharlotte County UtilitiesCharlotte Harbor WaterFlorida Power & LightComcast CableCentury Link

Widening Harborview Road will require relocations of some existing utilities located by permit within existing Charlotte

County ROW. FDOT coordination with potentially affected utility owners will continue as necessary throughout the future

project design and construction phases. Project design efforts will seek to avoid and minimize impacts to existing utilities

to the extent feasible within the roadway ROW. The Preferred Alternative will have no significant impact on utilities or

railroads.

6.5. 6.5 Construction

6.5 ConstructionConstruction activities may cause short-term air quality impacts in the form of dust from earthwork and unpaved roads.These impacts will be minimized by adherence to applicable state regulations and to the FDOT Standard Specificationsfor Road and Bridge Construction.

Construction activities for the proposed project may cause minor short-term air quality, noise, water quality, traffic

congestion, and visual impacts for residents and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project.

Minor noise and vibration effects may occur from heavy equipment movement and construction activities. This will be

minimized by adherence to noise control measures found in the most current edition of the 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 impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation during construction will be controlled in accordance with

the most current edition of the FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, "Prevention, Control,

and Abatement of Erosion and Water Pollution," and through the use of best management practices (BMP).

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 so as to minimize traffic delays

throughout the project. Signage will be used as appropriate to provide pertinent information to the traveling public. The

local news media will be notified in advance of road closings and other construction related activities that would

excessively inconvenience the community so that motorists, residents, and business persons can make other

accommodations. Applicable provisions of FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction will be

followed. A sign providing the name, address, and telephone of an FDOT contact person will be displayed on-site to assist

the public in obtaining immediate answers to questions about project activity.

Access to local properties, businesses and residences will be maintained to the extent practical through controlled

construction scheduling and the implementation of the project's specific Traffic Control Plan(s) and implementation of

FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

For residents living along the project, some of the construction materials stored for the project may be displeasing visually;

however, this will be a temporary condition and should pose no substantial problem.



7. 7. Engineering Analysis Support

7. Engineering Analysis Support

The engineering analysis supporting this environmental document is contained within the Preliminary Engineering Report.



8. 8. Permits

8. Permits

The following environmental permits are anticipated for this project:

Federal Permit(s) StatusUSACE Section 10 or Section 404 Permit To be acquired

State Permit(s) StatusDEP or WMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) To be acquiredFWC Gopher Tortoise Relocation Permit To be acquired



9. 9. Public Involvement

9. Public Involvement

The following is a summary of public involvement activities conducted for this project:

Summary of Activities Other than the Public HearingA comprehensive Public Involvement Plan (PIP) (July 2017) was prepared and initiated at the start of the study. This plan

was implemented in accordance with the FDOT Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual; Section 339.155,

Florida Statute (F.S.); Executive Orders 11990, Protection of Wetlands and 11988, Floodplain Management; Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy

Act; and 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771. This report outlines the strategies used to address public

involvement and outreach over the course of the study. At the conclusion of the study, a Comments and Coordination

Report (April 2019) was prepared to fully document the public stakeholder involvement associated with this project.

Stakeholder and Agency Coordination

Numerous agencies were identified that would have an interest in the Harborview Road PD&E Study. The agency mailing

list included representatives from the ETAT such as federal and state governments, and state permitting agencies.

A meeting was held on September 6, 2017, with SWFWMD staff at their offices in Tampa, FL. SWFWMD staff provided

guidance for the project drainage methodology.

Presentations were delivered to the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO Technical Advisory and Community Advisory

Committees on April 18, 2018, and to the MPO Board on May 7, 2018. The meetings and presentations provided an

overview of the project, including project limits and project schedule.

Alternatives Public Workshop

A public workshop was held on Thursday, March 29, 2018, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Charlotte County MPO in

Port Charlotte, Florida. The Northern Widening, Southern Widening, and Optimized Widening Alternatives and summaries

of their associated costs and impacts were presented to the public. The workshop was attended by 134 citizens and four

public officials. All attendees were given the opportunity to provide written comments at the workshop or within a 10-day

comment period. Thirty-nine (39) comments were received at the workshop and 16 comments were received during the

comment period. Of the 55 comments, nine supported the Northern Widening Alternative, four supported the Southern

Widening Alternative, eight supported the Optimized Widening Alternative, 12 supported the No-Build Alternative, and the

remainder were related to other project items. All comments received were taken into consideration in the development of

the alternatives.

Date of Public Hearing: 03/14/2019Summary of Public HearingA public hearing was held on Thursday, March 14, 2019, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda

MPO in Port Charlotte, Florida. The hearing was attended by 134 citizens; no public officials were in attendance. The

Preferred Alternative was presented to the public and attendees were provided the opportunity to offer public testimony

and/or written comments regarding the project, or to provide comments within a 10-day comment period. Eleven citizens

provided verbal comments during the public testimony portion of the hearing and one gave his comment directly to the

court reporter. Twenty-four written comments were received at the hearing, and ten comment forms and/or emails were



received during the ten-day comment period following the hearing, ending on March 25, 2019. Of the thirty-four comments

received, eight supported the project, thirteen supported the No-Build Alternative, and the remaining comments either

wanted to be added to the mailing list, or had a specific concern related to roundabouts, noise, right-of-way, bike lanes or

medians. All comments received were taken into consideration in the development of the alternatives.



10. 10. Project Commitments

10. Project Commitments

1. The USFWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake will be implemented to ensure that theEastern Indigo Snake will not be adversely impacted by the project.

2. ESA Section 7 consultation for the Florida Bonneted Bat will be initiated with the USFWS during the design phase ofthe project.

3. ESA Section 7 consultation for sea turtles will be initiated with NMFS during the design phase of the project.

4. ESA Section 7 formal consultation for the small tooth sawfish will be initiated with NMFS during the design phase ofthe project.

5. A land use review will also be implemented during the design phase to identify noise sensitive sites that may havereceived a building permit subsequent to the noise evaluation but prior to the date of public knowledge (i.e., datethat the environmental document has been approved by the FDOT Office of Environmental Management). If thereview identifies noise sensitive sites that have been permitted prior to the date of public knowledge, those sites willbe evaluated for traffic noise and potential abatement considerations.



11. 11. Technical Materials

11. Technical Materials

The following technical materials have been prepared to support this environmental document.

NRCS Coordination Documentation Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) Ponds Cultural Resources Assessment Survey (CRAS) Pond Siting Report (PSR) Water Quality Impact Evaluation (WQIE) Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) Location Hydraulics Report Noise Study Report (NSR) Contamination Screening Evaluation Report (CSER) Preliminary Engineering Report Project Traffic Report Public Involvement Comments/Responses Public Involvement Plan



12. Attachments

Attachments

Planning ConsistencyProject Plan Consistency Documentation

Social and EconomicNRCS Coordination Documentation

Cultural ResourcesSHPO Concurrence Letter

Natural ResourcesUSFWS Coordination NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Correspondence SWFWMD Coordination USEPA Coordination FWC Coordination

Public InvolvementPublic Hearing Transcript Public Hearing Certification Documentation



Planning Consistency AppendixContents:Project Plan Consistency Documentation



2040 Transportation PlanCharlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO

Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO 2040 LRTP

Table 7-2: Cost Feasible Plan Road Projects

Facility From To# of

Existing Lanes

Project Length (Miles)

Juris-diction

Area Type Project Description Revenue Source Cost

(PDC)2019-2020 (YOE) 2021-2025 (YOE) 2026-2030 (YOE) 2031-2040 (YOE)

PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST PD&E PE ROW CST

Burnt Store Road North of Zemel Road Scham Road 2U 4.17 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Developer $41.77 $53.05

Airport Road US 41 Piper Road 2U 2.62 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Local $12.30 $2.05 $6.15

Burnt Store Road North Jones Loop Taylor Road 2U 0.998 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) TRIP, County $13.34 $0.78 $2.34

Burnt Store Road Ext. Taylor Road Florida Street 00 2.116 County Urban Roadway - New Construction (4L) County $6.28 $2.45

Toledo Blade (CR 39) US 41 (W) Hillsborough Boulevard 4D 0.995 County Urban Roadway - Widening (4L to 6L) County, Developer $15.54 $0.64 $2.27 $3.95 $16.47

Toledo Blade (CR 39) SR 776 Whitney Avenue 2U 0.521 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Developer $6.26 $0.30 $1.08 $7.83

Toledo Blade (CR 39) SR 776 Whitney Avenue 4U 0.521 County Urban Roadway - Widening (4L to 6L) County, Developer $6.58 $1.38 $8.62

Toledo Blade (CR 39) Whitney Avenue US 41 (W) 4D 0.249 County Urban Roadway - Widening (4L to 6L) County, Developer $3.89 $0.16 $0.57 $0.99 $4.12

CR 771 Appleton Boulevard Rotonda Boulevard East 2U 1.75 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Developer $3.51 $1.37 $4.10

Edgewater Drive Jowett Street Collingswood Blvd 2U 0.239 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $4.91 $0.20 $0.60 $3.87 $4.92

Edgewater Drive Collingswood Blvd Pellam Blvd 2U 0.929 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $2.16 $0.73 $2.18 $0.63

Edgewater Drive Pellam Boulevard Midway Blvd 2U 0.614 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $1.42 $0.48 $1.44 $0.41

Flamingo Boulevard (Realignment) Edgewater Drive Como Street 0 0.557 County Urban Roadway - New Construction (4L) County $10.21 $3.24 $15.79

Flamingo Boulevard Como Street Wintergarden Avenue 2U 0.832 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $8.33 $15.92

Flamingo Boulevard Wintergarden Avenue SR 776 2U 1.041 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $14.06 $7.73 $19.92

Flamingo Boulevard SR 776 US 41 2U 0.98 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $1.96 $0.77 $2.30

Harbor View Road Melbourne Street Date Street 2U 1.12 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Developer, OA $14.77 $4.17 $14.25

Harbor View Road Date Street Purdy Drive 2U 0.666 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Developer, OA $8.78 $2.48 $8.47

Harbor View Road Purdy Drive I-75 2U 0.8209 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County, Developer, OA $10.82 $3.06 $12.33

Hillsborough Boulevard South Cranberry Boulevard

Toledo Blade Boulevard 2U 2.45 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $4.91 $1.92 $5.75

I-75 North Jones Loop US 17 4D 3.3 State Urban Interstate - Widening (4L to 6L) SIS $56.00 $0.17 $71.12

North Jones Loop Road Burnt Store Road Piper Road 4D 1.8 County Urban Roadway - Widening (4L to 6L) County $5.83 $3.63 $4.76

Kings Highway North of Sandhill Boulevard

Desoto County Line 2U 0.5 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $5.01 $5.71

West Marion Avenue Hibiscus Drive Bal Harbor Boulevard 4D 0.926 County Urban Road Diet (4L to 2L) Local $0.51 $0.10 $0.29 $2.37

