DRAFT - SWFL Roadsswflroads.com/us27/sr60/US 27 at SR 60 Interchange_DRAFT NRE Reeval.pdfFPID: 419243-4-32-01 2-1 Technical Memorandum Section 2.0 Existing Conditions The majority

Natural Resources Re-Evaluation Technical Memorandum

Florida Department of Transportation District One

US 27

Project Development and Environmental Study

from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue Polk County, Florida

Financial Project ID: 419243-4-32-01 Federal Aid Project No.: TBD

ETDM No.: 3869 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 December 14, 2016 and executed by FHWA and FDOT.

August 2017

DRAFT

US 27 from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue Natural Resources Re-evaluation FPID: 419243-4-32-01 i Technical Memorandum

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i

Section 1.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1-1

Section 2.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 2-1

Section 3.0 Wetlands, Surface Waters, and Other Surface Waters ....................................................... 3-1

3.1 Avoidance and Minimization ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impacts ...................................................... 3-1

3.3 Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology Results ............................................................. 3-6

3.4 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................... 3-8

Section 4.0 Protected Species ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Listing Status Changes ............................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Protected Species Effect Determinations ................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Federal-Listed Species ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2 State-Listed Species ........................................................................................................... 4-6

4.2.3 Other Species of Concern .................................................................................................. 4-9

4.3 Critical Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.3 Implementation Measures ........................................................................................................ 4-12

4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 4-12

Figures

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

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

Figure 3 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impact Map ................................................. 3-2

Figure 4 Protected Species Map............................................................................................................... 4-11

Tables

Table 1 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impact Summary ................................... 3-3

Table 2 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impact Summary/Functional Loss ........ 3-7

DRAFT

US 27 from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue Natural Resources Re-evaluation FPID: 419243-4-32-01 1-1 Technical Memorandum

Section 1.0 Project Description

A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study was completed along US 27 from the Highlands/Polk County Line to State Road (SR) 60 in Polk County, Florida, a distance of approximately 18.8 miles. Due to the length of the project area, the alignment was separated into three segments (see Figure 1): • Segment 1- Extends from the Polk/Highlands County line to CR 630A, • Segment 2- Extends from SR 630A to President’s Drive, and • Segment 3- Extends from President’s Drive to north of SR 60 (Central Avenue). This technical memorandum focuses on the US 27/SR 60 interchange within Segment 3 of the PD&E study and the associated limits from south of SR 60 to north of West Central Avenue (see Figure 2). The Type 2 Categorical Exclusion for this project was approved in April 2017 by the Office of Environmental Management (OEM). The US 27/SR 60 interchange was part of the approved PD&E. This design update focuses on improvements to the US 27 / SR 60 interchange and associated areas. The purpose of this project is to increase capacity on SR 25 (US 27) and SR 60. US 27 will be widened from a four-lane rural typical to a to six-lane suburban typical section. The suburban typical section will consist of 11-foot lanes with 6.5-foot paved inside shoulders and seven-foot paved outside shoulders. Type E curb and gutter will be constructed along both the inside and outside shoulders. The outside shoulder will be designated as a buffered bicycle lane. A closed drainage system will be constructed as well as six-foot sidewalks behind the curb and gutter to remain inside existing R/W.

SR 60 will be widened from a four-lane rural and urban typical to a six-lane urban typical section. The urban typical section on SR 60 will consist of 11-foot lanes and seven-foot buffered bicycle lanes on the outside. Type F curb & gutter will be constructed along both the inside and outside edges of pavement. A closed drainage system and six-foot sidewalks will be provided in both directions. The existing SR 60 cloverleaf interchange will be reconstructed to a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI). A new single span bridge will be constructed over US 27. A proposed urban Frontage Road will be constructed in the southwest quadrant of the interchange to aid with Access Management to local businesses. Acquisition of right of way will be required for the Frontage Road on the southwest side of SR 60 as well along both sides of SR 60 east of the existing interchange.

The purpose of this re-evaluation is to identify wetland, surface water, other surface water and protected species impacts identified in the PD&E study’s Wetland Evaluation Report (WER) and

DRAFT


Endangered Species Biological Assessment (ESBA) and compare them to impacts proposed from the current design. This includes permitting changes, mitigation opportunities and other regulatory issues associated with wetlands and surface waters. Additionally, this re-evaluation addresses habitat assessments, potential for Federal- and State-listed species, and changes in listing status. The prior PD&E study evaluated approximatively 18.8 miles of roadway. This current study evaluates changes in impacts within an approximately 0.9 mile segment of US 27 and an approximately 1.0 mile segment of SR 60.

DRAFT


Figure 1 Project Location Map by Segment

DRAFT


Figure 2 Project Location Map

DRAFT


Section 2.0 Existing Conditions

The majority of the land use within the current project limits is classified by the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) as Commercial and Services (FLUCFCS 140) and Roadways and Highways (FLUCFCS 814). Additional land use types with minimal coverage of the project area include medium density residential (FLUCFCS 120), open land (FLUCFCS 190), cropland and pastureland (FLUCFCS 210), and hardwood conifer mixed uplands (FLUCFCS 434). Wetland, surface water, and other surface water systems within the project area consist of a freshwater marsh (FLUCFCS 641), lakes (FLUCFCS 520), and roadside ditches (FLUCFCS 510). The majority of the project will be included within the existing right of way (ROW). A proposed urban Frontage Road will be constructed in the southwest quadrant of the interchange to aid with Access Management to local businesses. Acquisition of right of way will be required for the Frontage Road on the southwest side of SR 60 as well along both sides of SR 60 east of the existing interchange.

DRAFT


Section 3.0 Wetlands, Surface Waters, and Other Surface Waters

A WER was completed for the PD&E study in October 2016. The PD&E study limits extended along US 27 from the Highlands/Polk County Line to north of SR 60. The study limits of the current project include the US 27/SR 60 interchange from south of SR 60 to north of West Central Avenue. In the vicinity of the current project, there is a freshwater marsh on the west side of US 27, south of SR 60, and natural surface waters, Lake Altamana and Lake Weader, on the east side of US 27 at the southern and northern limits of the current project, respectively. Additionally, there are man-made surface waters that run parallel and perpendicular to US 27 and SR 60. Figure 3 depicts the location of all wetlands, surface waters, and other surface waters within the current project area. 3.1 Avoidance and Minimization Unavoidable wetland impacts will result from construction of the project and are necessary to accommodate transportation safety standards for side slopes, turn radius, additional lanes, and roadway widths. Impacts to wetlands are unavoidable for the proposed improvements due to their location within the existing ROW. However, potential wetland impacts have been minimized to the extent possible by incorporating the following measures: • Selecting pond sites within existing roadway right-of-way, and • Construction of a stormwater management system which meets state water quality criteria,

thereby minimizing water quality impacts from stormwater discharges from roadway and bridge surfaces.

3.2 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impacts The US 27/SR 60 interchange limits extend from south of SR 60 to north of West Central Avenue. Wetlands, surface waters, and other surface waters within the vicinity of the project and their impacts are shown on Figure 3 and a detailed description of each is provided below. Table 1 provides the FLUCFCS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats Classification (Cowardin, et. al. 1979) for each wetland, surface water, and other surface water within the project area, as well as the proposed impacts to each. Surface Water 2 and all other surface waters were located outside of the limits of the original PD&E study, or not included as part of the previous assessment. These systems consist of Lake Weader (Surface Water 2), in the northeastern quadrant of the US 27 and West Central Avenue intersection, and roadside ditches associated with US 27 and SR 60. Wetland 5 and Surface Water 1 (Lake Altamana) were included within the original PD&E study and as part of the previous assessment.DRAFT


Figure 3 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impact Map

DRAFT


Table 1 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impact Summary

Current ID Previous ID FLUCFCS Classification1

USFWS Classification2

Previous Impact Acreage

Current Impact Acreage

Wetlands WL 5 Lake 2 641 PEM1C 0.35 0.08

Total Wetlands 0.35 0.08 Surface Waters

SW 1 Lake 1 520 L2US5H 0.72 0.00 SW 2 - 520 L2UB2H - 0.00

Total Surface Waters 0.72 0.00 Other Surface Waters

OSW 17 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.26 OSW 18 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.01 OSW 19 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.05 OSW 20 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.16 OSW 21 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.46 OSW 22 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.28 OSW 23 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.03 OSW 24 - 510 PEM1Cx - 0.01 OSW 25 - 510 PSS1Cx - 0.00

Total Other Surface Waters 0.00 1.26 Total Wetlands, Surface Waters, and Other Surface Waters 1.07 1.34

1 FDOT.1999. 2Cowardin et al., 1979. USFWS Classification Descriptions: L2US5H: Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated shore, Vegetated, Permanently Flooded L2UB2H: Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated bottom, Sand, Permanently Flooded PEM1C: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded PEM1Cx: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated PSS1Cx: Palustrine, Scrub-shrub, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated

Based on this reevaluation, there are approximately 0.08 acres of wetland impacts and 1.26 acres of other surface water impacts anticipated for this project (see Table 1). There are no anticipated impacts to surface waters as a result of this project. The Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) was used to determine the proposed functional loss from the wetland impacts. A wetland functional analysis is provided in Section 3.3.

DRAFT


Wetlands Wetland 5 FLUCFCS: 641 (Freshwater Marsh) USFWS: PEM1C (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded) Wetland 5 (WL 5) is a freshwater marsh located south of SR 60 and on the west side of US 27. This wetland extends west outside of the project area. Vegetation within this system includes duckweed (Lemna spp.), torpedograss (Panicum repens), and various sedges (Cyperus spp.), with Peruviana primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia) also present. The proposed project will result in 0.08 acres of impact to this wetland. Surface Waters Surface Water 1 (Lake Altamana) FLUCFCS: 520 (Lakes) USFWS: L2US5H (Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated shore, Vegetated, Permanently

Flooded) Surface Water 1 (SW 1), Lake Altamana, is a small lake located south of SR 60 and east of US 27, near the project southern limit. There is a thick littoral fringe of Peruvian primrose willow, Carolina willow, cattail (Typha sp.), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) along the edge of this lake. SW 1 will not be impacted by the proposed project. Surface Water 2 (Lake Weader) FLUCFCS: 520 (Lakes) USFWS: L2UB2H (Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated bottom, Sand, Permanently

Flooded) Surface Water 2 (SW 2), Lake Weader, is a small lake located in the northeast quadrant of the US 27 / West Central Avenue intersection. Lake Weader is maintained to the water’s edge, with minimal vegetation present. SW 2 will not be impacted by the proposed project. Other Surface Waters Other Surface Water 17 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 17 (OSW 17) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs parallel to the east side of US 27, south of SR 60. Vegetation within the ditch includes blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum), water pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), Peruvian primrose willow, and

DRAFT


alligator flag (Thalia geniculata). The proposed project will result in 0.26 acres of impact OSW 17. Other Surface Water 18 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 18 (OSW 18) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs parallel to the west side of US 27, south of SR 60. Vegetation within the ditch includes blue maidencane, soft rush (Juncus effusus), and smartweed (Persicaria sp.). The proposed project will result in 0.01 acres of impact to OSW 18. Other Surface Water 19 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 19 (OSW 19) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs parallel to the west side of US 27, south of SR 60. This ditch is hydrologically connected to WL 5. Vegetation within the ditch includes blue maidencane, soft rush, and smartweed. The proposed project will result in 0.05 acres of impact to OSW 19. Other Surface Water 20 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 20 (OSW 20) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs parallel to the east side of US 27, north of the US 60 interchange. Vegetation within the ditch includes Peruvian primrose willow, soft rush, red ludwigia (Ludwigia repens), and water pennywort. The proposed project will result in 0.16 acres of impact to OSW 20. Other Surface Water 21 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 21 (OSW 21) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs parallel to the south side of SR 60, west of US 27. Vegetation within the ditch includes blue maidencane, red ludwigia, false daisy (Eclipta prostrata), and smartweed. The proposed project will result in 0.46 acres of impact to OSW 21. Other Surface Water 22 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 22 (OSW 22) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs parallel to the north side of SR 60, west of US 27. Vegetation within the ditch includes Peruvian primrose willow, blue

DRAFT


maidencane, and smartweed. The proposed project will result in 0.28 acres of impact to OSW 22. Other Surface Water 23 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 23 (OSW 23) is a man-made drainage ditch located adjacent to the west SR 60 to south US 27 loop ramp, on the north side of SR 60 and west of US 27. Vegetation within the ditch includes Peruvian primrose willow, bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), beggarticks (Bidens alba), and smartweed. The proposed project will result in 0.03 acres of impact to this ditch. Other Surface Water 24 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PEM1Cx (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 24 (OSW 24) is a man-made drainage ditch located in the infield of the west SR 60 to south US 27 loop ramp. Vegetation within the ditch includes rushes (Juncus spp.), bahiagrass, beggarticks, and false daisy. The proposed project will result in 0.01 acres of impact to this ditch. Other Surface Water 25 FLUCFCS: 510 (Streams and Waterways) USFWS: PSS1Cx (Palustrine, Scrub-shrub, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated) Other Surface Water 25 (OSW 25) is a man-made drainage ditch that runs perpendicular to West Central Avenue on the west side of US 27. Vegetation within the ditch includes Carolina willow, Brazilian pepper, elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). OSW 25 will not be impacted by the proposed project. 3.3 Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology Results Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) assessments are used to determine the amount of mitigation required to offset adverse impacts to wetlands as a result of the proposed project. The methodology was designed to assess functions provided by wetlands, the amount those functions are reduced by a proposed impact, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset the proposed functional losses. In order to calculate functional loss, the difference between the existing condition (current) scores and the proposed condition (with) scores for each habitat type was multiplied by the acreage of proposed impact to determine the lost value of functions to fish and wildlife resulting from construction of the proposed project (see Table 2). The completed UMAM data sheets for each habitat type are provided in Attachment A. The total functional loss calculated in the previous

DRAFT


PD&E associated with this project area was 0.75, a result of impacts to SW 1 (previously Lake 1) and WL 5 (previously Lake 2), not including impacts to any other surface waters included within this re-evaluation. The total functional loss value associated with impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within this project area is 0.70. There will be no impacts to surface waters as a result of the current project. Table 2 below summarizes impact acreage and functional loss for each wetland, surface water, and other surface water to be impacted by the proposed project in comparison to the previous PD&E.