West Marion Avenue Bal Harbor Boulevard West Henry Street 4U 0.425 County Urban Road Diet (4L to 2L) Local $0.24 $0.04 $0.14 $1.09

East Marion Avenue US 41 Marlympia Way 3O 1.422 County Urban Road Diet (3L to 2L) Local $0.79 $0.15 $0.44 $3.64

East Olympia Avenue US 41 Marlympia Way 3O 1.32 County Urban Road Diet (3L to 2L) Local $2.70 $0.14 $0.41 $3.38

Peachland Boulevard Cochran Boulevard Harbor Boulevard 2U 2.47 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $4.95 $1.93 $5.79

Rampart Boulevard West of I-75 Rio De Janeiro Avenue 2U 1.75 County Urban Roadway - Widening (2L to 4L) County $3.51 $1.37 $4.10

Costs presented in millions



# FPN Facility Phase Fund 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

4402341

Description: PE/EMO STUDY

NORTH ALLIGATOR CREEKPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

1 CST TLWR $0 $0$782,000 $0 $0

$782,000 $0 $0 $0Project Total:

4349652

Description: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT

HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75

2 ENV SL $0 $0 $0 $0

PE SL $0 $4,020,000 $0 $0

$0 $0 $2,416,913Project Total:

4366021

Description: AERA TSER

I-75 REST AREA

3

TSC DRA $0 $0 $19,499,931 $0

ROW DIH $39,338$0 $0 $0

$0 $0$29,387,370Project Total:

4381571

Description: SIDEWALK

HARBORWALK PHASE II- WEST RETTA ESPLANDE FROM MAUDE ST TO BERRY ST

4 CST TALL $0 $0 $0 $0$353,603

CST SL $0 $13,605 $0 $0

$90,000 $0$0 $367,208 $0Project Total:

4130432


I-75 (SR93) FROM S OF HARBORVIEW ROAD TO NORTH OF KINGS HWY

5 INC DI $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0Project Total:

4130424


I-75 FROM S OF N JONES LOOP TO N OF US 17

6 CST ACNP

CST DI $0

ENV ACNP

RRU ACNP

RRU DI

$0 $0Project Total:

4365631

Description: PD&E/EMO STUDY

NORTH JONES LOOP RD FROM BURNT STORE ROAD TO PIPER ROAD

7 PDE SL $0 $0 1,220,000 $0

$0 $0 $0$1,220,000 $0Project Total:

4419501

Description: INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT

SR 31 FROM CR 74 TO CR 74

8 PE DDR $1,200,000$0 $0 $0

$1,200,000 $0 $0Project Total:

DI $0 $1,600,000 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0

SL $0 $0 $0ROW $0

$0 $0

CST DIH $55,500$0 $0 $0$0

CST DDR $9,831,939$0 $0 $0$0

ROW DRA $0

$0

$1,600,000

4382621


SR 45 (US 41) TAMIAMI TRAIL FROM CONWAY BLVD TO MIDWAY BLVD

9

$0 $0

PE TALL $0 $0 $0 $60,786

PE TALT $0 $0 $0 $199,214

$0

4365971

Description: RESURFACING

SR 776 FROM NORTH OF PLACIDA RD/PINE ST/CR 775 TO SPINNAKER BLVD

10 CST DDR $0 $5,906,320 $0 $0

CST DIH $0 $250,013 $0 $0

$0 $7,554,968 $0Project Total:

4383781


SR 776 FROM FLAMINGO BLVDTO SAM’S CLUB ENTRANCE

11 CST SA $30,840 $0 $0 $0

CST DS $39,529 $0 $0

CST HSP $1,228,723 $0 $0

$1,299,092 $0Project Total:

4351051

Description: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

TAYLOR RD FROM US 41 TO AIRPORT RD

12 PDE TALL $0 $0$725,000 $0 $0

$0$725,000 $0Project Total:

4312191


US 41 (SR 45) AT HANCOCK AVENUE

13 ACSL SL $0 $1,339,755 $0 $0

DS $0 $0 $0

CST $0$204,696 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$1,609,871 $0Project Total:

# FPN Facility Phase Fund 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

435105 2


14 PE SL $0 $0 $536,431

$128,569$0 $0 $0$0

$0 $0 $0Project Total:

4350991


US 41 AT CARMALITA ST EXTENSION

15 PDE DDR $0 $0$699,999 $0$0

PDE DIH $0 $0$70,000 $0$0

PE DDR $0 $0$0 $1,500,000$50,000

PE DIH $0 $0$0 $0$75,000

$0$769,999 $125,000Project Total:

$0

$0

$0

$0 $0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0 $0 $0 $260,000Project Total:

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$1,500,000

TAYLOR RD (CR 765 A)FROM N JONES LOOPTO AIRPORT ROAD PHASEI

$0

PE TALL

$0 $665,000

$0

$15,420CST

$0

$0

SL

ENV SL $50,000

$0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0$1,600,000

$1,600,000$0

$0

$0

$2,416,913

$10,000

$4,030,000 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0

$0

CST SL $0 $1,398,635 $0 $0$0

$0

$1,470,811

$4,182,959$1,150,149

$0

$0

$4,182,959

$0

PE LF $0 $0$90,000 $0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

4349661


US 41 AT GARDNERBLVD

16 CST SL $870,555 $0 $0

CST DS $51,400 $0 $0

CS ACSL $390,640 $0 $0

$0 $0Project Total:

4349451

Description: ADD TURN LANE(S)

US 41 AT PORT CHARLOTTE BLVD

17 CST DDR $0 $0 $264,049

PE SL $20,000 $0 $0

$20,000 $0$1,139,496Project Total:

CST SL $0 $0 $845,447

$0

$0$1,312,595

$0

$0

$0

$0

$30,000$0

$0

$0$0

$0

$0$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

-

ADOPTED MAY 7,2018



8/23/2019 FLDOT OWP - Federal Aid Management; STIP Project Detail and Summaries Online Report

https://fdotewp1.dot.state.fl.us/fmsupportapps/stipamendments/stip.aspx 1/1

STIP Project Detail and Summaries Online ReportSelection Criteria

Current STIP Detail Report Financial Project:434965 1 Related Items Shown

HIGHWAYSItem Number: 434965 1 Project Description: HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75

District: 01 County: CHARLOTTE Type of Work: PD&E/EMO STUDY Project Length: .135MI Fiscal YearPhase / Responsible Agency <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 >2022 All YearsP D & E / MANAGED BY FDOTFund Code: ACCM - ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (CM) 460,424 11,638 6,241 478,303

CM - CONGESTION MITIGATION - AQ 1,677,762 17,437 1,695,199Phase: P D & E Totals 2,138,186 29,075 6,241 2,173,502Item: 434965 1 Totals 2,138,186 29,075 6,241 2,173,502

Item Number: 434965 2 Project Description: HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75

District: 01 County: CHARLOTTE Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Project Length: .135MI Fiscal YearPhase / Responsible Agency <2019 2019 2020 2021 2022 >2022 All YearsPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING / MANAGED BY FDOTFund Code: ACSL - ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION (SL) 1,614,014 1,614,014

GFSL - GF STPBG <200K<5K (SMALL URB) 2,385,986 2,385,986SL - STP, AREAS <= 200K 19,293 19,293

Phase: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Totals 4,019,293 4,019,293

RIGHT OF WAY / MANAGED BY FDOTFund Code: SL - STP, AREAS <= 200K 1,868,752 1,868,752

Item: 434965 2 Totals 4,019,293 1,868,752 5,888,045Project Totals 2,138,186 29,075 4,025,534 1,868,752 8,061,547

HIGHWAYS Totals 2,138,186 29,075 4,025,534 1,868,752 8,061,547Grand Total 2,138,186 29,075 4,025,534 1,868,752 8,061,547



Social and Economic AppendixContents:NRCS Coordination Documentation



Farmlands Coordination

Harborview Road

Florida Department of Transportation District 1

Limits of Project: From Melbourne Street to I-75 Charlotte County, Florida

Financial Management Number: 434965-1-22-01 ETDM Number: 5351

The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by FDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 142016 and executed by FHWA and FDOT.

February 2019





1

Nicole Selly

From: Crockett, Leroy - NRCS, Quincy, FL <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:11 PM

To: Nicole Selly

Subject: RE: Harborview Road PD&E From Melbourne Street to I-75 - Farmlands CPA 106 Form

and Shapefiles Submittal

Attachments: NRCS-CPA- 106 Harborview Road PD&E Study FDOT - Farmlands.pdf

Just finished. See attached. The Acres of Prime Unique farmland are small and ratings came out the same with rounding

of numbers. Just a slight difference in percent of farmland converted, with any of the alternatives way less than one

percent.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely

LeRoy Crockett Resource Soil Scientist

Perry Paige Bld suite 305N

1740 S MLK Blvd Tallahassee, FL 32307

Mb: (352) 262-0192

Watch the “Mighty Mini Microbe” trailer.

From: Nicole Selly <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 10:29 AM

To: Sullivan, Kevin - NRCS, Gainesville, FL <[email protected]>; Crockett, Leroy - NRCS, Quincy, FL

<[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Harborview Road PD&E From Melbourne Street to I-75 - Farmlands CPA 106 Form and Shapefiles Submittal

Hello Kevin and Leroy,



2

Do you have any questions on my FFPA 106 form submittal for Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75? I suspect

you are very busy. Do you have an estimate of when we will get the form back? I reattached the files to this email for

your convenience.

Thanks,

Nicole

Nicole Selly

Sr. Environmental Scientist/Project Manager Email: [email protected] Work: 813.871.5331 Cell: 512.587.8194 201 N. Franklin St., Suite 400, Tampa, FL 33602

From: Robbins, Rick - NRCS, Gainesville, FL <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 7:19 AM

To: Nicole Selly <[email protected]>

Cc: Mark Easley <[email protected]>; Sullivan, Kevin - NRCS, Gainesville, FL

<[email protected]>; Crockett, Leroy - NRCS, Quincy, FL <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Harborview Road PD&E From Melbourne Street to I-75 - Farmlands CPA 106 Form and Shapefiles Submittal

Nicole,

My job responsibilities have shifted and I no longer conduct any FPPA reviews. I have cc’d Leroy Crockett and Kevin

Sullivan for their attention.

Best,

Rick Robbins

NRCS- ACES affiliate

Easements

Gainesville, FL

From: Nicole Selly <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 5:24 PM

To: Robbins, Rick - NRCS, Gainesville, FL <[email protected]>



3

Cc: Mark Easley <[email protected]>

Subject: Harborview Road PD&E From Melbourne Street to I-75 - Farmlands CPA 106 Form and Shapefiles Submittal

Mr. Robbins,

I have completed the CPA 106 form Parts I and III for Harborview Road PD&E From Melbourne Street to I-75

(434965-1-22-01). I included corresponding shapefiles for your review. See the attachment link below my

signature. I have also provided some additional project information below:

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment

(PD&E) study to evaluate the proposed widening of Harborview Road (CR 776) from Melbourne Street

to west of I-75 in Charlotte County, Florida, a distance of 2.3 miles. The purpose of this PD&E study is

to evaluate engineering and environmental data and document information that will aid Charlotte County,

FDOT District One, and the FDOT Office of Environmental Management (OEM) in determining the type,

preliminary design and location of the proposed improvements. The study was conducted in order to meet

the requirements of the FDOT, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other related federal

and state laws, rules and regulations.

The proposed action involves widening Harborview Road from the existing two-lane undivided roadway

to a four-lane divided roadway. This improvement is necessary to provide additional capacity to

accommodate future travel demand generated by the projected population and economic growth in

Charlotte County. Harborview Road is classified as an urban minor arterial from Melbourne Street to west

of I-75.

The project was evaluated through FDOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process

as project #5351. An ETDM Programming Screen Summary Report containing comments from the

Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) was published on August 28, 2017.

NRCS reported that soils designated as Farmland of Unique Importance are present at all project buffer

widths ranging from 47.3 acres at the 100-foot project buffer level to 229.4 acres at the 500-foot project

buffer level; there are also areas currently used for agricultural production at all buffer widths. NRCS

noted that the project area has undergone land use changes (low density urbanization) since the

Charlotte County soil survey was completed in the early 1980s; therefore, the farmland classifications

assigned to the map units are out-of-date. NRCS stated that a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form

[NRCS-CPA-106] may be required for this project.

The 200-foot project buffer consists of 94.07 acres [73.22%] of soils classified as Farmlands of Unique

Importance. While the noted prime farmland soils surround the entire length of the project corridor, the

project area has experienced land use changes. According to the Charlotte County Future Land Use

Map, the area surrounding the western and central portions of the project corridor will continue to

support residential activities; the area surrounding the eastern portion of the project corridor will support

public/institutional and mixed use activities. In addition, the project falls within the North Port - Port

Charlotte urbanized area. A Summary Degree of Effect of Minimal was assigned to the Farmlands issue

in ETDM.

Upon deeper evaluations, the Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan labels the adjacent parcels

402329126001, 402329126002, 402329126003, and 402329126004 as agriculture.

Please let me know if you need more information.



4

Thank you,

Nicole

Nicole Selly

Sr. Environmental Scientist/Project Manager Email: [email protected] Work: 813.871.5331 Cell: 512.587.8194 201 N. Franklin St., Suite 400, Tampa, FL 33602

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This communication may be privileged and confidential. It should not be disseminated to others. If received in error, please immediately reply that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any

unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the

law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error,

please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.



Cultural Resources AppendixContents:SHPO Concurrence Letter





Dr. Timothy Parsons, Director

Harborview Road, Charlotte, Florida

FPID No.: 434965-1-22-01

October 24, 2018

Page 2 of 3

addition, this survey meets the specifications set forth in Chapter 1A-46, Florida Administrative

Code.

Background research revealed that no archaeological sites were previously recorded within or

adjacent to the project APE and the background research also suggested that portions of the

project had a moderate potential for aboriginal site occurrence. No historic period archaeological

sites were expected. Historical/architectural background research revealed that twelve historic

resources were previously recorded within the historic APE, including eleven buildings

(8CH01338, 8CH01444, 8CH01446, 8CH01451-8CH01456, 8CH01461-8CH01462) and one

linear resource (8CH02053). None of these resources has been evaluated by the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO).

No archaeological sites were identified as a result of the archaeological field survey which

consisted of ground surface reconnaissance and systematic and judgmental excavation of shovel

test pits. A review of Charlotte County property appraiser data indicated the potential for eight

historic resources (50 years of age or older) within the APE. Field survey confirmed the presence

of these resources (8CH02722-8CH02727, 8CH02741, and 8CH02742), all of which are

residential buildings constructed between 1958 and 1961. None of the previously recorded or

newly identified resources is a distinctive embodiment of a type, period, or method or

construction. In addition, background research did not reveal any historic associations with

significant persons and/or events. Therefore, none of the thirteen previously recorded or eight

newly identified historic resources within the APE is considered potentially eligible for the

NRHP, either individually or as part of a historic district.

Based on the results of the background research and field survey, there are no significant historic

or prehistoric archaeological sites or historic resources within the APE. Thus, it appears that the

proposed undertaking will have no effect on any NRHP listed, determined eligible, or potentially

eligible resources within the APE.

The CRAS Report is provided for your review and comment. If you have any questions, please do

not hesitate to call me at 863.519.2495 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jonathon A. Bennett

Environmental Project Manager

Enclosures: One original copy of the CRAS (August 2017), one CRAS Technical Memo for

Proposed Pond Sites (March 2018); Twenty-one FMSF forms; Two Completed Survey Logs

CC: Jeffrey Jacquin AIM

Marion Almy, ACI





Natural Resources AppendixContents:USFWS CoordinationNMFS Essential Fish Habitat CorrespondenceSWFWMD CoordinationUSEPA CoordinationFWC Coordination



1

Bennett, Jonathon

From: Wrublik, John <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:35 AM

To: Bennett, Jonathon

Cc: Andrews, Steven; Jeffrey Jacquin; Selly, Nicole

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: 434965-1 Haborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75

Jonathon, yes, the commitment indicated would be acceptable to the Service.

John

John M. WrublikU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1339 20th StreetVero Beach, Florida 32960Office: (772) 469-4282Fax: (772) 562-4288email: [email protected]

NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be disclosed to third parties.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:52 PM Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Wrublik,

Good afternoon, as discussed, would you accept the project commitment placed into the NRE and Environmental Document to the effect of initiating consultation for the Florida Bonneted Bat and remainder species during the design phase. Due to the pending 2019 FBB survey protocol update, expiration of survey by design, and potential of duplicating efforts for surveys in PD&E and Design. A brief written response would be appreciated for our project documentation.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. Bennett


Florida Department of Transportation District One



2

801 North Broadway Avenue

Bartow, Florida 33830

Office – (863) 519-2495

[email protected]

From: Wrublik, John [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:18 PM To: Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> Cc: Jeffrey Jacquin <[email protected]>; Andrews, Steven <[email protected]>; Nicole Selly <[email protected]>; [email protected]: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: 434965-1 Haborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75

Jonathon, I just thought of something related to waiting to complete consultation for the FBB during permitting process. I was recently told by management that we are not supposed to provide concurrences for only some of the determinations for Federally listed species that made by the action agency (in this case FDOT) for a project. In other words, for this project I am supposed to wait to provide concurreces for all the other species you made "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for, until I get the results of the FBB survey and can I provide either a concurrence or a biological opinion for that species. They don't want us doing partial consulttions. So the result of this is that the concurrences for the other species, and what we decide to do for the FBB based on the results of the acoustic survey (concurrence or BO), would not be provided until the time that you provided the results of the FBB acoustic survey (i,.e during permitting).. I know that we did partial consultations in the past, but now we are told that this was not correct. Let me know if you have any questions.

John

John M. Wrublik

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1339 20th Street

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Office: (772) 469-4282



3

Fax: (772) 562-4288

email: [email protected]


On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 2:47 PM Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Wrublik,

FDOT is open to changing the effects determination for the below mentions species, in addition to our phone conversation, where we will create a project commitment to reinitiate informal consultation during design prior to permitting for the FBB. We will make an NRE addendum to address these concerns and distribute when it is completed.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. Bennett





Office – (863) 519-2495

Main – (863) 519-2300

[email protected]



4

From: Wrublik, John <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:41 AM To: Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> Subject: Haborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75

EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments.

I am reviewing your consultation request for the Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to Interstate 75 project. You have determined that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely (MANLAA) affect the following species:

American crocodile

Crested caracara

Florida scrub-jay

Federally listed sea turtles (Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Green Sea Turtle, Leatherback

Sea Turtle, and Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle).

The Service finds that these species will not be affected by the project. Therefore, I request that the FDOT change their determinations for these species from MANLAA to no effect. The reason for this request is that the Service has received a great deal of scrutiny recently for providing concurrences for MANLAA determinations when they are not warranted, and the species is not being affected by the project. If you are willing to change your determination for these species to no effect, you can do so by return email. If you have any questions regarding this request, please let me know.

Thanks

John



5

John M. Wrublik

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1339 20th Street

Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Office: (772) 469-4282

Fax: (772) 562-4288

email: [email protected]




1

Nicole Selly

From: David Rydene - NOAA Federal <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 9:34 AM


Subject: Re: 434965-1 HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75 NMFS NRE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Jonathon,

NMFS accepts the commitment proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation District 1 to conduct the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 formal consultation for smalltooth sawfish and its designated critical habitat

during the design phase of the Harborview Road project, as well as the Section 7 consultation for ESA-listed sea turtles

that might be affected.

Thank you, Dave Rydene

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:38 PM Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> wrote:

David,

As discussed on the phone, will you accept a project commitment placed into the NRE and the Environmental

Document to the effect of initiating formal consultation for the Smalltooth Sawfish during the design phase of the

project? Understanding that you would complete the NMFS consultation for the other protected species during this

time as well. A brief written response would be appreciated for our project documentation.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. Bennett





Office – (863) 519-2495

[email protected]



2

From: David Rydene - NOAA Federal [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 8:55 AM

To: Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]>

Cc: Jeffrey Jacquin <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nicole Selly

<[email protected]>; Andrews, Steven <[email protected]>


Hi Folks,

After speaking to our sawfish expert here in the St. Pete office it looks like I will have to do this consultation as a formal

(although it's a fairly minor one). This is due to the loss of shoreline mangroves in sawfish critical habitat. We base the

analysis on the loss of linear feet of shoreline mangroves, so I will need an estimate of the expected linear foot loss of

mangroves at the shoreline to move forward.

Also, I would like to get a rough estimate of the maximum number of steel sheet piles that might be installed and the

maximum number of hours of driving that might occur in a day. Finally, how long is the project expected to take?

Thanks, Dave

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:22 AM David Rydene - NOAA Federal <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jonathon,

I have looked over the responses to my questions, and while it might seem that the vibratory installation of steel sheet

piles is just as noisy as impact driving based on noise in the air, in reality the in-water noise levels from vibratory

driving are quite a bit lower than impact driving. Peak sound pressure levels from vibratory driving are about 190 dB

vs. 220 dB for impact driving, sound exposure levels (SEL) are about 175 dB for vibratory vs. 194 dB for impact, and

root mean square sound pressure levels are 175 dB for vibratory vs. 194 dB for impact driving. So, under the vibratory

installation scenario you end up with no chance of injury from peak levels or cumulative SEL exposure, and only small

behavioral disturbance zones. Under the impact installation scenario you would have a peak pressure injury zone with

a radius of 30 feet, a cumulative SEL injury zone of at least 730 feet, and a behavioral disturbance zone of 13,000 feet

for sawfish. The problem is that the project area is designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish and on top of

that is a known "hot spot" nursery area for juvenile sawfish.