Table 2 Wetland, Surface Water, and Other Surface Water Impact Summary/Functional Loss

ID FLUCFCS Classification1

USFWS Classification2

UMAM Delta

Previous Impact Acreage

Current Impact Acreage

Previous Functional

Loss

Current Functional

Loss

Wetlands WL 5 641 PEM1C 0.70 0.35 0.08 0.25 0.06

Total Wetlands 0.35 0.08 0.25 0.06 Surface Waters

SW 1 520 L2US5H 0.70 0.72 0.00 0.50 0.00 Total Surface Waters 0.72 0.00 0.50 0.00

Other Surface Waters OSW 17 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.13 OSW 18 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 OSW 19 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 OSW 20 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.08 OSW 21 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.23 OSW 22 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.14 OSW 23 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 OSW 24 510 PEM1Cx 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Total Other Surface Waters 0.00 1.26 0.00 0.64 Total Wetlands, Surface Waters, and Other Surface

Waters 1.07 1.34 0.75 0.70 1 FDOT.1999. 2Cowardin et al., 1979. USFWS Classification Descriptions: L2US5H: Lacustrine, Littoral, Unconsolidated shore, Vegetated, Permanently Flooded PEM1C: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded PEM1Cx: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated

DRAFT


3.4 Mitigation Mitigation will be provided for the wetland and other surface water impacts identified above. At a minimum, mitigation will be provided to offset the functional loss calculated utilizing UMAM. Presently, the project is located within the service area of the Peace River and Boran Ranch mitigation banks. Mitigation options will be coordinated with regulatory and resource agencies during the project’s environmental permitting process.

DRAFT


Section 4.0 Protected Species

An ESBA report was completed for the PD&E study in October 2016. Field reviews were conducted for the re-evaluation of this project in May and August 2017. The species identified as part of the PD&E and the effect determinations associated with this project are discussed below. The project design changes does not warrant the addition of any protected species not assessed during the 2016 PD&E study. 4.1 Listing Status Changes There have been listing status changes for both federal and state protected species since completion of the original PD&E study. The federal protected wood stork (Mycteria americana) has been down-listed from endangered to threatened. As part of the “Florida’s Imperiled Species Management Plan” issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) on October 15, 2016, multiple changes in the status of state list species has occurred. Many of the species addressed within the prior PD&E were affected by these changes. The following species were de-listed: gopher frog (Lithobates capito), limpkin (Aramus guarauna), snowy egret (Egretta thula), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus). The listing for the following species changed from a species of special concern to threatened: Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus). Species that have been de-listed were not included as a part of this assessment. 4.2 Protected Species Effect Determinations As a part of the PD&E study, numerous federal and state protected species were observed as having potential to occur within the project area. Attachment B includes a table summarizing the current listing status of these protected species, their previously determined impact determination, and their current impact determination. The current impact determination is based on anticipated impacts to the species resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2 discuss these effect determinations for each species in detail. 4.2.1 Federal-Listed Species

Reptiles Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi)

A “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” determination was assigned to the eastern indigo snake during the PD&E study based on the presence of suitable habitat and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) documentation within the vicinity of the project area. Habitat for this species includes pine flatwoods, hardwood forests, and other natural habitats, and they are

DRAFT


typically associated with gopher tortoise burrows. Though the species was not observed and no gopher tortoise burrows were documented during field reviews of the project area during the PD&E study or re-evaluation, suitable habitat for the eastern indigo snake exists within and adjacent to the project. The FDOT will implement the USFWS’s Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake (updated August 2013) and the latest version of the August 2013 USFWS Updated Addendum to the USFWS Concurrence Letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regarding Use of the Eastern Indigo Snake Programmatic Effect Determination Key. Based on the implementation of these measures, there is no change in the effects determination for the eastern indigo snake.

Blue-Tailed Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregious lividus) and Sand Skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi)

A “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” determination was assigned to the blue-tailed mole skink and sand skink during the PD&E study due to observations of sand skink tracks and suitable habitat presence within the proposed project area. According to the USFWS Sand Skink Survey Protocol (2012), skink distribution is defined by three factors: location within a county designated by the USFWS with primary populations, at an elevation of 82 feet above sea level or higher, and is comprised of any of the 20 soil types designated as sand skink soils by the USFWS. The project lies within a designated county (Polk), includes suitable skink soils at a suitable elevation, and is within the USFWS Sand and Blue-Tailed Mole Skink Consultation Area.

Through coordination with the USFWS, and to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, in 2014 the FDOT conducted skink surveys based on USFWS protocol within portions of the PD&E project area determined to be suitable skink habitat. Based on the findings of these surveys, the determination of effect was changed to “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect”. This resulted in the initiation of a formal Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (BO) by the USFWS. As a result of conservation measures agreed to as part of the BO, it was determined that the project would “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of” the sand skink or blue-tailed mole skink.

The proposed right-of-way of this project was included in these surveys and no sand skinks were documented during the survey events or observed during 2017 field reviews. Additionally, there is marginally suitable habitat within the proposed project limits which is comprised of maintained right-of-way within a dense ground cover of weedy, ruderal species and sod-forming grasses that would preclude skink movement. As a result, there has been no change in the effect determination for the blue-tailed mole skink and sand skink.

Birds Florida Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus)

An effect determination of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” was given to the

DRAFT


Florida grasshopper sparrow in the PD&E based on the project’s location in the USFWS Consultation Area for the species and minimal suitable habitat presence. Within the current project area, marginally suitable habitat is available within open land and pastureland areas that encroach into the project area and the project area falls within the USFWS Consultation Area for the species; however, no individuals were observed during the field reviews. Due to the limited amount of suitable habitat within the project area, there has been no change in the effects determination for the Florida grasshopper sparrow.

Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens)

An effect determination of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” was given to the Florida scrub-jay in the PD&E due to the project’s location within the USFWS consultation area for the scrub-jay and FNAI documentation within the project’s vicinity. Through coordination with the USFWS, and to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, in 2014 the FDOT conducted Florida scrub jay surveys based on USFWS protocol within portions of the PD&E project area determined to be suitable Florida scrub jay habitat. Based on the findings of these surveys, the determination of effect was changed to “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect”. This resulted in the initiation of a formal Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the USFWS. As a result of conservation measures agreed to as part of the BO, it was determined that the project would “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of” the Florida scrub jay.

The current project is also located within the USFWS consultation area for the scrub-jay; however, no scrub-jay habitat exists within the limits of the current project. Additionally, during implementation of the scrub jay surveys discussed above no survey stations were chosen in the vicinity of this project due to lack of xeric habitat and prior observations. While Florida scrub jay individuals were documented during species specific surveys in Segment 1, the current project is limited to the US 27 and SR 60 interchange in Segment 3. As a result, there has been no change in the effect determination for the Florida scrub jay.

Audubon’s Crested Caracara (Caracara cheriway)

An effect determination of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” was given to the crested caracara in the PD&E study based on the project’s location in the USFWS Consultation Area for the species and minimal suitable habitat presence. Through coordination with the USFWS, and to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, in 2014 the FDOT conducted crested caracara surveys based on USFWS protocol within portions of the PD&E project area determined to be suitable crested caracara habitat. These surveys included a monitoring station on the west side of US 27 along SR 60 and no crested caracara were observed within the current project area.

DRAFT


The current project is also located within the USFWS consultation area of the crested caracara; however, no habitat for the crested caracara exists within the vicinity of the project. Based on this information, there has been no change in the effects determination for the crested caracara.

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

The PD&E found that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork based on the project’s location within the 18.6 mile core foraging area (CFA) of six (6) wood stork colonies and observations of the species within the project area. For the current design, there are approximately 1.34 acres of wetland (0.08 acres) and other surface water (1.26 acres) impacts, including a freshwater marsh and roadside ditches. During the inundation period, wetlands within the project area may provide suitable foraging habitat for the wood stork. The USFWS has defined the CFA in Polk County for the wood stork as an 18.6-mile radius from breeding colonies. According to USFWS, two (2) wood stork nesting colonies (Saddlebag Lake and Lake Rosalie) are reported within 18.6 miles of the project area. Based on the PD&E commitment to coordinate with the USFWS and comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the FDOT prepared a Wood Stork Foraging Analysis to calculate loss of suitable foraging habitat and compensation required to offset the loss of suitable foraging habitat. This Analysis reported a net loss of 4.12 kg total (fish and crayfish) biomass for SW 1 (previously Lake 1) and WL 5 (previously Lake 2) combined. These are the only wetland systems analyzed by both the previous PD&E and the re-evaluation. Due to differences in project areas and impacts, an additional Wood Stork Foraging Analysis was prepared as a part of this re-evaluation and is provided in Attachment C. The current Wood Stork Foraging Analysis provides that the proposed project will result in the net loss of 1.34 kg total (fish and crayfish) biomass. As part of this project, impacts to wetlands within the project study area will be mitigated as necessary to prevent the net loss of potential wood stork foraging habitat. Based on this information there is no change in the effects determination for the wood stork. Everglade Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis)

The PD&E study determined that the proposed project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Everglade snail kite based on the project’s location within the USFWS Consultation Area for the snail kite and loss of potential foraging areas. The current project is also within the USFWS Consultation Area for the snail kite and suitable foraging habitat for this species is available within the project area within the freshwater marshes and lake habitats. No snail kites were observed during the field reviews of the project area and the presence of apple snails was not detected during the PD&E or re-evaluation field reviews. As part of this project, impacts to wetlands within the project area will be mitigated as necessary to prevent the net loss of potential snail kite foraging habitat. As a result, there is no change in the effects determination for the species.

DRAFT


Mammals Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)

The PD&E study determined that the proposed project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida bonneted bat based on the location of the southern portion of the project area (Segment 1) from the Highlands/Polk County line north to US 98 being located within the USFWS Consultation Area for the bonneted bat. Though there are potential roost sites within the project area, the current project limits are located outside of the USFWS Consultation Area and known range of the Florida bonneted bat. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the Florida bonneted bat. Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi)

The PD&E determined that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida panther based on the UFWS panther telemetry database (2013) documenting panthers within 6 miles of the project area, with the closest documented in 2005 being 1.5 miles east of US 27 in Segment 1. Based on the location of these occurrences outside of the USFWS Consultation Area, “Primary” and “Secondary” Zones for this species, the occurrences are most likely that of young males searching for new territory. Because the impacts to the project involve the improvements of an existing roadway within an urbanized area and the project will not impede existing travel ways of the panther, it has been determined that there is no change in the effects determination for the Florida panther. Plants Based on direct observations and documentation, it was determined that the project “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the pygmy fringe tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus), short-leaved rosemary (Conradina brevifolia), scrub buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium), paper-like nailwort (Paronychia chartacea ssp. chartacea), small’s jointweed (Polygonella myriophylla), and scrub plum (Prunus geniculata). These species were not identified within the vicinity of the current project limits and no suitable habitat for these species will be impacted as a result of this project. Through coordination with the USFWS, and to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, in 2014 the FDOT conducted protected plant surveys within portions of the PD&E project area determined to be suitable habitat. The findings of these surveys resulted in the initiation of a formal Section 7 consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the USFWS. As a result of conservation measures agreed to as part of the BO, it was determined that the project would “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of” the pygmy fringe tree, short-leaved rosemary, scrub buckwheat, paper-like nailwort, small’s jointweed, and scrub plum. Additionally, based on the lack observation within the project area, the PD&E determined that the

DRAFT


project would have “no effect” on the Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora), scrub pigeon-wing (Clitoria fragrans), Avon Park rabbit-bells (Crotalaria avonensis), scrub mint (Dicerandra frutescens), Highlands scrub hypericum (Hypericum cumulicola), Florida blazing star (Liatris ohlingerae), Britton’s beargrass (Nolina brittoniana), Florida jointweed (Polygonella basiramia), Lewton’s polygala (Polygala lewtonii), clasping warea (Warea amplexifolia), Carter’s warea (Warea carteri), and scrub ziziphus (Ziziphus celata). These species were not identified within the vicinity of the current project limits during re-evaluation field reviews and no suitable habitat for these species will be impacted as a result of this project. No federal protected plant species were identified in the vicinity of the current project or during the re-evaluation field reviews and no suitable habitat for these species is present within the current project limits. For listed plant species observed within the project area, the FDOT will coordinate with the Rare Plant Conservation Program staff at BTG who will assist in the conservation efforts of these plants. With the implementation of these measures, there is no change in the effects determination for these species. 4.2.2 State-Listed Species

Reptiles Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

The PD&E determined that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the gopher tortoise based on suitable habitat and observation of gopher tortoise burrows. During the field review for the current project, no gopher tortoise burrows were observed. Based on current FWC regulations, any gopher tortoises located within 25 feet of the project construction area must be relocated to an FWC approved recipient site. Since it is reasonable to expect that the gopher tortoise may utilize habitat within the project area, the FDOT will survey the project area prior to construction to determine the presence of this species within the project area. If gopher tortoises or burrows are found within the project area, the FDOT will coordinate with the FWC to secure all permits needed to relocate the tortoises and associated commensal species prior to construction. With the implementation of these measures, there is no change in the effects determination for this species.

Short-Tailed Snake (Lampropeltis extenuate)

The PD&E determined that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the short-tailed snake based on the presence of suitable habitat within the project area. Within the current project limits, minimal to no suitable xeric habitat for this species is available and the species was not observed during 2017 re-evaluation field reviews. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the short-tailed snake.

DRAFT


Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus)

The PD&E determined that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida pine snake based the presence of suitable habitat and observation of gopher tortoise burrows. Within the current project limits, minimal to no suitable xeric habitat for this species is available and the species was not observed during 2017 re-evaluation field reviews. Additionally, no species in which the Florida pine snake is known to co-exist with (i.e., gopher tortoise) were observed within the project area. The FDOT will survey the project area for gopher tortoises prior to construction and will coordinate with the FWC to secure the necessary permits to relocate gopher tortoises and associated commensal species prior to construction. With the implementation of these measures, there is no change in the effects determination for the Florida pine snake.