3

I would suggest that I write the consultation based on vibratory installation of steel sheet piles with the caveat that if

the contractor really needs to put them in with an impact hammer that the ESA Section 7 consultation would need to

be reinitiated. Let me know if you are amenable to that approach.

Thanks, Dave

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:19 PM Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Rydene,

In response to your questions:

Comment 1: I am assuming that the areas where the culverts will be replaced will be not be accessible

to NMFS ESA species (sawfish and sea turtles) during demolition and construction work because they

will be blocked off by turbidity curtains or other barriers. Is that correct?

Response: All construction areas will be isolated from areas accessible to NMFS ESA species by

turbidity curtains and other sediment control devices. This will be necessary in order to maintain

turbidity during construction activities.

Comment 2: I am assuming that if sheet pile walls are needed, that the sheet piles will be vibrated in,

rather than impact driven (vibratory would be our strong preference due to in-water noise issues). Is

that correct?

Response: While almost all sheet pile walls are installed using vibratory methods, using vibration

still creates extensive noise and is not a significant advantage over installation using pile driving. As

an alternative, we would recommend that a condition be added that requires the construction

contractor to utilize “ramp-up” construction if either vibration or pile driving is used to install sheet

piles. In this way, initial noise levels would be minimized and would allow protected species to move

out of the area.

Comment 3: Is any loss of red mangroves anticipated? If so, how many square feet would be lost?



4

Response: There are five cross drains that are proposed to be extended as part of the

project. While the existing channels associated with many of these cross drains are steep and

vegetated with Brazilian pepper, there will be minor impacts to mangroves at two locations. The

extension of an existing 6’ x 5’ box culvert located east of Deleon Drive and an existing 10’ x 7’ box

culvert located east of Purdy Drive and associated with Peace Creek will result in approximately

1,700 square feet (0.04 acres) of mangroves impacts. These mangroves are a mix of red and black

mangroves. It should be noted that until wetland boundaries are established and surveyed, and

design plans are developed, an accurate estimate of mangrove impacts cannot be done.

Comment 4: Will water depths immediately adjacent to the culvert sites be altered or will depths stay

the same as it is now? Any deepening could be an issue because one of the sawfish critical habitat

physical and biological features is euryhaline areas with depths of -3 feet or less (i.e., shallow areas

where juveniles hang out).

Response: Upstream and downstream channel elevations will not be altered during project

construction.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. Bennett





Office – (863) 519-2495

[email protected]



5

From: David Rydene - NOAA Federal [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 11:14 AM



Hi Jonathon,

I looked over the information in your last email and I have a few more questions.

1) I am assuming that the areas where the culverts will be replaced will be not be accessible to NMFS ESA species

(sawfish and sea turtles) during demolition and construction work because they will be blocked off by turbidity

curtains or other barriers. Is that correct?

2) I am assuming that if sheet pile walls are needed, that the sheet piles will be vibrated in, rather than impact driven

(vibratory would be our strong preference due to in-water noise issues). Is that correct?

3) Is any loss of red mangroves anticipated? If so, how many square feet would be lost?

4) Will water depths immediately adjacent to the culvert sites be altered or will depths stay the same as it is

now? Any deepening could be an issue because one of the sawfish critical habitat physical and biological features is

euryhaline areas with depths of -3 feet or less (i.e., shallow areas where juveniles hang out).

Thanks, Dave

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:25 AM Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Rydene,

Good morning, as requested:

Anticipated Culvert Construction Methods

One of two alternative methods will likely be used in the construction of culverts.



6

• If the culverts are cast in place, heavy machinery such as excavators, backhoes, and small cranes will be

used to excavate the construction area. Once form have been constructed, cement trucks will be used to fill

the forms. Heavy machinery will then be used to fill in around the cast in place culvert.

• If precast culvert segments are used, heavy machinery such as excavators, backhoes and small cranes will be

used to excavate the construction area. Precast culvert segments will then be lifted into place using larger

cranes. Heavy machinery will then be used to fill in around the precast culvert.

Demolition of existing culverts can be done using a variety of methods, including sawcuts, jack hammers, and other

similar equipment.

Depending on water conditions, demolition and construction activities may also require the use of sheet pile walls

and the pumping of water around the work site.

Anticipated Mitigative Techniques During Construction

To minimize potential impacts to federal listed species, the following conditions will be implemented during the

removal of existing and construction of new box culverts:

• No blasting will occur as part of project construction.

• Sediment and erosion control screens and curtains will be placed in a manner that will avoid and minimize

potential entrapment by wildlife.

• If sawcuts or jack hammers are used in the removal of the existing box culverts, a ramp-up noise method

will be implemented during construction. This will include short low intensity noise and vibration during

initial removal, building to higher intensity noise and vibration.

• The contractor will be limited to daylight hours for all in-water work associated with the removal of existing

and the construction of new box culverts.

• The contractor will be required to implement the latest Standard Manatee Conditions for In-water Work.

• The contractor will be required to implement the latest Sea Turtle & Smalltooth Sawfish Construction

Conditions.

Please let me know if you have any additional comments or questions, we appreciate your review.

Thank you,



7

Jonathon A. Bennett





Office – (863) 519-2495

Main – (863) 519-2300

[email protected]

From: David Rydene - NOAA Federal <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:33 AM




Hi Jonathon,

I have reviewed the Natural Resource Evaluation that is part of the Project Development and Environment Study for

the proposed widening of Harborview Rd (CR 776) from Melbourne Street to west of I-75 in Charlotte County,

Florida (Financial Management Number 434965-1-22-01; ETDM 5351). The analyses of wetland impacts appears to

be accurate, and with appropriate compensatory mitigation, impacts to essential fish habitat (particularly

mangroves) can be offset.

To conduct an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation (for smalltooth sawfish and sea turtles) I will need

additional information regarding how construction activities will accomplished at any portions of the project

crossing tidally-influenced waterways (i.e., creeks connecting to the estuarine parts of the Peace River and Charlotte

Harbor). I am assuming that these activities will only involve culvert replacements/extensions, and that no pile

driving will be required. Can you please provide a general description of the project's anticipated demolition and

construction activities, especially those referenced above.



8

Thanks, Dave

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Rydene,

Please find a Transmittal Letter and Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) attached for Harborview Road from

Melbourne Road to Interstate 75 PD&E attached. The Florida Department of Transportation appreciates your

involvement with this project and respectfully requests your review comments or written concurrence with the

findings and effect determinations presented in the NRE within 30 days. If you have any questions or require any

additional information, please contact me.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. Bennett





Office – (863) 519-2495

Main – (863) 519-2300

[email protected]



9

--

David Rydene, Ph.D.

Fish Biologist

National Marine Fisheries Service

Habitat Conservation Division

263 13th Avenue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Office (727) 824-5379

Cell (813) 992-5730

Fax (727) 824-5300

--

David Rydene, Ph.D.

Fish Biologist





Office (727) 824-5379

Cell (813) 992-5730

Fax (727) 824-5300

--

David Rydene, Ph.D.

Fish Biologist





Office (727) 824-5379

Cell (813) 992-5730

Fax (727) 824-5300

--



10

David Rydene, Ph.D.

Fish Biologist





Office (727) 824-5379

Cell (813) 992-5730

Fax (727) 824-5300

--

David Rydene, Ph.D.

Fish Biologist





Office (727) 824-5379

Cell (813) 992-5730

Fax (727) 824-5300



1

Bennett, Jonathon

From: Monte Ritter <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:02 AM


Cc: Andrews, Steven; Jeffrey Jacquin; Chaz LaRiche

Subject: RE: 434965-1 HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75 SWFWMD NRE


Mr. Bennett,

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has reviewed the Natural Resources Evaluation (NRE) for the referenced project and offer the following comments:

1) The information contained within the ETDM# 5351 report is still consistent with the current status of the roadway widening project. There are no additional wetland mitigation banks available within this watershed other than what is reported within ETDM# 5351.

2) The documentation within this NRE addresses the reduction and elimination of wetland impacts and should be included with the permit application since that is a requirement for permit issuance.

3) The NRE includes completed UMAMS Part 1 and 2 for the proposed wetland impacts which will need to be field verified with the permit application reviewer during the permitting process. This response to the NRE does not constitute an agreement with the proposed scores.

4) The UMAMs included with the NRE addresses functional loss associated with impacts to roadside ditches, which may not need to be assessed for functional loss unless the ditch is providing habitat for threatened or endangered species. Please note that impacts to creeks and tributaries will need to assessed for the functional loss as they are natural systems.

5) Wetland lines will need to be field verified as either part of the permit application process or through a formal wetland delineation prior to the submittal of the permit application for the roadway widening.

6) Please include the SSL title determination worksheets with the permit application to save District staff time during the permitting process.

Feel free to contact me, or Chaz LaRiche at the above email address, if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Monte G. Ritter, P.E. Chief Professional Engineer Environmental Resource Permit Bureau Regulation Division Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34604 352-796-7211 x 4351



2

800-423-1476 x 4351 (Florida only) [email protected]

From: Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 10:20 AM To: Monte Ritter <[email protected]> Cc: Andrews, Steven <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Jacquin <[email protected]> Subject: 434965-1 HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75 SWFWMD NRE

Mr. Ritter,

Please find a Transmittal Letter and Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) attached for Harborview Road from Melbourne Road to Interstate 75 PD&E attached. The Florida Department of Transportation appreciates your involvement with this project and respectfully requests your review comments or written concurrence with the findings and effect determinations presented in the NRE within 30 days. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. Bennett Environmental Project Manager Florida Department of Transportation District One 801 North Broadway Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Office – (863) 519-2495 Main – (863) 519-2300 [email protected]



1

Bennett, Jonathon

From: White, Roshanna <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, March 4, 2019 7:07 AM


Cc: Andrews, Steven; Jeffrey Jacquin; Militscher, Chris; Buskey, Traci P.

Subject: Re: 434965-1 HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75 USEPA NRE

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed


Dear Mr. Bennett,

The EPA reviewed the Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) for the widening of Harborview Road (CR-776) from Melbourne Street to west of I-75 in Charlotte County. We did not identify any significant environmental impacts from the proposed project. As a general recommendation, we request that FDOT consult with the USFWS/NMFS in regard to FDOT’s concern for loss of nesting habitat for endangered Leatherback and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtles to determine the impact of that lost on these species. It is stated in the NRE that FDOT determined the proposed project “may effect, but is not likely to adversely effect” because none of these species were observed during field reviews and FDOT will implement NOAA approved: Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction conditions (revised 2006) to minimize potential adverse impacts during construction. However, the aforementioned document does not incorporate mitigation or compensation for the loss of habitat for these endangered species.

The EPA requests future project revisions or updates of environmental documents for the proposed project. If you questions in regards to this comment, please contact me at the information below.