Birds Florida Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia floridana)

The PD&E indicated that this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida burrowing owl based on the presence of suitable habitat within the project area. Within the current project area, marginally suitable habitat for this species is available within open land and pastures that extend into the right-of-way. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the Florida burrowing owl. Wading Birds: Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea), Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor), and Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja)

The PD&E found that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” wetland dependent birds, including the little blue heron, tricolored heron, and roseate spoonbill based on the presence of suitable foraging habitat and observations of species within the project area. While each species is distinct, wading birds are discussed collectively since they occupy similar habitats and have similar feeding patterns. Suitable habitat for these wading birds is available within the current project area within the freshwater marsh, lakes, ponds, and ditches. As part of the project, wetland impacts will be mitigated as necessary to prevent a net loss of wetland habitat functions and values. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the little blue heron, tricolored heron, or roseate spoonbill. Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus)

The PD&E indicated that this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” on the southeastern American kestrel based on suitable habitat availability and observation of individuals within the project area. Though all previous kestrel observations were not within the vicinity of the current project, suitable habitat for this species is available within the current project area within the open land, pasture, and hardwood-conifer mixed communities. As noted in the PD&E,

DRAFT


the FDOT will resurvey the project area American kestrel nests during design and permitting. If active nests are observed, the FDOT will coordinate with FWC to secure proper permits concerning these species. Based on the implementation of these measures, there is no change in the effects determination for the southeastern American kestrel. Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis)

The PD&E indicated that this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida sandhill crane based on the presence of suitable habitat and observation of the species during field reviews. Suitable habitat for this species is available in the current project area within the open land, pastures, freshwater marshes, and swales. As part of this project, adverse wetland impacts will be mitigated as necessary to prevent a net loss of wetland functions and values. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the Florida sandhill crane. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum)

The PD&E indicated that this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the least tern based on FNAI data documentation within 1 mile of the project area. No individuals were observed within the project area during the PD&E or re-evaluation field reviews and little to no suitable habitat is available within the current project area. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the least tern.

Mammals

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani)

The PD&E study determined that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Sherman’s fox squirrel based on presence of suitable habitat within the project area and documentation within Polk County. Though no Sherman’s fox squirrels were observed during the PD&E field reviews or re-evaluation field reviews of the project area, suitable habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrel is available within the current project area within the open land, pastures, and hardwood-conifer mixed communities. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the Sherman’s fox squirrel. Homosassa Shrew (Sorex longirostris)

The PD&E study determined that the project would have “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Homosassa shrew based on presence of suitable habitat. Though little is known about the habitat preferences of this species, occurrences have been documented in community types similar to those present in the current project area, including mixed hardwood-conifer forest and disturbed/transitional habitats. Based on this information, there is no change in the effects determination for the Homosassa shrew.

DRAFT


Plants Based on direct observations and documentation, it was determined that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Curtiss’ milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) and cutthroat grass (Panicum abscissum). These species were not identified within the vicinity of the current project limits and no suitable habitat for these species will be impacted as a result of this project. Additionally, based on the lack observation within the project area, the PD&E determined that the project would have “no effect” on the Ashe’s savory (Calamintha ashei), many-flowered grasspink (Calopogon multiflorus), sand butterfly pea (Centrosema arenicola), piedmont jointgrass (Coelorachis tuberculosa), spoon-leaved sundew (Drosera intermedia), hartwrightia (Hartwrightia floridana), Edison’s ascyrum (Hypericum edisonianum), star anise (Illicium parviflorum), nodding pinweed (Lechea cernua), pine pinweed (Lechea divaricate), Florida spiny-pod (Matelea floridana), celestial lily (Nemastylis floridana), plume polypody (Pecluma plumula), swamp plume polypody (Pecluma ptilodon), yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra), giant orchid (Pteroglossaspis ecristata), large-plumed beaksedge (Rhynchospora megaplumosa), Florida willow (Salix floridana), scrub bluestem (Schizachyrium niveum), scrub stylisma (Stylisma abdita), toothed maiden fern (Thelypteris serrate), and redmargin zephyrlily (Zephyranthes simpsonii). These species were not identified within the vicinity of the current project limits during re-evaluation field reviews and no suitable habitat for these species will be impacted as a result of this project. No state protected plant species were identified as part of the PD&E field surveys in the vicinity of the proposed project or during the re-evaluation field reviews and no suitable habitat for these species is present within the current project limits. For listed plant species observed within the project area, the FDOT will coordinate with the Rare Plant Conservation Program staff at BTG who will assist in the conservation efforts of these plants. With the implementation of these measures, there is no change in the effects determination for any state protected plant species. 4.2.3 Other Species of Concern

Birds

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

A determination of effect was not made for the bald eagle during the PD&E study; however, at the time of the PD&E study FWC’s online bald eagle nest locator documented four (4) active bald eagle nests within 1 mile of the project area, the closest being 0.25 mile west of the project area. Additionally, during the March 2013 field review, an undocumented active bald eagle nest was observed within a slash pine tree on the east side of US 27 in the Crooked Lake floodplain within 660 feet of the project area. This nest was recorded by FWC with temporary nest number PO93H.

DRAFT


Since bald eagles are mobile and capable of relocating nests, during design and permitting, the FDOT will commit to review the project area for active eagle nests. If an active nest is observed within the 660-foot construction buffer zone of the project area, the FDOT adhere to all current USFWS Bald Eagle Monitoring Guidelines. Based the implementation of these measures, it is anticipated that the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the bald eagle. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)

A determination of effect was not made for the osprey during the PD&E study. During the initial PD&E and re-evaluation field reviews, osprey nests were identified within the vicinity of the project area on artificial structures, including man-made nesting platforms, street signs, and billboards (see Figure 4 for 2017 field observations). Authorization is required from the FWC to take an “active” nest. “Inactive” nests may be taken and may be determined as inactive by the absence of any egg or dependent (i.e., flightless) young in the nest. While ospreys usually initiate breeding in February or March and may breed through May or June, the nest may remain active throughout the summer months. Requests from the FWC for removal of active nests are only issued if the nest presents a safety hazard for the birds or humans. During the design and permitting phases of this project, the FDOT will survey the project area to determine the presence of osprey nests. If nest removal is deemed necessary, the FDOT will remove nest(s) during the non-nesting season. With the implementation of these measures, it has been determined that the proposed project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the osprey.

Mammals

Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus)

A determination of effect was not made for the Florida black bear during the PD&E study. The current project limits are located within the FWC-designated Occasional Range of the South Central Bear Management Unit and FWC has documented the species within 1 mile of the project area (see Figure 4); however, no black bears were observed within the study area during field reviews. Due to the project’s location outside of the FWC-designated Abundant and Common Ranges for the species, it has been determined that the proposed project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida black bear.

4.3 Critical Habitat The current project area was also evaluated for the occurrence of designated Critical Habitat as defined by Congress in 17 CFR 35.1532. No designated Critical Habitat for any federally-listed species is present within the project area. Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed action will have “no effect” on designated Critical Habitat. DRAFT


Figure 4 Protected Species Map

DRAFT


4.3 Implementation Measures Based on the field and literature reviews outlined in this report, federal- or state-listed protected species have the potential to occur within the current project area. In order to assure that the proposed project will not adversely impacts these species, the FDOT will adhere to the following implementation measures when moving forward into construction:

Implementation Measures from the PD&E Study:

• Due to the presence of gopher tortoise habitat and the observance of potentially occupied

burrows within and adjacent to the project area, a gopher tortoise survey within the construction limits (including the roadway footprint, construction staging areas, and stormwater management ponds) will be performed prior to construction per current FWC guidelines. FDOT will secure any relocation permits needed for this species during the project development and construction phases of the project and relocate gopher tortoises prior to construction.

• The USFWS’ Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake will be adhered

to during construction of the project. • To avoid potential adverse impacts to migratory bird species with active nests observed

during field reviews, the FDOT will commit to resurvey the project area for bald eagle, osprey and American kestrel nests during design and permitting. If active nests are observed, the FDOT will coordinate with FWC and USFWS (as necessary) to secure proper permits concerning these species.

• For listed plant species observed within the project area, FDOT will coordinate with the

Rare Plant Conservation Program staff at BTG who will assist in the conservation efforts of these plants using three main techniques: taking cuttings of plants which are then used to clone additional individuals, collecting ripe seeds, and relocating entire plants. Plants will be relocated to the National Collection growing beds at BTG.

Implementation Measures added during the Natural Resources Re-Evaluation: • 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.

4.4 Conclusion Attachment B includes a table summarizing the findings listed above for the protected species listed within the PD&E that have the potential to exist within the project area. Minimal habitat for listed and protected species identified in Section 4.2 is present. Osprey nests were the only protected species observed during 2017 re-evaluation field reviews. The current design project has

DRAFT


made no changes to the effects determinations for any species made during the original PD&E study. The bald eagle, osprey, and Florida black bear were not given an effects determination during the PD&E study, these species have all been given a “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” designation due to documentation within the project vicinity or suitable habitat within the area of the current project. All effects determinations for the species evaluated as part of the current project are provided in Attachment B. There have been changes in the federal listed wood stork, and state listed Florida pine snake, gopher frog, limpkin, Florida burrowing owl, little blue heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, white ibis, and Florida mouse. Their current listings are outlined in Attachment B.

DRAFT

Attachment A UMAM Datasheets

DRAFT

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):

PART I – Qualitative Description(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

US 27 from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue. PD&E Study Re-evaluation. WL 5

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional)

641 - Freshwater Marsh PEM1C: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded (USFWS) Impact 0.08

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

Peace River/Kissimmee River Class III None

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

AA consists of a freshwater marsh on the edge of an unnamed lake. Surrounding land uses are comprised predominately of commercial and services and the US 27 roadway. This system is hydrologically connected to a roadside ditch to the north (OSW 19).

Assessment area description

Dominant vegetation is comprised of duckweed (Lemna spp.), torpedograss (Panicum repens ), and various sedges (Cyperus spp.) with Peruviana primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana ), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana ), Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera ), and Brazilian pepper

(Schinus terebinthifolia ).

Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.)

The project area is located on the Lake Wales Ridge. The AA is not unique to the regional landscape.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Water attenuation, water treatment, wildlife utilization (foraging, refuge, nesting, denning). No.

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the assessment area)

Urban wildlife, wading bird foraging, amphibians, fish, snakes, lizards, song birds, small mammals, white-tailed deer.

little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), wood stork (T, foraging), roseate spoonbill (T, foraging), eastern indigo

snake (T, feeding/refuge).

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]

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

None.

Additional relevant factors:

None.

A. Abdel-Hadi May 2017

DRAFT

w/o pres orcurrent

w/o pres orcurrent

w/o pres orcurrent

currentor w/o pres

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or NumberUS 27 from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue. PD&E Study Re-

evaluation. WL 5

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:

Impact A. Abdel-Hadi May 2017

Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)The scoring of each

indicator is based on what would be suitable for the

type of wetland or surface water assessed

Condition is optimal and fully supports

wetland/surface water functions

Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to

maintain most wetland/surface water

functions

Minimal level of support of wetland/surface water

functions

Condition is insufficient to provide wetland/surface

water functions

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support

AA is bounded by commercial and services land uses, US 27, and roadside ditches. Wildlife access throughout is limited due to barriers (US 27) and adjacent land uses (commercial,).

with

6 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands)

Water quality is adversely affected by runoff received from urban land uses, US 27, and adjacent roadways. AA receives runoff water conveyed by roadside ditches.

with

8 0

.500(6)(c)Community structure

Vegetation includes duckweed, torpedograss, and various sedges with Peruviana primrose willow , Carolina willow, Chinese tallow, and Brazilian pepper. Typical age / structure of plant community in all strata. Invasive exotic species (torpedo grass, Peruvian primrose willow, Chinese tallow, and Brazilian pepper) present at a low density.

1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community

with

7 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if uplands, divide by 20)

If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas

Preservation adjustment factor = FL = delta x acres = 0.7 x 0.08 = 0.06with Adjusted mitigation delta =

0.70 0.00

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]

If mitigationFor mitigation assessment areas

Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) =

RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.70 Risk factor =

DRAFT

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):

PART I – Qualitative Description

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]

A. Abdel-Hadi May 2017.

The AA is not unique to the regional landscape.

Additional relevant factors:

Urban wildlife, wading bird foraging, amphibians, fish, snakes, lizards, song birds, small mammals.

little blue heron (T, foraging), tricolored heron (T, foraging), wood stork (T, foraging), roseate spoonbill (T, foraging), eastern indigo

snake (T, feeding/refuge).

The project area is located on the Lake Wales Ridge.

Water conveyance, attenuation, water treatment, wading bird foraging. No.

None.

None.

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

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the assessment area)

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to be found )

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

Peace River/Kissimmee River Class III None.

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

US 27 from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue. PD&E Study Re-evaluation.

FLUCCs code

OSW 17, OSW 18, OSW 19, OSW 20, OSW 21, OSW 22, OSW 23, OSW 24

510 - Streams and Waterways PEM1Cx: Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded, Excavated Impact 1.26

Further classification (optional)

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

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Significant nearby features

Assessment area description

AA consists of a network of road-side ditches within the project area. Vegetation in these systems includes Peruvian primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana ), red ludwigia (Ludwigia repens ), false daisy (Eclipta prostrata ), smartweed (Persicaria spp.), water pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata,

bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum ), and beggarticks (Bidens alba ).

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.)

A majority of the roadside ditches throughout the AA are hydrologically connected through culverts along US 27 and associated roadways. OSW 19 is hydrologically connected to an herbaceous wetland (WL 5).

DRAFT

w/o pres orcurrent

w/o pres orcurrent

w/o pres orcurrent

currentor w/o pres

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]

If mitigationFor mitigation assessment areas

Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) =

RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) = -0.50 Risk factor =

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if uplands, divide by 20)

If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas

Preservation adjustment factor = FL = delta x acres = 0.50 x 1.26 = 0.64with Adjusted mitigation delta =

0.50 0.00

.500(6)(c)Community structure

Plant species within the ditches include Peruvian primrose willow, red ludwigia, false daisy, smartweed, water pennywort, bahiagrass, and beggarticks. Invasive exotic species (Peruvian primrose-willow) present at a low density and weedy, ruderal vegetation is common in these systems.

1. Vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community

with

5 0

.500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support

AA is predominately bounded by urban development/US 27. Wildlife access throughout some portions is limited due to barriers (US 27) and adjacent land uses (residential, commercial, etc.).

with

5 0

.500(6)(b)Water Environment (n/a for uplands)

Water quality is adversely affected by runoff received from urban land uses, US 27, and adjacent roadways. Portions of AA are artificial and/or upland cut with hydrophytic vegetation. Systems are seasonally flooded.

with

5 0

Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)The scoring of each

indicator is based on what would be suitable for the

type of wetland or surface water assessed

Condition is optimal and fully supports

wetland/surface water functions

Condition is less than optimal, but sufficient to

maintain most wetland/surface water

functions

Minimal level of support of wetland/surface water

functions

Condition is insufficient to provide wetland/surface

water functions

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:

Impact A. Abdel-Hadi May 2017

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or NumberUS 27 from South of SR 60 to Central Avenue. PD&E Study Re-

evaluation.OSW 17, OSW 18, OSW 19, OSW 20, OSW 21, OSW 22, OSW 23, OSW 24

DRAFT

Attachment B Protected Species Effect Determinations

DRAFT

Species Designated Status Suitable-

Habitat Present

Previous Project Effect Determination

Current Project Effect Determination Federal State FDACS

Reptiles

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) T - - Yes MANLAA No change