Sincerely,

Roshanna White │Life Scientist │NEPA Program OfficeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency│Region IV61 Forsyth Street SW │Atlanta, GA 30303Voice: 404-562-9035 │Email: [email protected]

From: Bennett, Jonathon <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:18:51 AM To: White, Roshanna Cc: Andrews, Steven; Jeffrey Jacquin Subject: 434965-1 HARBORVIEW ROAD FROM MELBOURNE RD TO I-75 USEPA NRE

Ms. White,



2

Please find a Transmittal Letter and Natural Resource Evaluation (NRE) attached for Harborview Road from Melbourne Road to Interstate 75, Categorical Exclusion Type II PD&E attached. The Florida Department of Transportation appreciates your involvement with this project and respectfully requests your review comments or written concurrence with the findings and effect determinations presented in the NRE within 30 days. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me.

Thank you,

Jonathon A. BennettEnvironmental Project ManagerFlorida Department of Transportation District One801 North Broadway AvenueBartow, Florida 33830Office – (863) 519-2495Main – (863) [email protected]



Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Commissioners

Robert A. Spottswood

Chairman

Key West

Michael W. Sole

Vice Chairman

Tequesta

Joshua Kellam

Palm Beach Gardens

Gary Lester

Oxford

Gary Nicklaus

Jupiter

Sonya Rood

St. Augustine

Office of the

Executive Director

Eric Sutton

Executive Director Thomas H. Eason, Ph.D.

Assistant Executive Director Jennifer Fitzwater

Chief of Staff

850-487-3796

850-921-5786 FAX

Managing fish and wildlife

resources for their long-term

well-being and the benefit

of people.

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida

32399-1600

Voice: 850-488-4676

Hearing/speech-impaired:

800-955-8771 (T)

800 955-8770 (V)

MyFWC.com

March 6, 2019

Jonathon A. Bennett


Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 1

801 N. Broadway Avenue

Bartow, FL 33830

[email protected]

Re: Harborview Road from Melbourne Road to I-75, Charlotte County, Natural Resources

Evaluation Report

Dear Mr. Bennett:

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has reviewed the Natural

Resources Evaluation Report (NRE) for the above-referenced project. The NRE was prepared as

part of the Project Development and Environment Study for the proposed project. In June 2017

we reviewed this project via the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process as

ETDM 5351, and our comments are included in the ETDM Environmental Screening Tool. We

provide the following comments and recommendations for your consideration in accordance with

Chapter 379, Florida Statutes and Rule 68A-27, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).

Project Description

The project involves the widening of Harborview Road (CR 776) from two lanes to four lanes

from Melbourne Road to west of I-75, a distance of approximately 2.3 miles, and including paved

shoulders, bike lanes, sidewalks, and tidal creek bridge improvements. After assessment of three

alternative alignments, the North Alignment, South Alignment, and Optimized Alignment, the

Optimized Alignment was selected as the preferred alternative. Although much of the project is

bordered by low and medium density residential development, a significant area of natural upland

and wetland habitat is found along the east end of the project site. Nearly all the project corridor

is within one-half mile of Charlotte Harbor near the mouth of the Peace River.

Potentially Affected Resources

The NRE evaluated potential project impacts to 29 wildlife species classified under the

Endangered Species Act as Federally Endangered (FE) or Threatened (FT), or by the State of

Florida as Threatened (ST). Listed species were evaluated based on range and potential

appropriate habitat or because the project is within a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Consultation Area. Included were: Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, FT), smalltooth

sawfish (Pristis pectinata, FE), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea, FE), loggerhead

sea turtle (Caretta caretta, FT), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas, FT), Kemp's ridley sea turtle

(Lepidochelys kempii, FE), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi, FT), American

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus, FT), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis, FT based on

similarity of appearance to American crocodile), Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus

audubonii, FT), Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus, FE), Florida scrub-jay

(Aphelocoma coerulescens, FT), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis, FE), wood stork

(Mycteria americana, FT), piping plover (Charadrius melodus, FT), Florida bonneted bat

(Eumops floridanus, FE), Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus, FT), gopher tortoise (Gopherus

polyphemus, ST), Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus, ST), American

oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus, ST), black skimmer (Rynchops niger, ST), least tern

(Sternula antillarum, ST), Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana, ST),



Jonathon Bennett

Page 2

March 6, 2019

southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus, ST), Florida sandhill crane (Antigone

canadensis pratensis, ST), snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus, ST), little blue heron (Egretta

caerulea, ST), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor, ST), and roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja, ST).

Also evaluated were: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which was delisted by state and

federal agencies, but remains protected under state rule in Section 68A-16.002, F.A.C., and by the

federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d); the osprey (Pandion

haliaetus), which is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); the

Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), which is protected in Section 68A-4.009,

F.A.C.; and the southern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger niger), reclassified from Sherman’s fox

squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani), and removed from Florida’s threatened species list.

Comments and Recommendations

Due to the lack of both appropriate habitat and observation during on-site surveys, project

biologists made a finding of “no effect” for the Gulf sturgeon and Everglade snail kite, and “no

effect anticipated” for the Florida burrowing owl. For the other federally listed species, the

biologist’s findings were “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect”. The other state-listed

species were given a “no adverse effect anticipated” determination. With adherence to the project

commitments, we agree with these determinations.

We support the project commitments for protected species, which include the following.

1. The FDOT will perform updated wildlife surveys for the species discussed in the NRE

and other wildlife species during the project design phase to ascertain the involvement, if

any, of listed or protected species.

2. The FDOT will coordinate further with the FWC during the project design phase for

impacts associated with state-listed wildlife species.

3. Impacts to suitable foraging habitat for the federally-protected wood stork will be

mitigated through the purchase of credits from a USFWS-approved mitigation bank

pursuant to Section 373.4137, F.S., or as otherwise agreed to by the FDOT and the

appropriate regulatory agencies.

4. The Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake will be followed during

construction.

5. The National Marine Fisheries Service Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction

Conditions will be implemented to assure that sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish will not

be adversely impacted by the project.

6. The most current version of the FWC Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work

will be implemented to assure that manatees will not be adversely impacted by the

project. Further coordination with FWC may be necessary to determine specific manatee

protection measures for this project. For technical assistance and coordination on

manatees and sea turtles, please contact the FWC Imperiled Species Management Section

in Tallahassee at [email protected] or (850) 922-4330.

7. For gopher tortoise burrows that cannot be avoided, the tortoises will be relocated per

current FWC guidelines. For gopher tortoise survey methodology and permitting

guidance, we recommend that FDOT refer to the FWC's Gopher Tortoise Permitting

Guidelines (Revised January 2017) at (http://www.myfwc.com/license/wildlife/gopher-

tortoise-permits/).

8. The FDOT will resurvey the project limits for the presence of bald eagle nests prior to

construction commencement. If a bald eagle nest is identified within the 660-foot

construction buffer zone of the project area, the FDOT will coordinate with the USFWS

(as applicable) to secure all necessary approvals regarding this species prior to project

construction.



Jonathon Bennett

Page 3

March 6, 2019

9. The FDOT will resurvey the project limits for the presence of active osprey nests prior to

construction commencement. If an active osprey nest is identified within the project

area, the FDOT will coordinate with the FWC (as applicable) to secure all necessary

approvals regarding this species prior to project construction.

10. Wetland impacts resulting from construction of this project will be mitigated pursuant to

Section 373.4137, F.S., to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV of Chapter 373,

F.S., and 33 U.S.C. §1344. Compensatory mitigation for this project will be completed

using mitigation banks and any other mitigation options that satisfy state and federal

requirements.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the NRE for the Harborview Road from Melbourne

Road to I-75 project in Charlotte County. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to

contact our office at [email protected]. If you have specific

technical questions regarding the content of this letter, contact Brian Barnett at (772) 579-9746 or

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Fritz Wettstein

Land Use Planning Program Administrator

Office of Conservation Planning Services

FW/bb

ENV 1-13-2

Harborview Rd from Melbourne Rd to I-75 NRE_38143_03062019



Public Involvement AppendixContents:Public Hearing TranscriptPublic Hearing Certification Documentation



· · · · ·IN RE:· HARBORVIEW ROAD PD&E STUDY

· · · · · ·FROM MELBOURNE STREET TO I-75

· · · · · · · · ·CHARLOTTE COUNTY

· · · · · · · · · PUBLIC MEETING

__________________________________________________________

· · · · · DATE TAKEN:· · ·March 14, 2019

· · · · · TIME TAKEN:· · ·5:00 p.m. - 5:56 p.m.

· · · · · PLACE TAKEN:· · 25550 Harborview Road· · · · · · · · · · · · · Port Charlotte, Florida

· · · · · REPORTER:· · · ·Maryanne Wagner, RPR, FPR· · · · · · · · · · · · · Court Reporter

· · · · · MODERATOR:· · · Steven A. Andrews· · · · · · · · · · · · · Project Manager· · · · · · · · · · · · · FDOT

_________________________________________________________

· · · · · · ·FIRST CHOICE REPORTING & VIDEO SERVICE

· · · · · · · · · · · ·407.830.9044· · · · · · · · · · FAX:· 407.767.8166



·1· · · · · ·(Whereupon, the following statement was put on

·2· the record before the presentation by FDOT.)

·3· · · · · ·DR. SWING:· We get heavy rains, all the rains in

·4· · · the neighborhood, puddles in my front yard.· My

·5· · · question, if you put this road in, are we going to get

·6· · · worse flooding in my front yard?

·7· · · · · ·That's it.

·8· · · · · ·Why do you need a 30-foot grassy strip to make

·9· · · this road wider?· I don't know any place in Port

10· · · Charlotte that has a 30-foot grassy strip on four lane

11· · · roads.· So why does this have to be the only road in

12· · · Port Charlotte to have a 30-foot grassy strip?· My

13· · · guess is so Sunseeker can make more money, it makes

14· · · them more attractive approach to the Sunseeker Resort

15· · · plan.

16· · · · · ·MR. WESER:· (Via Written Questions)

17· · · · · ·Will the project be done through a general

18· · · contractor, or construction management?

19· · · · · ·How much will be done in-house?

20· · · · · ·Will bonds be required of contractors and

21· · · subcontractors?

22· · · · · ·Is there any provision requiring the use of local

23· · · subcontractors?

24· · · · · ·Will design, ROW acquisition and wetland

25· · · mitigation proceed without construction funding



·1· ·approval?

·2· · · · How does the per mile cost compare to other

·3· ·projects?

·4· · · · (End of comments on record before meeting.)

·5· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Good evening.

·6· · · · The Florida Department of Transportation would

·7· ·like to welcome you to the public hearing for the

·8· ·project development and environment, or PD&E study for

·9· ·Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75 in

10· ·Charlotte County.

11· · · · I am Steven Andrews.· I am the District One

12· ·project manager for the Florida Department of

13· ·Transportation or FDOT.· Here with me tonight are

14· ·representatives from FDOT, and members of the

15· ·consulting project team.