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Short-Tailed Snake (Lampropeltis extenuate) - T - Yes MANLAA No change Florida Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Blue-tailed Mole Skink (Plestiodon egregious lividus) T - - Yes Not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of No change

Sand Skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi) T - - Yes Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of No change

Amphibians

Gopher Frog (Rana capito) - DL - - MANLAA N/A

Birds Florida Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) E - - Yes MANLAA No change

Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) T - - No Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of No change

Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) - DL - - MANLAA N/A Florida Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Crested Caracara (Caracara cheriway audubonii) T - - No Not likely to jeopardize the


Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) - DL - - MANLAA N/A

Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) - DL - - MANLAA N/A Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) - T - Yes MANLAA No change DRAFT


Habitat Present



Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus Canadensis pratensis) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) NL1 NL2 - Yes No determination MANLAA

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) T - - Yes MANLAA No change

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) NL3 NL4 - Yes No determination MANLAA

Roseate Spoonbill (Platalea ajaja) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Everglade Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) E - - Yes MANLAA No change

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) - T - Yes MANLAA No change

Mammals

Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) E - - No MANLAA No change

Florida Mouse (Podomys floridanus) - DL - - MANLAA N/A

Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi) E - - Yes MANLAA No change Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) - SSC - Yes MANLAA No change

Homosassa Shrew ( Sorex longirostris) - SSC - Yes MANLAA No change Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) - NL5 - Yes No determination MANLAA

Plants

Curtiss’ Milkweed (Asclepias curtissii) - - E No MANLAA No change

Florida Bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora) T - E No No effect No change

Ashe’s Savory (Calamintha ashei) - - T No No effect No change Many-flowered Grasspink (Calopogon multiflorus) - - E No No effect No change

Sand Butterfly Pea (Centrosema arenicola) - - E No No effect No change

Pygmy Fringe Tree (Chionanthus pygmaeus) E - E No Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of No change DRAFT


Habitat Present



Scrub Pigeon-wing(Clitoria fragrans) T - E No No effect No change

Piedmont Jointgrass (Coelorachis tuberculosa) - - T No No effect No change

Short-leaved Rosemary (Conradina brevifolia) E - E No Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of No change

Avon Park Rabbit-bells (Crotalaria avonensis) E - E No No effect No change

Scrub Mint (Dicerandra frutescens) E - E No No effect No change

Spoon-leaved Sundew (Drosera intermedia) - - T No No effect No change Scrub Buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium) T - E No Not likely to jeopardize the


Hartwrightia (Hartwrightia floridana) - - T No No effect No change Highlands Scrub Hypericum (Hypericum cumulicola) E - E No No effect No change

Edison’s Ascyrum (Hypericum edisonianum) - - E No No effect No change

Star Anise (Illicium parviflorum) - - E No No effect No change

Nodding Pinweed (Lechea cernua) - - T No No effect No change

Pine Pinweed (Lechea divaricate) - - E No No effect No change

Florida Blazing Star (Liatris ohlingerae) E - E No No effect No change

Florida Spiny-pod (Matelea floridana) - - E No No effect No change

Celestial Lily (Nemastylis floridana) - - E No No effect No change

Britton’s Beargrass (Nolina brittoniana) E - E No No effect No change

Cutthroat Grass (Panicum abscissum) - - E No MANLAA No change Paper-like Nailwort (Paronychia chartacea ssp. chartacea) T - E No Not likely to jeopardize the


Plume Polypody (Pecluma plumula) - - E No No effect No change

Swamp Plume Polypody (Pecluma ptilodon) - - E No No effect No change

Yellow Fringeless Orchid (Platanthera integra) - - E No No effect No change DRAFT


Habitat Present



Florida Jointweed (Polygonella basiramia) E - E No No effect No change

Small’s Jointweed (Polygonella myriophylla) E - E No Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of No change

Lewton’s Polygala (Polygala lewtonii) E - E No No effect No change

Scrub Plum (Prunus geniculata) E - E No Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of No change

Giant Orchid (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) - - T No No effect No change Large-plumed Beaksedge (Rhynchospora megaplumosa) - - E No No effect No change

Florida Willow (Salix floridana) - - E No No effect No change

Scrub Bluestem (Schizachyrium niveum) - - E No No effect No change

Scrub Stylisma (Stylisma abdita) - - E No No effect No change

Toothed Maiden Fern (Thelypteris serrate) - - E No No effect No change

Clasping Warea (Warea amplexifolia) E - E No No effect No change

Carter’s Warea (Warea carteri) E - E No No effect No change

Redmargin Zephyrlily (Zephyranthes simpsonii) - - T No No effect No change

Scrub Ziziphus (Ziziphus celata) E - E No No effect No change

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of Special Concern; C = Candidate Species; NL = Not Listed; DL = Species De-listed (January 2017) 1 While not listed under the ESA, the Bald Eagle is federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 2 While not listed under Chapter 68A-27 FAC, the Bald Eagle is state protected under the FWC Bald Eagle Management Plan (2008). 3 The Osprey is federally protected by the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-702). 4 The Osprey is state-listed as a species of special concern in Monroe County only. However, it is state protected by Chapter 68A (FAC). 5 The Florida black bear is no longer state-listed; however, this species is managed in Florida by the FWC’s Florida Black Bear Conservation rule (68A-4.009, F.A.C.). MANLAA = May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect N/A = species is currently not on the federal or state threatened and endangered lists, therefore no effect determination is warranted DRAFT

Attachment C Wood Stork Foraging Analysis

DRAFT

WOOD STORK FORAGING HABITAT ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District One is conducting the re-evaluation of a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study to evaluate the proposed improvements to the US 27/ State Road (SR) 60 interchange from south of SR 60 to north of West Central Avenue in Polk County. The proposed project is located in Sections 2, 3, and 10 of Township 30 South, Range 27 East. A Wood Stork Foraging Analysis was conducted for the re-evaluation of the proposed project pursuant to applicable federal laws (50 CFR 17.11-12). This Foraging Analysis is intended to satisfy the Wood Stork Recovery Plan and assist with determining impacts to the federally listed wood stork as a result of the project. 2.0 WOOD STORK NESTING AND SUITABLE FORAGING HABITAT The wood stork is primarily associated with freshwater and estuarine habitats that are used for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Wood storks typically nest colonially in medium to tall trees that occur in stands located in swamps or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water. Successful breeding sites are those that have limited human disturbance and low exposure to land-based predators. Nesting sites protected from land-based predators are characterized as areas surrounded by large expanses of open water or where the nest trees are inundated at the onset of nesting and remain inundated throughout most of the breeding cycle. In addition to limited human disturbance and land-based predation, successful nesting depends on the availability of suitable foraging habitat. Because of their specialized feeding behavior, wood storks forage most effectively in shallow-water areas with highly concentrated prey. Typical foraging sites for the wood stork include freshwater marshes, depressions in cypress heads, swamp sloughs, managed impoundments, stock ponds, shallow-seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, and narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools. Suitable foraging habitat is described as wetland or open water areas that are relatively calm, uncluttered by dense thickets of aquatic vegetation, and have a water depth between 5 and 15 inches. Preferred foraging habitat includes wetlands exhibiting a mosaic of submerged and/or emergent aquatic vegetation, and shallow, open-water areas subject to hydraulic regimes that exhibit short and long hydroperiods. The vegetative component provides nursery habitat for small fish, frogs, and other aquatic prey, and the shallow, open-water areas provide sites for concentration of the prey during daily or seasonal low water periods. In south Florida, suitable wetland and open water habitats within 18.6 miles of a wood stork nesting colony are considered Core Foraging Areas (CFA) by the USFWS. The loss of wetland habitats, or wetland function, has been the primary cause of the wood stork population decline in the United States. The alteration of wetland and the manipulation of wetland hydroperiods to suit human needs have also reduced the amount of habitat available to wood storks and affected prey base availability. The altered hydrology of these systems has also enhanced the invasion of these systems by exotic plant species. These exotic plants can produce a dense understory and closed canopy, limiting suitability of these wetland systems to foraging by wood storks, although sufficient prey base may be present in the wetlands.