16· · · · At this time we would like to recognize any

17· ·Federal, State, County, or City officials who may be

18· ·present tonight.· Are there any officials that would

19· ·like to be recognized?

20· · · · Okay.

21· · · · The purpose of the public hearing is to share

22· ·information with the general public about the proposed

23· ·improvement, its conceptual design, and potential

24· ·beneficial and adverse social, economic and

25· ·environmental impacts upon the community.· The public



·1· ·hearing also serves as an official forum providing an

·2· ·opportunity for members of the public to express their

·3· ·opinions regarding the project.· Public participation

·4· ·at that hearing is encouraged and solicited without

·5· ·regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex,

·6· ·religion, disability or family status.

·7· · · · There are three primary components to tonight's

·8· ·hearing.· First, the open house where you are invited

·9· ·to view the project displays, to speak directly with

10· ·the project team and provide your comments in writing

11· ·or to the Court Reporter.

12· · · · Second, the video presentation will explain the

13· ·project purpose and need, study alternatives,

14· ·potential impacts, both beneficial and adverse, and

15· ·proposed methods to mitigate adverse project impacts.

16· · · · Third, a formal comment period following the

17· ·preparation, where you will have the opportunity to

18· ·provide oral statements at the microphone or provide

19· ·your comments to directly to the Court Reporter, or in

20· ·writing.

21· · · · Now I will read the following information for the

22· ·record.

23· · · · This public hearing is being conducted by the

24· ·Florida Department of Transportation.· It is being

25· ·held at the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO on



·1· ·Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., regarding the

·2· ·following project.

·3· · · · Financial Project I.D. number 434965-1-22-01.

·4· · · · This project is described as the evaluation of

·5· ·roadway improvements along Harborview Road from

·6· ·Melbourne Street to I-75 in Charlotte County.

·7· · · · We are here tonight to present to you and explain

·8· ·the engineering and environmental studies conducted to

·9· ·date.· Also, we are here to give you an opportunity to

10· ·publicly and officially comment on the project.

11· · · · We bring proposed improvements to a public

12· ·hearing so we can hear your views and comments.· We

13· ·want to hear from people with local knowledge, and we

14· ·want to hear what you like and what you don't like

15· ·about the proposed improvements.

16· · · · It is important that interested people like you

17· ·have an opportunity to become fully aware of this

18· ·project.· It is important that you express your views

19· ·at this stage of the project, when the flexibility

20· ·still exists to incorporate those views into the study

21· ·documents.· Final decisions are made using these

22· ·documents.

23· · · · When you arrived this evening you were offered a

24· ·handout containing information about the proposed

25· ·project and a comment sheet.· If you did not receive



·1· ·them, please pick up copies at the registration table

·2· ·where you signed in.

·3· · · · If you choose not to speak this evening, but you

·4· ·would like to make comments for the record, you can

·5· ·complete the comment sheet tonight and drop it into

·6· ·the comment box.· Also, the public hearing comment

·7· ·period will remain open until March 25, 2019.· Anyone

·8· ·wishing to make comments, which will become a part of

·9· ·the official transcript of the hearing, has until this

10· ·date to write the Department.· Those comments will be

11· ·the same as if you gave your comments at the

12· ·microphone this evening.· You may also send your

13· ·comments by e-mail to the address listed on the poster

14· ·board or submit a comment using project website listed

15· ·on your handout.

16· · · · After tonight's hearing, the Department will

17· ·compile your comments, and together with the

18· ·engineering and environmental work that has been done,

19· ·make a final recommendation that we will submit to the

20· ·FDOT Office of Environmental Management for approval.

21· ·We will publish the approval of the preferred

22· ·alternative in the Charlotte Sun Newspaper in

23· ·Charlotte County, and post it the on the project

24· ·website.

25· · · · We would now begin the video presentation.



·1· · · · (Video played.)

·2· · · · "Welcome to the Florida Department of

·3· ·Transportation's public hearing for the Harborview

·4· ·Road Project Development and Environment, or PD&E

·5· ·study.· We appreciate your attendance and

·6· ·participation.· At tonight's hearing, you will have

·7· ·the opportunity to ask questions and offer comments

·8· ·about the proposed improvements to Harborview Road,

·9· ·also called County Road 776 from Melbourne Street to

10· ·Interstate 75 in Charlotte County.

11· · · · The environmental review, consultation, and other

12· ·actions required by applicable federal environmental

13· ·laws for this project are being, or have been, carried

14· ·out by the Florida Department of Transportation, of

15· ·FDOT, pursuant to 23 United States Code, Section 327

16· ·and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 14,

17· ·2016 and executed by the Federal Highway

18· ·Administration and FDOT.

19· · · · The objectives of the PD&E study are to evaluate

20· ·and document engineering and environmental

21· ·considerations that will aid Charlotte County, FDOT

22· ·District One, and the FDOT Office of Environmental

23· ·Management, or OEM, in determining the type and

24· ·location of necessary improvements to Harborview Road.

25· ·This PD&E study is being conducted and will be



·1· ·completed according to requirements of the National

·2· ·Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which will qualify

·3· ·future phases of this project for federal funding.

·4· · · · The study begins at Melbourne Street and extends

·5· ·2.3 miles to Interstate 75.· The Department proposes

·6· ·to widen this segment of Harborview Road from two

·7· ·lanes to four lanes to correct substandard design

·8· ·elements of the existing roadway and to accommodate

·9· ·increased traffic demand, including truck traffic,

10· ·generated by projected growth in Charlotte County.

11· ·FDOT anticipates this project will also enhance safety

12· ·along the project corridor; improve emergency

13· ·evacuation; and improve connectivity between U.S. 41

14· ·and Interstate 75.· The Charlotte County-Punta Gorda

15· ·Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) identifies

16· ·this project in their 2040 Long Range Transportation

17· ·Plan Cost Feasible Plan.· Traffic volumes within the

18· ·project limits are projected to increase from the

19· ·current volume of 7,800 to 8,500 vehicles a day within

20· ·the corridor to 19,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day by

21· ·the 2045.

22· · · · Within the project limits, Harborview Road is a

23· ·two-lane roadway with an open drainage system.· The

24· ·current posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.· The

25· ·existing right-of-way is approximately 80 feet wide



·1· ·throughout the project corridor.· This section is the

·2· ·only portion of Harborview Road between U.S. 41 and

·3· ·Interstate 75 that is a two-lane roadway.· There are

·4· ·no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities located

·5· ·within the project limits except for the approach to

·6· ·the Melbourne Street intersection.· The project limits

·7· ·to Harborview Road currently connects to a five-lane

·8· ·urban roadway to the west and a four-lane divided

·9· ·roadway to the east.

10· · · · We ask for your input on proposed improvements to

11· ·Harborview Road at a public workshop on March 29,

12· ·2018.· Based on your comments and additional

13· ·environmental and engineering analyses, a preferred

14· ·build alternative was selected.

15· · · · The Preferred Alternative for Harborview Road

16· ·results in the development of a four-lane divided

17· ·roadway with 11-foot travel lanes, curb and gutter

18· ·along inside and outside edges of pavement, and a

19· ·30-foot grassed median.· Six-foot sidewalks and

20· ·seven-foot buffered bicycle lanes will accommodate

21· ·pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the corridor.

22· ·The proposed improvements require 34 feet of proposed

23· ·right-of-way, to be combined with the existing

24· ·right-of-way for a total width of 114 feet.· The

25· ·widening alignment shifts either north or south of the



·1· ·existing roadway to minimize impacts to the

·2· ·surrounding residences.· Roundabouts are proposed at

·3· ·the Melbourne Street intersection and the Charlotte

·4· ·County Environmental Campus entrance.

·5· · · · Throughout this study, a "no-build" alternative

·6· ·is also considered and will remain a viable

·7· ·alternative until the completion of the study.· The

·8· ·"no-build" alternative assumes that no improvements

·9· ·will be made to Harborview Road beyond the year 2045

10· ·except routine maintenance.

11· · · · Advantages of the no-build alternative include:

12· ·No inconvenience to traffic flow due to construction.

13· ·No right-of-way acquisition, design or construction

14· ·cost; and no direct effects to adjacent natural and

15· ·human environments.

16· · · · Disadvantages of the no-build alternative

17· ·include:· Lack of bicycle or pedestrian facilities;

18· ·increases in traffic congestion and road user delay;

19· ·it is not consistent with the local transportation

20· ·plans; and it does not meet the project's purpose and

21· ·need.

22· · · · The no-build alternative remains a valid option

23· ·and will continue to be evaluated until completion of

24· ·this study.

25· · · · FDOT evaluated environmental and socioeconomic



·1· ·factors relating to the proposed widening improvements

·2· ·in accordance with the National Environmental Policy

·3· ·Act of 1969, as amended, and other federal

·4· ·requirements.· The evaluation considered the effects

·5· ·of widening Harborview Road on:· Threatened and

·6· ·endangered species.· Wetlands and floodplains.

·7· ·Stormwater management and permitting.· Noise.

·8· ·Right-of-way requirements and relocations.

·9· ·Contamination.· Cultural and historic resources.· Land

10· ·use.· Air quality.· Construction effects, and

11· ·aesthetics.

12· · · · Threatened and endangered species are allowed

13· ·special protection under the Endangered Species Act of

14· ·1973, as amended, and Florida Statutes.· FDOT assessed

15· ·species within the project limits, and through ongoing

16· ·coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

17· ·the National Marine Fisheries Service, it is

18· ·anticipated that the proposed project "may affect, but

19· ·is not likely to adversely affect" the existence of

20· ·certain federally listed threatened or endangered

21· ·species.

22· · · · The animal species include the American

23· ·Alligator.· Eastern Indigo Snake.· Everglades Snail

24· ·Kite.· Smalltooth Sawfish.· Wood Stork.· Piping

25· ·Plover.· Florida bonneted bat, and the West Indian



·1· ·Manatee.

·2· · · · In addition, "no adverse effect anticipated" has

·3· ·been determined for the following State listed

·4· ·threatened or endangered species; the Golden Leather

·5· ·Fern.· Gopher Tortoise.· Pine Snake.· American

·6· ·Oystercatcher.· Black Skimmer.· Tricolored Heron.

·7· ·Least Tern.· Little Blue Heron.· Roseate Spoonbill.

·8· ·Snowy Plover.· Southeastern American Kestrel, and the

·9· ·Florida Sandhill Crane.

10· · · · Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

11· ·Service regarding the final status of these species is

12· ·ongoing.· If the Preferred Alternative is approved by

13· ·OEM, FDOT District One will continue to work closely

14· ·with environmental agencies in the future phases, such

15· ·as design and construction, to meet all environmental

16· ·permitting requirements.

17· · · · A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey, or CRAS,

18· ·was prepared in accordance with Section 106 of the

19· ·National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as

20· ·amended.· Research and field testing have indicated

21· ·that the proposed improvement will have no effect on

22· ·the surrounding historic resources.· Historic resource

23· ·coordination was conducted with the State Historic

24· ·Preservation Officer, and concurrence with the project

25· ·findings was granted on December 19, 2018.



·1· · · · FDOT evaluated wetlands and floodplains within

·2· ·the project limits in accordance with Executive Orders

·3· ·'11990, "Protection of Wetlands," and 11988.

·4· ·"Floodplain management."· The proposed improvements

·5· ·may impact an estimated 0.8 acres of wetlands and 2.7

·6· ·acres of surface waters.· Floodplain compensation is

·7· ·not required because project area is tidally

·8· ·influenced and the Preferred Alternative does not

·9· ·encroach into a regulatory floodway.· The project

10· ·study area is located within the service areas of

11· ·Little Pine Island Mitigation Bank and the Department

12· ·will mitigate wetland impacts resulting from this

13· ·project's construction to meet requirements of Florida

14· ·Statutes and United States code.

15· · · · Widening Harborview Road will require FDOT to

16· ·acquire right-of-way and may result in the

17· ·displacement of three residences.· To minimize

18· ·unavoidable effects of right-of-way acquisition and

19· ·displacement of people, FDOT will carry out a

20· ·right-of-way relocation program in accordance with

21· ·Florida Statute Section 339.09, and the "Uniform

22· ·Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition

23· ·Act of 1970."· Brochures are available which describe

24· ·the Department's right-of-way and relocation

25· ·assistance program in detail and provide the



·1· ·right-of-way office address and phone number.· Staff

·2· ·are available this evening to assist and discuss the

·3· ·program.

·4· · · · FDOT conducted a traffic noise analysis

·5· ·consistent with requirements outlined in Title 23 Code

·6· ·of Federal Regulations part 772, Procedures for

·7· ·Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction

·8· ·Noise.· The prediction of traffic noise levels was

·9· ·performed using Federal Highway Administration's

10· ·Traffic Noise Model (TNM).· For the Preferred

11· ·Alternative 38 residents are predicted to experience

12· ·future noise level approach, meet or exceed the Noise

13· ·Abatement Criteria.

14· · · · A review will be performed during the future

15· ·project design phase to identify potential noise

16· ·sensitive sites that may have received a building

17· ·permit subsequent to the noise study but prior to

18· ·project's Date of Public Knowledge.

19· · · · Results of the environmental contamination

20· ·screening showed that five sites along the corridor

21· ·were evaluated and found to have no potential

22· ·contamination risk to the study.· Additional testing

23· ·is not recommended, and the Preferred Alternative will

24· ·result in no significant contamination impacts.

25· · · · This project is not expected to change future



·1· ·land use patterns on Harborview Road, nor result in

·2· ·adverse impacts to water quality and air quality.

·3· ·Minimal construction effects are expected.

·4· · · · Environmental and socioeconomic effects

·5· ·associated with the proposed widening of Harborview

·6· ·Road have been summarized in an evaluation matrix,

·7· ·which is on display tonight.· Department

·8· ·representatives are available this evening to discuss

·9· ·this with you.

10· · · · The estimated costs to widen Harborview Road from

11· ·Melbourne Street to Interstate 75 include 4 million

12· ·dollars for final design.· $269,000 for mitigation,

13· ·and 8.5 million dollars for right-of-way acquisition

14· ·for roadway widening and stormwater management areas.

15· ·The total estimated construction cost for the project

16· ·is 29 million dollars.· The cost for construction

17· ·engineering and inspection is estimated at 4.4 million

18· ·dollars.· The Department's preliminary estimate of

19· ·total project cost is 46.2 million dollars.

20· · · · At this time, FDOT's Tentative Five-Year Work

21· ·Program includes funding for the design phase of the

22· ·Harborview Road from Melbourne to Interstate 75

23· ·Project in fiscal year 2020, and the right-of-way

24· ·phase in fiscal year 2023.· Construction is not

25· ·currently funded.



·1· · · · The Department will complete the Harborview Road

·2· ·PD&E study by summer of 2019.· The study schedule is

·3· ·on display this evening.

·4· · · · We encourage you to review the project

·5· ·information tonight, complete the comment form in your

·6· ·handout and drop it in one of the boxes provided, or

·7· ·if you prefer, you may mail or e-mail your comments

·8· ·postmarked by March 25, 2019, to the address on the

·9· ·comment form.

10· · · · This information also available for review at two

11· ·locations.· One of them is the Port Charlotte Public

12· ·Library, 2280 Aaron Street, Port Charlotte, Florida

13· ·33952.· Please call the library for hours of operation

14· ·at (941) 764-5562.· The other location is the FDOT

15· ·District One Headquarters, 801 North Broadway Avenue,

16· ·Bartow, Florida 33830.· Please contact FDOT project

17· ·manager Steven A. Andrews, by phone at (863) 519-2270

18· ·or by e-mail at [email protected] to make

19· ·an appointment to review the materials.· You may also

20· ·visit the project website at

21· ·www.swflroads.com/harborview/melbournesttoi75 for the

22· ·latest study information.

23· · · · The Harborview Road study team is here tonight to

24· ·answer your questions and listen to your comments.· We

25· ·invite you to speak with them and to review the aerial



·1· ·maps, plans and illustrations on display.

·2· · · · This public hearing is conducted in accordance

·3· ·with Federal Highway Act of 1968, as amended; Chapter

·4· ·23, United States Code 128; Title 40, Code of Federal

·5· ·Regulations, Part 1500 through 1508; Title 23, Code of

·6· ·Federal Regulations, Part 771; Section 339.155,

·7· ·Florida Statutes; and the National Environmental

·8· ·Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

·9· · · · FDOT advertised this hearing consistent with

10· ·federal and state requirements.· This hearing is

11· ·conducted in accordance with the Americans with

12· ·Disabilities Act of 1990, and with Title VI of the

13· ·Civil Rights Act of 1964, Florida Statutes, Section

14· ·120.525; and Section 286.011; and Section 335.199; and

15· ·Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24 and

16· ·Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1506.

17· · · · Anyone who feels he or she has been discriminated

18· ·against with regard to race, color, national origin,

19· ·age, sex, religion, disability, or family status may

20· ·complete one of the forms located at the sign-in table

21· ·and mail the completed form to the address listed on

22· ·the poster board.

23· · · · Thank you for your interest and participation in

24· ·the Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to

25· ·Interstate 75 Project Development and Environment



·1· ·study public hearing and for taking the time to join

·2· ·us this evening."

·3· · · · (Video concluded.)

·4· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· We will now have an intermission so

·5· ·you can review the displays, talk with members of the

·6· ·Department or design team and ask any questions that

·7· ·you may have.· We welcome your oral or written

·8· ·comments that will help us make this important

·9· ·decision.· Our personnel will distribute speaker cards

10· ·to those in the audience who have not received one and

11· ·would like to make a statement.· A Court Reporter will

12· ·record your statement and a verbatim transcript will

13· ·be made of all oral proceedings at this hearing.· If

14· ·you do not wish to speak at the microphone, you may

15· ·provide your comments in writing or directly to the

16· ·Court Reporter at the comment table.· Every comment

17· ·method carries equal weight.

18· · · · Written comment received or postmarked no later

19· ·than 10 days following the date of this public hearing

20· ·will be become a part of the public record for this

21· ·hearing.· All written comments should be mailed to the

22· ·address shown in your handout.

23· · · · Anyone desiring to make a statement or present

24· ·written views regarding the location, conceptual

25· ·design, or social, economic, and environmental effects



·1· ·of the improvements will have an opportunity to do so

·2· ·after the intermission.· If you are holding a

·3· ·speaker's card, please give it to Maggie Bruno during

·4· ·the intermission.· If you have not received a

·5· ·speaker's card and wish to speak, please raise your

·6· ·hand so you can receive a card to fill out.

·7· · · · The time is 5:23.· We will resume in 15 minutes.

·8· · · · (Whereupon, an intermission break was taken.)

·9· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· We are about to start.

10· · · · Ladies and Gentlemen, we will now begin the

11· ·public testimony portion of the hearing.· Those who

12· ·have turned in speaker's cards, when I call your name,

13· ·please come forward to the microphone so the Court

14· ·Reporter will be able to get a complete record of your

15· ·comments.· Please state your name, address and if you

16· ·represent an organization, municipality, or public

17· ·body, please provide that information as well.· We ask

18· ·that you limit your input to two minutes.· Maggie

19· ·Bruno here will raise her hand to let you know your

20· ·time is up.

21· · · · So when you come forward, go to Brandon over

22· ·there.· That's where you will speak.

23· · · · Okay.· The first speaker is Mark Bowsher.

24· · · · MR. BOWSHER: Thank you.

25· · · · First of all, I'd like to thank our County



·1· ·Commissioners who don't give two cents about us,

·2· ·couldn't even come tonight.

·3· · · · Second of all, I am just shocked about this whole

·4· ·30-foot median crap and all this stuff.· It is

·5· ·ridiculous.· I measured Edgewater, there is 12 foot,

·6· ·16 foot, there is four feet medians.· 41 north brand

·7· ·new between us and North Port, 16 foot median.· Come

·8· ·on guys, save some money here.· Taylor Road, they just

·9· ·approved a mixed use bike path with pedestrian

10· ·sidewalk, 10 feet wide on one side of the road.· Just

11· ·like Collingswood, just like Loveland.· You guys don't

12· ·even have to take our land if you'd roll back a little

13· ·bit and stay in some guidelines.· There is a shift at

14· ·Oakview that goes over to the waterside of the road.

15· ·It's going to take out five septics, two garages and

16· ·over 300 feet of privacy wall.· That's going to cost

17· ·you guys a million bucks.· There is just so much pork

18· ·and crap in this thing it's unbelievable.· You have

19· ·got to scale this back.· This is -- we don't need

20· ·landscaping in the middle, just because we're going to

21· ·Sunseeker's does not mean we need palm trees all the

22· ·way down Harborview Boulevard to get there.

23· · · · Lastly, these drawings are over three years old,

24· ·two to three years old.· There is three million brand

25· ·new million dollar houses on this road that aren't on



·1· ·any of these drawings.· This stuff was all done years

·2· ·ago.· It is not even close.

·3· · · · The noise study was done in August and September.

·4· ·There is nobody here then.· I've never seen so much

·5· ·garbage in my life.· What you are going to do to us

·6· ·waterfront property owners in the most beautiful

·7· ·stretch of water in Charlotte County.· It is

·8· ·disgusting.· I'm done.

·9· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Thank you for you comment.

10· · · · Next person Fred Swing.

11· · · · DR. SWING: I say the same thing he just said.

12· ·Where in Port Charlotte do we have 30 feet median

13· ·strip.

14· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Thank you for your comment.

15· · · · Next person is Stephen Buchinsky.

16· · · · MR. BUCHINSKY:· Good afternoon.