DRAFT

Four (4) variables are indicative of the necessities and functions of optimal or suitable foraging habitat required by the wood stork:

1. Vegetation Density: the density of vegetation within habitats suitable for wood stork foraging;

2. Wetland Hydroperiod: the hydroperiod of the wetland, which includes two subcomponents, (1) the fish density per hydroperiod and (2) the fish biomass per hydroperiod;

3. Prey Size Suitability: the suitability of prey size for the wood stork, which provides an adjustment to the fish biomass per hydroperiod and is referenced hereafter as the “wood stork suitability prey base”; and

4. Competition with other wading bird species: the likelihood that the wood stork is the wading bird species that actually consumes the concentrated prey.

3.0 SUITABLE FORAGING HABITATS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA The proposed project area contains wood stork foraging habitat and is located within the 18.6 mile CFA of two (2) wood stork colonies; Saddlebag Lake and Lake Rosalie. These wood stork colonies are located approximately 8.4 miles and 10.5 miles east of the proposed project, respectively. The project site is outside the primary and secondary buffer zones of 1,500 and 2,500 feet, respectively, recommended by the Service (2010) for the protection of nesting colonies.

Within the limits of construction of the proposed project there are 0.08 acres of wetlands and 1.26 acres of other surface waters that could be utilized by the wood stork for foraging. No surface waters will be impacted as a result of the proposed project. These systems were grouped by similar habitat types and evaluated relative to exotic species density and hydroperiod. Exotic Vegetation Density Wood stork habitat quality can be adversely affected by the level of exotic species infestation within wetlands and surface waters. The availability of the prey base for wood storks and other foraging wading birds is reduced by the restriction of access caused from dense and thick exotic vegetation. Table 1 provides the foraging suitability percentages used in the Wood Stork Biomass Analysis.

Table 1 Exotic Vegetation Cover Percentage Foraging Suitability

PERCENTAGE OF EXOTIC VEGETATION FORAGING SUITABILITY VALUE (PERCENT) Between 0 and 25 Percent Exotics 100 Between 25 and 50 Percent Exotics 64 Between 50 and 75 Percent Exotics 37 Between 75 and 90 Percent Exotics 3 Between 90 and 100 Percent Exotics 0

DRAFT

Within the project area, exotic plant species coverage within wetlands was characterized as low. The wetland habitats within the US 27 project area do not contain extensive exotic vegetation, and these wetlands can be characterized with 0-25%. Therefore, a Foraging Suitability Value of 100% (1.0) Hydroperiod Hydroperiod of the wetland potentially affected by a project is an important consideration in determining effects on wood stork foraging habitat due to the dependability of potential biomass of forage (fish and crayfish) on hydroperiod. Wetlands, surface waters, and other surface waters within the project area were grouped according to hydroperiod class. 4.0 IMPACTS

This current study evaluates changes in impacts within an approximately 0.9 mile segment of US 27 and an approximately 1.0 mile segment of SR 60. The project will be constructed in a single, disruptive event, with the associated permanent disturbance resulting in a loss of habitat currently available to the wood stork. Fragmentation of habitat, however, will not occur due to the proposed project’s position in the landscape of existing development, and the fact that US 27 is already an existing roadway. This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed project on the wood stork and wood stork habitat.

For assessment purposes, the wood stork biomass analysis addresses the loss of wetlands, surface waters, and other surface waters within the limits of construction of the proposed project. For the assessment of this project, 0.08 acres of wetlands and 1.26 acres of other surface waters were analyzed. All of these areas are considered waters of the United States. The results and analysis determined that the proposed project will result in the net loss of 1.34 kg total (fish and crayfish) biomass. Of the 1.34 kg, 1.03 kg of total biomass is from short hydroperiod wetlands and 0.31 kg of total biomass is from long hydroperiod wetlands. Table 2 presents the analysis of the impacts to wood stork foraging habitat and forage resulting from the proposed project. 5.0 MITIGATION Mitigation for the proposed project will provide adequate functional units of compensatory credits for encroachment into USACE-regulated wetlands and surface waters. These mitigation measures will include compensation for the loss of wood stork foraging habitat and forage resulting from construction of the project. Compensation for the loss of wetlands, as well as wood stork habitat and foraging, will be provided at a state and federal-approved mitigation bank. Mitigation for the loss of foraging habitat will be of the same hydroperiod. 6.0 SUMMARY The proposed project will result in the direct loss of 1.34 acres of suitable wood stork foraging areas. Wood stork foraging biomass productivity is calculated based on the hydroperiod class of

DRAFT

affected wetlands. The project will impact 1.26 acres of short hydroperiod wetlands and 0.08 acres of long hydroperiod wetlands and result in the net loss of 1.34 kg total (fish and crayfish) biomass (see Table 2 below).

Loss of potential wood stork foraging habitat attributable to the project will be offset by providing the equivalent credits at a USFWS-approved mitigation bank.

DRAFT

Table 2 Wood Stork Foraging Analysis Summary

Wood Stork Foraging Analysis Summary - Total Biomass (including Crayfish and Fish)

Impact Area

Hydroperiods Acres % exotics F.S.V m2 m2 suitable

crayfish &

fish g/m2

available biomass

32.5% consum.

Biomass (kg)

Class 2 (60-120 days) 1.26 0-25 1.00 5099.06 5099.06 0.62 3161.42 1027.46 1.03 Class 5 (240-300 days) 0.08 0-25 1.00 323.75 323.75 2.93 948.59 308.29 0.31 Total Short Hydroperiod (Classes 1, 2 & 3) 1.26 5099.06 5099.06 3161.42 1027.46 1.03 Total Long Hydroperiod (Classes 4, 5, 6 & 7) 0.08 323.75 323.75 948.59 308.29 0.31 Total 1.34 5422.81 5422.81 4110.00 1335.75 1.34

DRAFT

7.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Technical Publication FWS/OBS-79/31. 131 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, South Florida Programmatic Concurrence for the Wood Stork, Wood Stork Effect Determination Key. 34 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b. Wood Stork Nesting Colonies and Core Foraging Areas, GIS Shapefiles. Kahl, M.P., Jr. 1964. Food Ecology of the Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) in Florida. Ecological Monographs 34:97 117; Ogden, J.C. 1990. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 14 pp. Wood Stork Foraging Habitat Assessment Methodology. July 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding Population of the Wood Stork. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 41 pp.

DRAFT

Documents

DRAFT - SWFL Roadsswflroads.com/us27/sr60/US 27 at SR 60 Interchange_DRAFT NRE Reeval.pdfFPID: 419243-4-32-01 2-1 Technical Memorandum Section 2.0 Existing Conditions The majority