17· · · · I'd like to comment concerning the proposed

18· ·entrance to the Rolls Landing Condominium Association.

19· ·The existing entrance right now barely allows two cars

20· ·to be in a queue, and that includes the cars that are

21· ·alongside the guardhouse.· Your proposal right now is

22· ·going to shorten the area going to the guardhouse,

23· ·basically going to put the right-of-way right in front

24· ·of the guardhouse.· And any way to put a queue going

25· ·into Rolls Landing, what you are calling right now is



·1· ·a turning lane, is going to be a queue.· I've never

·2· ·seen any highway built where turning lane is approved

·3· ·to be a queue.

·4· · · · So basically what -- the layout right now for the

·5· ·guardhouse and for the entrance and the egress coming

·6· ·out of Rolls Landing is not workable.· And I believe

·7· ·that we need to work on that, you need to work on that

·8· ·to basically to see physically how you can expect that

·9· ·to work, because right now it won't.

10· · · · Thank you.


12· · · · Next speaker is Joyce Rose.

13· · · · MS. ROSE: Good evening.

14· · · · Sometime back there was a meeting at Charlotte

15· ·Harbor Water Association, and they were proposing an

16· ·expansion project along Harborview as well.· Is this

17· ·going to coincide with the expansion of Harborview

18· ·where you all start?

19· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Ma'am, we will address our comments

20· ·at the end of the comment period, not tonight.

21· · · · MS. ROSE:· Okay.


23· · · · Next speaker is Greg Taylor.

24· · · · MR. TAYLOR: Thank you very much.· Thank you for

25· ·the time in presenting this to us.· We appreciate it.



·1· ·Anyone driving down Harborview pulling a boat trailer

·2· ·or any other kind of trailer obviously understands

·3· ·that those are extreme narrow lanes and some work is

·4· ·needed.

·5· · · · Where I get a little bit lost on this is we are

·6· ·between the viable opportunity, our alternative of do

·7· ·nothing, and 46 million dollars.· I am lost on that a

·8· ·bit, because I don't understand 30 foot easement. I

·9· ·don't understand walkways on both sides of the road.

10· ·Now, maybe there is some magical engineering fete,

11· ·like utilities under the concrete that needs to be

12· ·done, et cetera, but I'm not convinced that this isn't

13· ·a bit of overblown.

14· · · · Some of the concerns that I have is that beyond

15· ·that is there is some things that are the unintended

16· ·consequences, so on Peace Creek, which is only about a

17· ·quarter mile from here, as soon as you widen that up,

18· ·we already get a lot of noise coming off Harborview.

19· ·I live out on the water.· We already get a lot of

20· ·noise.· You open that up and we are going to just --

21· ·going to be sound -- boom box coming down that.· And I

22· ·moved here for the reason a lot of you moved here to

23· ·enjoy -- I already get enough noise off 75 -- but I

24· ·moved here to enjoy the water and sit and watch the

25· ·fish, not to get bombarded by sound and such.



·1· · · · I am concerned about some of the things I don't

·2· ·hear.· I don't hear about light pollution.· What is

·3· ·the plan for these wonderful sidewalks.· Are we going

·4· ·to like light this thing up like a Christmas tree all

·5· ·the way down to Melbourne.· I don't see that anywhere.

·6· ·I've asked, I'm not hearing anything about it.· What

·7· ·are we doing about light pollution.

·8· · · · So really I am a little bit scratching my head

·9· ·here saying yes, we need improvements.· But this

10· ·doesn't -- there is somewhere -- there's got to be a

11· ·middle of this.· This doesn't make sense.



14· · · · Next would be Joseph Gaither.

15· · · · MR. GAITHER:· How are you all this evening.· Glad

16· ·to see everybody, and the people I don't know out

17· ·here, which is everybody.· I'm a new resident here.

18· ·I've been here four years.· I live at -- Joseph

19· ·Gaither's my name.· I live at 25098 Harborview right

20· ·at the intersection of Sapodilla.

21· · · · From my observation for the few years I've been

22· ·here every single yard on Harborview has the scars and

23· ·marks of vehicles being kicked in there, 18 wheelers

24· ·going off the road, cars being hit from behind

25· ·stopping to turn at an intersection at that street,



·1· ·and there is just -- it is a drag strip down here.· So

·2· ·we can all see the speed and the effects of it.

·3· · · · I'm in support of a no-build thing, period.· If

·4· ·they did nothing we'd be better off.· If they were to

·5· ·do it, then I would say another roundabout be

·6· ·introduced at an intersection like Sapodilla or Drance

·7· ·or Guava Street to mediate the flow of traffic, the

·8· ·speed, and get rid of -- a 30-foot median is just --

·9· ·makes no sense at all.

10· · · · Any commercial traffic, which I know has been

11· ·brought into consideration, if it is coming south from

12· ·75, then they're turning down Kings to come down here,

13· ·it's more direct.· If anybody is going north then they

14· ·come over 17 get onto 41 and go in the heart of Port

15· ·Charlotte, Punta Gorda.· I just -- it's unconceivable.

16· ·I am for the no-build.


18· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Thank you for your comments.

19· · · · Next person is Freddie Caldwell.

20· · · · MS. CALDWELL:· My name is Freddie Caldwell. I

21· ·live at 24181 Harborview.· And I want to make it very

22· ·clear that I give no consent to this project.· Why

23· ·isn't my commissioner here to represent our area.· I'm

24· ·very saddened that that's happened.· The diagram

25· ·that's being shown to us is aged.· There is new



·1· ·construction that has gone on, and we are looking at

·2· ·unavailable documents that tells us what is really

·3· ·existing on these roadways.

·4· · · · My main concern is that in the process of wanting

·5· ·to sell my house the current value has been

·6· ·substantially diminished, because I have to disclose

·7· ·this to potential buyers.· It is an unfunded project,

·8· ·and I can see where we are on your handout that we go

·9· ·to 2023.· But after that there is no funds to build

10· ·the road.

11· · · · So right now we are telling everybody this is

12· ·going to happen, and where are you getting your

13· ·funding, who secures that.· If we are going to do

14· ·something we should have already had secured funds

15· ·instead of getting everybody so upset and concerned.

16· ·But I understand that we have to have public hearings,

17· ·but I am feeling from the people I have talked to that

18· ·this is a done deal.

19· · · · So what is the State or County doing to help me

20· ·with my loss in value of my property now.· I also

21· ·agree that the size is incorrect in comparison.· Mark

22· ·stated it very clearly, and that should be looked at

23· ·if this is going to go through before anything goes

24· ·any further.

25· · · · Okay.· That's all I have to say.· I think it is a



·1· ·sham.· Good luck.

·2· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Thank you for your comments.

·3· · · · Our last speaker card is John Murray.

·4· · · · MR. MURRAY:· My name is John Murray.· I live on

·5· ·Danforth Drive, which is the drive first road off of

·6· ·here.· And I am going to be a little bit different.

·7· ·My -- I just wanted to put this view what makes sense

·8· ·to me.· Given that we are going to be having the

·9· ·projected construction on 41 and Harborview Road, the

10· ·no-build alternative to me is totally unacceptable. I

11· ·could not conceive how we can drive up and down

12· ·Harborview with multiple condos there.· So it isn't a

13· ·choice of whether we don't do anything or not.· We

14· ·have to do something.· We have to do it quickly, and

15· ·hopefully we can do it in conjunction with the condo

16· ·construction and whatever.

17· · · · I did have some questions, but obviously we are

18· ·not answering questions now.· The one question I will

19· ·have that will remain unanswered is will I still be

20· ·alive when this is done?


22· · · · Is there anyone who has not spoken who would like

23· ·to speak?

24· · · · MR. RICHARDSON:· I don't know a lot of you, but

25· ·most of you know I live on the Deadman's Curve right



·1· ·there on Harborview where they are always knocking

·2· ·down my pillar.· All this is about is safety.· We have

·3· ·a drag strip now.· Can you imagine pulling out now. I

·4· ·don't know what they are going to put the speed limit

·5· ·at, but right now it's 65.

·6· · · · So just trying to -- and they're going to put the

·7· ·road right next to our house now, like 25 foot away,

·8· ·so that nice gas tanker, falls asleep a little bit and

·9· ·goes through my house, that will be nice, won't it.

10· · · · Safety is not even in any of the brochures back

11· ·there to put roads that close to your house.· And

12· ·lighting, just like the gentleman said, can you

13· ·imagine put -- light that up, you won't even be able

14· ·to sleep, much less hear.· Mine's all on safety for

15· ·all of us.· I know we need something done to the road,

16· ·but we don't have to have 30-foot street, sidewalks on

17· ·both sides.· Who's going to walk on that side.· Put a

18· ·bike path.· Definitely don't have to be as big as it

19· ·is right now.



22· · · · If anyone wishes to submit written statements or

23· ·other exhibits in place of or in addition to oral

24· ·statements --

25· · · · We have one more.



·1· · · · MR. HISTMAN:· My concern is the roundabout. I

·2· ·don't understand why the roundabouts need to be

·3· ·connecting roads that are very lightly used,

·4· ·especially you guys happen to get out of here, I mean,

·5· ·this is -- a roundabout is a very expensive project

·6· ·and just to accommodate this place, and Melbourne

·7· ·Street just don't make any sense to me.· So that was

·8· ·my question.

·9· · · · I'm in agreement with just about everything

10· ·everybody said.


12· · · · MR. HISTMAN:· I'm Michael Histman.· I live at

13· ·Rolls Landing.· Sorry, should have --

14· · · · MR. ANDREWS:· Anybody else?

15· · · · Okay.· If anyone wishes to submit written

16· ·statements or other exhibits in place of or in

17· ·addition to oral statements you may do so.· Once

18· ·again, written statements and exhibits will be

19· ·accepted and recorded as part of this hearing if

20· ·postmarked by March 25, 2019.

21· · · · Mail your statements to me, Steven A. Andrews,

22· ·project manager, Florida Department of Transportation,

23· ·P.O. Box 1249 Bartow, Florida 33831.· This is the same

24· ·address that appears on the back of your comment

25· ·sheet.



·1· · · · The verbatim transcript of this hearing's oral

·2· ·proceedings, together with all written material

·3· ·received as part of the hearing record and all

·4· ·studies, displays, and informational material provided

·5· ·at the hearing, will be made a part of the project

·6· ·decision-making process and will be available at the

·7· ·district office for public review upon request.

·8· · · · Thank you for attending this public hearing and

·9· ·for providing your input to this project.· It is now

10· ·5:56.· I hereby officially close the public hearing

11· ·for Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75 in

12· ·Charlotte County.

13· · · · Thank you and have a good evening.

14· · · · (Proceedings concluded at 5:56 p.m.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25







Documents

Florida Department of Transportation HARBORVIEW ROAD …...Oct 14, 2019 · Project Manager: Steven Anthony Andrews The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required